Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Who is that masked woman?
Good old Sam Harris popped up unexpectedly on my Newsnight screen the other night being aggressively grilled by Jeremy Paxman, I thought he did well. Certainly a calm considered voice of reason over the other two guests, who were, Mona Eltahawy an Egyptian journalist and Muslim who was pro-banning and Tariq Ramadan a Swiss born Islamic intellectual and philosopher who was anti-ban. Harris was probably over here (UK) pushing his new book "The Moral Landscape", which reminded me that I must read it!
Harris was pro-ban but made the point much clearer than the others that the ban was supportable if put in the context of an objection to particular philosophies like Wahhabi Islam that treats Woman unequally in many walks of life compared to men, rather than anything particular to do with the clothes themselves or Islam generally. It's a shame the French government (and our own for that matter) has less compunction about supporting the Saudi regime and flogging them weapons. Ramadan was doing the typical apologist thing of trying to play down the blatant discrimination much like a Catholic Bishop attempting to play down child abuse or a Baptist minister playing down his detestation of homosexuality, it was equally unconvincing. The interview ended with Ramadan ranting at Eltahawy to shut-up somewhat ironic I thought; a Muslim male telling a Muslim female to be silent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It has to down to the individual.
On the one hand some people are telling women what they must wear, and on the other hand some people are telling women what they can't wear.
CB, that's true, Women have had a pretty raw deal at the hands of religions and men over the centuries and continue to suffer in many parts of the world; but as Sam pointed out, this particular thing isn't about the clothes. IMO it's partly French politics and partly a line in the sand against an oppressive philosophy, shame the line isn't extended to encompass commercial and political spheres as well as this one.
But you don't counter an oppresive philosophy by using another repressive philosophy.
When all's said and done, some women actually do want to cover themselves up, and they should be free to do so.
I can see Human Rights legislation being used here.
CB, That's the eternal liberal dilemma isn't it, some people always claim to want to do whatever it is society desires to protect them from. Like not wearing seat belts, statistically all these people harm are themselves but we still feel an obligation to protect them.
Common sense dictates that some Muslim Woman want it and some don't; some resist and some are tacitly or directly forced by their "culture" to cover up. Some data on the numbers would be useful however that seems unlikely, how would you determine which women freely choose it and which don't so a public ban seems fair at least, like the smoking ban I guess it removes doubt.
At the end of the day this argument isn't really about what women wear anyway.
Back after a long absence and happy to make a couple of comments instead of just lurking :
- like the new photo, CB
- I agree that the banning is a question of politics - French government pandering to the members of the muslim community likely to vote for the them in any upcoming elections (right wing but not fanatical). However, I don't agree that women "choose freely" to cover up. We still live in a rape culture and women are therefore educated to believe that they are somehow responsible for men being rapists. Bearing this in mind, "covering up" is playing along with this attitude. It's also a lack of thought on the part of many younger muslim women who can choose "freely", albeit in the context mentioned above, but who would be hard put to justify their actions to women living in countries where it is compulsory and where women are treated even more violently as second-class citizens.
Right, I'll just jump off my soap box now and get back to the housework.
Thanks Kapgaf, we have missed you!
I completely agree, there is so much more to this than a simple choice of what someone can or cannot wear in public.
I predict a lot of religious solidarity on this issue though, no doubt it will be presented as an "attack" on belief systems as opposed to what I think it really is i.e. the state preventing religious sections of society discriminating as they like.
Steve: You obviously haven't met my ex. She needs covering with a blanket, for the sake of the public.
Again I say, the state has no right to dictate what someone wears.
If someone doesn't wish to wear a blanket and is being forced, then there are laws that protect her. That's enough.
If the government suddenly decalared it illegal for a man to swathe his head in a Liverpool FC home strip, I'd do from a point of principle.
CB, you are right but I think the point is that it's not really about what people wear, that's merely an artefact of the underlying difference in moral outlooks between the parties. I doubt we'd ever have such a law here in the UK because we are much less "secularism" obsessed than France, we solved that problem a different way by creating a state religion that is benign.
Generally though, isn't this a bit like protecting the children of members of an abusive cult, the children probably wouldn't want to leave their parents but is it still right to take them away?
I would say it was.
CB, I've never had an "ex" but if I did she would probably be the best "ex" in the world.. (never know who's reading etc.. ;)
Post a Comment