As for this author, please refer to my previous postings (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/archive?word=%22Ida+Lichter%22). (Lily)
The Australian（https://www.theaustralian.com.au/）
Islamic fashion is none of our government’s business
by Dr.Ida Lichter
2 February 2018
Diplomacy and fashion are not usually chic bedfellows, particularly in the case of government sponsorship of Islamic clothing. Designed to tap into the lucrative Islamic fashion trade and promote Australian diversity, the partnership is controversial, if not unprincipled.
Australia has a creative and dynamic fashion industry, and the government should be commended for supporting national designers in exhibitions abroad. Though well intended, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-sponsored tour of “modest fashion” in the southeast Asian market is a worrying move.
Modest clothing is usually defined as loose, with long sleeves, high neck, a head covering or hijab, and a cloak, also known as an abaya. Alternatively, pants are worn with a gown over the top.
The thriving market for stylish clothes within the confines of the Islamic dress code is estimated to grow to more than $400 billion in 2020. With an eye for lucrative profits, designers such as Dolce & Gabbana and Nike have embraced the hijab in advertisements targeted to well-heeled, brand-conscious youth. Dolce & Gabbana has produced a collection for “Muslim women with a taste for luxury fashion”, and Oscar de la Renta and Tommy Hilfiger have released “modest wear” ranges. H&M and House of Fraser in Britain have advertised sportswear hijabs.
Svelte items are also seen in the catalogues of leading retailers of Islamic clothing. A new Barbie doll wears a hijab with the aim of breaking down social barriers.
Not all Muslim women are in favour of high-fashion Islamic clothing; the more conservative are opposed to any Westernisation of the religious dress code. Australian Muslim fashion designers should be applauded for their readiness to enter the competitive and profitable international market. In the Western capitalist world of retail, they are free to create, advertise, sell and invest their profits as they please.
The problem does not lie with the designers or their products. It lies with government sponsorship. The government is committed to promoting Australian diversity but this exhibition of Muslim women’s clothing, spotlighting the religious variety, would imply that Islamic attire is the correct and necessary dress for upstanding Muslim women.
Rather than promoting diversity, such an exhibition is more likely to endorse the idea that religious clothing is desirable for Muslim women, who should dress within the parameters of Islamic modesty. Diversity is recognised in the barometer of choice. In this case, diversity could be reflected in a range of religious and secular dress. Most Muslim schoolgirls may wish to don the hijab, but those who are unwilling should have their choice respected.
Although many Muslim women observe Islamic dress codes for reasons of piety and modesty, the government is ignoring traditional patriarchal views as well as political aspects of religious clothing. In many traditional societies, centuries of oppressive cultural practice were underwritten by religion.
In some societies, the veil is regarded as protection from the male gaze and sexual predators, and women who are insufficiently covered may not be considered innocent victims of violence.
These notions are underpinned by fear of the female as a dangerous temptress, adept at causing fitna, or social chaos. In order to protect men’s honour in society, female dress requires regulation.
Compulsory veiling in the public space is a restriction Iranian women know too well. From the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979, they were subject to criminalisation of hijab violations.
For modern-day Islamists, the veil has become an iconic symbol of their movement, and many women have espoused a new identity as political flag-bearers. However, many non-politicised women, such as those in Iran, continually rebel against enforced veiling. Some women in Raqqa, Syria, demonstrated their feelings by burning their veils when freed from Islamic State.
Not recognising the political oppression that the veil can represent is a betrayal of women who are forced to accept Islamic dress codes. The veil is also a political tool for extremists who attempt to lower the bar for Islamisation.
In a case in Britain, Shabina Begum, a teenage Muslim student, was encouraged by Islamists to challenge her Muslim-majority school because it denied her the option of wearing the jilbab (full-length Islamic dress) in place of the regulation Pakistani-style school uniform. She argued for her rights in the name of modesty and entitlement to education but refused to go to a neighbouring school where the jilbab was permitted. Shabina lost her case in the High Court but won in the Court of Appeal under the UK Human Rights Act. After the school appealed, the House of Lords ruled against her.
The hijab and Muslim clothing in general are minefields. Islamists can justify Islamic brands that exploit and commercialise piety, as such fashion advances identification with the ummah, the global community of Muslims. There’s only a dubious comparison to be made between Islamic modest dress and that of the Mormons or fundamentalist Christians, as the latter kind is not associated with political aspirations.
Muslim fashion diplomacy is not a fitting place for governments. Such sponsorship is tantamount to an imprimatur for Islamic dress codes.
・Dr.Ida Lichter is the author of Muslim Women Reformers: Inspiring Voices Against Oppression.
（End）
