Niqab Warz Redux

There is another angle that I don't see has been explored here, and that is:

Many muslim women all over today are choosing to wear head coverings of all sorts as an act of solidarity with what they see as fellow muslim men and women being genocidally massacred.

And as far as I see it, part of what is informing the trend amongst people wishing to ban this form of mourning, is a wish to put it out of view; in effect put a ban on public displays of mourning.

Any thoughts?

I mean, judging from posts already here, I know some of you will dismiss this angle out of hand without even delving into that side of yourselves.....But I find it somewhat hard to believe that many of you actually support the "freeing" of muslim women, but rather are just in it for "kill some muzzies" as entertainment.

skdadl wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, it's also Catholic dominated. And francophone dominated. And non-working-class dominated. Think that's relevant? The right to cover one's face is not a cause that women in Québec have stood up for. Maybe they will. But they have not.

Human rights and civil liberties aren't up for voting.

Of course they aren't. They're inherent and inalienable. But it certainly helps to move the whole society forward so that it [i]recognizes and defends[/i] those rights, doesn't it? And that recognition ultimately takes place, like it or not, through votes. Even when the judiciary takes the first move, the move can be overridden or confirmed by the legislature.

The elimination of abortion and sodomy from the Criminal Code. Equal marriage. The prohibition of discrimination in employment, accommodation, and public services on the basis of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The Bill of Rights and the Charter (et la Charte québécoise). The rights of workers to unionize and not be fired after a strike and not to be scabbed against (here and in BC, anyway), etc. The right to health care and education (to some extent, anyway). The right to health care and education in a secular environment (in some provinces, anyway) at public expense. The right to a little security in retirement. Formal equality before the law between women and men. And I wish I could list a few acquired rights of indigenous people, but they seem too few and far between.

All the above (and many more) are inherent human rights IMO. Many of them apply only to minorities. Yet all have been recognized, or confirmed, by votes - votes which came way too late, after decades of struggle, but they sealed the success of those struggles.

So, if someone thinks they have the right to demand service from males or females specifically (which is the only part that bothers me, as I know you realize because you've been reading my posts, and no I don't mean in situations of abuse or assault etc.), then they had better convince the society that this so-called "human right" exists and is worth recognizing and protecting. It may take decades. But if it's real, then it's worth fighting for.

Unionist:

The foot-binding analogy really is off the mark. If a woman wants to bind her feet, (or have her middle toe removed, to serve the same end, i.e. fit into cute little pointy shoes, which we don't even know whether men have ever liked, so it's really nothing to do with men vs. women. In Chinese culture, it was a class distinction.) nobody's going to stop her. The law is against adults physically mutilating children.  Different kettle of fish altogether.

absentia wrote:

The law is against adults physically mutilating children.

That is not and has never been my (admittedly limited) understanding. Unless you have some source to the contrary, my information has always been that both the 1912 ban and the 1949 ban were absolute - they banned the practice - not just forcible binding by parents of minors - and those who bound their own feet were subject to fines. Obviously, if I'm mistaken on that, then the analogy doesn't hold.

But I'll ask you: Would you support a ban on foot-binding that was absolute - or do you think women (people) have a freedom to mutilate themselves for beauty and subordination that trumps society's need to oppose gender discrimination and inequality?

skdadl wrote:

I think the question of physical mutilation is an easy one.

Well, I think the question of women covering their entire bodies, while men are free to do what they like, is an easy one as well. We appear to have different opinions here. In fact, I'm far less concerned about ear piercing and tattooing and (male) circumcision than I am about covering up women's bodies - in our society. I'm not talking about other people's societies, where they have their own customs and struggles and rules and (hopefully) sovereignty.

It sure is! I'd have no problem at all extending society's protection to all children to all of those areas. Piercing and circumcision are not quite of the same magnitude, but i imagine both could 16 years. Transfusion is a far thornier issue between people who believe a soul can be compromised by foreign tissue and people who don't.

But i have heard of people asking to have limbs amputated. (Not as a fetish, but because of a neurological?/psychological? condition wherein the feel that a leg is their enemy.) Surgeons won't do it, as far as i know.

PS I was a little slow in posting.

No, i could not support an absolute law (regardless of what they enforce or have enforced in China) against anything responsible adults might want to wear, tattoo or paint on, shave, add or remove on/in/to themselves. To me, that's what freedom means - not forcing everyone to look the way i think they ought to look. They won't anyway. You can make people equal under the law, but you can't give them similar taste and body-image.  

yep

except for this part: "and demand to be served by women whenever they need to remove their face veil." which i don't understand.

