What are you hiding?

I want to return to a picture I used a few weeks ago. I sensed then that I might have something to say about it on its own merits, although at the time I used it as an aside for other, more self-centred comments. And little did I know at the time that our very own Jack Straw - ah, such an innocent-sounding name!...little Jackie Straw, that cheeky little boy from down the road... (and probably no relation to Jack Straw, rebel leader of the English peasants' revolt of 1381... ) - yes, he managed to stir the whole thing up.

So, in my little blogosphere, it started here, with this picture.
I saw it then as a sign of separation, and used it to invoke that idea in the original post. That's how little Jackie Straw described it too: "a sign of difference and separation". He described his discomfort when talking to veiled women in his MP's surgery, and told of how he would ask them if "they would mind" removing the veil. He was at least (superficially) respectful enough to the women concerned to ensure the presence of a female colleague, but from what I understand of veil-wearing policies, that oughtn't to make much difference... The Qu'ran urges women "not [to] reveal their zeenah [charms, or beauty and ornaments] to anyone save their husbands or their fathers or their husbands’ fathers or their sons or their husbands’ sons or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons or other women of acquaintance or their slaves or the subservient male servants who are not attracted to women or children who have no awareness of the hidden aspects of women." Presumably, other women are also exempted (on the implicit basis that they are not "attracted to women", of course...), but since JS was present and he fits into none of these categories, veil-wearing women in Blackburn surely ought not to reveal their zeenah to him.

According to Jackie himself, most of the women "seemed relieved" at the invitation: ah, St. Jack, liberating the poor, oppressed Muslim woman from her obligations to the heathen religion... except, of course, that it's not entirely clear that "most" veil-wearing Muslim women feel in any way put upon for the call to self-coverage.

But that aside, should he be criticised for taking the position that he has chosen? Clearly it was a naive move, somewhere along the lines of the publication of the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Little Jackie's comments have, apparently, been fuel to the racist fire that rages largely unnoticed throughout this country, and in my own city a woman has had her veil torn from her face while standing at a bus-stop. And yes, one might argue that his comments were taken out of context, but it would be naive of him to think that they would have been taken any other way, in this era of sound bites and media frenzies. So, nul points to Jackie for his forethought at least.

But what about what's really at stake here? Is the veil a sign of "difference and separation"? Well, in short, I think so. BUT, my first more interesting question it seems to me is this: is it not a statement of my difference from veil-wearing Muslim women that I don't wear a veil? Are we not all always in some way - however small - stating our own difference? Yes, many of us like to blend in. Some people choose to be tattooed from head to toe; others choose facial piercings; some wear turbans, headscarves, kippot, and so on.

And Jack Straw? Well, his suit and tie, his short grey hair, his lack of moustache, his lack of headcovering... they all combine to state his position in the socio-cultural strata. He walks through the world making obvious his status as a middle-class white man, and that has its own meaning. Absence has meaning. The dominant order is invisible through its dominance, but we must reclaim it as another order.

Finally, and more to the point, what is really wrong with difference and separation? Adherents to many faiths are keen to state their difference. In my wayward Christian days we spoke of being 'set apart for God'... Jews talk of themselves as 'a chosen people'... There is implicitly some superiority complex in much religious conformity: I'm doing it right; I've got God behind me; I'm going to be rewarded for behaving the way I do. But it doesn't have to be a threat. Isn't variety the spice of life?

What makes me most cross about little Jackie Straw's comments is not really to do with the complex relations between Islam and the default-Christianity that plagues this country, or the tensions between colours of skin. No, what really riles me are the fundamental assumptions on which his comments were based... the basic arrogances of his position: that Islam is Different, not one of many differences that can co-exist; that his identity is a benchmark by which other identities can be guaged; and that he has any right at all to state what is Normal. So, I wonder not what the veil is hiding, but what Jack Straw's self-defensive comments, his reassuringly clasped hands, and his insipid poly-cotton Marks & Spencer smile are hiding... what sinister project of enforced assmilation lurks behind?