The veil: yes or no?
On certain issues, it's impossible to be equidistant. The women's veil, if compulsory, is unquestionably a sexist garment in any of its forms. Evidently, the more parts of the body it covers, the more serious this is, because that's precisely what they're trying to do: to prevent women from showing their bodies, as if anyone's physique were something to be ashamed of. The veil is comparable to the systematic display of a sexist banner, and for that reason alone, its use can be considered a form of violence against women, just one of the many that some religions, in fact, publicly defend.
However, in the debate over its prohibition, we must keep in mind that those who defend it are often just as sexist as those who promote the veil, and are sometimes also racist. It's not that they care at all about the discrimination against women who profess some religions, but rather what they reject are people of a certain ethnic origin, which becomes clear to them when they go out on the street and don't see the human landscape that existed forty years ago, but rather increasingly see veils that signal, precisely, that there is a person who is not theirs. Don't be mistaken. These people feel the same sense of rejection when they see darker skin or more Eastern eyes on someone dressed in Western clothing. In reality, they reject races that are not their own. The veil is just an excuse. And the politicians who exploit these racist ideas and spread them even further are only seeking seats in Parliament and in city councils to earn a living on a public salary by saying outrageous things left and right that they would never do if they were in power.
Do you really think the Trump administration will expel all immigrants from the United States? Obviously not, because its voters don't want to harvest crops, work as waiters, or clean toilets, always for four quid and with inhumane hours, and therefore big business needs them. Furthermore, citizens don't want to pay higher prices for services that would be much more expensive if provided by native Americans. What we're seeing in the US now with this issue is just cruel and misleading political cosmetics for voters, done by singling out only a few of these most conspicuous immigrants. They need the rest, and if they don't descend into racist delirium—nothing is out of the question—they'll keep them.
Returning to the veil, the current debate on the matter is purely opportunistic. It would be highly desirable if no woman had to wear degrading clothing in public spaces, but it would also be positive if they could speak and meet with other men, and not have to remain silent when their husbands speak. Incidentally, these customs are still, unfortunately, part of our culture for too many people, and no one talks about it.
Prohibitions, if not limited to a few very specific enclosed public spaces, are usually counterproductive. The passage of time, as well as the growing roots and integration in our country, have uncovered more veils than any prohibition. Therefore, efforts must continue in this direction. We host communities should not hide who we are and what we like, but rather share them openly and frankly with newcomers, because this is the only way to foster voluntary integration, which is, by far, the most efficient of all.
And in this task of pure and peaceful persuasion, no group should ever forget the fight against machismo. The female priesthood and putting an end to what is nothing more than another expression of machismo. This has been done in Europe in recent decades.
But regulating how people should dress in public spaces is absurd if the goal is to reject women with veils. Not exclusion, but mutual learning.