Two more interesting entries on the debate over the acceptability of wearing the Hijab have surfaced today.
First, the Times columnist, Matthew Parriss, a former Tory MP, but quite a sensible bloke and worth listening to on many issues, has taken a trip to Sydney. Parriss is honest enough to talk about his gut reaction:
Just behind me was an Asian family. They looked pretty “Western”, if that is what you say in Australia. The two boys were in snazzy trainers, the father in smart-casual clothes: just an ordinary family on a day’s outing, clutching posters and souvenirs from their sightseeing. Except that the woman ‚Äî presumably the wife and mother ‚Äî was swathed in black from head to toe. The full veil covered her face so that only her eyes were visible.
Maybe this should not have struck me as remarkable. I see it often enough in Tower Hamlets. So I was surprised by my reaction to the full veil worn there. But my response was immediate, and reflexive. I thought: “This is completely unacceptable.”
I did not (and do not) mean “unacceptable” objectively ‚Äî anywhere in the world or at any time in history. I meant here, now, in Sydney; or in any 21st-century Western country whose history, outlook and ways of life are rooted in European thought. It jarred. Something about it offended a norm: not so much a norm of apparel ‚Äî exotic fashions come and go ‚Äî as a norm of openness and women’s rights.
Now, for all I knew, the woman had chosen to go out like this and would not have wanted to uncover her face; but still I felt it was not right in Sydney: not right for her and not right for the open society of which she was part. Whether or not she felt oppressed, the condition oppressed her and it should not be seen in the streets of a modern, liberal country. I realise that this sounds imperious but I record what I felt, and the feeling was strong.
I’ll come back to Parriss but I also want to discuss what Tim Dunlop has to say.
Elsewhere: Tim’s post now carries an endorsement from C.L., who’s previously expressed some interesting opinions about Islam.
Discussing an interview with an Australian Islamic woman by Denton in the context of Bishop’s and Panopolous’ calls for the Hijab to be banned in public schools, Tim writes:
Maha Shiyab may be abused for choosing to wear a hijab (veil) in Australia, but surely the point is that she does have the choice (Bronwyn Bishop notwithstanding). No such choice is extended to her in Saudi Arabia and I suspect the abuse she would receive there for not wearing it pales compared to that she received in Australia for choosing to wear it.
Obviously this all goes to the broader of question of being Muslim in a secular state like Australia, where religious adherence can be at odds with the constitutional and philosophical basis of the country; but this was all glossed over, as it so often is.
Tim has a lot more to say, but I’ll leave you to read his post for yourself.
I want to argue, however, that as usual, we’re prone to seeing Islam as some sort of monolithic bloc. There are many countries where the majority of citizens profess Islam as a faith which do not enforce any sort of legal restriction on clothing. Indonesia, for one. And some which ban Islamic dress in public places - Turkey for instance. We should not make the mistake of conflating religion with culture. I’d strongly suggest that people who are concerned with this issue do some more research on the status of women within Islam, and Islamic feminist movements. The links at Dervish might be a good place to start. Though I am totally opposed to any form of sexism, I think it’s too sweeping to say Islam per se subordinates women. The same could have been said of Christianity a century ago, and can be said of some forms of Christianity today. There’s a huge element of culture in this subordination as well - and incidentally there’s nothing in the Qur’an about wearing the Hijab per se - just an injunction that women dress modestly. You’ll find similar things in St. Paul. Some Berber tribes from North Africa in the Middle Ages had unveiled women and veiled men. Women have more freedoms and a higher status in some Islamic countries than in others.
Political Islam, as the French sociologists Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy (incidentally - both of whom receive positive reviews in conservative journals such as Foreign Affairs) emerged in Egypt in the 1960s as a reaction to failed modernisation strategies - of a Marxist and secular Arab nationalist variety (think Nasserism and the early Ba’ath Party). It was given a particular impetus by the defeat of Egypt by Israel in 1967. Fundamentalisms of any stripe are also vehicles of modernisation, rather than reversions to premodernity. Such is their attractiveness to many middle class educated people - particularly those with a technical/scientific education. The suggestion is that cultural defiance, as Tim puts it, is a path to a different form of modernisation than that of the West. In the process, cultural norms are hardened and are conflated with religious norms. As these scholars and many others have noted, the Islamist rhetoric is little more than a patina hiding or veiling a cultural politics. Political Islamists are contemptuous of the traditions of Islamic scholarship and Qur’anic interpretation. Shi’ite movements are somewhat different, but it’s largely the Sunni varieties of Political Islamism (of almost exclusively Wahhabist lineage) which are confronting the West.
