If, as alleged in the article, some lawyers are using the veil to pose as others, then there's a real public policy concern here that should override whatever comfort issues these women may have. I have no way of knowing, however, whether such concerns are legitimate, or merely an excuse.

Any more detail?

If this is true:

"We (the judges) cannot identify veiled woman lawyers and suspect that veiled lawyers appear to seek adjournment of proceedings in other lawyers' cases."

Also, courts are formal places. I might feel more 'comfortable' in sweats, but I doubt the judge would let me wear them. I would certainly feel more comfortable in sneakers.

I mean, sheeeeit: courts affect EVRYONE'S clothing. Neither men nor women can wear what they like in court. Why is this not OK? (and BTW: the issue isn't one of safety, so "safe" isn't the best word here)

My gut reaction is "merely an excuse," since there are plenty of other ways to address that policy concern.

Personally, I don't like it when courts tell women what is and is not professional and acceptable for them to wear in court. I don't like it in this case and I don't like it when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals tells women that pantsuits are not professional in their court (I believe it is more of an unspoken rule than an actual mandate, but I've had lawyers tell me that you should always wear a skirt if you are before the 4th Circuit).

Perhaps I'm confused. I thought the hiqab showed the face, and it was the niqab and burka that covered the face up.

I see this as an attempt to discourage Muslim women from becoming lawyers.

Well, we all know where we'd stand if the judges forced all women attorney TO wear veils.

All in all, I'd rather have the Pakistani draconian rape laws overturned.

This is very confusing. What does "veil" mean? If it means face covering, it sort of makes sense. If it means headscarf, it's a stupid draconian move against women lawyers and will cause some of them to not be able to do their work as they will choose their freedom to wear the head scarf over their jobs.

The article is stupid in not defining "veil" which is a totally stupid term, can people please be clear when they report this stuff?

Also what is with people using this "hiqab" misspelling? I am seeing it everywhere.
Teh Hijab means "islamic dress" and the person can use the term to mean anything they see as reprsenting that so sometimes it can mean face veil but most of the time it does not.
The niqab is specifically the form of dress that covers the face.
Veil is an idiotic term because it is impossible to know what it is referring to (and it is also very very loaded) and all responsible journalists should knock it the hell off.

This sort of reporting really frosts me. The issues can't be discussed because the basic facts are deliberately left ambiguous.

Anna in Cairo,

My apologies if my using the term "veil" is insulting to you. Yes, it is a very loaded word, that goes without saying, but isn't "hijab" as well? Maybe the term "veil" should be abandoned altogether. What do others think?

Additionally, you said that hijab may consist of a number of different ways of covering oneself, so wouldn't using that word be ambiguous too? And I certainly couldn't use niqab because that wasn't specified either.

Regardless, the post quoted Parvaiz, who said that the judges couldn't identify the laywers; I assumed that was enough specification to show they were referring to dress that covers the face. But I do agree that articles shouldn't be so ambiguous when discussing the issue, and that should definitely be addressed.

However, in this case, my hands were sort of tied; I used the information that was given to me. Does that mean I shouldn't have posted on it at all?

As I thought was clear, I was criticizing the damned article, from which the facts could not be gleaned. I don't expect you to use different words than the article. But yes, it is a very loaded term not to mention it is ambiguous. The reason you could not use a specific term is becuase the damned article was unclear.

Hijab is also not clear, as some people use it to mean Niqab although they are a minority. headscarf is good, and face veil is good. You know, you don't HAVE to use Arabic terms to discuss Muslim issues.

Doesn't "veil," by definition, refer to something that covers the face? (Answer: yes.) It's true that some people refer to the hijab as a veil, but that seems to be because they don't know the meaning of either veil or hijab or both. But I don't think that the fact that some people are using a word incorrectly means that people who use it correctly have to stop doing so to avoid confusion.

In any case, I think "Vanessa" from Feministing (assuming that is her real name) does a fine job, including on this post.

Like I said, Hijab is ambiguous too, I have heard people who cover their faces use it to describe their dress.

Like I also said, I was criticizing the bad and sloppy and loaded writing of the article itself, not Vanessa.

Thank you, I know the dictionary definition of the word "veil" which has not much to do with the issue of how this word is used in discourse about Islamic dress.

"But I don't think that the fact that some people are using a word incorrectly means that people who use it correctly have to stop doing so to avoid confusion."

Shades of the "niggardly" debate.

As for the article, it seems that if there is a problem of veiled lawyers impersonating other lawyers, it has to be dealt with. Removal of the veils seems like a reasonable solution.

