Posts Tagged ‘Feminism’
Tariq Ramadan, still facing Rape Charges, Attends Meeting on Violence Against Women in Saint Denis.
Still Facing Rape Charges Ramadan Attends Public Meeting on Violence against Women.
Tariq Ramadan assiste à une conférence sur les violences faites aux femmes
Le Point today.
Tariq Ramadan, toujours mis en examen pour viol dans deux dossiers et sous contrôle judiciaire, a été aperçu hier soir à Saint-Denis lors d’une réunion « contre les violences faites aux femmes au quotidien », en présence de Danièle Obono et de Françoise Vergès. Cette réunion était organisée par Madjid Messaoudène, militant décolonial et conseiller municipal La France insoumise en charge de l’égalité et des droits des femmes à la mairie de Saint-Denis. Des femmes en désaccord avec sa présence ont quitté la salle.
Tariq Ramadan , still indicted for rape in two cases and under judicial supervision (that is, on remand), was seen last night in Saint-Denis during a meeting “against the daily violence women face”, in the presence of Danièle Obono and Françoise Vergès. This meeting was organised by Madjid Messaoudène, decolonial activist and city councilor for La France insoumise responsible for equality and women’s rights the Saint-Denis Council. Women who disagreed with his presence left the room.
The Mayor of Saint Denis reacted strongly,
His coming into the room as a spectator of the debate is an unacceptable provocation,” said the mayor of Saint-Denis (French Communist Party) His presence is “totally indecent.
She is reported to have also said,
His ignoble provocations must stop, ” insisted the mayor, calling Tariq Ramadan to ” respect a minimum of decency by leaving in peace those who fight against violence against women .”
The story is also covered in Libération:
A Saint-Denis, Tariq Ramadan s’invite à une conférence sur les violences faites aux femmes.
The arrogance of the Oxford Don is not just astonishing, it is despicable.
Yazdis March in Iraq for International Women’s Day: Honour to Nadia Murad!
ISIS militants overran Nadia Murad’s village in northern Iraq when she was just a high school student. In 2018 the 25-year-old became a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict.
She shared the honor with Denis Mukwege, a doctor who has worked to treat thousands of women and girls affected by rape and sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Unlike some previous winners of the prestigious award, such as Nelson Mandela or Malala Yousafzai, Murad isn’t a global household name. But she’s become an increasingly high-profile voice. She has used her traumatic experience — kidnapped, enslaved and raped by ISIS fighters — to become an advocate for the Yazidi minority in Iraq and to fight for the rights of women and refugees.
The Nobel committee chair said Murad had “shown uncommon courage in recounting her own sufferings and speaking up on behalf of other victims.”
CNN. International Women’s Day.
Liberated Yazidi women burn their veils as Islamic State crumbles
As she emerged from five years captivity inside the Islamic State, Barfe Khalaf Farho wanted one thing more than anything else: fire.
The 26-year-old Yazidi had been forced to wear a niqab every day of her slavery in the homes of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) fighters and their wives.
So when she reached the Western-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) last week the first thing she did was tear off her veil and set it aflame. The Kurdish fighters cheered her on as the black garment twisted in the fire.
Read the, highly recommended, Nadia Murad: The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State.
Spiked Does Funny on the People’s Vote March, Transgenderism, Universal Credit Dependency, and Mansize Wank Tissues.
The Old Ones Are Still the Best.
I like a larf, me.
Spiked is on rare form this week, with top tips like “Bring back the mansize tissues”, Universal credit as an answer to why “many today are so dependent on the state to get by”, and “Why isn’t transgenderism ‘cultural appropriation’? We chastise white women who have afro hairstyles but cheer men who dress as women.” by Brendan himself.
Not to mention defending the Italian far-right against the Brussels Tyrants.
But this – oh my aching sides! – is surely the best:
The People’s Vote march changed my mind on Brexit. Luke Gittos.
It was the middle-class, puntastic placards that clinched it for me.
As we assembled in London’s Mayfair, a working-class Leave voting stronghold, of course, I was blown away by the level of banner bantz.
‘Bears for Brexit’, and was carried by a group of very burly men with beards. I assume they were woodsmen of some kind.
