The current controversy about face
coverings for Covid19 has reminded me of the debate about women (or men)
covering their faces for other reasons.
If it is OK for anybody to wear a face mask on public transport, why
shouldn’t the niqab (Islamic face veil) be acceptable in normal public
situations?
This is a difficult area to
discuss since, rather as passing references to Israel’s security forces can
lead to unjustified accusations of anti-semitism, any adverse comment on the
niqab or burqa may arouse indignant condemnation as islamophobic, misogynistic
or even racist. Nevertheless, I think there is a simple principle involved, so
I will step in where angels fear to tread.
Basic principle
The basic principle is that in
public areas, unless there are legitimate reasons for concealment, people
should be prepared to be recognised and identified. Short of fingerprinting and DNA-testing,
allowing one’s face to be seen is the easiest and quickest way of achieving
this. Reasons for this principle are as
follows.
- Concealing one’s identity by face covering can cause apprehension and suspicion of the motives or intentions of the wearer (unless there is an obvious legitimate reason) – e.g. what has he or she got to hide, and why? Is he an escaped prisoner? Is she a pickpocket, a suicide bomber – or just bunking off school?
- Face coverings make communication more difficult. If you can’t see a person’s facial expression it is more difficult to interpret whether they are friendly, hostile, ironic or indifferent. For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, the facility to lip read is important. (A possible counter-argument is that in a telephone conversation the face is obviously not visible, and successful communication still takes place. I don’t think this seriously weakens the argument. Telephoning can be acceptable if you can’t meet in person, but it is obviously second best – for the reasons given above).
- Some face coverings – specifically the niqab and burqa – are a symbol of a patriarchal society, of male oppression, of religious fundamentalism. They advertise social division and a refusal to integrate into wider society.
- From the point of view of the wearer of the face covering, there are other severe disadvantages. If they cannot be photographed full face, they are ineligible for documents that require photo-ID – including passports1, driving licences, railcards2, bus passes and employees’ ID cards. If they are unwilling to uncover their faces for comparison with their photo-ID, then the bus driver or train conductor can charge them the full fare. Thus, women who will not allow their faces to be photographed or who refuse to uncover their faces when their identity is challenged are effectively excluding themselves from many aspects of everyday life – employment, public transport, driving, travel abroad.
Banning face covering
In the UK there are circumstances
where face covering either is illegal or is banned by private
organisations.
Driver of cars, vans and lorries (but not of 2-wheeled vehicles) are not permitted to cover their faces when driving. This is because police need to be able to identify drivers from speed camera images, and face coverings would obviously frustrate this. It applies equally to medical face masks and to niqabs and burkas. Motor cyclists are exempt since the requirement to wear a crash helmet (including visor) overrides the ban on face coverings.
Private organisations have discretion over whom they allow on to their premises, and they are able to impose conditions on access – which may include banning face coverings. Banks are well known for requiring motorcyclists to remove their crash helmets – though whether they would require a woman to remove her niqab is moot. (If they were sensible they would turn a blind eye – on the grounds that the chances that she is an Islamic terrorist are so remote that it is not worth the bad publicity that would result from trying to enforce the rule).
Other countries, notably France and
Belgium, have attempted to ban the wearing of the niqab and burqa in public. However, there have been difficulties over
enforcement, and various legal challenges remain unresolved. In France, the issue is bound up with the
French principle of laïcité – the separation of church and state, and
the ban has also been extended to the hijab (islamic headscarf), which is
really a separate issue entirely. It is
believed that the number of niqab-wearers in France is very small, as most
French muslims came originally from North Africa or the Sahel and practise a
mainstream form of Islam – rather than from the Arabian peninsula, where
fundamentalist branches of the religion such as Salafism are more common.
In reality the move to ban the niqab, burqa and hijab in France was a
political gesture to appeal to islamophobic supporters of the Front
National. One may discern a similar “dog
whistle” in Prime Minister Johnson’s recent references to “letter
boxes” and “bank robbers”.
Legitimate and illegitimate reasons for face covering
There can of course be perfectly
legitimate reasons for wearing a face covering – and some illegitimate reasons.
- In the current Coronavirus emergency, the wearing of PPE (“personal protective equipment”, which includes a face mask) is considered essential in high risk situations (e.g. in hospital) and desirable in many medium to low risk situations (e.g. public transport, shops, factories). Opinions differ on whether non-medical masks protect the wearer from other people – or other people from the wearer. However, most authorities do not consider face masks to be essential (or useful) in the open air.
- Dust masks which cover nose and mouth are also advisable to protect the wearer in certain activities such as sanding and drilling. This would normally be in enclosed spaces or on building sites, and not in public areas.
- Masks to protect from traffic and other noxious fumes are sometimes worn in heavily polluted areas – especially by cyclists and pedestrians in heavy or slow-moving traffic.
- In inclement weather, a balaclava helmet (normally woollen) protects the face against icy wind and snow, and a ski mask serves the same purpose on the ski slope.
The above are legitimate purposes
(and there may be others). Illegitimate
reasons sometimes given for wearing a face covering include the following.