Oh, yeah, the penny finally dropped. It's not me demanding, it's the women who wear veils. No, they don't get to demand anything, either. If they don't want to eat with the rest of us, that's fine. If they do, they'll make the necessary accommodation. It's not that complicated: people adapt to circumstances and social mores adapt to what people do.

skdadl wrote:

I agree with absentia, except I don't expect to see infant circumcision actually outlawed in Western societies any time soon. There are too many circumcised adult males around who would object -- it's not a culture-specific practice.

Are you seriously suggesting you would legislate that Muslims and Jews can't circumcise their boys - that they must wait until the boys are adults? And you think it's just already-circumcised males that would object? Do you honestly not know the significance of male circumcision in both these religions?

I personally would love to see such practices banned. But I would also like to ban the right of any adult to indoctrinate a child in a religion - e.g., sending them to a religious school, forcing them to engage in any religious practices or dress, forcing them to attend services...

Or do you consider male circumcision to be an infringement on the rights of kids, but not psychological mutilation?

Let me ask you one question at a time. Would you legislatively ban parents from requiring children to wear hijabs or niqabs?

ETA: Crossposted with absentia - yeah, thanks for that, you're quite right that you can't ban male circumcision of children, at least not in our lifetime. But I'd still be interested in your answer to my last question above.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Religion schmeligion.  Unless you're a Maoist or an Inner Party member in Airstrip One, you shouldn't think the state has any say in how you're attired. 

Not that I'm telling anyone how to think...

Isn't religious dogma tied into this issue?

I realize that there is some grey area of culture vs religion when it comes to the niqab, but it's also a facet of the culture upheld by a sect or faction of a religion.

This is why this is a sticky, contradictory issue for me.  I feel like I have to compromise one facet of what I believe in to support another part - ie: emancipation vs not dictating anyone's attire.  I have trouble getting past the cultural conditioning of woman as evil/cause of sin. 

ETA:  Male circumcision of infants:  I recognize the importance of this custom to Muslims and Jews.  However, I still think it's barbaric to dock anyone's genitals in the absence of their consent.  Especially a child.  I guess I just don't care what religious argument you can make for it.

Antispin: "I find feminist-based arguments against the niqab ironic as feminism itself has fractured and split largely on the issue of cultural identity and the desire of women to be seen as heterogenous... I prefer to see the niqab as just another piece of clothing, no different than any other, and that women have the freedom to choose as they see fit"

Yeah, post-abortion-rights, the feminist questions are reduced to the right to cover their faces (in deference to the household male's sense of honour, as interpreted by some women of faith).

I'll just suggest that some women who fought the fights of the 70s and 80s for women's rights do not now understand how naive the following generations have become regarding the sanctity of those hard-won rights. Their interest in that history and the legal gains made by their mothers' generation may yet be re-ignited by the ascension of Steve and his Christian followers.

Taking the argument into comparison of customs in Chinese history is simple obfuscation of the central issue: If women feel the threatened loss of any degree of equality, the only rational (insubordinant) response is a political one. Give us a break from post-modernist relativism, please.

Unionist wrote:

First tell me whether China should lift its 1949 ban on binding of women's feet.

First tell me whether Canada should ban women wearing hats.  Because that is a much closer analogy (still a little out there, of course, but that is the goal of these rhetorical games, to try to associate two things so as to imply that supporting one thing is logically the same as supporting else which is bad, is it not?)

genstrike wrote:

Unionist wrote:

First tell me whether China should lift its 1949 ban on binding of women's feet.

First tell me whether Canada should ban women wearing hats.  Because that is a much closer analogy (still a little out there, of course, but that is the goal of these rhetorical games, to try to associate two things so as to imply that supporting one thing is logically the same as supporting else which is bad, is it not?)

No, genstrike. The real issue is this: How does an instrument of suppression, subordination, and dehumanization somehow morph into a clarion declaration of individual choice and emancipation?

Should we reconsider the ban on human slavery because one individual really really really wants to be looked after by another in exchange for doing whatever the other commands?

In Québec, since 1980, women who marry [b]are not allowed[/b] to become Mrs. Husband's-Last-Name any more. They keep their birth name - like it or not - with certain exceptions. Feminists led the charge for that law, because simple standards of equality (like the right to vote - or the right to serve on a jury (1970!) - or the right not to be baby-making machines) came later here than elsewhere. Should we reconsider that law if someone comes along and says, "But my religious belief requires me to lose my name and take on my husband's name"?

Not in my book.

As for wearing of hats, if you convince me that it embodies the subordination of women to men, and it requires that women can only remove their hat in the presence of another woman, I'll have a look at lobbying against that as well.