After all, I saw at least 200,000 young people on that march. All we need to do is allow them to vote 87 times each and we will have a majority. That is what I call democracy.
They say this is pretty funny as well:
Luke Gittos is the author of Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth: From Steubenville to Ched Evans.
So why the bleeding fuck do they publish this load of New Age cack that’s there today?
Daily life for our forefathers was harsh. The natural world was a brutal environment where life was competitive, callous, ferocious, merciless and short. Like all animals, we faced daily hazards and threats: freezing, drowning, disease, dying of hunger, thirst, and death from predators. This was not David Attenborough’s natural world, a spectacle we can enjoy from the comfort of our heated living rooms on plasma TVs. This was the savage natural world we, like all natural objects, came to exist in; not a Garden of Eden, but a gladiatorial arena ‘steeped in blood’.
Human consciousness, our ability to think abstractly, to develop language and speech, to cooperate and collaborate – in short, our sociality – enabled us to develop the collective imagination and creativity to overcome nature’s limits.
The example of flight illustrates this beautifully. One of the prices we paid for bipedality was that while our arms and hands were freed, they were not wings. Nature ‘forgot’ to give us wings. We could not escape predators by leaping into the air and flying out of harm’s way. Nor could we travel long distances over natural barriers like mountains or rivers. We do not have the size, strength or indeed the appendages to make this possible.
We are able to fly today as individuals because as a society we developed, over centuries, often in the face of a great deal of human scepticism, the knowledge of the materials to manufacture aeroplanes, the expertise to design jet engines and fuels to power them, and the grasp of the laws of aerodynamics. Our ability to fly, once limited by nature, is now a freedom, a new human need as commonplace and safe as walking, and far more impressive than anything conjured up by nature. In overcoming nature’s limitations, mankind has truly shown itself to be collectively ingenious — a species that can fly despite lacking the biological make-up for flight. The expertise developed to achieve this served change far greater than just flight. It helped to push the boundaries of knowledge and expertise in many other areas of human endeavour.
Contrary to the elite narrative, these accomplishments could never have been achieved in isolation from the mass of society, no matter how smart the individuals involved. The elite narrative presents a one-sided story of how innovation works. It mystifies innovation as being solely driven by the experts, while underestimating the critical importance of the many. In reality, experts are not born; they are created by society, through solving the problems confronting society.
Tariq Ramadan, admits to “Lying” in defending himself against Rape Allegations.
Tariq Ramadan” «Désolé pour ma ‘violence’»: Sorry for my ‘violence’.(le Soir)
On the 25th of July prominent figures backed this campaign for Islamist Scholar Tariq Ramandan.
We wish to remind the country that affirmed the inalienability of human rights and equality, the importance of respecting principles that ensure the integrity of French justice.”
The letter also expresses deep concern with the inhuman treatment that Tariq Ramadan has been subject to at the hands of French justice.
The signatories conclude by asking, “We ask our French friends: should it truly come to this?
They included:
Ken Loach, UK, Dr Norman Finkelstein, USA, Noam Chomsky, USA, Peter Oborne, London, UK, The Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams, Cambridge, UK, Yvonne Ridley, Scotland, UK, Baroness Uddin, Charles Taylor, Montreal, Canada, Houria Bouteldja, Paris, France, Karen Armstrong, London, UK.
Now Ramadan has changed his story and admitted to lying.
Ramadan, a well-known TV commentator, has strongly denied accusations that he raped the women in hotel rooms as an attempted smear by his opponents.
His lawyer Emmanuel Marsigny said the Swiss academic had changed his account of what happened on the basis of text messages that have emerged between him and his two accusers.
The messages “show that the plaintiffs lied and that the sexual encounters were wanted, consensual and even sought again afterwards”, Marsigny said.
The unearthing of these messages “has allowed him to acknowledge that he had sexual relations” with the women, Marsigny said.
Ramadan, accused of raping the women in 2009 and 2012, has been in custody since February 2.
He previously insisted he had no sexual contact with his two accusers, feminist activist Henda Ayari and a disabled woman known in media reports as “Christelle”.
