Tag Archives: Middle East

Outlaw Clothing: Burqas, Islamophobia and Women’s Rights

The ongoing quest of the French government to preserve their country’s “secular traditions” came to the fore once again Tuesday when the lower house of France’s parliament voted to ban women from wearing any face-covering veil, such as the infamous burqa or the less “extreme” niqab — a move obviously targeting French Muslim women, of which perhaps 1,900 wear a face-covering veil. France has the highest population of Muslims in Europe, comprising about 5 million of France’s population of 64 million people.

I’m sure you remember the “no hijabs in public schools” ban France passed in 2004 after almost a decade debating it, barring students from wearing a headscarf or any other piece of clothing that would indicate the religion of the student wearing it. To be fair, that does include Jewish yarmulkes and cross necklaces, however, the surrounding debate was particularly focused on the Muslim hijab. It just seems that since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Western countries have been not-so-subtly putting their Islamophobia on display.

Of course, this is not to say that all Muslim women disagree with the banning of the burqa or niqab. Some Muslim feminists have spoken out in favor of the ban. I fully support the right of Muslim women to not be forced to wear face-covering veils. However, I think banning religious clothing at the governmental level is taking the issue in a scary direction. I believe in choices, and banning burqas and niqabs eliminates the ability of women who actually wear the veils of their own volition to continue to make the choice to wear them, however few the women may be that make that choice. The author of the Huffington Post article, Caryl Rivers, makes a lot of good points, but I really do believe that in order to truly gain equal rights for Muslim women in their culture it’s going to have to come from changing Muslim men’s “hearts and minds” and not changing Muslim women’s clothing.

In the Salon article linked above, Eqyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy states:

I support banning the burqa because I believe it equates piety with the disappearance of women. The closer you are to God, the less I see of you — and I find that idea extremely dangerous. It comes from an ideology that basically wants to hide women away. What really strikes me is that a lot of people say that they support a woman’s right to choose to wear a burqa because it’s her natural right. But I often tell them that what they’re doing is supporting an ideology that does not believe in a woman’s right to do anything. We’re talking about women who cannot travel alone, cannot drive, cannot even go into a hospital without a man with them. And yet there is basically one right that we are fighting for these women to have, and that is the right to cover their faces. To tell you the truth, I’m really outraged that people get into these huge fights and say that as a feminist you must support a women’s right to do this, because it’s basically the only kind of “right” that this ideology wants to give women. Otherwise they get nothing.

I agree with her on basically every point she makes, yet I can’t reconcile my feelings about government-enforced bans on religious clothing. I just don’t think that simply legally preventing women from wearing burqas, niqabs, or hijabs is going to cause transformative change in Islamic culture. This is a crude analogy, but it seems like banning black women from relaxing their hair. Yes, black women would be unable to cowtow to the oppressive beauty standards forced on us by Western culture, but would their minds be freed as well? Would black men suddenly stop desiring women with long, straight hair? With the banning of burqas and niqabs, are sexist, oppressive Muslim men and the governments they run suddenly going to stop treating women like second-class citizens? I don’t see that happening. Western governments using women’s rights as an excuse to ban Muslim religious garments just smells like Islamophobia couched in “progressive” rhetoric. Some leaders in the U.K. have actually voiced their concern over the “growing threat of Islamism“.

So what can we expect this ban on face-covering veils to do for Muslim women’s rights in France? Eltahawy had this to say:

What I hope it will do is that it will create a situation where a woman can say to a man, look, you know that I have to go out and work so that we can continue to live here, and I can’t go out with my face covered, even though you want me to, because that’s what the law says. I hope the law gives women this kind of out. I have no idea if that’s actually going to happen or not.

I can’t get behind legislation like this when the only benefit for women would be that you get to tell your husband that you’re required by law to not wear the veil, and the many benefits for the government and Islamophobic French people include not having to be visually reminded there’s Muslims in their communities and also stopping the spread of “Islamism”. I don’t trust the women’s rights angle at all from Western governments when it comes to Islam. We continue to ally with countries that do much more than just expect women to cover themselves head to toe when in public — we’re in bed with countries that beat and jail women who have been gang raped and impregnated because the rape constituted the woman committing adultery. I personally don’t think her lack of burqa helped at all in that situation.

So I’m not exactly joining the cheerleading squad because France decided its Islamophobia was good for women’s rights. Of course I don’t want Muslim women to be forced to cover themselves head to toe. But I firmly believe true change in the Islamic world will never come via simply outlawing certain types of clothing, and I question the veracity of France’s reasons for doing so. The fact that they’re mentioning things like “defining and protecting French values” sounds eerily familiar and to me, is more of a nationalist concern than a concern for women’s rights.

There needs to be substantive change in Muslim men’s attitudes towards Muslim women rather than superficial change mandated by a government that seeks to erase those parts of immigrant populations they find distasteful.

[This piece originally appeared on Feministe.]

Comments { 13 }

Teaching Palestinians a Lesson

Last Wednesday, Democratic Senator from New York Charles Schumer delivered a speech to the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. In it, he referenced the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s current blockade of the Gaza Strip. Now, remember how upset people were last Monday when Helen Thomas made allegedly anti-Semitic comments about European Jews living in Israel and how they should leave Palestine and return to “Germany and Poland”? You would think, hot off the heels of that debacle, public officials would be sensitive to this nuanced topic. Not Chuck Schumer.

He states:

The Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land — this is Palestinian thinking [...] They don’t believe in the Torah, in David [...] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose — obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel — but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When there’s total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, they’re going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense.

