People talk about a clash of civilisations, but the real clash is between irreconcilable agendas, strategies and policies, argues Soumaya Ghannoushi.
Author Archives: Bob Pitt
German judge and legal Orientalism
“The Friday New York Times reported that a German judge denied a Moroccan woman’s request for an expedited divorce from her Moroccan husband – despite the apparently undisputed evidence that the husband had repeatedly abused her – on the grounds that such conduct is ‘common’ in Morocco and that the ‘Koran … sanctions such physical abuse’.
“While the condemnations of this decision have been swift, some of the criticism has been for the wrong reasons. Of course, there is the pious outrage of the German politician Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the Christian Democratic Union, who somewhat hyperbolically took the verdict as (further?) evidence that Islam threatens the German body politic. The New York Times quoted this far-sighted politician as saying ‘When the Koran is put above the German Constitution, I can only say, “Good night, Germany”.’
“Not much has been made of the utter casualness with which this judge could make gross generalizations about Moroccans, the Quran and, implicitly, Islamic law.”
Mohammad Fadel at Eteraz.org, 26 March 2007
See also New York Times, 23 March 2007
Ban the veil, says ultra-left sectarian
Maryam Namazie of the Worker Communist Party of Iran – who was the National Secular Society’s “secularist of the year” in 2005 – once again explains why, in the interests of “progress”, the right of Muslim women to dress as they choose must be suppressed:
“There are innumerable women and girls in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa to right here in the heart of Europe who know from personal experience what it means to be female under Islam – hidden from view, bound, gagged, mutilated, murdered, without rights, and threatened and intimidated day in and day out for transgressing Islamic mores. The veil, more than anything else, symbolises this bleak reality….
“I know our opponents often argue that there are many more pressing matters with regards to women’s status. Why all the fuss they ask? To me, it is like asking what all the fuss was about racial apartheid – or segregation of the races – in apartheid South Africa.
“… some of these apologists will concede that compulsory veiling must be opposed … but if it is a choice freely made than one must defend the ‘right’ to veil. I wholeheartedly disagree…. There may be women who ‘freely choose’ to genitally mutilate their daughters or immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre but that does not mean that we must then defend the right of women to do so or defend the practice of Suttee or FGM….
“The veil is not a piece of cloth or clothing, though it is often compared to miniskirts or other ‘lewd’ forms of clothing the rest of us unveiled women seem to wear. Just as the straight jacket or body bag are not pieces of clothing. Just as the chastity belt was not a piece of clothing. Just as the Star of David pinned on Jews during the holocaust was not just a bit of cloth….
“And this is why the chador, burqa and neqab must be banned – to defend women’s rights…. Because it is unacceptable for women to be segregated in the 21st century; and for women to walk around in a mobile prison or body bag because religion deems that they be kept invisible…. The hijab or any conspicuous religious symbol must be banned from the state and education and relegated to the private sphere. This helps to ensure that government offices and officials from judges, to clerks, to doctors and nurses are not promoting their religious beliefs and are instead doing their jobs….
“Throughout history, progress and change have come about not by appeasing, apologizing or excusing reaction, but by standing up to it firmly and unequivocally. This is what has to be against Islam, political Islam and the veil. We have to state loud and clear that sexual apartheid has no place in the 21st century; enough is enough.”
‘Quebec’s Le Pen’ likely to make major election gain
A young conservative populist sometimes described as Quebec’s Jean-Marie Le Pen is likely in today’s election to throw a spanner into the separatist versus federalist competition that has dominated Quebec politics for decades.
Polls indicate Mario Dumont’s Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ), a small fringe party for the past three elections, is about to seize the balance of power in the first minority parliament in 129 years. The ADQ has side-swiped the separatist Parti Quebecois and the ruling federalist Liberals, led by Jean Charest, by exploiting a backlash against multiculturism, especially Muslims.
A debate has developed throughout the province about what constitutes reasonable accommodation to the cultural and social practices of expanding ethnic communities. It was fuelled when, for example, a conservative Hasidic synagogue forced a sports centre to paint the windows of its swimming pool so students would not see people in swimming costumes.
Muslim headscarves and niqabs have also become a subject of controversy, especially when an 11-year-old girl was thrown out of a football match for wearing one. Quebec’s chief electoral officer has ordered that Muslim women must bare their faces if they want to vote, after an outcry over his original ruling that face coverings were acceptable.
M. Dumont, who describes himself as an autonomist wanting more power for Quebec, will probably tonight be in a position to implement many of the rightist, inward-looking policies on which he has campaigned. Both M. Charest and the Parti Quebecois leader, Andre Boisclair, seemed oblivious to the issue until polls showed M. Dumont was surging ahead.
Use violence against Muslims, says Van Gogh’s former mentor
Dutch politicians and media are downplaying excesses of multicultural society and thereby increasing these, in the view of Islam expert Hans Jansen. “The Netherlands should resist, using non-peaceful means”, he argues in weekly magazine Opinio.
Jansen, Professor of Modern Islamic Ideology at Utrecht University, characterizes the Dutch as inhabitants of “a peaceful enclave” who have, however, “forgotten that peace sometimes needs to be defended through violence”. A peaceful society that wishes to remain existent and stay peaceful “will have to find a way to defend itself through non-peaceful means from people who are not peaceful”, as the Arabist writes.
As Jansen sees it, the Netherlands is too indulgent to violence of fundamentalist Muslims. But he also suggests that moderate Muslims, too, strive after an Islamic society in the Netherlands. They intentionally make use of the radicals to enforce their wishes, according to the Arabist.