Ramadan was a professor at Oxford University until he was forced to take leave when the rape allegations surfaced at the height of the “Me Too” movement late last year.
The married father of four, whose grandfather founded Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, has repeatedly sought bail arguing that being in prison is making it difficult to treat his multiple sclerosis.
The courts have so far rejected his requests, ruling that he can receive adequate treatment in the prison hospital at Fresnes in the southern Paris suburbs.
Last month a computer expert working on the investigation retrieved 399 text messages between Ramadan and Christelle, whom he is accused of raping in a Lyon hotel room in 2009.
The text messages detailed his violent sexual fantasies ahead of the alleged attack.
Afterwards, the records show that he wrote to her: “I sensed your unease… apologies for my ‘violence’.”
Ramadan previously claimed he was involved in a “game of seduction” with Christelle, online and on the telephone.
But he said their only face-to-face contact was a drink in the hotel bar, describing her as a “compulsive liar”.
Ramadan’s lawyers have also provided details of his exchanges with Ayari, whom he is accused of raping in a Paris hotel in 2012.
The New Straits Times adds,
Ramadan said he had “relations akin to sex games of the submissive-dominant kind, but always in a consensual and knowing way,” his lawyer said.
“It has been one year now that Mr Ramadan’s defendants have been playing tricks to save his cause. But the truth is that he lied from the beginning of this case by denying he had sexual relations and that it took one year to confess,” Jonas Haddad, a lawyer for the other plantiff, Henda Ayari, told Reuters.
“Will it take him another year to confess the rest?” he said.
Ramadan’s lawyer said a series of text messages found in the two women’s mobile phones showed the relations were consensual. He filed a request for Ramadan, in custody since he was notified of the French investigation on February 2, to be freed.
Criticising the burqa means lining up with racists – says SWP.
Defiant woman rips off her black burqa after ISIS were driven away. (Raqqa October. 2017)
The fall out from Boris Johnson’s comments on the Burka continues.
Nobody doubts that they have given the wink to the far-right and legitimised prejudiced diatribes against ‘Muslims’.
But there is also a pro-body veil reaction from some quarters.
Liberal people who (as a Facebook friend in the US remarks) are up in arms about the world imagined in The Handmaid’s Tale. But often the same individuals give weight to the idea that the religious obligations inflicted on women by this interpretation of Islam, are a choice to be celebrated.
There is talk – I thought it remained safely relegated to distant memories of courses on ‘theory’ – about the way it may free the female shape from the ‘male gaze’.
As if Islamic Law is about anything other than the behaviour of the believers in the sight of god enforced through violence if need be.
Not surprisingly the British SWP, with its long history of complicity with Islamism, has bent to this wind.
They are not trying to shout down criticisms of the burqa by linking them to the far-right.
Why criticising the burqa means lining up with racists
Boris Johnson’s attack on the burqa has left some liberals with a problem.
The article begins with this bold assertion:
“when supposed progressives criticise the burqa, it gives more credibility to the more overt Islamophobes.”
It then jumps to this statement,
Some liberals see the burqa as a reflection of sexist ideas.
They assume that women are pushed to cover themselves because female flesh has been deemed dirty or too exciting to men.
Of course there will be some Muslims who think this. But the idea is hardly Islamic—it’s deeply rooted in Western capitalist societies.
So that’s all right then.
Or not.
Think of rape trials where women are told they were “asking for it” because of what they wore. Or the Canadian cop who said that women should “avoid dressing like sluts” to escape sexual assault.
The SWP claims that
Many liberals, and right wingers, claim they want to “liberate” oppressed Muslim women who they assume have been forced to cover up.
Are they alone.
Apparently not:
We should oppose women being forced to wear coverings. And we should stand with the women in Iran who have defied the state and removed their hijabs in public, imprisoned as a result.
This is what the SWP said about these protests (4th of June):
Women are resisting the compulsory wearing of the headscarf—which is another very good thing happening at the same time.
Even women who want to wear it are saying it should be the right of women to choose.
As the left we have to support the women fighting back, and not leave the issue to the pro-imperialist right.
The problem is that the issue grabs attention in the West because it resonates with the Islamophobic representations of Iran.
The issue is being hijacked by Islamophobia by some in the media in the West.
