A stand-up comedian’s take on the Roy Orbison oldie ‘Pretty Woman’ is the latest salvo in the burqa wars.  The video of Saad Haroon performing ‘Burqa Woman’ seems to have gotten a lot of Pakistanis all riled up, both for and against, with everyone reading into it whatever they already believe.

You’d think that with issues like nuclear weapons, the Taliban, and government corruption, Pakistan might have a few other things to worry about right now.  But the burqa is always a reliable way to distract attention and make everyone feel righteous.

The comments on YouTube are way over the top.  That’s nothing new, of course, but it’s disturbing to scroll through and see the preponderance of deep pious offense on the one side (one commenter even calls for Haroon to be stoned to death, for Christ’s sake), and a kind of schoolyard ‘yah-boo-take-that-you-Muslims’ Islamophobia on the other.

In fact if ‘Burqa Woman’ is satire, it seems to me a pretty mild form.  Cheeky would be a better word for it —  the kind of fond teasing a younger brother might deploy against an older sister.  True, if you want to get analytical about it, phrases like “sexy ninja” and “mystery prize” reflect a kind of contemporary Orientalism — the erotics of the mysterious hidden East.  And lines like “show me your left nostril” or “flirting with my living-room curtain” are kind of tasteless (though the veil did begin as a curtain hung in order to give Muhammad’s wives some degree of privacy).  But nobody seems to be getting analytical about this.   All we have so far is a slew of kneejerk responses.

But then what else could there be when the burqa has been so highly politicized?  With new burqa bans in Europe and elsewhere, the burqa has served as a convenient whipping boy (or should that be whipping girl?),  with right-wing politicians manipulating left-wing feminists into joining hands in righteous indignation.

I’ve been a feminist for four decades now, and I know when my feminism is being manipulated.  I’ve no desire to ‘defend the burqa.’  I find it as objectionable as any other form of religious ‘hiding’ of women like Orthodox Jewish women’s wigs or Catholic nuns’ coifs — any religious rule that focuses on women’s sexuality under the guise of ‘protecting them’ from the stereotypically ravenous male eye.  Such rules honor neither women nor men — nor religion itself.

But why single out the burqa?  Why not criticize the Catholic or fundamentalist Christian attitude toward women with the same passion as directed against the Wahhabi or fundamentalist Islamic one?  And why use the burqa issue at all when the vast majority of Muslim women would never dream of putting one on?

I’m looking forward to seeing what the dynamite writers over at altmuslimah have to say about this musical storm in a teacup.  Meanwhile:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkVl_7N-m3I]

Sex and religion are at it again.  French president Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing to ban women from wearing the full Islamic veil because it “hurts the dignity of women and is unacceptable in French society.”

But this is no more about women’s dignity than the invasion of Iraq was about liberating Iraqi women (though the Bush administration didn’t hesitate to use that as one of their many false rationales for war).

Sarkozy’s logic is so badly skewed that it looks like yet another fit of Islamophobia, cynically using women’s rights as the excuse.

Any woman who’s ever tried on a vintage hat with a veil falling from the brim knows the sexy feeling that comes from being half hidden.  But that’s a far lipstick-feminist cry from the full ultra-orthodox Islamic veil — the niqab, which leaves only the eyes uncovered, or the burqa, which has a mesh screen over the eye slit.  These literally make women invisible.  Or in France, it seems, all too visible.

Yet why exactly is such veiling so abhorrent it requires a law to ban it?

Veiling has been used throughout the centuries as a means of keeping women second-class citizens, and not solely in Islam.  It was only narrowly avoided in Christianity — Saint Paul wanted it adopted for all early Christian women.  And women hiding their hair with variants on headscarves is a sign of piety in orthodox Judaism and Christianity (think nuns) as well as in Islam.

Yet the Bible doesn’t call for veiling.   And neither does the Quran.  What it actually says, in Sura 24, verses 30-31, is as follows: “Tell believing men to lower their glances and guard their private parts… And tell believing women to lower their glances and guard their private parts… and let their headscarves fall to cover their necklines.”  Basically, if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it.

It takes centuries of ultra-conservative clerics to turn a call for bisexual modesty into a sexist straitjacket.

But does that mean a western government should punish women for refusing to conform to social norms?  How is that different from punishing women for refusing to wear the veil in authoritarian Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Does this mean France might consider banning other items of women’s clothing?   Ban women from wearing pants, for instance?  Where exactly do “dignity” and “acceptability” start and end, and in whose eyes?  If a woman chooses to cover her face, that’s her decision to make, just as it is if she chooses to bare her midriff.   Either way, government intrusion is objectionable.

Ah, but there’s also a security reason for the proposed new ban, adds Sarkozy’s spokesman.  We need to be able to see people’s faces at airport security checkpoints. But then why not simply require that people uncover their faces for security screening? Why go full tilt at the full veil?

By adopting such legislation, France will only move itself toward a mirror image of Saudi Arabia.  Bare midriffs banned here, full veils banned there.   And women, once again, just pawns in the game.