Masking the Truth.
I watched the Granada 6pm news last night. They were interviewing a masked bank robber; I assumed. It was difficult to tell. A pair of eyes was all you could see; they could have been male or female.
Sadly a child had died from meningitis. The parents were upset and outraged. The child had been sent home from Rochdale Infirmary Urgent Care Centre with precautionary antibiotics, and instructions to return if he developed any other symptoms, after he had started vomiting at school. He later developed a rash on his stomach, and returned to the Infirmary where the Doctors were unable to save his life.
I was struck by the fact that in the midst of this grief, the Mother, for it was allegedly she behind the mask, was coherent enough to make a political point, with her complaint against the downgrading of the A & E department to one of ‘Urgent Care Centre’ – ‘I wouldn’t have taken him there if I had known it was downgraded, if I hadn’t taken him there he would still be alive’ – a curious statement given that the same lady had attended a rally against said downgrading a few weeks ago.
It was the political point she made with the mask that really drew my attention. It was impossible to tell what emotion lay behind the mask; impossible to evaluate the information we were being given. Did she really believe that the child would have lived if she hadn’t taken him to hospital? Was this really the Mother? Who could tell?
If she turns up on television again next week, loudly complaining that her local branch of Tesco’s should not be allowed to sell unpeeled bananas, will we treat her words with the disdain that we accord professional complainers? We won’t even know it is her.
All the pointers we use to make a decision on what we are hearing were removed. No body language, her body was covered in black cloth. No facial expression, neither absence nor presence of facial tics, no means of knowing whether this was someone we had seen before – a later news item showed Gillian Duffy waylaying Nick Clegg on a visit to the constituency; instantly recognisable from previous news clips, we were able to assimilate the knowledge that this middle aged woman was a staunch labour voter, who had previously sandbagged Gordon Brown – we added that knowledge to the words she said, simply because we recognised her.
It is an issue very much in the news – ‘France bans the Burqa’ scream the headlines. Actually, they haven’t, not specifically. They have banned covering your face in public. They haven’t banned the hijjab, or headscarf, another religious symbol.
There are many reasons why it is important to recognises or identify your fellow citizens in public.
It is some years since face coverings were banned in public in UK shopping malls and banks. Regrettably, the Federation of Bank Robbers were unable, despite the left wing belief that denuding the banks of their money ‘is a good thing’, to muster the essential soi-disant liberal and Libertarian hand wringing and emotive outpourings that have enabled the latest grouping, to wit, female adherents of the modern reincarnation of Wahabi Islamism to campaign so vigorously for the right to be masked.
‘We should be allowed to wear whatever we like’ say the Libertarians, of which I am one. Indeed, I respond, but where was the similar outpouring of rage when it was decided that we may not wear para-military clothing at a demonstration, nor dress up as a policeman, nor keep our motor cycle helmet or balaclava on when we enter the bank? What about the entirely innocent balaclava wearer who had a facial injury that he wished to conceal? Did anybody bemoan the fact that it would cause him stress to be forced to remove his facial covering?
The mistake the Sarkozy has made is to allow this to be portrayed as a suppression of religion:
“the veils imprison women and contradict this secular nation’s values of dignity and equality.”
It is not, it is the freedom for the rest of us to be allowed to recognise our fellow citizens and use our memory to evaluate what we see and hear of them. A straightforward ban on covering your face in banks, shopping malls, and petrol stations would have had the same effect without the religious connotation.
More than 60 people have been arrested in France since the ban came into force last Monday. Women who appeared masked in order to demonstrate – not against genital mutilation, or forced marriages, or ‘honour killings’, but to uphold their wish to be treated with special consideration – they alone should be allowed to walk around masked. To be different from the rest of us, apart, unrecognisable.
Their religion has dictated that the right to be masked is a symbol of religious freedom.
Pity the bank robbers didn’t think of that one.
-
April 13, 2011 at 11:17 -
The funny thing is that this subject unites Muslim fundamentalists and Feminist fundamentalists – strange bedfellows to say the least.
-
April 13, 2011 at 13:05 -
Funny, and not for the first time: in Jill Tweedie’s ‘Letters from a Faint-hearted Feminist’, man-hating radical feminist Mo adopts the chador as a manifestation of her principles with, as they say, hilarious consequences.
Of course, that was back in the day when we were allowed to laugh at such things.
-
-
April 13, 2011 at 11:30 -
So Old Holborn can’t go on holiday to France then!
This masking malarky doesn’t make much difference to those who suffer Prosopagnosia.
Being serious though, in life there are always weird and wonderful things happening. You can’t set any rules that can cover the extremely wide range of human activity. As you say, someone might wear a mask for medical reasons. Someone else might wear one for political reasons. Yet another might wear one to advertise something that starts with a big “M”.
