The documentary was made for everyone: defenders of the arts, artists of all disciplines, purveyors of art, avid film-goers, human rights advocates, people who like to learn new things and have their existing thoughts and beliefs challenged. Those who appreciate the literary application of art in film.

The film explores censorship in all its forms from individual government repression to self-imposed versions of it.

The overarching theme of the film suggests that the work of Nafada — the music, the social justice messaging it shares, the innovation in art and the multinational collaboration that transcended borders, boundaries and cultures in 2018 would not be contrived today if intended to meet the needs and expectations of 2024 audiences.

The impact and fall out from the cancel culture/woke-ism movement has resulted in a vast number of artists opting out of projects that could be perceived to be controversial in nature, particularly artistic endeavours that are influenced by cultural amalgamation.

The film is deeply embedded in the issues of censorship. The decisions made by the creative team throughout the evolution of Nafada were well-researched, tightly documented and aligned with the volume of work undertaken to ensure the team could make educated decisions around the use of symbolism to convey messages through art.

The dismissal of Nafada through the assumption that it was intentionally offending culture and religion, without the attempt or desire to understand the artistic motivation behind the decisions of Nafada’s creative team, simply highlighted the roadblocks and boundaries that contribute to the ongoing censorship of artists today.

Exploring the resistance of industry officials and suggestions to exclude particular artists from the project altogether was also key in demonstrating the altruistic motivations that preceded the album’s inception and addressed issues of racial capitalism, exploitation and Western saviour complex.

When research was being undertaken to determine an angle for the film, it became clear to the writers that modern-day audiences would first question the intentions of artists before questioning the intention of the art itself. So while the concerns of the industry officials helped to explain the issues around censorship, it doubled as a way to validate that any decisions made around the project were driven by artistic intention first and foremost, with much less focus directed at achieving commercial and/or financial success.

This project relied on the contributions of people who were either directly involved in the creation of the Nafada album, had some understanding of the intention behind it or were educated, employed or had experience in the areas of discussion.

The religious, ethnic and/or cultural status of those interviewed was considered to be irrelevant and intentionally not disclosed. If the background of those interviewed held more weight than their artistic and/or professional qualifications then it only further validates the apprehension artists have today to get involved in projects like Nafada. Many of those interviewed for this film admit that if they were presented with the same opportunity now, they likely wouldn’t agree to partake in it.

Carly is a model and a creative artist who enjoys pushing boundaries in the name of making statements through her art — in particular through the use of bold imagery and symbolism. She also happens to be Jewish.

The decision to have Carly, along with a number of other models from various backgrounds, on the creative team was simply based on her years of experience being a model and her alignment with the project’s intention to highlight and support the artistic talents of all the women involved in the project. Her religion did not impact her ability to do either of those things.

Carly chose to disclose her religion on film in an effort to draw similarities between the expectations for women to dress modestly in both the Jewish and Muslim faiths in order to illustrate her pro-woman stance, understanding of religious ideologies, and her belief that all women should be free to choose to wear what they want.

Interviewees were not provided scripted responses. The film did not set out to polarise audiences or create controversy. The decision to deconstruct the burka as part of the visual imagery used in the music clips for the Nafada album was based heavily on research undertaken by the creative team and in particular the messages within the book, “Deconstructing the Veil: The (de) Sexualisation of Muslim Women”, by Katie Fielder.

“No other form of head dress has stirred up as much controversy as the Islamic veil. To a non-Muslim it may appear to be just another piece of cloth but to a Muslim woman that piece of cloth is loaded with multiple meanings such as religiosity, modesty, piety, honour, seclusion, resistance, political protest, expression of choice and a means of negotiating entry into public space.” Tassadaq Hussain.

Through the research undertaken by the Nafada creative team it became clear that Islamic veiling and the reasons Muslim women choose to adorn the varying forms of it (eg. Niqab, Burqa, Hijab etc) are far from monolithic in nature.

Nafada as a concept is primarily about female empowerment, social justice advocacy and defiance. The decision to deconstruct the burqa was used to symbolise all three of those themes and encourage people to familiarise themselves with the intricate personal and intimate choices that Muslim women must weigh up when exercising their right to veil, or remain unveiled.

Through the act of deconstructing, we were able convey a breaking down of stereotypes by reducing it down to its constituent parts in order to reinterpret it, and/or reassemble it with a greater understanding of the individual complexities that exist around each woman’s decision to wear it, or conversely not wear it. With both options and choices often rooted in some degree of defiance.

Nafada was curated in 2018 long before the latest war erupted between Israel and Palestine. The aim was to create an album that would embody female empowerment, share messages for social justice and reform and to do so in a way that would defy stereotypes, disrupt conventional music norms and use the marriage of industrial and hip-hop genres, along with the defiant, rebellious nature of both as the vehicle to deliver it.

There was zero intention to create controversy. The religious background of the model was never intended to be declared and certainly didn’t raise any questions or concerns for the Nafada team, or the artists involved, at the time the music clip was created — individual faith choices were never considered to be a barrier for their involvement in the project and all models were professionally skilled and experienced in their chosen fields of work.