Now if this struggle is to a large degree cultural - and the reaction of second generation immigrants to British or French culture is more evidence that it is - the sources of reform must come from within Islamic communities. Attempts by diktat to impose selectively cultural norms on such communities only harden the phenomena and the mindset they seek to address. To return to Parriss, I got a bit of a culture shock the first time I went to East St. Kilda and saw large numbers of Orthodox Jews on the street with their distinctive black clothes, ringlets and hats. And another one in Footscray where most people were Vietnamese Australians, and I had difficulty buying something from a shop. But no-one, as far as I know, is suggesting that Orthodox Jewish men are oppressed by their clothing customs, and are being unAustralian by sticking to an archaic form of dress, or that every sign in a shop in Footscray must be in English. I think the motif that’s coming out in these debates in Australia, and also needs unveiling and calling by its name is the perennial Australian theme of cultural assimilation.
Parriss goes on to write:
Few would on reflection maintain that a society like ours should have no place for cultural variety, or be unprepared to tolerate any beliefs and practices that run against the mainstream. Most of us are not Roman Catholics but few object to a Catholic wanting to eat fish on a Friday; or to a Muslim wanting to fast at Ramadan; or to an Orthodox Jew wearing the yarmulke. And how people worship in their own places of worship strikes most of us as entirely a matter for them.
But when it comes to the translation of religion or culture into the way daily life is lived among others who do not share the faith, we must stop professing a multiculturalism which, after but a few seconds’ thought, we should admit that few would advocate. Who seriously suggests that British matrimonial law should have any place for those who want to take more than one wife? How often is the multicultural case for female circumcision heard? Does anyone think that cultural tolerance requires us to suspend our judgment (or the law) where a minority culture objects to the equal education of girls?
The moment such questions are asked, the answer is obvious. Britain has a dominant culture which is permissive of other cultures only up to a point. What we call “multiculturalism” is better described as liberalism, and is itself a set of cultural norms. I subscribe to them. And I know they place unspoken limits on tolerance.
I suspect we are now being forced to confront that, and adjusting our attitudes.
Indeed. There are limits. But where are those lines drawn? The French have banned the wearing of the Hijab in public schools. As with Turkey, this is a reaction to a particular tradition - the anti-clericalism of universalist French republicanism in one case, and a reaction against the Ottoman experience and a belief that secularism and modernity go together in the other. The French experiment has been unsuccessful. It’s contributed to a defensive hardening of cultural boundaries among the large French Muslim population, and reinforced Ghetto walls. It makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that indigenous French terrorism will grow.
Neither Panopolous nor Bishop are noted for their feminist records. One has to suspect that some other motive than the new found right wing respect for the rights of women is at work here. But let’s set that aside and discuss the points that Parriss and Dunlop make seriously.
For a start, customs like polygamy and arranged marriage and indeed female genital mutilation are cultural rather than religious. All are found across cultures and religions. Any reader of Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot or William Thackeray will know that arranged marriages were de rigeur for the British upper classes in the Nineteenth Century. Readers of the latter three will see that from the 1860s onwards, a cultural shift was underway.
In a liberal society, limits have to exist. Harmful customs such as polygamy and female genital mutilation ought to be prohibited by law. Neither sectarian Mormons from Utah nor Nigerian animists ought to be allowed to claim culture as a defence in Australia. But things like dress codes and arranged marriages ought to be allowed either to disappear or to shift their meanings through cultural change.
As an activist in the late 80s and early 90s, I had much experience of working with both Indigenous people in their struggles and feminists in theirs. Both were insistent that they welcomed support but that the driving force of self-liberation and emancipation had to come from Indigenous people and women themselves. The same applies with regard to Islamic women, where the practices which many of us find odd, strange or objectionable are not those which should be prohibited by law.
What Tim, and Matthew Parriss are missing is an internal struggle within Islam other than that between “moderates” and “radicals” - Islamic feminism - which is quite strong and getting stronger. In many ways, as I’ve been arguing, modernity is just hitting many Islamic countries and the story of the next few decades (and it’s a good one) will be the social change that comes from the self-empowerment of women in Eastern cultures.
Empowered Islamic women may not act exactly like, or dress like their Western sisters. But I’d urge people to attend to their voices in these conversations and not allow this to become a debate from within the dominant culture between Left and Right. Such as this from Salma Yaqoob - and note particularly the first paragraph of what I’ve excerpted:
The real emancipation of Muslim women can of course only come from themselves. In practice the voice of Muslim women themselves — in all their diversity — has to be heard. We have to get past the simple caricatures of the passive victim or aggressive fundamentalist. We have to recognise that while the road to female emancipation in the West has taken the route of the right to not be covered in response to the rigid expectations placed on women historically in terms of dress and societal roles, many women may choose to liberate themselves in different ways, and just because the trajectory of their resistance to oppression is different, it does not make it any less legitimate or significant.
For many Muslim women wearing the hijab is an expression of Islamic notions of women’s empowerment. “Hijab” actually is a whole concept relating to the interaction of men and women, not just an item of clothing to cover the head or body. The hijab is not about the denial of female (or male) sexuality. Quite the opposite. I think sexual attraction between men and women is part of human nature and natural. The concept of hijab actually denotes a code of behaviour between the sexes that both acknowledges that fact and encourages a mutually respectful interaction between men and women. “Hijab” literally means “barrier”. It flows from the emphasis on marriage in Islam — the Qur’an describes a husband and wife as each other’s “garments” — giving each other intimacy, warmth and protection. The idea of hijab is to maintain the exclusivity of that relationship, such that the degree of physical intimacy and exposure is limited in all other interactions between men and women. In this way the aim of hijab is to deemphasise sexuality in public interactions, whilst encouraging sexuality in private ones.
It is important to remember that whilst the hijab has recently been associated exclusively with Islam, the idea of modest attire for men and women is referred to in the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as well as many other religious and cultural traditions (e.g. Sikhism and Rastafarianism). In many parts of the world, from villages in Italy to Indian suburbs women cover themselves in similar ways that Muslim women do.
For many Muslim women wearing the hijab marks a rejection of a world where women have to endure objectification as sex objects. It helps them to enjoy a sense of their own (special) privacy and personhood. For me, the wearing of the hijab denotes that as a woman I expect to be treated as an equal in terms of my intellect and personality and my appearance is relevant only to the degree that I want it to be, when I want it to be.
Tim’s quite right to see that the negotiation of values and limits within a liberal society is always at issue, and particularly so when the sense of cultural difference is stronger among the constituent populations of such a society. However, we should be wary of assimilationist urges. And if we want to give support to Islamic feminists (and we should), we should allow them to speak for themselves, and listen to what they have to say. And we should avoid issues of cultural difference being turned into political footballs in the partisan debate among “us”.
You’re trying to be an apologist for Islam at a time when even other lefties like Tim Dunlop are beginning to grasp the reality. There is no future in this course.
I think your definitions of “cultural” versus “religious” customs are very slippery ones that you make up as you go along. You seek to excuse Islam by arbitrarily dumping all of its disagreeable characteristics into the “cultural” bucket, thus in your imagination dissociating Islamic customs from Islam itself.
The Koran specifies explicitly, several times, that the value of a woman is half the value of a man. How can you claim with a straight face that Islam is not inherently oppressive to women.
Your quote from Parriss:
This is an old and often-argued radical criticism of multiculturalism: that the policy is designed to contain, ossify and limit the participation of non-mainstream citizens. Ghassan Hage’s White Nation, Jon Stratton’s Race Daze and anything by Andrew Jacubowicz are worth reading for this argument.
Incidentally, I think Parriss’ statement is inaccurate. There are many different kinds of multiculturalism, from liberal multiculturalism in which the State does as far as possible nothing, to radical multiculturalism which is meant to get rid of the ‘norms’ which oppress.
Still waiting for the definitive post on this, Liam
So’s my supervisor, the History Department, the Arts Faculty and the Department of Education.
Good post, Mark, very thoughtful.
I don’t have much to add except that, yet again, I hardly see how making life difficult for Muslim teenage girls would either keep Australia safe and secular or further the cause of Muslim feminism.
I had a similiar surprise to Parriss several years ago in Canberra when while out shopping I saw a woman covered head to foot and veiled. I’m not sure why I was surprised but when I saw her and her husband giggling and holding hands I realised that this wasn’t an oppressed woman, this was a woman who chooses to dress this way for reasons of her own. While some women choose to wear tight clothing and draw attention to themselves, and others try to hide behind baggy t-shirts she sidestepped it all and covered herself completely. She could have been wearing trakkies underneath it all for all I knew. In a way strangely liberating I think.
EP:
Do you mean that
?
EP, I think Mark loves pariss in the springtime!
Well in two days time.
EP, it’s very true that there’s a large amount of disagreement between me and Tim. I’ve explored that on his thread.
The reason why I mention Christianity, and Homer can help us out with the reference to where St. Paul says women should be subordinated to their husbands, is that you are reading the Qur’an like a fundamentalist - in the same way that Political Islamists do - selectively, ahistorically and without resolving contradictions. You’re ascribing an essence and a lack of change to Islam, ignoring the fact that Christianity has changed, and many Christians have revalued the feminine within a religious context.
The biggest mistake made by the West in all this is to fall into Bin Laden’s trap of seeing all this under the guise of religion. Rather than seeing terrorism as having secular causes, people run around the shop pontificating that x or y “inheres” in Islam. If anything would be calculated to give rise to terrorism in Australia, it’s a bunch of Ministers and backbenchers and newspapers ranting everyday about the various evils of Islam, telling people how they should act and dress, and telling people to “clear off”.
How would you feel if you were a young Australian Muslim in the face of all this invective?
All it does is harden boundaries and foster hate, and it’s the exact opposite of any viable strategy for community integration.
My other comment, EP, is that it’s astounding that you are so concerned about the subordination of women in Middle Eastern cultures, but think at the same time that feminism in ours is the source of all evil. Perhaps you could clarify that?
My hope is that women will be sufficiently empowered in Islamic cultures over the next couple of decades that you’ll be able to rant about sperm theft in that context. No doubt you’re looking forward to that.
“The French experiment has been unsuccessful. It‚Äôs contributed to a defensive hardening of cultural boundaries among the large French Muslim population, and reinforced Ghetto walls. It makes it more likely, rather than less likely, that indigenous French terrorism will grow.”
Can’t quite agree here Mark. More likely to lead to malcontent, community dysfunction, and other pathologies of the marginalised. As Ive said before, on the clash of civilisations thesis, one would expect France to be front line.
Yet it isnt. I suspect France will remain the strong evidence that Western foreign policy, rather than the hallucinated spectre of intercultural conflict, is the prime motivator of middle-Eastern terrorist cells.
No mark,
The wife isn’t subordinate to the husband.
Think of Jesus as being equal to god but only doing his father’s work.
It is best summed up by Paul in ephesians 5: 21-30.
The husband is the head of the wife but he has to love her as Christ loved the church.
Hard for the wife even harder for the husband.
Homer, well, I think that goes to prove my point - I deliberately couched my reading of Paul in the same language that EP and others are now using about Islam.
Those who trawl the Qur’an for passages they can read as misogynist or encouraging violence are the mirrors of Bin Laden - he does exactly the same - takes scripture and strips away its traditional interpretation in order to justify his cultural and political goals.
Lefty E, yes, I agree largely, but I doubt that the way these things come together on the ground it’s at all helpful for the French.
Actually the French example demonstrates the limits of strict integrationist policy. The French have demanded that immigrants either integrate to the secular norms of the majority, or be excluded from participatory citizenship. In Australia, Britain, Canada and—to some extent—the USA, such hard assumptions were dumped thirty or thirty-five years ago, when the public servants who actually ran the State figured out that it just wasn’t working.
Jean Martin’s The Migrant Presence in 1972 was an ANU-sponsored study of the way Australian society reached out, or didn’t reach out, to immigrants. She concluded that it didn’t in any significant way. We figured out that that to deal with mass immigration we needed to have a diversity of ‘Australian’ values, and a State capable of dealing with different needs. The French still haven’t quite gotten to the point of accepting that there’s more than one way to be French.
Mark,
Try attempting to prove you have been raped under Islamic law.
you need I think 4 men to back you up otherwise you can be done for adultery.
Yes, it seems the whole debate is increasingly hijacked on both sides by fundo literalists, and we should be marginalising all of them in the interests of durable solutions. Secularism has halted this kind of b*llshit before, and I say bring it on.
Go orn, all of yz! back to yer prayer mats and yer pews or whatever and Render unto Caesar.
Another proposal: Western comment on these issues should be limited to those born *once* (with reported, possibly apocryphal apologies to Colin Powell).
Islamic law or Sharia law? I think it depends which country you are in Homer, and lets not pretend that women have it much easier in western countries either. Get up on the stand, have your past history trawled over, have the number of boyfriends you’ve had thrown back at you like it makes you a slut, defence council claiming you dressed improperly and asked for it, that no means yes sometimes etc etc.
What Sinistro said. Will no one rid us of these troublesome priests?
The French never will Liam: its Jacobite centralism, reinforced by a solid does of civic republicanism a la Rousseau. They aren’t political liberals like ‘we Anglos’; the French republican model empahsises active rather than passive citizenship, and therefore requires that the citizen come to the public sphere as one capable of participating in the articualtion of a common good - ie as French, without other visible loyalties. Hence no hijab in public, do what you like back home.
Whereas in British liberalism the citizen is essentially passive and private, pursuing their own goals in the private sphere. So long as you vote once every so often & obey the law its not really the state’s business what you look like or worship.
Quite, LE, quite. The French model has a lot of advantages, as you point out. Dealing with minority groups with geunine needs and grievances isn’t one of them.
It’s an often forgotten point that the French obsession with secularism is meant to prevent majority religions from imposing on the citizenry, not minority ones. Aggressive secularism is a weapon against the Catholics.
Oh, and if you call me a political liberal again, I’ll have your legs broken.
As if a bloke called Liam Hogan is included in ‘We Anglos’!
Chocky ar la!
Jean Martin - there’s a name I know. There’s an award named in her honour for best PhD thesis in sociology.
Mindy,
it actually happens in Pakistan.
Homer, I’m not denying it happens, I’m just suggesting that it’s not universal across all Muslim countries, just as experiences for rape victims in Western countries are often, but not always, more horrific than the original crime.
”Aggressive secularism is a weapon against the Catholics.”
Quite so Liam, and a great source of Les Rosbif humour about the sanctity of French marriage vows.
I recall a driving trip from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain. My father-in-law was driving at the time. When we reached the Bahrain border checkpoint, which exists half way along the causeway joining to two countries, the border guard stuck his head in the window, smiled and said to my mother-in-law.
“You’re in Bahrain now, so you can drive”
Our 12-month journey around the Middle East stays with me as being one of the greatest experiences of my life.
The EP’s of the world, with their ill informed ideological driven bigotry, should be ignored.
On EP’s point at the top of the thread, Tim Dunlop’s views on Islam for a long time, in my opinion, have been pretty much in line with the right wing view. Now he finds himself with a cheer squad of observa, EP, and some loony who wants to bomb Iran. I hope he has a rethink - his attitudes seem very stereotypical to me though I don’t doubt his motives and seriousness of intention.
Kim, I agree with 90% of what Tim Dunlop writes, but greatly disagree with his stance on Islam.
The beauty of the left blogasphere, is that such divergent views are tolerated, and explored - unlike what happens on the right.
The right is a collective, with no room to move on any subject. Could you imagine Tim Blair relaxing his views on Islam? His poor bat-winged monkeys would panic and start flying into each other!
When we reached the Bahrain border checkpoint, which exists half way along the causeway joining to two countries, the border guard stuck his head in the window, smiled and said to my mother-in-law.
“You‚Äôre in Bahrain now, so you can drive”
So you’ve personally experienced Muslim oppression of women (in the form of restrictions on driving), yet the intensity of your brainwashing is such that you can deny it almost in the same breath with which you’ve recounted it.
This is one of the best examples of leftist doublethink I’ve seen. Scary that a person who appears intelligent on the surface can have such irrationality within.
Dunlop’s post is food for thought, and I agree with some of what he writes, and less with other parts. I need to read it again more carefully of course.
What Mindy says is true; disbelief of rape is hardly a phenomenon limited to Muslim countries.
My other comment, EP, is that it’s astounding that you are so concerned about the subordination of women in Middle Eastern cultures, but think at the same time that feminism in ours is the source of all evil. Perhaps you could clarify that?
It’s only astounding to you because of the false assumptions that underlie your own views.
Feminism supports only rights for women, and wants women to have more rights than men. Therefore, feminism is opposed to the oppression of women, and supports the oppression of men.
I support equal rights for all people, regardless of gender. Therefore, I am opposed to the oppression of women and opposed to the oppression of men.
I saw a woman covered head to foot and veiled. I’m not sure why I was surprised but when I saw her and her husband giggling and holding hands I realised that this wasn’t an oppressed woman, this was a woman who chooses to dress this way for reasons of her own.
One woman and her husband are observed sharing a laugh for a passing moment, therefore Islam doesn’t oppress women.
Where were you when the patriarchy needed you?
You’re setting up false arguments, EP. It’s either “be completely Westernised” or “be oppressed” to you, isn’t it?
That’s an unhelpful dichotomy and one that does no-one any favours.
Where am I setting up this alleged dichotomy, Kate?
A culture that requires women to cover themselves head-to-toe in a sack whenever they go out is oppressive to women in general, regardless of whether or not a few individual women prefer the sack.
It doesn’t take much to be acceptable in the West — Chinese, Italians, Africans and Vietnamese manage to do it without losing their language or their traditions.
The difference is that Islamists expect us to conform to their customs after we’ve generously allowed them to settle in our country. This is just not on.
It’s time to sort out the sheep from the goats. Those Muslims who are prepared to live like Australians, as have all previous generations of migrants, can stay and be welcome. The rest can, to coin a phrase, “clear off”.
EP, the extent of your brainwashing is laid bare by the fact that you completely missed the point. Saudi Arabia is a highly conservative Islamic country as I eluded to. However, a stone throw away (literally) things couldn’t be more different.
My point was not to defend an oppressive theocracy, merely to point out that Islam means many things to many people, and shouldn’t be used as a means to labelling the motives of 1 billion people.
Nothing personal by the way.
So how does forcing 15 year old girls not to wear the hijab make anyone more a part of Australia?
It’s further oppressing the people — Islamic women — we should be doing our goddamned best to support.
Meanwhile, EP, do you agree that
- or not?
You’ve had a go at addressing everyone else’s questions about your position. How about this one?
Bit puzzled by Mark’s vehemence here and over at Surfdom. Radical Islam is associated with terrorism and is therefore a worry, says Tim D. Ermmm, well, yes……?
Is it the ‘give them (the right) an inch and they’ll steal a mile’ kind of thing?
Rushdie was impressive as always.
Bill Posters, your childish attempt to bait me with a quote from Hitler has been noted and discarded.
Kate, in the short term, many Muslim girls are under strong pressure from fundamentalists to conform to “proper” standards of Islamic dress. Banning hijab — which I have not claimed either to support or oppose — can give them the means to resist such pressure.
In the longer term, anything which prevents fundamentalist Islam from prospering is good for women.
Rob, my passion on this question comes from two things - one is that I’ve done postgraduate studies in theology and studies in religion - starting in 1995 - and one of my key areas of research is comparative religion and the sociology of religion and politics - an area in which I’ve published and have unpublished stuff on the go and have been actively researching since 1999. I’m not doing an appeal to authority, but it does make me aware of two things - the absolute ignorance of too many comments about Islam and how much the debate about the causes of terrorism has shifted (on the left as much as the right - witness Tim D.) since around 2002.
Secondly, I passionately believe by seeing all these issues through a religious frame we are damaging our own social cohesion and the necessary response to terrorism.
There is also a lot of sloppy causal thinking about - which simple logic ought to suggest is wrong.
I haven’t time to comment further on this post as I have some consultancy work to do tonight and I’ll be at Uni working all day tomorrow. However, I believe I’ve sufficiently clarified my position here and at Tim’s place.
By the way, for some odd reason, when I go to Tim’s thread via the link here I don’t get the most up to date comments. Even pressing refresh over there doesn’t work. I suggest people who want to follow Tim’s thread go to the front page of Surfdom.
I also endorse David’s point about the difference in position among left bloggers being something of a contrast to that of RWDB bloggers.
Following Mark’s point, I want to repost here what I just said at Tim’s, Rob, to let you know why some of us are unafraid of passionate discourse on this subject:
You tell ‘em, Kim.
How dare those uppity nig white males express an opinion without your prior approval!
Kim, you are the queen of the attack commenters! Forcibly put! While you’re around, there is certainly accountability in the ’sphere - hard logic combined with passion.
Evil’s got the rights of it.
Tim needs to understand there is none so vilified as the leftie who steps out of line. No revisionist nonsense here, mate (or there), for fear of the Rottweiler Kimsquadrons and the famous Barnisch execution squad, complete with Prussian hats.
Oh dear, Rob, either we’re a collectivist hive mind, or Tim and I disagree, and we’re a collectivist hive mind.
NB - Rob, I’m not saying I agree with all of Kim’s comment, I’m just admiring her writing and her logic.
Ummm, whatever.
The C.L. echo squad tag team agrees with Tim D, Rob.
What’s your point, anyway, Rob, that Kim and I shouldn’t write passionately about what we believe in because Tim’s a leftie? Or that any disagreement between lefties is some sort of attempt to crack the whip? Wake up and smell the roses, we don’t tend to hold back on vigorous argument here at LP, and there are lots of things lefties disagree on. I’ll just speak for myself, though Kim’s comment suggests that she feels strongly about these issues too, but this is something I feel passionately about.
We’re not all just partisans or contrarians, you know.
Sock it to em Kim.
Perhaps that discovery of oppressed Islamic women can be expressed as a variation of an old saying, ie the ad nauseam RW dichotomy of late:
It is in fact the EP homily:
A feminist bird in the hand is worth more than killing two ‘wogs’ with Bush.
(All copyright to above homily to subsist entirely and exclusively with RWDBs)
How unlike you to play the man and not with the balls.
EP, that’s BS and you know it. Hijab (meaning modest dress) is not just a part of fundie Islam — many Muslim feminists wear the headscarf proudly. It’s not up to you to decide what an appropriate symbol of someone’s religion is, and when and where they can wear it, unless you’re a fascist.
How the hell does it hurt you when a 15 year old girl wears a headscarf to school? It doesn’t hurt you or anyone else. But it would hurt her to force her to break her cultural traditions of modesty and enforce YOUR ideas about what liberation really means.
If you forced me to walk around with no shirt on because it conformed to your ideas about liberation than I wouldn’t want to be part of your liberated world, do you understand?
You’re not giving anyone help. You are FORCING them to do something. FORCING them. I thought you were a libertarian and didn’t agree with government enforcement of such things? Obviously you’re exempt, unlike young Muslim women.
Yeah, conditions are awful for many women in Muslim countries. For most of these women I’d argue that the choice of whether or not to wear the headscarf is a pretty minor deal. Let’s focus on women getting the vote, having freedom from violence, being freed from enforced marriage. Let’s talk about rape laws and FMG. And then let the women make up their own minds to what extent they want to follow their religion.
But banning the headscarf in schools in Australia? Absolute stupidity that does nothing but make YOU feel like something is being done.
Luckily, of course, it’s not actually on the cards.
Large sections of Islam, Judaism and Christianity supress women. Hopefully people will get over the whole “god” thing, or at least remove the patriarchal organisations that form most structured religions, and we can have a bit of enlightenment around the place.
If you forced me to walk around with no shirt on because it conformed to your ideas about liberation than I wouldn’t want to be part of your liberated world, do you understand?
In a way, that’s the point.
If they don’t feel comfortable in a non-Islamic society, then they should go and live in a country where there is an Islamic society.
Just for the record, I don’t favour banning the hijab at school. I do, however, support banning the fully-covering burkha in public.
How pat.
Well, EP, there are many aspects of contemporary Australia I don’t like. I’m not leaving just because I don’t feel comfortable with certain things. Why should someone who was born in Australia do that because YOU don’t like the way they dress?
Ban the burqa eh? And what punishment would you enact towards someone who wore the burqa? A stoning, perhaps?
Any other clothing you’d deem unacceptable, eh? Che Guevera t-shirts? Jewish skull-caps? Where do you draw the line?
You’re becoming the very thing you claim to despise — a nanny-stater who makes people’s choices for them.
I’m no fan of the burqa but it should be a woman’s choice whether or not she wears it. Not yours, not her husband’s, not her father’s, not the government’s — hers.
So, Kate, what about public nudity? Should our society allow people to wear nothing at all, anytime they please?
The fact is that we do draw a line as to acceptable clothing in Australia. Nudity in public places is punishable by arrest and fine and/or imprisonment.
Likewise, wearing a full-coverage burkha has no place in our society, and should face similar penalties.
Hijabs are no worse than hats, but full-body-and-face covering is alienating and can conceal criminal activities as well.
Alienating for whom? What criminal activities? Attending fancy dress parties? This is a ridiculous argument. Let people wear whatever the fuck they want.
For a start, hijab isn’t the headscarf, hijab is the concept of modesty. Look it up.
Secondly, comparing nudity and the burqa is just silly. Why? Because the taboo against public nudity is very similar to the reasoning behind the burqa. Public nudity is seen as excessively sexual, in the same way that revealing parts of a woman’s body is cnsidered excessively sexual by those who believe in wearing the burqa. Regardless of what one thinks of such ideas, putting on more clothes is not the same as removing them, in anyone’s eyes, and you really can’t argue that it is. I know you think you can, but seriously, no.
As an aside, I think the risk of running into a naked man with an erection in a public place, say, is going to be far more disturbing to just about everyone than a woman wearing a burqa in a public place.
I suppose then, since clothing that covers one up is so damned dangerous, you’ll be agitating to make balaclavas illegal, as well as my large overcoat I wear when it’s cold, or the scarf I sometimes wrap around much of my face in similar conditions.
What about a nun in full-on Catholic regalia? You can’t see much of her except her face. She could be carring anything under there!
”and can conceal criminal activities as well.” [send out for more party pies Fyodor]
When you’re in a hole, stop digging EP, that statement is exactly what Fred Nile said.
Shit, all those motorcyclists with leather jackets and full covering from toe to top will be concealing criminal activities even WORSE than the burqa as you can’t even see the eyes.
Ever seen the criminological data for female crime EP?
It alienates EP and other fear mongers because, guess what, they don’t understand anything about Muslims.
There’s a reason motorcyclists aren’t allowed to wear their helmets in banks, Peter.
And if you want evidence of criminal activity, you only need to look at the number of female terrorists wearing burkhas with explosives underneath, who have participated in attacks in Israel and Russia.
You’re entitled to your stupidity and ignorance, Peter, but you’re not entitled to endanger the rest of society for the sake of your prejudices.
So ”terrorism” per Israel and Russia is here now in Australia EP is that it?
And explosive vests ALWAYS need a burqua do they? EP: specialist in Semtex and C4 equipped Muslims.
You’re entitled to dig the hole you’re in deeper, for the sake of blind hatred of Muslims EP.
So ”terrorism” per Israel and Russia are here now in Australia EP is that it?
And explosive vests ALWAYS need a burqua do they? EP: specialist in Semtex and C4 equipped Muslims.
You’re entitled to dig the hole you’re in deeper, for the sake of blind hatred of Muslims EP.
Test
So ”terrorism” per Israel and Russia are here now in Australia EP is that it?
And explosive vests ALWAYS need a burqua do they? EP: specialist in Semtex and C4.
You’re entitled to dig the hole you’re in deeper, for the sake of hatred of Muslims EP?
EP for Extra Protection
Specialist in Muslim women equipped C4 and Semtex.
Official Burqua stripper and full cavity searches.
Hatred of Muslims: A Specialty.
EP for Extra Protection
Specialist in Muslim women equipped C4 and Semtex.
Official Burqua stripper and full cavity searches.
Extreme Prejudice towards Muslims: A Specialty.
Nothing longer than a sentence gets through Mark.
You have the right I suppose to dig your hate filled hole deeper EP.
You are also saying a burqa is a must for an explosive belt. Are you an expert on C4 and Semtex?
I don’t see how banning the burqa is going to help combat terrorism - if that’s the intent. As I understand it, Al Qaida training manuals instruct propsective terrorists to mimimise their ‘Islamic’ appearance, to the extent of shaving off their beards. It’s true that in Israel and Russia have had experience of female terrorists concealing explosives in their burqas, but there are plenty of other ways of doing it. Banning the burqa would surely just exacerbate Muslims’ sense of victimhood and persecution and push them towards the extremist path.
I read somewhere recently that Italy has done it, though. Be interested in the rationale.
Israeli and Russian terrorism are with us now EP?
Oh no–it will come says the EP argument.
That’s exacerbated because of people like EP, Bronwyn Bishop et al who want to stamp all over innocent people now. (not to mention the USAF in Iraq)
Doing sumthink for Orstralia: Fixen ‘em roight up!
Ergo: The useful idiots of Howard’s foreign policy.
Parts of Belgium have also banned the burkha.
There’s no reason why any group of Australians without gross deformities need to totally mask their faces in public. If Islamists want to do that, they should live in countries where such masking is accepted.
The useful idiots of Islamic fundamentalism should understand that some cultural practices have no place in an open society.
Neither does banning what people can wear.
Just sayin’, EP, if we’re an open society we should allow women to wear anything from miniskirts to burqas. Otherwise we no longer deserve the title of ‘open society’.
Apparently (according to the BBC), Italy has had laws in place since the 1970s making it illegal to cover your face in public - an anti-terrorism strategy stemming from the days of the Red Brigades. This burqa ban is an extension of that.
Just sayin’, EP, if we’re an open society we should allow women to wear anything from miniskirts to burqas.
We should also allow them to wear nothing at all.
But we don’t, and therefore your argument fails.
Public nudity is