Unionist wrote:

No, genstrike. The real issue is this: How does an instrument of suppression, subordination, and dehumanization somehow morph into a clarion declaration of individual choice and emancipation?

Should we reconsider the ban on human slavery because one individual really really really wants to be looked after by another in exchange for doing whatever the other commands?

In Québec, since 1980, women who marry [b]are not allowed[/b] to become Mrs. Husband's-Last-Name any more. They keep their birth name - like it or not - with certain exceptions. Feminists led the charge for that law, because simple standards of equality (like the right to vote - or the right to serve on a jury (1970!) - or the right not to be baby-making machines) came later here than elsewhere. Should we reconsider that law if someone comes along and says, "But my religious belief requires me to lose my name and take on my husband's name"?

Not in my book.

As for wearing of hats, if you convince me that it embodies the subordination of women to men, and it requires that women can only remove their hat in the presence of another woman, I'll have a look at lobbying against that as well.

 

Unionist, with respect, it is none of your business, nor of any government's, nor of any feminist's, why I chose to add my husband's name on to my own when I married. I didn't have to say it was because of "my religious belief" -- any such requirement would be, in my view, offensive to the point of being obscene. Screw your stupid law, and I would certainly work against it if I were in Quebec. Where the hell do you get the notion you know what I will find liberating as a woman?

To me, secularism (anti-religion) is every bit as much an ideology as "religion," whatever the hell that is -- they're all ideologies, and people are free to indulge in them in their private lives. They're just not free to force me to live that way. Stalin, McCarthy, Attaturk ... All yours, Unionist.

No one claimed that refusing to bully people from other cultures is a "clarion call" to anything. It is a negative virtue -- as in "do no harm."

You are proposing active "correctional" measures to be imposed on people whose consciences don't match yours. There is no virtue in that, and that is not the way democracy works or is supposed to work, in spite of the Attaturkist elite in Turkey and some elites in France and Quebec. Artists and historians in all those countries at least understand the problem. No one needs politicians writing the history books. (Everybody wave at Mr Kenney.)

skdadl wrote:

Screw your stupid law, and I would certainly work against it if I were in Quebec. Where the hell do you get the notion you know what I will find liberating as a woman?

[b]MY[/b] stupid law? Were you aware that this has been the law in Québec [b]for the last 30 years[/b]? Were you aware that it was enacted after massive lobbying by feminist organizations? Do you think it was the [b]MEN[/b] of Québec who said they didn't want their wives taking the man's name any more? Where the hell do you get the notion that your personal opinions count for the women of Québec???

And why don't you come here and lobby against this terrible law that says that women (and men, by the way) must keep their own names and not dissolve into their partner after marriage? Do you know how many women are lobbying to change this 30-year-old law, because it breaches their so-call freedom to take their husband's name?

That's correct.

Quote:

To me, secularism (anti-religion) is every bit as much an ideology as "religion," whatever the hell that is -- they're all ideologies, and people are free to indulge in them in their private lives. They're just not free to force me to live that way. Stalin, McCarthy, Attaturk ... All yours, Unionist.

If you don't like the law that says that women keep their own birth name, you don't have to come live here. If you do, you'll have to obey the law - or work to change it. As hinted above, it'll be a long lonely battle. First you'll have to convince women here that it's fundamental for their self-worth and individual freedom to be able to call themselves "Mrs. Jean Charest" instead of (her actual name) Michèle Dionne. And to cover up when they leave the house. And maybe this [b]mandatory[/b] jury duty for females is bad too - why not [b]leave it to the individual woman to choose!?[/b]

What about our language laws? Bad idea? Too Stalinist?

I think, skdadl, that our notions of freedom are fundamentally different, maybe irreconcilable. Too bad.

absentia wrote:

I forgot to add, in fairness, i don't know of any religion or culture or tradition that requires only women to restrict their behaviour while allowing men total freedom.

I just thought I'd preserve that statement for posterity.

I'm sure posterity will show appropriate gratitude.

absentia wrote:

People are loath to let go of traditions, but they do, once those traditions are no longer practical.

Really?  When were Christmas trees or female genital mutilation ever "practical" cultural or religious traditions.  Practicality, as far as I can see, has never been a particluarly effective standard for measuring the abandonment of traditions.

Sven wrote:

absentia wrote:

People are loath to let go of traditions, but they do, once those traditions are no longer practical.

Really?  When were Christmas trees or female genital mutilation ever "practical" cultural or religious traditions.  Practicality, as far as I can see, has never been a particluarly effective standard for measuring the abandonment of traditions.