End of story for the SWP until this week.
But its not Islam that’s at fault
But it isn’t true that Islam forces women to cover themselves. Like other religions, Islam suggests that men and women dress “modestly”. What this means is open to interpretation, which is why different Muslim women choose to wear different coverings, or none at all.
Women often say they choose to wear coverings to feel closer to Allah. It’s patronising to assume that every women who wears a hijab, niqab or burka has been told to do so by a man.
So they do it for Allah.
If religion is not a problem what is?
This also treats the main source of oppression facing Muslim women as Muslim men. In fact, the main oppressor of Muslim women is the state.
The state is of course the principal form of oppression for ‘women’: no doubt the ‘state’ has a special function in oppressing women……
Apart from wishing away decades of feminist debate about patriarchy, the family, and the old saying that the “personal is political’,
The confusion reaches its apex in confusing state legislation about the full body veil, ‘forcing’ women to give up the ” veils, headscarves or burqas with the idea that criticising the burka is to “line up with racists”.
Socialists should defend a woman’s right to choose what she wears. That includes the right to wear a burqa—and the right not to wear one.
Forcing Muslim women to give up wearing veils, headscarves or burqas isn’t liberating, just as encouraging women to wear skimpy clothes isn’t. Instead it’s just another form of judging women on their appearance and dress, and taking control and choice away from them.
Is siding with the legislation, in say France, when it was backed by all the political parties at the time, the same as being on the same side as the ‘far right’?
Is ‘forcing’ people to not wear the oppressive full-body veil the same as “criticism”?
This argument gets nowhere.
Rather than point out that the SEP feels no compunction about lining up with the far-right over Brexit the issue at hand should be taken seriously.
This is a ‘liberal’ view of a Muslim woman the SWP and others are trying to shut up.
Boris Has Made it Almost Impossible for Muslims to Critique Veiling.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
In my view, scarves, cloaks and masks symbolise the negation of the female form, female inferiority and menace, and most troublingly, a wilful distancing from other humans in the public space.
One of Britain’s foremost scholars Ziauddin Sardar, has this to say on the controversial subject: “In a total perversion of Qur’anic advice, dressing modestly has been interpreted as dressing like a nun, covered from head to foot, showing only a woman’s face (in some circles only the eyes), wrists and feet.”
Females thus accept the burden of modesty while men do not, though both have this obligation. Millions of Muslim women do not submit to these pressures. One of them, a senior TV producer unloaded her frustrations in an email: “We came here to get away from these oppressive expectations. Britain offered hope, a place where you were protected by the law, could be educated, go out, be free. “You could make your own decisions, strive to be equal to men.
Now this freedom is crumbling away because of a few shouty, veiled women. Our voice remains unheard.”
She is right. Vast numbers of white Britons give us their support when most we need it. They did this week. We Muslims need to give a little too – abandon regressive customs and integrate for the greater good and our survival. With the hard right marching again across Europe, Muslims face an existential threat. This is no time for cultural and religious obstinacy.
These are her views (2015) in more depth: As a Muslim woman, I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values.
They are much more materialist and historically rooted than airy abstractions about the ‘state’.
Muslim feminists of the past critiqued and repudiated the veil. One of them was a man, Qasim Amin, an Egyptian judge and philosopher, who in 1899 wrote The Liberation of Women.He was the John Stuart Mill of the Arab world. Huda Shaarawi set up the Egyptian women’s union in the early 1920s. One day in 1923, as she disembarked from a train in Cairo, she threw off her veil and claimed her right to be visible. Educated Iranian women started feminist magazines and campaigned against the veil around the same time. These pioneers have been written out of history or are dismissed as western stooges by some contemporary Muslim intellectuals.
After the transformative 60s, Muslim feminists resumed the fight for equality. European rule was over. It was time. The Moroccan academic Fatema Mernissi, Egypt’s Nawal El Saadawi and the Pakistani scholar Riffat Hassan all argued for female emancipation. They rightly saw the veil as a a tool and symbol of oppression and subservience. Mernissi’s Beyond the Veil ( 1975) is a classic text. So too El Saadawi’s The Hidden Face of Eve (1975). But more conservative Islamic tenets have taken over lands, communities, families, heads and hearts.