However, that’s not to say that 2024 audiences wouldn’t find an issue with it. Therefore a decision was made to address the retrospective thoughts of the model involved in order to ascertain whether the rise of cancel culture and woke-ism would have affected her decision to be involved if the same opportunity was presented to her today. The model provided an unscripted response to that question and deemed pertinent enough to share in alignment with the storytelling direction of the film.

The Nafada team understands that gaining and keeping the focus of audience members can be a difficult task when there are so many other mediums simultaneously competing for their attention. The team is also aware that the genre of music may not suit everyone’s tastes and may limit broad market appeal. With so many angles to explore, it was imperative to pick the most pertinent and relatable storyline that would resonate with modern-day audiences.

Viewers do not have to enjoy the music, music in general, the artists or the individual genres to have an appreciation for the film. It was important to the creative team to expose the audience members to the music organically as part of the storytelling process and in a way that would appeal to art enthusiasts of all kinds.

The hope in producing a film that has broader reach and shares a message that everyone can identify with, lobby for, support, or encourage further enquiry will generate more interest in the music than interest in the music itself will ever be able to achieve.

By deconstructing the association of the veil with oppression, terrorism, fear, inequality, the veil becomes a piece of cloth that a women might choose to wear for one or more diverse reasons: as expression of identity, as means to cultivate piety, as fashion statement et cetera.

Allowing Muslim women to activate agency as it applies to them even though it goes against societal norms allows them the freedom to produce identity and power. If this could be understood, then the act of choosing to veil would not need to be seen as something to be contended, rather could be accepted as what it is, a choice to put on a piece of cloth.

The practice of veiling by Muslim women ‘remains one of the most controversial issues in postcolonial feminist studies…and has taken centre stage as a symbol of both oppression and resistance’. The woman who veils is to be feared, pitied, desired and respected, yet some of these stereotypes are not reflective of the lives of those who veil and fail to take account of the fluid nature of historical, cultural and political practices and their impact on the heterogeneity of contemporary veiling.

The Muslim veil has become ‘one of the most contested and symbolic motifs in Western imagery of the East and of Islam…Despite this not much has been done to decode it’. Whilst some indict the practice, others defend it, each standpoint articulating views and conclusions on its effects and how it oppresses or liberates women, but there has been little attempt at a centric approach that would be reconciliatory.

Cultural pre-conceptions and rejection of some Western forms of female dressing, which can lead to objectification play a role in viewpoints about the veil and highlight the deep entrenchment of some questionable assumptions about the choices Muslim women make. For example Al-Hibri questions why is it liberating to wear a mini-skirt but oppressive to wear a headscarf? As discussed in the previous chapter both forms of dress can lead to objectification, yet veiling by Muslim women is always at the forefront of oppressive effects of clothing.

The reasons for and the symbolism of veiling is driven by political, gender, social and religious vectoring and thus attempts at structuring religious identity, concepts and social hierarchies are very much an open field, however the most important actors in such debates are those women who live the experience of veiling.

She further describes the experience when she and her Muslim veiled friend swapped clothes for two weeks as a social experiment: Both of us felt immensely liberated, our bodies were finally our own, hers to show off as she pleased, mine to cover if I wanted. For the first time since puberty, I felt that people might be seeing the real me, rather than looking at my body… this flavour of freedom… is just as valid and important a choice as the freedom to go bare-legged and low cut. A truly progressive Western culture would respect both. But what European governments seem not to have grasped is that freedom to wear whatever little dress we like is not every woman’s idea of the zenith of personal emancipation.

The veil has been stereotyped by those who oppose it as an ‘explicit symbol of oppression towards the female gender’ and those who adopt it are accepting an unequal female status. Gender equality is particularly pertinent to these oppositional stances as those opposing the veil or the full burqa see it as a method of being shrouded in darkness, which leaves women engaged in such practices, literally and metaphorically as being invisible to the rest of society. This leads to veiling being perceived as means of silencing women and pushed into obscurity by men, leaving them invisible, mute and lacking in validity. However, since veiling can be said to suppress women it can be argued that this reductionism can offer instances of appreciation of a woman’s cognitive capacities, where instead of being judged by their looks and dress, which distracts and prevents men from appreciating their mind, non-revealing smart clothes worn by women can overcome this judgement of sexuality. The gender equality argument proceeds by situating gender against culture and religion on the basis of equality, liberalism and human rights and as these are fundamental values in Western societies, veiling is regarded as being incompatible with these values. The opposing arguments being that the choice exercised through veiling is emancipatory and equalises gender relations as opposed to patriarchal oppression.