What else should they do about it?

Raging Moderate, the article is not specific enough. If they are only forbidding the face veil for identity reasons they should have said so clearly. As it is they compound the ambiguity by translating "hijab" as "veil" in a quote.

In many countries (Tunisia, Turkey, France) the headscarf was banned in public sector places. It is not beyond the pale that a judge in Pakistan could take a similar step. So all I am asking for is better discussion of the issues by journalists (not bloggers who link to them). That is it.

Argh, I tried to post and it did not go through.

Maybe I am just really bad at expressing myself, but here are the points I want to make:

1. It is irresponsible for the article from India to use the word veil without clearly stating what they mean (compounding the confusion by translating the term hijab as veil in the quote).
2. It is not the blogger's problem. No one said it was. She just linked to an article that was badly written, because the issue it was discussing was newsworthy.
3. Veil is not the best term to use when discussing Islamic dress because it has been, albeit incorrectly, conflated with the headscarf in mass media discourse mostly because it sounds like an extreme sort of word and the mass media (especially in India when discussing pakistan) tends to use loaded words to make Muslims look like irrational nuts.
4. The English phrases "head scarf" and "face veil" or "face covering" are clearer in meaning than using Arabic words that most non-muslim westerners might or might not have a clear idea of. Not the word "veil" by itself.

As for the issue of identity theft, that is a real issue (or maybe it is just a scare tactic that has never happened but they are using it to get rid of the face veil- who knows? The article is unclear), and I have not discussed it yet as my main point was how badly written the article is.

When someone is performing an important public function -- and serving in court as a lawyer is certainly such a function -- I don't see any problem that they be required to show their face. The face is an important part of nonverbal communication across all cultures.

"Raging Moderate, the article is not specific enough."

From the article:

"We (the judges) cannot identify veiled woman lawyers and suspect that veiled lawyers appear to seek adjournment of proceedings in other lawyers' cases," said the chief justice, who added that he could barely hear the pleas by lawyer Anjum made from behind her veil.

It seems pretty clear to me that these women lawyers were wearing some article of clothing that prevented the judges from seeing their faces (how else could they impersonate other lawyers?) and clearly hearing what they were saying (does a headscarf muffle speech?).

Sounds like a veil to me. I don't see how you could interpret it differently.

Yes but what does the *prohibition* include? Both the face veil and the scarf? Because of the use of the term hijab not to mention veil I don't know. The article does not say.

"(I believe it is more of an unspoken rule than an actual mandate, but I've had lawyers tell me that you should always wear a skirt if you are before the 4th Circuit)"

Yeah, DDay, I've heard this as well about federal courts in general... I think this may have been an actual rule a while back, and it's possible some courts still have an informal preference for skirtsuits on women, but as far as I know it is no longer a hard and fast rule in any court (and if it was, you betcha some uppity woman lawyer would challenge it -- we're pesky like that ;))

As bad as if not worse than that, one of my best friends in law school was once told during moot court that her voice was too high and she should lower it so as to be taken seriously. This friend is highly intelligent and very well-spoken and happens to have a very feminine-sounding voice. Apparently feminine-sounding voices are not "serious" enough for certain moot court judges. Thinking about that still pisses me off.

And while we're on the subject of idiot judges, I was recently at a function where apparently one of the federal judges was staring so intently at my navel that he could tell, though I was fully and professionally clothed, that I have a navel piercing. I know this thanks to a follow-up comment overheard by a partner for whom I work. Apparently somehow this fact ought to cause ME to [I don't know - wear layers in court??], without regard for the fact that some old judge staring at a young lawyer's navel is just fucking creepy.

The legal profession is FULL of sexist bullshit. Fucking. Full. It's enough some days to almost make me wish I'd done something else. Almost.

My first paranthetical should read "if it WERE"...

Hi, Anna, just by the way, my praise of Vanessa wasn't meant as a rebuttal to what you said, just an expression of a general "huzzah for Vanessa" sentiment.

LawFairy - You said have been a scientist. No sexism here. Laughter(oh, but to keep from crying). Sexist bull-shit everywhere.

I suppose the real question is - Is there really an issue of identifying these lawyers? Or is this another example of males attempting to control female dress, as an extension of the belief that a female body is public domain?

Oops, SHOULD have been a scientist. Sheesh....sorry.

lol, tink, fair enough. I guess I should have said it sometimes almost makes me wish I was born on a different planet ;)

Apologies if I misconstrued where you were directing your criticism, Anna. And thanks for the props, Heraclitus :)