Veil, part two

"Those who argue that Muslim women may be under male pressure to conform are being as patronizing as the men who assume women are incapable of independent judgment even in free and democratic societies."

"It is not patronizing to acknowledge that many Muslim women who wear the niqab — and they are themselves in a small minority — do so not out of personal choice but because they are bullied, tacitly or overtly, into doing so. They must hide their faces so that their men don't lose face."

Two opposing statements by Toronto Star columnists, the first one by Haroon Siddiqui and the second by Rosie DiManno.

DiManno calls the veil supremely insulting, separatist, exclusionary, both intrinsically superior ('my faith, which sets me apart') and intrinsically inferior ('my gender, which renders me de facto prey, thus requiring this protection'). She does accept a woman's right to wear the niqab, but warns of it being many a times a sign of unequal treatment and marginalization of women in religious and patriarchical settings.

Siddiqui too recognizes the right of the small percentage of niqab-donning Muslim women to veil themselves. He calls the recent controversy over the niqab an example of the 'disproportionate scrutiny' of Muslim practices, a sign of paranoia about Muslims, and even part of a political stategy to divert attention away from the failing war on terrorism, while downplaying the fact that some women who veil themselves do so because of religious and social pressures.

DiManno classifies the niqab within the greater Sharia law issue and the accompanying unequal treatment of women as empirically evident in many places in the world. Siddiqui seems to consider it disingenuous to single out the niqab for arguments about social integration when many other religious and cultural communities face similar issues for other reasons. In his view, the democratic way is to leave the decision to the 'sovereignty of the individual woman.'

Both appeal to democratic values in their case. I think to some extent, both are right. But as is usually the case, things are more nuanced than either side would have them. There is something that DiManno fails to adequately consider: the right of an individual to practise her religion as she sees fit, without intending to insult anyone (even though DiManno and others may perceive it otherwise). As well, Siddiqui comes across as a tad naive and simplistic in his appeal to democracy.

One thing is certain though: I've talked about this issue enough for a long time to come. To veil or not to veil, I don't really care anymore.