Interview with Afshin Rattansi on veils
What to make of the veil debate? I interviewed Afshin Rattansi, author of The Dream of the Decade about it.
RATTANSI: “First of all, I think that former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, gleefully shouting his innocence over a war that may have cost 655,000 lives, may not be the best person to have started the veil debate. That This is especially true when you want to be Deputy Prime Minister now that Prime Minister Tony Blair has all but resigned.”
ME: Tony Blair said it was “a mark of separation” and that it “makes other people outside the community uncomfortable.”
Gordon Brown, widely tipped to succeed him as British prime minister, said he “would prefer and think it would be better for Britain if fewer people wore headscarves. That’s what Jack Straw has said and I support it.”
RATTANSI: “Messing with a group of British women (about 10,000) who come from the poorest in society is not a very helpful thing at the best of times. The Labor government has exacerbated the gap between the richest and the poorest in British society and therefore picking on those least able to hold their own to further their career is not charitable.”
ME: But the veil debate is fascinating nonetheless. Exposes Voltaire’s joke that one must defend to the death people’s right to express themselves even if one disagrees with them in a very bright light, doesn’t it?
RATTANSI: “Power and powerlessness are stirred in this cocktail, as well as the opposing concepts of liberal pluralism and the desire for a truly secular society.
“Clearly, I think, the way to prevent British women from wearing headscarves is not to demonize them. Attempts to ban the peaceful actions of marginalized groups lead them to engage in such acts with greater vigor than before. The triumph of atheism in in regards to the Anglican Protestant faith in the UK it has relied on ignoring people who choose to practice the national faith, as well as the use of directed comedy.
“Obviously, the veil is a very different manifestation of a faith in which, theoretically, it is deeply misandrist. It assumes that men can only think of one thing. As in any text from one of the Abrahamic religions, it is impossible to use them to decide whether the prophets and messengers decreed this or that sanction as obligatory.”
ME: What about the sexual connotations?
RATTANSI: “Societies based on the works of Thomas Paine and others have progressed so far (after wars and colonization that have killed more than any faith) that the veil itself can be sexual. I am sure as I write this, There may well be powerful men and women who wear veils as sexual equipment. But I doubt the poor 10,000 whose families experience poverty and racism wear them for that. Most likely, they cling to the veil for a sense of identity. In Instead of Prada and Cartier, they believe that the veil not only brings them closer to God, but also connects them to historical claims (the converse of this comment is that countries like Iran supposedly have the highest incidence of rhinoplasty surgery: the The veil can make women more obsessed with the physical self than most exasperated anorexic teenagers.)”
ME: What about identities?
RATTANSI: “We all have multiple identities. Veilers, as anyone on a flight to the Gulf will tell you, can be obsessed with designer makeup and trinkets. However, the full veil subsumes all other identities of these women to many eyes This may well be the intention.
ME: Does your novel, The Dream of the Decade, deal with such concerns when it comes to punk music?
RATTANSI: “During the glories of punk, it was impossible not to feel that those who wore Vivienne Westwood-inspired styles subsumed all identity except for band names signifying particular musical threads on the back of leather jackets. The cry of many punk bands opposed to commodification was that no one had the right to tell a person what they should or shouldn’t wear.
“The response to the headscarf debate depends on the type of society one wants.”
ME: How so?
RATTANSI: “If one is looking for a fundamentalist Muslim state in the UK, then surely the headscarf should be actively encouraged.
“Second, if one is looking for a multicultural British society in which all customs and religions are protected because they are perceived to add to the life experiences of individuals, then Straw was terribly wrong. This holds that all life should be a series of negotiations between seemingly opposing ideologies in a constant Brownian flux.
“Third, if one believes that all religions are at bottom a form of insanity similar to any faith in all powerful aliens, then one has to find the best way to put an end to religion as it spreads more and more. fast”.
ME: The Muslim faith in the UK is the fastest growing faith in the country.
RATTANSI: “Let’s look at those who seek the third ideal. One could choose to lock up all religious people. That’s a bit like the Straw method. Ban the use of crucifixes (small, even tiny ones) and tell British women to they can’t have jobs if they wear headscarves will certainly make people think again when they choose to flaunt their religious beliefs – people who are religious will find their beliefs strengthened.
“If that is true, then the second ideal merges with the third. It will be precisely liberal tolerance that will result in people ignoring religion. However, that has not been the case in states without established religions. constitutionally: the USA, for example, the tolerance of Islam in Britain has not led to its decline.
“Even in that third ideal, one could surely argue that if that’s what one wants, one has to look at the reasons why people subscribe to irrational beliefs. Ultimately, surely it must be a case where the believer looking for an answer.” to perceived powerlessness. And since money creates power, a more equal distribution of wealth will lead to the third goal.”
ME: Of course, money and power alone do not confer confidence. Those who bombed London on July 7 were not among the poorest.
RATTANSI: “But, for them, it seems that British foreign rather than domestic policy was the catalyst.
“There is something brutal about having the poorest women in a community repeatedly endorse a parliamentarian, who desperately needs their help, only to be told that it is difficult for him to communicate without seeing them. Disgraced former Home Secretary David Blunkett was, unfortunately, able to communicate very well without seeing people.
“Paja and others should look to narrowing the gap between rich and poor if they feel so offended by women wearing the headscarf. That would be a start.”