generalspeaking

A Matter of Interpretation

A woman born in Tunis, living in the north of Italy in a town called Novara, was stopped by local police (carabinieri), outside a post office, and fined the equivalent of $650. Stiff fine, that. Was she apprehended in the process of attempting to abscond with valuable materials for which she had not bothered to pay anything?

"We just enforced a local law that stops people from covering their face near sensitive places like schools, hospitals or post offices", explained Inspector Leonardo Borghesani. "We understand the fine is hefty, but she can appeal." This, apparently is a township regulation, similar to others that have passed in other Italian towns.

Just as Belgium's lower House voted to prohibit women from wearing full veils in public, and similar to the draft bill the government of France is prepared to put into law. Surely, it does not represent illicit or criminal activity to cover one's face? On the other hand, criminals, and terrorists do cover their faces to escape recognition.

In the case of a Muslim woman who wears a full face veil, the burqa or the niqab, it is a rejection of the social normatives of countries where Muslims immigrate to settle themselves among non-Muslims. As such it defies the commonly accepted social dictum, "When in Rome...". This is a cultural, a tribal custom, not a religious one. It has its roots in misogyny.

And it is undeniably unsettling for people unaccustomed to seeing women fully veiled - hidden behind a prison of cloth - among them. It is plain, and pure rejection; there can be no social intermingling, and that, precisely is the intention. In this instance, the woman was young, 26 years of age, and she refused to permit herself to be identified by the police officers when they requested she lift her veil.

She was more accommodating when a female officer appeared. The woman, Amel Marmouri, has been served a double rebuke. Her husband, Ben Salah Braim, a decade his wife's senior, claimed he would now confine his wife to the house. The Koran, he averred, strictly forbids other men from viewing his wife's face.

The Koran, of course, does no such thing, other than in this man's mind. The injuncture is simply for women to dress modestly, not to imprison themselves.

Quoting the Koran assists controlling men greatly in their dedication to ensuring that their wives remain chattel. She may no longer exit her home because her husband will not permit her to do so. The alternative is for her to discard the niqab and wear instead the more common hijab, a head covering.

But that, obviously, will not placate the oppressive force that her husband exerts upon her dignity as a freely independent human being. His position clearly is that she is anything but that.

"Amel may not be looked at by other men", her husband informed Italy's national newspaper. "Our religion is explicit on this". He will continue to believe this and he has the support of a Florence imam, head of the Islamic Community and Organizations Union in Italy, who claims this to be a "matter of interpretation".

So much for suitability to take one's place in the social structure of another country.

Labels: Human Relations, Human Rights, Political Realities, Religion

posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, May 05, 2010