Narrowing it down to specific situations where there is a case for identify to be known would make it a lot more understandable to many, though still not to a few.
-
April 13, 2011 at 13:51 -
If Old Holborn went to France unmasked, nodody would recognise him. The perfect disguise!
-
April 13, 2011 at 14:13
-
-
-
April 13, 2011 at 11:31 -
…but where was the similar outpouring of rage when it was decided that we may not wear para-military clothing at a demonstration, nor dress up as a policeman, nor keep our motor cycle helmet or balaclava on when we enter the bank? What about the entirely innocent balaclava wearer who had a facial injury that he wished to conceal? Did anybody bemoan the fact that it would cause him stress to be forced to remove his facial covering?
I have never considered wearing my motorcycle helmet when going into the bank. I leave it locked on the bike. That aside, the bank is private property so can make whatever rules it likes. A ban in public places, however, is highly illiberal. It is not the place of the state to legislate on such things.
I object to a ban on paramilitary clothing at demonstrations for the same reason. The ban on dressing up as a policeman, however is different for fairly obvious reasons.
-
April 13, 2011 at 11:38 -
And yet all those effects of allowing the burkha could be negated, not by a blanket ban, which infringes everyone’s rights, but by simply stripping the defence of ‘religion’ and ‘discrimination’ from those who wear them.
Ban their use when accessing publicly-funded services and allow private citizens to similarly bar them from their premises. Job done!
-
April 13, 2011 at 12:02 -
The avatars on here should definitely be banned from facial covering. No more gimp masks etc. Nuns’ habits and curlers would be exempt from the ban on the grounds of force majeure and self-preservation. My avatar (Alhambra abstract meets Leaning Tower) will henceforth not wear it’s niqab/burka/red nose/eyeballs on springs.
-
April 13, 2011 at 15:48 -
Interesting that the arrestees in France claim that they are being stigmatized. Such a fine touch in irony, one has to say, given that they have already willingly stigmatized themselves.
-
April 13, 2011 at 16:24 -
Is this the same religeous lot who have a tendancy to chuck acid over their wives if upset or pour the cooking fuel over them and setting them alight. Maybe all the Daleks are failed crimes of passion who lived to tell the tale. We were proud of Archibald McIndoe’s Guinea Pig Club, we never hid our heroes!
-
April 13, 2011 at 16:48 -
…nor keep our motor cycle helmet or balaclava on when we enter the bank
Echoing Longrider here. The bank can ban clothes entirely if they wish – it’s their gaff and their rules, and only a problem if the state thinks it’s a good idea and tells all the other banks to do likewise. It’s the difference between the smoking ban and me telling you that I don’t want anyone to smoke in my house (but if you don’t mind please take the dog out for a dump if you pop outside for one). The French ban, which presumably means not wearing a full face bike helmet or balaclava on the public pavement outside the bank, is trying to increase freedom by reducing the total number of things you may do.
-
April 13, 2011 at 17:30 -
You are assuming that because I am against the idea of concealing your face, that I am in favour of a ‘ban’ – I’m not. I think that revealing your face to the world is a courtesy we all owe each other, without being legally forced to do so.
-
April 13, 2011 at 18:43 -
Couldn’t agree more.
-
-
-
April 13, 2011 at 16:49 -
(but if you don’t mind please take the dog out for a dump if you pop outside for one)
Just to be clear I do mean a cigarette.
-
April 13, 2011 at 17:28 -
I’m glad you said that, I was thinking ‘My goodness, but that noted Aussie frankness is a wonder to behold!’ for a minute there…
-
-
April 13, 2011 at 17:51 -
Normally I would agree that nobody should be allowed to hide their facein public for any reason whatsoever.
However, I think there should be an exception.
Which is, if one is disfigured or deformed.
Unfortunately, being a host to skin cancer which has disfigured me and surgery has only mildly helped the problem, and being unable to avoid going food shopping myself since my partner has dementia rather young and cannot do so without help and advice, and naturally neither of us wanting the interference of social services etc, I’m in a bit of a pickle.
Naturally, some members of the public have either raised questions or rather nastily commented on why my features are covered.
Once I raise the mask they have invariably shut up and understood I hide my face for their benefit, not mine.
Not trying for the sympathy vote, nor jokingly invoking Phantom of the Opera music either. I just honestly think there should be exceptions, particularly in this age when skin cancer is on the rise among the young.
-
April 13, 2011 at 19:22
-
-
April 13, 2011 at 18:41 -
True story, told to me by a chap in a pub: He was walking along with his eight-year-old son when suddenly they turned a corner to meet a couple of bemasked ladies of the Islamic persuasion…
“Look Dad!” exclaimed the young lad, “Ninjas”!