Oh dear! I should pick my words more carefully. Just because a practice has no obvious present utility, that doesn't mean it never had a purpose or wasn't invented/ adopted for a reason. If the practice either still serves some purpose (not necessarily the original or intended one) it will be continued. If it's detrimental, it will eventually be dropped.

Christmas trees were paractical when a people believed jn the sacredness of a particular kind of tree, and the Catholic church wanted  the people to abandon their stupid tree in favour of the one true cross, couldn't burn them all for refusing but could burn a few, so the people paid lip-service and the church pretended the tree was part of Christianity.  Female circumcision was practical when a people considered it very, very important that no sperm got there before the husband's. And so on. Everything in context, and not one scrap of it needs to make the slightest sense to you or me in order to matter, or to have at some time mattered, to the people who own it.

Unionist wrote:

In Québec, since 1980, women who marry [b]are not allowed[/b] to become Mrs. Husband's-Last-Name any more. They keep their birth name - like it or not - with certain exceptions. Feminists led the charge for that law, because simple standards of equality (like the right to vote - or the right to serve on a jury (1970!) - or the right not to be baby-making machines) came later here than elsewhere. Should we reconsider that law if someone comes along and says, "But my religious belief requires me to lose my name and take on my husband's name"?

Not in my book.

Another false analogy, hidden even from your own self, by your own clouded ulterior motives.

Under the law you mention, a woman would STILL be able to take her husbands last name if she so desired.

Would a woman still be able to wear a hijab under a hijab ban if she so desired?

cruisin_turtle wrote:

I find all the opinions and theories here fascinating but here is a novel idea, why not ask some who wears the niqab why she does it?  Why do some people always feel that they have to speak for others?

See Post #21 above (re books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali for one woman's perspective).

cabbie wrote:

There was an announcement on the related issue of honour killings.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2010/12/c3752.html

"All Canadian girls and women are equal to men under the law, and have the right to live free from violence and abuse," Minister Ambrose said. "Violence directed at women and girls which may be viewed as culturally acceptable has no place in Canadian society. This type of violence, often known as 'honour killings,' is a heinous abuse of power and human rights."

...

"People come to this country to enjoy and embrace the values and opportunities that Canada provides, and as a nation we are proud of the contributions made by our diverse cultural communities," said Minister Ambrose. "However, killing or mutilating anyone, least of all a family member, is utterly unacceptable under all circumstances and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

Have you asked your guru feminist Minister Ambrose about her government's record vis a vis the status of Canadian women? You are here to propagate your islamophobia and that of your right wing masters who don't give a rat's ass about women.

skdadl wrote:

Btw, Unionist, I never called myself "Mrs Jean Charest." I called myself the skdadl equivalent of "Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Burton Warner Fortensky." In fact, I still do.

It's a fast way to write your autobiography in terms of the men -- beginning with your father -- who have complicated your life. Given that there were no surnames available to me (or any woman) that were not men's names, I figured it was either that or invent a name. Or I could have changed my name to "John Keats" -- I thought of that for a while, but Ontario charges you a hundred bucks to do that.

Ah, so that's why some singers drop the whole kaboodle and just use a given name - not necessarily one given them by parents. Easy way to lose unwanted luggage, to avoid getting stuck with the marital mistakes they hope to make. Though some us carry earned luggage with... nostalgia, if not pride. All those options should be available to everyone.

@Sven, I was suggesting that instead of people here theorizing about why Muslim women wear the niqab (they wear it in solidarity, or they are forced to wear it, or they wear because they don't understand the religion, ..etc) why don't you ask somebody who wears it why she does it?  Wouldn't that be the simplest shortest path to a real answer, if one was truly interested in the real answer.  The author of the book "Infidel" doesn't sound like somebody who is speaking FOR niqab wearing women, even if her name is Husein Ali. Isn't she the one who was deported from Holland for anti Islam racism? That's like trying to learn about Jewish culture by reading Nazi propaganda books.

cruisin_turtle wrote:

The author of the book "Infidel" doesn't sound like somebody who is speaking FOR niqab wearing women, even if her name is Husein Ali. Isn't she the one who was deported from Holland for anti Islam racism? That's like trying to learn about Jewish culture by reading Nazi propaganda books.

No, she was not deported from Holland, for anti-Islam racism or otherwise.  She was born in Somalia and was raised Muslim (she also lived in Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia prior to age 22).  She was subject to genital mutilation and was forced into an arranged marriage to a distant cousin living in Toronto by her father.  She expresses an opinion worth reading.