the veil

This page considers debate about sumptuary law in contemporary cultures, including disagreement in Australia about wearing the burka in retail premises.

It covers -

• introduction
• issues
• frameworks

     introduction

Tensions in the conceptualisation of human rights, disagreement about the shape of discrimination law and anxieties about multiculturalism or about identity crime have been reflected in debate about the wearing of 'ethno-religious clothing' in locations such as banks, retail premises, public transport, airports and even schools.

That debate has centred on the clothing of Islamic women in Western societies - whether as residents or as short-term vistors - but encompasses disagreement about clothing such as the haircovering worn by Sikh men.

Some institutions have prohibited the clothing on security or equity grounds. Governments have recurrently considered calls for prohibition, along with responses that prohibitions would be discriminatory (and would widen, rather than bridge, cultural divides) or that adjustments to business/government practices (such as unveiling in front of female border security staff) readily address concerns.

     issues

In Europe and Australia much of the angst relates to the Islamic 'other', with criticisms of the hijab (headscarf), burqa (veil) or niqab (full face and body covering). Proponents of the covering typically argue that it is an expression of religious belief and should accordingly be protected.

It has attracted a range of criticisms, some more inflamatory than others.

In 2009 for example a Brisbane radio announcer called on Australian governments to fine women who wear a hijab or burqa, or impose an outright ban. The rationale was that covering posed a security risk by obscuring the person's face and thereby making it difficult to identify the wearer when a crime occurs. Wearing a burqa in shopping centres was supposedly offensive and 'scared little children' -

Kids cry and get the fright of their lives with Santa Claus so you can imagine what it's like to see this just black, not really human shape, just this full-on black covering with a slit at the eyes ... There are places where it causes such a shock that a reasonable person would be entitled to feel offence.

The Queensland Retailers Association endorsed the call, arguing that "long accepted practice" requires customers to remove helmets, 'hoodies' and other 'identity obscuring headwear' when entering a shop or bank.

Retailers should not have to fear any form of retribution or backlash for requiring the removal of any obscuring headwear, including hijabs, as a condition of entry. This is about ensuring a more safe and secure retail environment for all and being able to readily identify any and all perpetrators of armed hold-ups or shop theft.

The national retailers association disagreed, characterising the call as "a bit of a dog whistle".

   next page  (studies)