Veil of Tears

Pauline Bryan

Putting my cards on the table, I am an atheist who would prefer that religion had no place in our public life. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them, but no religion should have a role in our political life or our schools. A religious person may empathise if they imagined that the UK Parliament opened with prayers to Zeus and that certain factions wanted to have the story of Prometheus taught in schools as the origins of humans using fire.

As it is I have to accept that, at the moment, we live in a society where religions are not only tolerated they are actually encouraged. The demand for faith based schools has increased and our leaders continue to describe themselves as Christians. People in every walk of life wear symbols of their religious beliefs on their bodies, taking them into work, schools, social events, TV appearances, council chambers and parliament.

Unlike many adherents of religion I find it possible to tolerate difference and have no desire to enforce my views on others, only to prevent them imposing their views on me and using the institutions of state to further their irrational beliefs.

From this background I would like to liberate as many people as possible from aspects of their religion that restrict their options. I hate the Catholic view on contraception and the view it suggests of women's role. I hate the caste system in some Hindu's belief that condemns people as untouchable. I hate the New Testament and the statement from St Paul "he [man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man." And yes, I hate the actions of some Muslims who impose restrictions on women's conduct and dress.

Jack Straw's article in his local paper saying that if a constituent came to see him wearing a veil he asked if she wouldn't mind removing it, taken at face value seemed a bit insensitive. One might even think it a bit creepy for someone coming for a meeting to be asked to adjust their clothing. There have been other occasions in history when what was considered acceptable in women's clothing was in transition, but it would not have been acceptable for a late Victorian MP to ask you to show a bit more ankle or in the 1960s for an MP to ask someone to cover up their knees exposed by a miniskirt.

Straw then suggested that you needed to show your mouth and nose for true "face to face" conversation, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say". And I thought the eyes were the window to the soul. John Prescott when asked felt he could communicate with someone regardless of what they were wearing.

In the following days it became obvious that the wearing of the veil was not actually to do with a problem of Straw's limitations on properly understanding someone without being able to see their full face. It turns out that the problem with the veil is that it is such a "visible statement of separateness". Straw has been joined by the Prime Minister and Chancellor in expressing these concerns which gave the green light for others to join in the attacks on these women who undermine the fabric of our society by their outrageous clothes.

In the middle of this already worrying discussion national attention suddenly turned to the case of the teachers' aid who wanted to wear her veil when male colleagues were present. The attack on her was lead by Phil Woolas MP, Communities Minister including the damning evidence that she wore jeans and wedged shoes beneath her veil. What they were beginning to suspect is the veil actually meant more to some women than the meek acceptance of a religious doctrine imposed upon them; it was actually a statement of pride in their origins and culture.

There has been evidence that the Labour Party leadership has written off sections of the Party's traditional support including trade unions, peace campaigners and now Muslims. What has put these groups beyond the pale is their opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the government's failure to condemn Israel's invasion of Lebanon and continued violations in Gaza, its support for Bush and the neo-cons and the demonising any country that does not accept the demands of US capital

For some MPs it is expediency. Having first recruited Muslims (often dealing directly with the 'community leaders' without seeing the need to put down roots into the wider community), they no longer feel they can depend on Muslim and other ethnic minorities to vote for them. For some MPs this has meant that they now recognise the perspective of white people who, as described by Margaret Hodge, "can't get a home for their children, they see black and ethnic minority communities moving in and they are angry." Phil Woolas (as cited above) fought a tenacious battle to hang on to his Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency claimed that "We are winning the fight up here by acknowledging that anti-white racism exists, by being fair and being seen to be fair on housing and schooling. We took the white, working-class vote back."

Having forged ahead with support for faith based schools against the evidence of their divisiveness; the Labour leadership is having second thoughts. In yet another knee jerk reaction it attempted to impose duty on local authorities in England to ensure that 'new' (ie Muslim) faith based schools must admit at least 25% of "non-believers" to the schools, with the power of enforcement eventually resting with the Secretary of State. The Catholic hierarchy used its muscle and the policy has been put on hold. After years of supporting the case for Muslim schools in order to win the support of prominent members of the Muslim community, they are now back tracking. In the process they are feeding the sense within the white communities that Muslims are a threat and to Muslims that they cannot have equal access to faith based education with existing Christian schools.

Margaret Hodge, Phil Woolas and maybe others believe that by acknowledging that sections of their electorate are anxious about Muslims and other religious and ethnic minorities that this will be enough to win their support. It is however, more likely to result in that section of the electorate changing Woolas and Hodge, than Woolas and Hodge winning them over to a more rational view of the world. It has always been so. People who sup with that type of devil end up going to hell (politically rather than theologically).

When the wearing of traditional head cover and veils was confined to recent immigrants, or, as can be seen in the posher parts of London, extremely wealthy Arab visitors it was not an issue. It is the fact that young UK-born, articulate and educated women are wearing the veil that causes such concern because it is identified as a critique of the society they live in.

For some it may be a critique of the liberal values, for others it a badge of honour demonstrating their religious faith but for others still it is a symbol of solidarity with those who living in terror as a result of wars in Muslim countries. Muslim women explain the wearing of the veil by younger women historically. In societies where Islam or Muslims feel threatened, like Indonesia and Philippines, Muslim women have dressed more conservatively. During militant struggles for independence, such as that against the French in Algeria or the British in Egypt, some women purposely kept the veil in defiance of Western styles. As one writer complained "Women activists in the Muslim world are less preoccupied with what women wear then with securing other freedoms such as access to education, better health care for their families, or wider opportunities for work."

As scary as any Muslim Fundamentalist Group are two campaigns launched in Scotland. One is the Scottish Christian People's Alliance established in October this year with the intention of ridding the country of its "non-Christian" parliament. The Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia was on the platform at the launch. Less mainstream, is the Catholic Truth newsletter which is starting a campaign of "outing" homosexual priests. Where is the widespread panic that would have occurred if these had been Muslim groups?

Another very much under-reported incident was the arrest of two men in Lancashire for offences under the Explosive Substances Act. This was apparently the biggest haul of dangerous chemicals ever found in a private house. Amongst the haul were rocket launchers, chemicals and a nuclear biological suit. Why was it that only the 'Morning Star' made this front page news? Well the accused, due to go for trial early next year, were white and one was previously a BNP candidate.

It is not the veil that stops better integration or causes fear within working class communities. It is rather the impact over decades (under both the Tories and Labour) of the failure to tackle racism, poor housing, poor schools and most importantly the lack of well paid secure employment. After 11 year's in government Jack Straw, along with those in the cabinet and government who rushed to his support, should take responsibility for that.