Fanny Duckert misunderstands
A niqab IS and is meant to be a barrier, it is meant to hinder communication, and to render its bearer invisible.
This text is a text written by Lars Gule, Head of Studies at Oslo University College. It is translated from the debate section of Universitas.
In her interview with Universitas, Duckert cannot understand why "Gule is pushing the issue" on niqab. My answer is that I have done no such thing. I have been inn terviewed by Klassekampen, on Klassekampen's initiative. And I have given a few new statements, again on request from the media. That the result of this is hundreds of articles in a number of newspapers across the country is out of my control.
Personally, I feel that this has gotten out of hand. Niqab is not a problem in a quantitative sense. However, it is an important fundamental problem that should be addressed, and I recommend that the universities and colleges recognise it, discuss it properly and set some ground rules, before this becomes a problem.
Duckert states that she would like to solve problems of this sort through discussions with the students. At the same time, she admits that "it is obvious that communication becomes more difficult when someone is completely covered, especially to psychologists like myself, who use the body as a communicative tool".
The fact is, quite simply, that it would be out of the question foor anyone to complete a psychology degree, with work experience and all, with their face covered. Besides, it would be a violation of professional ethical standards if a practising psychologist in Norway worked with her face covered.
If, based on educational motives as well as ethical standards, it really is out of the question to admit a niqab student into the psychology programme, Duckert's talk of a dialogue with the students becomes empty words, as the so-called dialogue would mean telling the students that they cannot wear niqabs. At least it would be a lot more honest towards the students if this was set down in a formal set of rules.
Duckert goes on to say that: "Even though open discrimination is less common in Norway, discrimination comes in many disguises. I have a student of African descent who calls this 'the silent poison'." Yet, she refuses to answer the question on whether or not I contribute to this prejudice, or if I am spreading the silent poison. I find that pretty far-fetched. It also demonstrates to the fullest that Duckert hasn't thought through her statements, and that she has no idea of what I stand for in connection to integrity and freedom of religion or belief. Hence, she ought to be a lot more careful when she is making the connection between a niqab ban and the spreading of poison - with no documentation or references.
On top of it all, it is pointless to link the problem that "it is difficult for people of diffferent descent to be recognised as individuals" to the issue of niqabs. The whole reason behind the niqab is to render its bearer invisible, to hinder others from seeing the individual behind the niqab. A niqab IS and is meant to be a barrier, it is meant to hinder communication, and to hide its bearer. If you don't know that, you don't know anything about the history and/or function behind the garment, nor the religious arguments behind it today. Seeing that, perhaps it would be a good idea not to make any statements about these things at all, especially when, like Duckert's statements in the interview, they lack any substance.