-
April 13, 2011 at 19:25 -
I still remember at University getting my new I/d photo, having to leave the room along with the other man present because a burqa clad female(?) demanded we leave while her photo i/d was prepared. Leaving aside the incongruity of a burqa clad woman with a photo i/d showing her face (not the most rational of positions?) how would anybody know the photo i/d actually matched the person under the burqa? I fail to see the hooha over France banning the burqua. Several Muslim countries do the same without said Muslims throwing their toys out of the pram.
(not the other Michael I hasten to add!)
TTFN -
April 14, 2011 at 01:04 -
For all you legal eagles out there. I give you the Islamic legal reasons to justify the “Curtain” between women and people.
On one of his many wedding nights the Muhammad the self proclaimed Prophet of Allah, was not able to rid himself of several tactless guests who remained lost in conversation during and well after the wedding supper.
He wanted to be alone with Zainab on their first wedding night. After several attempts to indirectly let the men know that it was time that they left by walking out of his house into his coutyard, according to the witness of the events Anas ibn malik,
The Prophet recited the verse in question(Off the Cuff)
33 :53 – O you who believe, do not enter the prophet’s homes unless you are given permission to eat, nor shall you force such an invitation in any manner. If you are invited, you may enter. When you finish eating, you shall leave; do not engage him in lengthy conversations. This used to hurt the prophet, and he was too shy to tell you. But GOD does not shy away from the truth. If you have to ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and their hearts. You are not to hurt the messenger of GOD. You shall not marry his wives after him, for this would be a gross offense in the sight of GOD.Upon pronouncing the verse, the prophet drew a sitr (hadith uses this synonym of the qur’anic word “hijab” meaning curtin) between himself (and his wife zainab ) and Anas.
Based on the rule that Perfect Example comes from Muhammad and his wives all other women should follow the act of placing a curtain between them and others at all times.
Such is the logic of Islam and The Life Of Brian.
Classical Hidith used as the legal understanding of male and female sexuality is such that women’s body are seen as morally corrupting and that men are incapable of resisting women as sources of irressitable sexual temptation leading to social and moral chaos ( fitna). The Islamic legal methodology of ‘blocking the means’ puts the responsibility on the women for rape. It creates all sorts of problems, only the women that have to carry the burden, this method, if extended logically, is extremely draconian and one can justify just about anything on this basis ( e.g. as they do in S. Arabia in case of women drivers, leaving the house without a male relative, talking over the phone to an unrelated member of the opposite sex or even exchanging letters ).
It appears to me that Islamic Males attempt to control a womens entire existence through their own personal inadequecies. When you look at all these rules and “Cultural” sensibilities it comes down to one thing. Who owns the womens “Lady Parts” nothing more nothing less.
Is it the father? The husband? The religion? The stranger in the street? I think we can all agree it is not the Women. Until women are entitled to do with their own bodies as they wish we shall never have true freedom of the sexes.
I am sure many women truly believe wearing the burka makes them special/other but it simply makes them possessions of male dominated society.
(A side note: When ever you hear jihadist appologists talking about context remember this example when some peace for nookie on the wedding night was used to justify all women everywhere at all times for ever to cover their faces. )
-
April 14, 2011 at 07:53 -
Mr Sarkozy has an election to win. The cynic in me wonders what impact the high poll ratings of Madame Le Penn would have on a politician with low poll ratings. Same with foreign adventures. It wont be just British politicians who find votes in the sacrifice of other people’s children.
On a visit to Dubai last year I found the tantalising glimpse of some hair tint, the dazzle of large olive eyes, the flash of a delicate ankle most alluring. Far more sexy than a muffin top or some thong spilling over the jeans of some plump teenager at the local mall here.
So I hold no strong opinion on chadors or hijabs. Perhaps if you don’t want to be part of a society you should go live in a society you do want to be part of.
-
April 14, 2011 at 08:41 -
An individual wants to do as they choose. A ‘libertarian’ (you) reacts strongly against this liberty. I DON’T GET IT! It seems that your libertarianism, like all dogmatic beliefs, is merely the most convenient flag to which your self-interest rallies. I have no argument with your belief that face coverings should be banned. But for heaven’s sake, please call yourself an authoritarian (of the left or right), not a libertarian, if your first reaction is negative to things which are not consistent with your interests.
-
April 14, 2011 at 09:44
-
-
April 15, 2011 at 10:33 -
What people wear is no business of the state.
What is wrong with going into a bank etc with your face covered?
If you say something like “I have a gun-give me the money” then you should be shot dead.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }