Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label veiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label veiling. Show all posts
Azar Majedi republishes a 2016 piece on the burqini.  

The decision by a few mayors in France to ban burqini has brought the issue of the veil to the fore. The discussions and debates around this issue, regardless of the political position of the participants, both in main stream and social media, too often start from false premises. Starting points of the defender of the bans are “values of secularism, French values or the question of security.” Those who oppose the ban mainly base their argument on “Islamophobia” and “cultural imperialism.” The question of women’s rights, equality and freedom is also discussed but as a secondary issue. I believe that these premises are false and do not help to reach a progressive position; a position which takes into consideration the respect for civil rights, rejects discrimination among citizens as well as women’s rights. In this article we try to deal with these issues and try to establish a progressive and egalitarian position. 

The Veil 

The veil comes in different shapes and forms, scarf, full cover (chador), burqa, niqab and the new fashion burqini. Islamic movement in the past 4 decades have tried with all its might to spread the veil in any society under Islam or in “Moslem” communities. The veil has become the banner of the Islamic movement. Any place the Islamists gain power they force the veil on women and punish severely those who refuse to wear it. Iran after the defeat of the 1979 revolution was the first country where the veil became an important issue of clash and protest by the women’s liberation movement, the left and anti-Islamist trends in the society as a whole. 

Still after 37 years the issue of the veil is top on the agenda of both the Islamic regime and women’s liberation movement. Every year the Islamic regime unleashes its brutal forces on women and women refuse to veil themselves as it is prescribed by the regime. Indeed the ever-changing and innovative veil “fashion” by women in Iran is an effective form of protest which ridicules the Islamic veil and it is a testimony to the regime’s failure to subdue women into the darkness. Now we observe that in Turkey after the coup d’état the same situation is unfolding. The veil is not only the banner of the reactionary Islamic movement, but also the symbol and tool of women’s oppression. Any progressive and the left movement must understand the real characteristic of the veil and oppose it. However, does this opposing view mean we should ban the veil or defend the law to ban it? 

Legal vs. political 

The fight against the veil could mainly take two forms, political or legal. Even though we do not completely reject the legal process, but the political one should be our main route to oppose the veil. To focus on the legal process, it is in fact destructive and it is usually doomed to fail. On the other hand to totally reject the legal process is wrong as it fails to see the role of law and political power in implementing progressive changes in society. 

Let’s elaborate on these points. For example banning the veil for underage girls is an essential aspect of protecting children’s rights. Thus, when it regards the protection of children against abuse legal power plays a decisive role. This is to recognise the oppressive role of the veil and to declare that the veil is a tool of women’s oppression. By banning the veil for underage girls we try to diminish the abusive impacts of the veil in particular and religion in general on children. This is an important step toward protecting children from abuse. We should not shy away from expressing our view on the veil fearing from siding with racists or disrespecting people’s right to freedom of religion and expression. 

Respecting unconditional freedom of expression or beliefs does not mean to respect the beliefs themselves or to respect the content and form of expression. As progressive left, as communists, as freedom-loving and egalitarian tendencies, we must respect the right of any individual to believe in any religion and to practice it, but equally we should not respect the religion or beliefs that do not respect women’s equality and freedom, spread and reinforce superstitions, do not respect children’s rights etc. 

However, as it regards adult women, they should be free to choose whether to observe the veil. Here we need to respect their right to freedom of religion and expression. It is true that in some situations women are forced to observe the veil, but imposing a blanket ban on the veil in order to assist those women who wear the veil unwillingly, we risk creating a diversion in our struggle for women’s rights and against misogyny and the destructive role of religion. 

We must also take this point into consideration that in the past decades, in the absence of a strong Marxist and left movement to take a strong position against both poles of terrorism, i.e. state terrorism and Islamic terrorism and to mobilise the third pole, the Islamists have managed to portray their fight against state terrorism as a just “anti imperialist” struggle. The brutal attack on Iraq in 2003, the constant expansion of Israel in the occupied territories and its brutality against the Palestinians, and recently the intervention of NATO in Libya and bringing to power tribal Islamists there and bombing of Syria and the increasing discrimination against and stigmatisation of Moslems in the West have led many women in Moslem communities to wear the veil as a sign of political opposition and protest against the Western powers and Israel. This political choice should not and cannot be dealt with by legal means. Any repression of this freedom can only provoke a political reaction which has an adverse effect. Working toward creating and mobilising a progressive alternative is the only positive and effective solution to this problem. 

Cultural Imperialism

By this argument we arrive at this totally false concept. What is cultural imperialism? Cultural imperialism has long been used by nationalist movements of the developing countries to silence the left progressive movements. Fighting against colonialism has been extended to the spheres of culture or political values that have originated in the West. For example, women’s rights and freedom in many of the former colonies and countries under the rule of Islam are identified as cultural imperialism. Many left populist tendencies have also joined this reactionary attack on freedom and equality, or have apologetically defended the reactionary nationalist, or Islamist movements. In Iran, women’s liberation movement was at first mainly attacked by resorting to this ideological battle. The Islamic regime tried to impose the veil, gender apartheid and complete misogynist rules and traditions on the society by calling women’s rights cultural imperialism and the populist left was disarmed in the face of this ideological attack, as they, too, regarded adherence to so-called western values as cultural imperialist. Therefore, Women’s liberation movement in Iran had to fight against both the forced imposition of the veil and anti-women Islamic laws and traditions and against the populist left. Worker-communism succeeded in discrediting these ideological falsifications and distortions. As a result one does not hear these arguments among the Iranian left and women’s liberation movement any longer. 

However, this point of view is alive and kicking among the international left, particularly the nationalist populist left of the developing countries. During the past week this concept has appeared often in opposing the ban of burqini in France. A very telling historical example of dominance of cultural imperialism in similar discourses is Algeria, where after the end of independence war women’s situation deteriorated considerably in the society and Islamic values and traditions gained the upper hand.

Islamophobia 

Another false ideological concept that has appeared in the past decade is Islamophobia which has had a negative and reactionary effect on our struggle for women’s equality and freedom and for progressive values. What is Islamophobia? Let’s dissect this term, in reality it means to have phobia against Islam. Is this wrong, racist or discriminatory to have fear of Islam and Islamic movements? To my opinion No. If one is wary of any religion, including Islam, or feels threatened by Islam’s or any religion’s expansion in the society, this is completely justified. It goes without saying that religion has been one of the main means of spreading hatred, war and killing in the world throughout the history. Religion and nationalism are the two main ideologies responsible for killing and torturing millions and millions of people. It is irrelevant whether one agrees with the interpretation of Islam given by the Islamic regime, Al Qaida, Taliban, or Daesh. In the past 4 decades many brutal, inhumane, reactionary and misogynist movements have been formed using Islamic ideology. 

Taking all these points into consideration one is absolutely justified to fear Islam and Islamic movements. Thus, using the term Islamophobia not only does not help the struggle against racism and discrimination, it actually damages it and has an adverse effect. This is an intimidating method trying to silence whoever is critical of Islam. By the same token, the Israeli state and its defenders use anti-Semitism to intimidate and silence those who are critical of its brutal and oppressive measures and practices. They have succeeded in creating an important obstacle for the movement in defence of Palestinian people’s rights. Can we use the terms Judo- phobia or Christianity-phobia? If these terms sound odd or wrong, so should the term Islamophobia. But, there is a widespread discrimination and racism against Moslems. How are we going to address this problem? Well, we should simply address this issue as discrimination against Moslems instead of Islamophobia. The latter does not imply discrimination against Moslems but instead has many different implications which are misleading and dangerous. This term is being used by the Islamist movements to silence critics of Islam and Islamic movements, taking their decency hostage. It is a method of blackmail and intimidation. 

Secularism 

The defenders of the ban resort to the argument of defending secularism or its French term laicite which entails wider legal implications than secularism as it is used in non-French context. However, both of these terms politically signify the separation of religion from the state, i.e. the state should not be religious, should not defend any particular religion and the judicial and legal systems must also be separated from religion and in a secular country there should not exist a national religion and citizens should not be identified by religion. This seems to be the widest and most inclusive meaning of these terms. However, this does not include restrictions on freedom of religion as long as this freedom does not impose any restrictions or abuse on others. By this definition one can defend the banning of the veil for underage girls and wearing the veil in governmental institutions and schools, but not banning the veil by adult women in public spaces. Resorting to the values of secularism to ban burqini on the beaches is over-stretching the concept of secularism. 

Nationalist Values

Manuel Valls, the French prime minister stated that the veil or in this case burqini is the violation of “French values.” This is a nationalist argument which must be rebuked and discredited by progressive and left movement. He further states that burqini is a political choice. It is true that for many this is a political choice. Nevertheless, the state has no right to suppress this political choice. Unfortunately the war of terrorists has created a situation in which extreme reactionary movements have found the upper hand in political and social discourse. Many civil rights have been erased by Western states under the excuse of fighting terrorism. The state terrorists have launched a brutal war in the Middle East and North Africa, committing terrible atrocities and at the same time have abolished many civil rights in the West and imposed police control over people’s lives. France is under official state of siege under the excuse of threat of terrorist attacks. We have witnessed police brutality and extensive infringement of basic workers’ and individual rights in recent months. It is self-evident how these two poles of terrorism play in each other hands and impose regressive and oppressive measures on the society.

⏭ Asar Majedi is a  Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation

The Battle Of Burqini Islamophobic, Cultural Imperialism, Or Secularism?

Maryam Namazie & Marieme Helie Lucas ➤ Some people, including Human Rights Watch’s Director Ken Roth and politicians like Rabina Khan have taken the opportunity of a global pandemic to defend the burqa/niqab by comparing it with mandatory face mask rulings used in the fight against Covid-19.

Immediately after Ken Roth’s tweet implicitly supporting the ‘right to veil’ of women (only), women who had fought the imposition of the compulsory burqa in their own countries issued a strong protest.

 
They pointed to the fact that Ken Roth accused France – and only France – of ‘Islamophobia’ for banning burqas, while he was too cowardly to dare to point out the Muslim-majority countries that have done the same thing, such as Cameroon, Chad, Egypt and Bangladesh amongst others. Ken Roth knowingly – he has duly been informed over the years but to no avail – omits that France has banned any form of face covering (burqa included) in the public space, when it is not appropriate, such as helmets when one is not driving a motorbike or masks outside the time of carnival, but certainly authorises them when it is. What could be more appropriate than surgical masks preventing contagion in times of a pandemic?

Also, face masks are temporary measures for both women and men to safeguard public health in the public space during a pandemic that has already killed nearly half a million people across the world. The niqab and burqa, on the other hand, are far from safeguarding women. They are impositions by Islamic fundamentalists to control and erase women from the public space. They are extensions of victim blaming and modesty and rape culture. If women don’t cover up as fundamentalists and patriarchs demand, they are to blame for any rape, violence, honour-related crimes and threats that they face. If sweets are uncovered, as so many banners in countries like Iran and Afghanistan argue, flies will naturally swarm towards them.

Lumping together ungendered health protection necessitated in times of a pandemic and religiously manipulated dress codes ‘offers a victimization that Islamist fundamentalists and preachers of Salafist Islam never stop seeking,’ says a statement by women activists which pays homage to the women executed by fundamentalist states and non-state actors for not submitting to compulsory veiling. A. It unequivocally rejects the imposition of a religious identity by a minority.

Roth’s attitude is nothing new. International human rights organisations have persistently ignored – or worse opposed – women fighting for their right not to be forcibly veiled, as was well-documented in Algeria under the fundamentalist boot in the 1990s. These organisations have persistently supported the rights of religious males fighting for domination over women – including the imposition of various forms of veiling amongst other forms of oppression.

What has been ignored is that most Muslim women don’t wear the niqab or burqa. These are Islamist uniforms which become predominant when the fundamentalists have power. Not only have human rights organisations actively participated in reinforcing patriarchy in our countries, they have also participated in the eradication of cultural diversity. A few decades ago, Muslim women were wearing saris in South Asia or boubous in the Sahel, colourful dresses in the mountains of Algeria, etc … The worldwide promotion of the burqa, a specific Mid-Eastern outfit from a narrow geographic area by Muslim fundamentalists and their human rights supporters, blurs one of the great cultural assassinations of our times, failing to address this cultural form of imperialism.

Even in the case of the hijab and headscarf, it is important to add that socially speaking and on a mass scale, these are impositions on women who face shaming and punishment for non-compliance by their families, ‘communities’ and Islamic states. Veiling is highly contested by Muslim women or women presumed to be Muslim. In Iran, for example, women protesting compulsory veiling laws are imprisoned for decades. What is often touted as a women’s choice is more often than not acquiescence and submission at best – and a long term in prison, or honour-related violence and even death at worst.

Finally, we have a message for women of Muslim descent who confuse a health prescription for men just as much as women with an extremely reactionary form of religiosity which specifically targets women. Yes, there is discrimination against minorities and migrants – but discrimination must be fought economically, socially and politically, with political tools – not religious ones. Moreover, on the issue of the burqa and niqab: be wary of betraying your sisters who fight against forced veiling throughout Asia, Africa and the Middle East – and now in the diaspora. Do not ally with organisations who feign to fight for human rights to the detriment of women’s rights. Do not ally, wittingly or unwittingly, with fundamentalists, even when they disguise themselves as anti-racists and human rights defenders.

➽ Marieme Helie Lucas is an Algerian Sociologist and Founder of Secularism is a Women’s Issue.
Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born activist and Spokesperson of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Conflating Face Masks With Burqas Is An Act Of Cultural Assassination

Writing in 2006 Azar Majedi writing for Scoop asked Must The Veil Be Banned? She feels the question is no less relevant today. 

 The question of the veil has become a heated debate in the British media. In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake: Individual freedom to practice one’s religion, freedom of choice, freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular community, that is, the so-called Moslem community. Islamists and some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Moslem community is being stigmatized and have been under racist attack since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban burka or the niqab is a violation of individual freedom and another racist attack on Moslems. Let’s examine these issues closer.

Two events following one another brought up the question of the Islamic veil in the British media: Jack Straw’s comment on the women wearing the niqab and the case of Aishah Azmi, a 24 year old support teacher, who was ordered to take off her full veil, including the niqab. She took the school to court and the court decided in the school’s favour, and so she appealed against the court’s decision.

In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious. It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the veil, one comes, at best, in collision with other set of rights, i.e. children’s rights, women’s rights, societal rights, and the principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration. 1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil and 3. Where the veil is worn.

Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?

First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading. The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover, nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of Islamic power. Wherever, Islamists gain power, they force the veil on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.

Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued that irrespective of its religious or political character and significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many others’, to this is a categorical No. It must be said that in most countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress codes at workplaces and wearing different political symbols or religious ones are not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil must also be viewed in this light. We should tear out all this romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and deprives women.

The veil as a symbol of women’s subjugation

The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women’s subjugation. Islam, as in fact, all other religions, is a misogynist ideology. Islam is a direct product of sheer patriarchy. Islam, particularly, due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of private and social lives of men and women. A woman, according to Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an independent identity and is defined by her master. The veil has been prescribed to hide men’s property from potential violators. A “free” woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target, a free ride.

It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a symbol of servitude and subjugation.

Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of servitude, one should be free to do so. The modern civil society has a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society when safeguarding human rights, children’s rights or women’s rights there are laws limiting an individual’s right to harm oneself or to deprive oneself of certain rights and privileges. By the same token, there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.

Veil must be banned for underage girls

One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the recognition of society’s responsibility to safeguard children from any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for a child’s safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development. Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving individuals to establish the concept of children’s rights, to recognise a child as an individual and not the property of their parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property of the father or grandfather and they even have the right to take the child’s life. Therefore, the modern children rights charters are in basic contradictions with religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify certain religious or “divine” rights. This must extend to girls living in Islamic communities.

The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls. “A child has no religion”. It is the parents’ religion that is imposed on the child. The society must respect the child’s right to a free development. Just the same way that modern society recognises the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child labour and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all international children’s rights charters. The veil is a physical, mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such by the international community.

Secular society verses the veil

In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be avoided in a secular society. In a secular society wearing or carrying any religious symbol at state institutions and in the place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and the educational system do not promote any particular religion. Religion remains in the private sphere and clashes between followers of different religions is somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is an appropriate step in the right direction.

However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl’s fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the right of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.

Burka or the niqab, an individual right or a societal right?

The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a robe-like loose garment that covers the woman’s whole body (it looks some what different in different countries, or according to different Islamic sect’s rules) and finally the burke or the niqab. Burke has become known as the symbol of Taliban, the most severe restriction imposed on women’s appearance.

Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe form of the veil? In my opinion: No. The banning of burka or the niqab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2) the women’s right.

Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with burke or the niqab, we surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace, it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the face of their colleagues or the personnel. There is also the issue of trust at stake. You can not trust the person who has covered their face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication, if you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore, wearing burka or the niqab must be banned at the workplace.

I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park, in the recreation ground, etc, that you can see the face of the person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of individual rights verses the societal rights. There are instances where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers, but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole society. Burka or the niqab must be banned for the benefit of society.

Secondly, we argued above, that the veil is a symbol and a tool for women’s subjugation and degradation. This is one of the main reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls. Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many Western governments. Women rights activists had to fight vigorously in order to bring consciousness about this brutal religious practice and succeeded to ban it in these countries. There are many different religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice just any religious command or custom.

I believe that burka or the niqab should also be categorized as those religious practices prohibited by the law. Burka or the niqab deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. The society should not permit such degree of degradation and humiliation of humans. This is outrageous. This must fall under the category of the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will not get into this debate here.

We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls. The use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions and total ban on burke and the nighab.

⏭ Asar Majedi is a  Member of Hekmatist Party leadership & Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation

Revisiting The Question Of The Veil

Lena M with news of a Melbourne judge banning the niqab in court.

Judge Removes Woman In Burqa From Court

Lena M discusses a Danish proposal to ban full-face veiling.

Denmark Proposes Full-Face Veils Ban

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)