The promise of this version is a return to certainties and “purity” of belief, a mission backed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Deobandi revivalists, funded by Arab money, now run more mosques in Britain than any other Muslim subgroup. Women are told not to travel without male relatives, not to work, to be subservient, to veil. This movement began as a reaction against the Indian raj and mutated into a fundamentalist creed. Today their pushback against “cultural imperialism” appeals to many alienated young Muslims. And, in part, it explains the growing popularity of the hijab, jilbab and full veil .
But in the Qur’an, the veil is mostly used metaphorically to describe barriers between good and bad, believers and nonbelievers. In two verses, women are told to lower their gaze, and to cover their private parts and bosoms. Men are also instructed to lower their gaze, and to dress modestly. One verse commands the women in the prophet’s family to fully veil, partly to protect them from enemies and supplicants.
Sahar Amer, associate professor at the University of North Carolina, has studied these sacred injunctions: “[Nowhere] is the hijab used to describe, let alone prescribe, the necessity for Muslim women to wear a headscarf or any other pieces of clothing often seen covering women in Islamic countries today. Even after reading those passages dealing with the female dress code, one continues to wonder what exactly the hijab is: is it a simple scarf? A purdah? A chador? Or something else? Which parts of the body exactly is it supposed to cover? Just the hair? The hair and neck? The arms? Hands? Feet? Face? Eyes?”
All religions cast women as sinners and temptresses. Conservative Islam has revived the slander for our times
Veils, in truth, predate Islam. Zoroastrian and Byzantine upper-class ladies wore them to keep aloof from the hoi polloi. When Islam’s armies first reached Persia, they were shocked at this snobbery; then they adopted the custom they loathed; the control of women was hard-wired into their psyches.
All religions cast women as sinners and temptresses. Conservative Islam has revived the slander for our times. Women have to be sequestered or contained lest they raise male lust and cause public disorder. Some young Muslim women argue that veils liberate them from a modern culture that objectifies and sexualises females. That argument is appealing; but if credible, why would so many hijabis dress in tight jeans and clinging tops, and why would so many Muslim women flock to have liposuction or breast enhancements?
It is complicated: veils for me represent both religious arrogance and subjugation; they both desexualise and fervidly sexualise. Women are primarily seen as sexual creatures whose hair and bodies incite desire and disorder in the public space. The claim that veils protect women from lasciviousness and disrespect carries an element of self-deception. I have been at graduation ceremonies where shrouded female students have refused to shake the hand of the chancellor. Veiled women have provoked confrontations over their right to wear veils, in courts, at schools and in colleges and workplaces. But I regard their victories as a rejection of social compromise.
Moroccan feminist activist, Ibtissam Lachgar, arrested for Public Drinking and Disturbing Order.
Solidarity with Ibtissam Lachgar!
ABAT, Morocco (AP) — A prominent Moroccan feminist activist has been arrested for alleged public drinking and disturbance of order, in what her association called an attempt to quash its campaigning for abortion access and LGBT rights.
An online campaign was launched soon after Ibtissam Lachgar’s arrest Friday in Rabat, demanding her release.
Lachgar’s group Alternative Movement for Individual Freedoms, or MALI, said in a statement that “we strongly condemn these arbitrary arrests and intimidation of members of the movement.”
Hours earlier, MALI criticized the Health Ministry in a press release for banning sales of a drug used to induce abortion. The group also created an online platform to provide women with abortion pills.
Women who intentionally attempt or undergo abortion in Morocco face up to two years in prison and a $50 fine.
Mouvement Alternatif pour les Libertés Individuelles – Maroc
(from Face Book)
Betty Ibtissame Lachgar was assaulted in town, and unjustly detained at the police station while she wanted to file a complaint against her attackers ” with knives ‘: change of police stations, interrogations, degrading situation in the jails…
According to Betty’s family and friends, she’s supposed to be out in the morning to get past the da.
If Betty was to be a victim of violence, human rights violations or humiliation during her detention, the Moroccan state will be held in full responsibility by Mali, such violence will be prosecuted.