“We do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence”. The Dutch secret service (AIVD) should get a special department “that gets its hands dirty, if need be”.
Jansen is an authority on the Arabic language and the Koran. Theo van Gogh, who was murdered by a Muslim terrorist in 2004, employed him as his tutor on Islam.
‘A veiled threat by fanatics’
“Common sense seems to have prevailed in the High Court ruling giving schools the right to ban Muslim girls from wearing the full face niqab.
“Judge Stephen Silber rejected a 12-year-old grammar school pupil’s demand to wear one at school. She said it was her human right to turn up looking like a Muslim version of Bat Girl. He disagreed….
“This may seem like a small case but more and more it seems that extreme – and extremely vocal – Muslims are pushing away at our laws and customs in the name of religion when in fact it’s fanaticism.
“The judge agreed with the school’s view that wearing the niqab could lead to peer pressure on other Muslim girls to follow suit. Where’s the freedom of choice in that? But the bullying, bleating extremists never seem to be put off by a set-back. They also appear to have no sense of shame.
“On the same day the niqab decision was announced Britain’s most prominent Islamic organisaion, the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Muslim kids should have separate changing rooms for swimming and sport with individual cubicles – even for primary school kids – prayer rooms and single sex classes for biology lessons, which should stress ‘Islamic morals’. Oh, and they also want different uniform rules, a plea which has already been booted out.
“Of course these demands are not just unreasonable – they are downright impossible. And the Muslim Council of Britain must know that if they read even the occasional infidel’s newspaper or have an ounce of sense in their bearded bonces…. But it’s not really about getting what they want – it’s about making a lot of noise and nuisance and promoting a sense of grievance among Muslims – to keep the anger and resentment simmering.
“That’s why Mr Justice Silber’s verdict is so important. Respect and tolerance for other religions, yes – and a little tolerance by some Muslim leaders of Judaism and Christianity would make a real change.”
Paul Ross in the Daily Star, 25 February 2007
Muslim face veil banned in Quebec vote
MONTREAL – Muslim women will have to remove their face coverings if they want to vote in upcoming elections in Quebec, a government official said Friday, reversing his earlier decision to allow the veils.
Marcel Blanchet, the French-speaking province’s election chief, had been criticized by Quebec’s three main political leaders for allowing voters to wear the niqab, which covers the entire face except for the eyes, if they signed a sworn statement and showed identification when they vote.
But Blanchet reversed his earlier decision Friday, saying it was necessary to avoid disruptions when residents go to the polls. “Relevant articles to electoral laws were modified to add the following: any person showing up at a polling station must be uncovered to exercise the right to vote,” he said.
Blanchet had to get two bodyguards after the Quebec elections office received threatening phone calls and e-mails following his initial decision to allow niqabs.
The reversal was condemned by Muslims groups who said it could turn their members away from the polls. “I am so saddened, I doubt many of these women will show up at the polls on Monday after all this mockery,” said Sarah Elgazzar of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Last week in Quebec, a young Muslim woman was forced to quit her job at a prison after she refused to remove her headscarf. The public security department supported the decision, citing security concerns, but Muslim groups pointed out that the Canadian Armed Forces allow women to wear headscarves on active duty.
Last month, an 11-year-old Muslim girl from Ontario participating in a soccer tournament in Quebec was pulled from the field after she refused the referee’s request to remove her headscarf.
Is Islam compatible with a republic?
“Is Islam compatible with a republic? With Islamic radicalism running rampant both in America and throughout the West, all people of goodwill and those who love liberty must emphatically answer, No! With this said, what will America do about the enemies in our midst? Continue to put our heads in the sand and ape the idiotic rantings from the propaganda press? – ‘Islam is a religion of peace’; ‘Islam welcomes all faiths’; ‘George W. Bush is the biggest enemy of freedom, not al-Qaida’; and other asinine babblings of the political left, or will real men rise up, demand that the FBI put every mosque and imam in America under constant surveillance (as J. Edgar Hoover would have done) and find out what is really going on with our Muslim friends here in America?”
Ellis Washington in World Net Daily, 24 March 2007
Campbell attacks stop-and-search
Police stop-and-search powers are overused and alienating ethnic minority communities, Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell is expected to say later. The Lib Dems say nearly 167,000 people have been stopped under anti-terrorism laws, but only 40 have been convicted. In a speech at a mosque in Birmingham, Sir Menzies will say the powers are often used in an “indiscriminate” way.
Is no-one safe from Britain’s police state?
Is no-one safe from Britain’s police state?
By Tom Mellen
Morning Star, 23 March 2007
CIVIL rights campaigners and MPs warned yesterday that no-one is safe from punishment without trial after Home Secretary John Reid announced that nine British citizens are now subject to “control orders.”
This means that half of all the 18 controversial orders that are currently in force are against British citizens, rather than foreign nationals. In comparison, in February last year, just one of the 18 orders in force was against a British citizen.
Control orders are a form of house arrest under which the liberty of the recipient is severely restricted upon an order made by the Home Secretary.
In a quarterly update to MPs, Mr Reid said that two new orders have been made against British citizens – one on December 11 and another on March 10. He also admitted that a terror suspect who absconded last summer is now thought to be overseas.
Labour leadership contender John McDonnell MP said: “When control orders were introduced, we warned that this measure was a ruse to detain people without trial. Now it is escalating. If there is evidence, these people should be brought to trial. If not, they must not be subject to control orders, which undermine the fundamental priniciple of habeas corpus, a key aspect of our legal system for centuries.”
A Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC) spokesman warned that Mr Reid’s announcement is a “grave warning that no-one is safe from punishment without trial and that the government is moving further towards a police state.”