Thinly veiled Islamophobia

“… does wearing a veil make multi-culturalism more difficult? Does it stoke racial tensions? Is it anti-social? Is it right to ask Muslim women to remove their veils?

“I would answer no. It is true that for a society, multi-cultural or otherwise, to function properly its citizens must observe certain basic, shared values. For example, that the law of the country is paramount, and must be observed by everybody. If this value was not common throughout British society, we would have people of every religious or cultural sect acting according to their own specific laws, society would degenerate into chaos and would, effectively, cease to exist.

“So it is right, then, to say that even in a multi-cultural society (indeed; especially in a multi-cultural society), we must expect all citizens to observe certain common values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). However, ‘not wearing a veil’ is not a common value, nor should it be. Mr. Straw makes a mistake by conflating ‘difference’ and ‘separation’. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is that we allow people to express their differences, in fashion, in religion and in culture, within certain limitations (based on public safety)….

“Wearing a veil is, then, a ‘visible statement’ of ‘difference’, but this is not a negative thing. The freedom to express difference is what liberal, progressive democracies are all about. If it is true that ‘people who don’t understand [Muslim] culture’ can find women in veils ‘frightening and intimidating’, as a minister for Communities and Local Government (strangely, the Sunday Mirror described him as ‘Race Minister’) Phil Woolas put it, then the solution is to help people to understand Muslim culture, not to urge Muslims to ‘Westernise’ in order to to fit in better. Multi-culturalism is about embracing cultural differences, not seeking to homogenise society to make everyone look and act the same.

“… the truth is that there is no ‘issue’ with veils; the issue is one of intolerance among some white Britons to people of different cultures. This has been illustrated perfectly over the last few days, with yobs around the country committing hate crimes against Muslims. For example, yesterday a man in Liverpool attacked a Muslim woman, pulling the veil from her face. Earlier this week a 16-year old Asian youth was stabbed in Preston in a racially motivated attack, after a flare-up involving up to 200 people. Local yobs had been chucking bricks and concrete blocks at cars parked outside a mosque.

This is the real issue, the real obstacle to the success of multi-culturalism; Islamophobia due to fear, ignorance and association with terrorism….”

The Heathlander, 9 October 2006

Also features an effective reply to Joan Smith’s Independent on Sunday article.

Let’s draw a veil over Mr Straw

Rajnaara Akhtar“With one article in a local newspaper, Jack Straw has built up the walls of ignorance and division ever higher. A Muslim community that has been on the defensive for years is now finding itself facing a barrage of criticism about the way it chooses to express its faith; jeopardising its basic right of religious freedom. I oppose Mr Straw asking Muslim women who talk to him to take off their veils, not because I believe the veil is compulsory in Islam but rather because his politically motivated opinions have created a climate of intolerance against the veil and those who wear it.”

Rajnaara Akhtar, chair of Protect-Hijab, in the Times, 10 October 2006

‘Why the veil is a feminist issue’

“We are on the wrong track if we believe that veils are a religious issue. They’re not. Like fat, they’re a feminist issue. The clothes that women wear, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, are a powerful political statement about where they’re at; about the amount of freedom, self-esteem or independence they possess.

“The veil which covers the face, the niqab, is an enormously potent symbol of subjugation to a (male-controlled) religion. It is what Muslim men want. It is about control of women; about forced chastity. The veil sends out a very clear message that the woman behind it abides by the conventions of the Muslim faith; that she places the approval of men above her own self-expression.”

Melanie Reid in the Herald, 10 October 2006

Rushdie says ‘the veil sucks’

Rushdie and VeilMuslims turned on Salman Rushdie today for saying that veils “suck”. It came after the author stoked up the debate started by Jack Straw when the Commons leader said he asked constituents to remove their veils which he saw as a barrier to race relations.

Rushdie said: “He wasn’t doing anything compulsory. He was expressing an important opinion, which is that veils suck, which they do. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women.”

Rushdie’s comments came in an interview with Radio 4’s Today programme about his new joint exhibition with sculptor Anish Kapoor.

Rushdie said: “Speaking as somebody with three sisters and a very largely female Muslim family, there’s not a single woman I know in my family or in their friends who would have accepted wearing the veil. I think the battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women, so in that sense I’m completely on [Straw’s] side.”

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain who has clashed with the author over the Satanic Verses, said Rushdie had “no credibility whatsoever” within the Muslim community. “You can only have a debate with open minds, not closed minds. Islamophobes are currently doing all they can to attack Islam and it doesn’t surprise me if he is now jumping on the bandwagon,” he said.

Continue reading

Matgamna gets it (partly) right

This site has had some harsh words to say about the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in the past, but happily we’ve found an article, by Sean Matgamna on the veil controversy, at least some of which we can agree with. Of course, you have to put up with the usual denunciations of “Muslim bigots, and their kitsch-left and invertebrate-liberal toadies”, but the core of Matgamna’s article is correct:

“To do what Straw has just done, in the atmosphere in Britain right now, is to light a match in a gas-filled room. It is to pour petrol on a fire. Inevitably Straw has given the green light to people who want to have a go at Muslims, who are not at all concerned to have a reasonable discussion about Muslim women, or with Muslims….