My house was smiling to thank you for being assaulted in the ancient city of Rabat, and was unjustly detained at the police station while she wanted to file a complaint against her attackers “with knives”: changing police stations, interrogations and humiliating situation at the theoretical guard.
According to Betty’s family and friends, you’re supposed to come out tomorrow morning to go to the d.a.
If Betty is a victim of violence, human rights violations or humiliation during her detention, the Moroccan state will be fully responsible by ” Mali and this violence will be pursued legally.
She has now been released.
There is a ‘debate’ about the MALI including allegations that they have been “provocative”.
That is, they have organised a campaign about the dramatic position of Moroccan women who wish to have an abortion and have to resort to clandestine methods. The movement is also charged with “muscular” activism having held a picnic in the month of Ramadan, a ‘kiss in’ to support two adolescents charged with embracing in public, backing gay rights and supporting Femen.
Ibtissam Lachgar alleges that before her arrest she and a friend were threatened by a group of young men for their “libertarian” lifestyle and, in the process of complaining to the local police, she was again menaced and insulted before finding out, later, that charges against her had been made. (Here)
Huffington Post reports on this:
As Controversy Rages on Boris Johnson, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Backer of the Burqa Ban, is invited to Momentum Labour Fringe.
‘Disparition’ by Yemeni photographer Boushra al-Moutawakel.
Boris Johnson should be kicked out of Conservative party for burka comments, Muslim peer demands.
Plenty of people have commented on the words of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party’s relationship to Islam, not to mention those who’ve joined in, with glee at the opportunity to attack the prejudices revealed amongst the Tories and their supporters.
In a different vein I began writing on the wider European and international context of the controversy this morning.
Johnson may speak for a ‘liberal’ attitude peppered with a few rude words (personally I find his handling of the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case, prisoner of the Islamic Republic of Iran far far worse).
An obvious point to begin with is that that the Danish Social Democrats, Socialdemokraterne, backed the public ban on the burqa,
“The Liberal, Conservative and Danish People’s parties all voted in favour of the bill, as did the opposition Social Democrats with the exception of MP Mette Gjerskov, thereby securing the majority.” The Local.
The full law needs looking at it:
Another issue would be the silence of most of the people now shouting about Johnson faced with this: (March 2018): Iranian woman who removed headscarf jailed for two years. “Prosecutor says woman took off obligatory hijab in Tehran street to ‘encourage corruption’.”
But, to return to the issue of the burqa in general, France, the best known secular country, has, with the support of many sections of the left, prohibited the full face veil since 2011 (Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public.) The bill was passed by the National Assembly by a vote of 335–1.
Amongst the left who backed the ban was Jean-luc Mélenchon, vocal in his enthusiasm for Laïcité, secularism.
It did not take long to draw some connections here, and the Spectator had got there before me:
Man who supported a burka ban to speak at Corbynista festival
Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The French socialist veteran who ‘inspired the European left with his radical campaign for the presidency in 2017’ will be speaking to a Momentum-heavy crowd at the event. And what is his view on Muslim dress? Well, it turns out he has advocated a full face veil ban, as well as stating that the burkini was ‘a provocation’ – and the ‘fruit of a Salafist religious offensive’:
‘It is not impossible or contrary to public freedoms and fundamental rights to legislate on dress practices if the defence of public order and human dignity justifies it. The complete concealment of the face is problematic from this dual point of view. It prevents any recognition of the persons concerned, which disturbs public order. And it also deprives them of social existence and undermines their physical and moral integrity which puts into question the dignity of the human person. It is therefore on this double basis that the law could affirm the obligation to have the face discovered in all public places.’
The Spectator gives no source for this quote but it a pithy and accurate summary of the views of the leader of La France insoumise (LFI).
Here is the site of The World Transformed 2018.
As a service to those attending the rally here are Some further indications of his stand:
From Tendance Coatesy: (2016).
Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the Burkini : “C’est une provocation”.
Dans Le Monde d’aujourd’hui, JLM condamne les “militantes provocatrices en burkini”. Michelle Guerci.
«L’instrumentalisation communautariste du corps des femmes est odieuse. C’est un affichage militant, mais quand on est l’objet d’une provocation, mieux vaut ne pas se précipiter dedans […] La masse des musulmans est excédée par une histoire qui les ridiculise. Valls a eu tort d’en rajouter. »
The ‘communitarian’ * exploitation of women’s bodies is vile. It’s a militant badge, but even so when we are the target of a provocation the best thing to do is not to get involved…The majority of Muslims are frustrated by this row, which makes them look ridiculous. Valls (Prime Minister) is wrong to add to it.
Il ressort de cette interview que JLM, ne condamne ni les maires qui ont pris ces arrêtés, ni Manuel Valls qui les a soutenus, ni la droite sarkoziste qui a orchestré cette campagne, ni le gouvernement qui laisse faire (3), mais des femmes accusées d’instrumentaliser leur propre corps ou de l’être par leurs maris, pères, cousins… Bref la fameuse COMMUNAUTE.
It is apparent in this interview that JLM neither condemns the Mayors who have instituted these by-laws, nor Manuel Valls (Prime Minister) who backs them, nor the (ex-President) Sarkozy’s right-wing which has orchestrated the campaign, nor the the government which has allowed this to happen, but the women involved, who have used their own bodies, or have been ‘used’ by their husbands, their fathers, their cousins…to put it simply, the famous “community”.
Le burkini est le fruit d’une offensive religieuse salafiste qui ne concerne qu’une partie de l’islam […] La question politique à résoudre reste celle du combat des femmes pour accéder librement à l’espace public.
The burkini is the product of a Salafist religious offensive which only affects a part of Islam….There still remains the political issue of women’s struggle for free access to the public sphere.
Michelle Guerci points out that the Burkini is in fact a relatively new phenomenon, which would itself be prohibited under the rule of severe Wahhabist codes.
******
When the law banning the bukha was first debated in 2010 this post was on Tendance Coatesy.
French Left Leader Backs Secular Freedom Against Religious Garb.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Here
On proposals to ban the Burka.
What is wrong with the Burka (voile intégral) ? “D’abord parce qu’il est obscène.”
To start with it’s obscene.
“Si l’objet de la nouvelle loi est bien de garantir la liberté, l’égalité et la dignité de toutes les femmes qui vivent sur notre territoire, d’autres mesures seraient opportunes dans ce cadre.
If the object of the new law is to guarantee freedom, equality and dignity of all women who live in our land, there are other measures which should be taken within this structure.
The Parliametary Left should amend the law (he is a Senator).
The aim should be to extend secularism.
It is time to impose the principle of ‘mixing’ (that is women and men should allowed to be together) in all public places. Today this principle is not guaranteed by law, even in schools.
For example, one cannot accept the rule that reserves certain hours in swimming pools for one gender. Or that certain types of sport should be reserved for one gender.
Finally, if the legislators are really coherent they should extend secularism to French overseas territories and to Alsace Moselle (where there is still recognition of religion as part of the state and the education system).
The LFI chef has not dropped his hostile views on Islamic ‘modest’ dress, as can be seen in this furious attack on his opinions on the veil in 2017.
Sur la question du voile, les propos choquants de Jean-Luc Mélenchon dans « L’émission politique »
During the 2017 Presidential elections the (now) Candidate for the Élysée emphasised his backing for banning the burka (voile intégral).
And in May 2018 the LFI leader criticised the fact that the new leader of the student union Unef, Maryam Pougetoux,, who has a veil, comparing it to himself advertising religion by wearing an enormous cross.
Many people will be uncomfortable with legislation on the issue of the face-veil, the burqa.
And with La France insoumise’s vision of a top-down administered secularism.
But from that to go and speak of this as if it’s simply a fashion choice, or worse, ‘celebrating’ it as a sign of diversity, is both insulting and reactionary.
The blood-stained tyrannies which have enforced this dress remind us that it is not, in the view of some currents of Islam, a ‘choice’ but an obligation.
As Terri Murray has put it, Why feminists should oppose the burqa.
The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.
The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.
Without challenging the burqa we cannot challenge the oppressions it is bound up with.
At the minimum it is hard to disagree than nobody in a public function should enforce their religious ideas of “Purity” and sexual segregation through the display of this oppressive costume.