The gaze aversion strategy may work in Islamic countries, but in Europe an opposite effect is being achieved as veiling is drawing more focus as women are constantly trying to detract attention to them by the practice. This is corroborated by research carried out by Shirazi and Mishra where 88 per cent of their respondents said ‘the niqab attracts more attention to the person wearing it rather than distracting the unwanted gaze of men, which is the main reason behind the concept of modesty in Islam’.290 Indeed this is culturally constructed but a veiled Muslim woman in an Islamic country attracts no attention to herself and the veil acts as a symbol of gaze aversion but in Europe that same veil draws immediate attention and is leading to an exponential increase in physical and verbal attacks thus achieving the reverse effect.

To some non-Muslims and some Muslims the veil itself is just a piece of cloth and no essential meaning could be derived from its simple materiality and lacks any universal signs of its legal or rational meaning. The veil itself does not oppress women and if it does then that is because the veil as symbolic marker is the symptom of a deeper cultural, social and economic discrepancies and power. The veil itself does not inhibit and demobilise women, but responses to the practice such as negative stereotyping or legal mandates or prohibitions to veiling do.

The veil itself has no agency and thus cannot subjugate women; it is the power of man and the patriarchal authority existing in some Muslim social structures that impose the veil on women that not only inhibits their agency but deprives them of the voice to speak out against the practice. Removing the veil by legally enforced mechanisms, as in France where full concealment of the face is prohibited under law and is a criminal offence misses the point that the veil is simply a symptom of oppression or a refusal to integrate with wider members of society, the disease lies at the use of that tool by man for his means which includes subjugation, seclusion, restricting the balance of power in social relations and controlling a woman’s sexuality.

It cannot be denied that women are forced to wear the veil against their will in Islamic regimes and some in European states. Though the coercion in Islamic states carries with it the force of law and in European states the force of patriarchy and for some women it would amount to oppression but the leap from that to stating the veil is inherently oppressive is quite a large one.

The veil gives meaning and identity and invisibility in some cases to the wearer, but independently it is just a piece of cloth. It gathers its meaning in a culturally and socially contextualised setting within a system of meaning and symbolism which cannot penetrate those who are not part of it. The purpose prescribed by the wearer regardless of its origin whether in Islamic law or not bears a cultural, religious and historical importance for the woman who chooses to wear it. These women find and express their identity through the performance of wearing the veil.

Most Westerners see the veil in their own lives and their own perceptions and do not understand it in a place and society that are unlike their own, or in their own society where a minority of women adopt it. Indeed in order to evaluate whether the veil is emancipatory or oppressive, it is imperative that it is established whether the practice is one that is imposed on Muslim women or if it is one that is a product of freedom and exercise of choice.

In order to analyse the relationship of veiling with choice it is important consider the defining features of freedom first, which in turn will help determine whether veiled women have a choice that is free willed.

Indeed the individual who is free to choose that what is in her/his best interest and has acquired individual rights has a reciprocal duty to ensure this does not interfere with another’s right to enjoy the same liberalism, this being the balancing exercise in adjudication of conflicting rights, a very good example being the right of Muslim women in France to wear the veil against the wider French majority who disagree with the practice. It is not about a particular good that an individual chooses but rather the ‘agency’ that is imperative to the individual, as that precedes any choice exercised by a free agent.

If a state was to enact a law that prohibited a woman from wearing a veil, then that would be interfering with her right to dress and manifest her religion as in the case of France, which has prohibited the full face covering in public, enforceable by a criminal penalty. It can be argued that the state can promote freedom of its citizens on their behalf and thus a question arises that is it appropriate for the state to limit someone’s freedom whilst attempting to promote the freedom of others?

The veil has been used as a tool of protest and resistance against not only colonial powers attempting to modernise and Westernise Muslim societies but also against forced unveiling by leaders of Muslim states.

The use of the veil as a form of resistance is still evident in current times where the motivations of some women who veil is to not only resist some Western norms such as mixing of the sexes, dating, frequenting pubs and clubs, but also to resist the modern stereotypes by the West.

Veiling as a form of resistance is not confined to opposing mandatory or prohibitory veiling regimes, but also acts as a form of resistance against commercial consumerism and modernity where self- imaging problems have become acute, cosmetic surgery is within reach of most, aggressive marketing of cosmetics and designer brands has become the norm.

There was an overarching exploration of censorship (in its many forms) throughout the film, in particular the negative impact that Cancel Cultural has had on innovation in art. By concluding the film with well-known mural artist Wetiko creating a mural of some of the featured artists involved in Nafada, we were able to demonstrate how broad the project's multi-arts vision was from the beginning, as well as highlight the variety of creative disciplines it took to help tell the story of Nafada. Looping back to the connection that the ending had to censorship overall — the creation of both the music and the film relied on a team of musicians, songwriters, performers, researchers, visual and tactile artists, graphic designers, costume designers, models, storytellers, activists, sound engineers, producers, parallel genre-artists, educators and ultimately any, and all, supporters of the arts. In terms of self-censorship, including Wetiko's mural creation at the end of the film, aimed to drive home the message that art begets art. And if the music and the film were either cancelled or in fact never made for fear of it, the world would have not just lost one art project, it would have lost them all.