“Dark-skinned Muslim people are victims in this society. They are easy targets. Straw has shown just how easy a target they are. Shamelessly racist newspapers, like the Express – one of a number of similar headlines: ‘Muslims pledge to ruin Straw’! – have weighed-in to turn his words into denunciation, blame-mongering, thinly disguised hate-mongering against identifiable Muslims.”

Workers’ Liberty, 9 October 2006

However, it’s difficult to square this argument with other positions taken by the AWL. Only a couple of weeks ago Matgamna came out in support of the pope – a stance that won him the admiration of Melanie Phillips – and earlier this year the AWL reproduced the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on their website on the basis of defending freedom of expression.

But, surely, the same argument applied in those cases. If freedom of expression is exercised in such a way that it incites bigotry and hatred against a minority community, in circumstances where that community is already under siege – by associating Islam with “things only evil and inhuman”, or by portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist bomber – then anyone with any progressive principles should condemn this. Time for the AWL to have a rethink, perhaps.

Veiled women are all victims of male oppression, Joan Smith claims

Joan Smith“… the hijab, niqab, jilbab, chador and burqa. I can’t think of a more dramatic visual symbol of oppression, the inescapable fact being that the vast majority of women who cover their hair, faces and bodies do so because they have no choice…. Muslim women in this country may [sic] be telling the truth when they say they are covering their hair and faces out of choice, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t been influenced by relatives and male clerics….

“The veil in its various forms signals that women have conditional access to public space, allowed to participate in the world outside the home only if they follow certain rules…. when women cover themselves, they are demonstrating their acceptance of an ideology that gives them fewer rights than men and an inferior place in society….

“Far from being a protection for women – it hasn’t prevented alarming levels of rape in Afghanistan and Iraq – the veil protects men from casual arousal. It also establishes women as the sexual property of individual men – fathers, husbands and sons – who are the only people allowed to see them uncovered.

“In that sense Mr Straw’s interventions, while useful in kicking off an overlong debate, do not go nearly far enough. The practice of covering women is a human rights issue in two senses, not just as a symbol of inequality, but because accusations of racism, cultural insensitivity and Islamophobia are commonly used to silence its critics. But if I loathe the niqab and the burqa when I see women wearing them in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be hypocritical to pretend I don’t find them equally offensive on my local high street.”

Joan Smith, Independent on Sunday, 8 October 2006

‘A growing number use the veil to provoke us’

“The burka and the full veil go unremarked in their countries of origin. But in Britain they sharply define one section of society and deliberately exclude the rest. And what were once masks imposed by men are increasingly adopted by some women as a silent gesture towards the host nation…. Meanwhile young men are being recruited across the country at secret meetings addressed by charismatic preachers of hate…. We are well down the road towards a divided nation where some predict Palestine-style conflict between one section and another.

“Too gloomy? A world statesman alarmed by Hezbollah’s sophisticated missile attacks on Israel from Lebanon thinks not. ‘In ten years, we may see rockets like these being fired from the suburbs of Paris’, he told me. And in London? In this context, the growing tendency to adopt the veil ceases to be a fuss about nothing. Islamic extremism thrives on grievances.

“For some women the veil is a genuine expression of faith. For most, it is a form of passive aggression. It is provocative. So, when someone stupidly – but predictably – reacts by ripping off a woman’s veil, a useful grievance is up and running. By the time anyone tries to restore order, that grievance is halfway round the Muslim world, with plenty more where it came from. And it feeds the case for those preaching jihad.”

Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun, 9 October 2006

The politics of choice

“Individuals and groups are entitled to decide how they wish to live, what they wish to eat, drink and wear, even if we strongly disapprove of their choices, as long as they cause no harm to others. Moreover, the state cannot intervene to impose a uniform way of life or way of thinking on its citizens. If it did, it would be sliding into totalitarianism. That is precisely what communism did in the name of cultural revolution, what Saudi Arabia is doing in the name of religion, what France is doing in the name of secularism, and what some sections of the media and political class would have us do in the name of integration and security.”

Soumaya Ghannoushi at the Guardian’s Comment is Free, 9 October 2006

Jack Straw should be praised for lifting the veil on a taboo

“Jack Straw was right to make the simple human point that it is rather hard to conduct a conversation with someone wearing the full veil. He was also right to make the further point that the full veil does not help relations between different communities.

“He didn’t quite say that the veil has no place in a liberal secular society, but if that was his intention I agree with it. This is not to persecute Muslims for their beliefs or deny them rights: it is simply to say that the veil, like it or not, has become increasingly regarded as a symbol of separatist aspiration and of female subservience. Many wear it voluntarily, but it does not stop this being a symbol of women’s oppression which stretches back to the times of classical Greece.

Henry Porter in the Observer, 8 October 2006