(transcript via Think Progress)

Think Progress points out the factual inaccuracies in Schumer’s statements, which include the fact that an April poll showed that 74% of Palestinians actually favor a two-state solution. Besides being completely wrong on all counts, Schumer is basically engaging in the kind of behavior, while less directly and publicly, that Helen Thomas did when she made her career-ending comments. The fact that this speech has seen no air time, that there has been no outcry over its insensitivity and offensiveness, just serves to illustrate the media’s double standard when it comes to the coverage of Israel and the Palestinians.

Why is “believing in the Torah” a prerequisite for treating a group of people fairly? Why should the Palestinian people be punished for simply exercising their right to vote – a vote which the Bush administration insisted was necessary to move the peace process forward – when they vote for someone the U.S. and Israel don’t like? Schumer is not just talking about Hamas, he’s talking about the actual Palestinian people. He’s advocating for the people to be strangled economically — until what? They overthrow Hamas? It’s not clear how Schumer expects this economic strangulation to work. If Hamas is so dedicated to the destruction of Israel, surely they care more about weapons than the plight of their people. How is the suffering of the Palestinian people going to force Hamas to hand over the reins to the PA again? That’s pretty much the only other option, so as of late the Obama administration has been doing press conferences with Mahmoud Abbas, “President” of the Palestinian Authority (whose term actually expired over a year ago). Unfortunately for the U.S., Mr. Abbas has little if any control over the Palestinian people since they voted the PA out during Bush’s last term.

By ignoring Schumer’s comments, the media is telling us it’s fine to talk about the Palestinian people basically being heathens who need to be taught a lesson, whereas it is not okay to criticize Israeli policies. It’s shameful that this is allowed to happen, that Palestinian lives are viewed as disposable examples of what happens when the interests of the U.S. and Israel are ignored. Using a blockade to force the Palestinians to understand that their “democracy” is only a democracy when the voters agree with what the U.S. wants can only serve to economically disenfranchise millions of Palestinians and in turn, perpetuate the system of oppression that drives them to desperate measures such as terrorism.

Comments { 9 }

Tiptoeing Around Helen Thomas

Helen Thomas’ comments about European Jews in Israel/Palestine leaving and returning to Poland or Germany reflects an unfeasible view of the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has also been argued that those comments are anti-Semitic, and I can see that. However, I think the general underlying point that she has continued to make over the years is that the U.S.’ policies towards Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are biased and give Israel a great deal of leeway in dealing with their Palestinian problem. It’s unfortunate that those who are vocal about opposition to U.S./Israeli policy can also tend to espouse opinions that reflect anti-Semitic views or misconceptions. I think free dialog about U.S./Israeli policy and actions is extremely important and both those who seek to suppress it by lobbing red herring claims of anti-Semitism AND those who voice actual anti-Semitic views in their opposition to Israel should not cloud the discussion.

I have expressed the view that underlying fundamentalist Christian doctrine has tended to drive U.S. policy regarding Israel, and that doctrine happens to dovetail with some extreme Zionist beliefs. This is not a situation of “Jews controlling the world”, it’s a situation of religious beliefs that happen to intersect. Christian doctrine is not all that informs U.S. policy towards Israel, of course. It is an extremely complicated situation and doing research on the history of the conflict is something I highly recommend, and something I am constantly learning about. It’s unfortunate when religion is intertwined with government, as is the situation here, because criticism of the government of a country can be construed as attacks on the people of the country and their religion. This is the case with many Middle East countries. Criticism of Israel should not preclude criticism of how Hamas is handling the situation on the Palestinian end. Violence on both sides is unacceptable and incompatible with making gains towards a Palestinian state.

What’s unfortunate about the current Helen Thomas controversy is that these off-the-cuff anti-Semitic comments overshadow the many important confrontations she’s had with various White House Press Secretaries over U.S. policy on Israel, in which she has raised issues that are rarely discussed in the mainstream media. She hasn’t made a secret of her criticism of U.S./Israeli policies in the past. But these recent comments are disappointing because she included in her criticism the idea that European Jews should leave Israel. She makes the valid point that Israel is basically occupying much of the Palestinian territory, but sullies it with the statement that Israel should be dissolved and the land given back to the Palestinians, which is not only unfeasible but offensive.

We need honest dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy towards Israel, not the rhetoric of ideologues. I don’t believe Helen Thomas is an ideologue, however I don’t know Thomas personally so I really can’t speak for her actual thoughts behind these recent statements, whether she truly believes the solution to the conflict is what she advocated in these statements, and whether she secretly harbors some deep anti-Semitism that drives her beliefs. I just don’t know. Her opponents – already numerous before this incident and whose ranks are swelling – have described her as “a nut” and a “crazy old woman”, which is not only ableist but ageist and sexist. It’s not necessary to include this kind of bigoted derision of her age, gender and possible mental condition when decrying her statements, and it’s sad to see those who have been chomping at the bit to witness Thomas’ comeuppance throwing these kind of insults her way knowing that since public opinion is against her, they can finally say out loud what they’ve been thinking for decades.

I am not supporting what Thomas said. Those are her opinions. I’m advocating for reasonable people’s ability to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an honest manner free of bigotry, ignorance or silencing on either side. A solution will never be found if we can’t agree that both the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority need to make changes. At the same time, we can’t apply one standard to the rest of the world and another to Israel.

[Links of interest: Brief History of Palestine, Israel, and the Israeli Palestinian conflict; A History of Israel]

Comments { 7 }