- “My religion requires me to dress modestly, to cover my hair and to conceal my face from unrelated men.” There is no problem about dressing modestly, and unlike in France there is no serious objection in the UK to the hijab (Islamic headscarf) to cover the hair. However, the niqab/burqa is not a requirement of mainstream Islam, and to claim the right to wear it in public is to place the religious observances of a minor, fundamentalist sect above the norms of our secular society. I do not believe this is acceptable.
- “Women should be allowed to wear what they like. Men shouldn’t tell women what to wear. It’s a personal choice.” This argument is sometimes used by feminists as a blow for women’s rights. I think they are deluding themselves. The niqab/burqa is the ultimate symbol of male oppression - the idea that men own women and can prevent other men from lusting after their wives and daughters. The claim that women adopt the burqa as a blow for feminism is perverse and actually legitimises the oppression of women. In any case this is not so much a reason as a restatement of the problem. I think it would be generally agreed that women should be allowed to wear what they like as long as it doesn’t cause other serious problems (such as those described above). But of course face covering does cause those problems.
- “I wear the niqab because I don’t like men looking at me and bothering me when I just want to go shopping/ to work/ to the library etc.” I don’t think this is very credible. A headscarf and a long, shapeless black dress are a fairly effective way of discouraging male interest. The niqab is more likely to attract hostile attention than its absence would attract unwanted interest.
- “My community is very conservative, and all the women in our community wear the niqab. It would upset my family if I stopped wearing it.” Or more explicitly: “My husband wouldn’t like it if ...” Clearly, this is not a satisfactory justification as it is not the choice of the woman concerned. Peer pressure, family pressure, husband pressure are difficult to deal with. Some community customs are clearly undesirable or criminal (female genital mutilation, child or forced marriage) and the authorities must be prepared to intervene in these cases, but it would probably be counterproductive (and bad for community relations) to try to prevent religious minority communities from imposing the niqab on their womenfolk.
So what about Covid 19 facemasks?
The hallmark of the present
Government’s approach to combating Covid 19 has been to do everything either
late or half-heartedly or incompetently – and then blame the scientific
advisers. Thus we locked down 10 days after other European countries, failed to
provide sufficient PPE, neglected carehomes until the virus was rampant,
rejected and then rediscovered “test, track and trace”, pioneered a useless
British track and trace app on the Isle of Wight rather than adopting a a
foreign model, introduced quarantining of foreign arrivals just as other countries
were lifting the restrictions, and
failed to co-ordinate UK-wide policies with the policies of the devolved
administrations. The approach to face masks is a case in point.
If it was right for Scotland to
require face masks in shops, why was it not right in England? Was it that the retail industry had more
influence over the UK Government than over the Scottish Government? Was the UK government more concerned about
not annoying its core voters than about the health of the nation?
Be that as it may, my own view
(based on the scientific advice) is that non-medical face masks give little
protection to the wearer but can protect other people from infection by the
wearer. So the obvious public health
imperative is that in vulnerable situations, especially enclosed indoor spaces,
mask wearing should be mandatory. I personally am quite prepared – indeed
anxious – to wear a face mask when I go shopping, but I don’t see why I should
inconvenience myself by wearing one if other people do not. So the upshot is that I don’t wear one
(except when I visited my local hospital for a routine outpatient appointment).
Summary
So, in summary, my conclusions are
as follows:
- People should expect and be prepared to be recognised and identified in public. The wearing of face coverings in public should therefore be strongly discouraged unless there is an acceptable reason for wearing it (especially public health reasons).
- Nevertheless the wearing of the niqab or burqa in public places should not be banned since bans simply invite disobedience in order to create bogus martyrs and resultant publicity. In any case the incidence of wearing is low, and minor non-compliance can easily be tolerated and ignored without undermining the general position.
- However, public and private organisations (such as schools) should be permitted to ban face coverings if they would seriously inhibit the function of the organisation (e.g teaching).
- As long as the current Covid 19 pandemic lasts face masks should be worn by everybody in enclosed public spaces such as shops, libraries and museums and in any enclosed private space (such as an office or factory) where social distancing is not possible3.
__________________________________________________________________
1 The
rules for passport photographs are as follows:
“In your
photo you must:
- be facing forwards and looking straight at the camera
- have a plain expression and your mouth closed
- have your eyes open and visible
- not have hair in front of your eyes
- not have a head covering (unless it’s for religious or medical reasons)
- not have anything covering your face
- not have any shadows on your face or behind you”
2
Similarly, the rules for railcards are:
“If you opt for a digital
Railcard, you must provide a photograph. The photo should have been taken with
nothing covering the outline of eyes, nose or mouth. The rail industry applies
the same rules as the DVLA and Passport Agency, so photos with a person wearing
a full facial burka / niqab (a veil that covers the face) are not acceptable.
If a member of rail staff is unable to validate that the person on your Railcard
is you, the Train Companies reserve the right to charge you the full price
Standard Single fare for your journey as if no ticket was purchased before
starting the journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare.”
3 Since I started to write this it appears that
the Government is now reviewing the issue of whether to make face masks
mandatory in shops. This is another
illustration of how the Government firstly rejects a recommendation, then
dithers while other countries (e.g. Scotland) adopt it, and finally, belatedly
gives in – saying that circumstances have changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment