Lifting the veil [Archive]

Danton

24th December 2003, 07:57

"If we allow women to wear headscarves in state schools, then the republic and French democracy have made clear their religious tolerance but they have given up on any equality of the sexes in our country,"
- Elisabeth Badinter

Many French people regard the Hijab as a symbol of oppression against women. While it is by no means the rule, some female muslims are forced to wear the scarves by men, by husbands and fathers. Like if I'm travelling in an arabic country with a woman and she has to cover her shoulders and legs, we adhere to their archaic rules - when in Rome..

just an excuse to attack france's muslim minority.

It's an attack on all religious and political symbols which have no place in secular schools which in France are sacrosanct.. Some of France's five million muslims share Chiracs view...

"I am fighting for personal choice. Whatever your identity - whether Muslim, African, Algerian, French - all of us deserve to live under the equality of the law in a state like France, which values its secularity." - Samira Bellil

France has a long history of militantly progressive separation of the church from the state - since the revolution in fact and it looks like they'll be leading Europe again as two German states are considering similar legislation...Hopefully England will catch on next..

redstar2000

24th December 2003, 11:02

effectively, they are banning practicing muslim girls from attending school. that is what the result of this is gonna be. families religious enough to make their girls wear the veil, will keep them home.

Don't they have compulsory school attendance laws in France? If parents keep their daughters out of school, can they (the parents) not be prosecuted?

redstar, you haven't thought out the results of this. isolating the muslim community is gonna drive them to religion, not away from it. the best way to do that is not talk about their religion, let them integrate into society, and eventually the veil will drop on its own.

Well, that's the larger theoretical dispute. If we ignore religion, will it just "wither away" spontaneously? Or should more vigorous action be taken to directly oppose it and drive it out of public life?

I'll grant that there's some evidence that suggests that the "acid of capitalism" continually eats away at religious fundamentalism.

But as we have seen in the U.S., that doesn't seem to stop the periodic revival of the most grotesque superstitions and the most barbarous of practices in the name of those superstitions.

Therefore, I'm in favor of the "pre-emptive attack" strategy...keep those bastards constantly on the defensive.

(Note: I agree with you that there is a hidden agenda involved...the reactionary hatred of immigrants who just happen to be Muslims. If they were Buddhists, no doubt shaving the head would be up for banning. But I think that instead of defending religion, the best way to attack the reactionary anti-immigrant forces is again pro-active: full and unconditional equality of all French citizens, period. Affirmative action strategies might prove useful here.)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

24th December 2003, 12:09

I agree with Red Star on this one, if a Muslim girl can't go to school because she needs to wear a head scarf, then her parents ought to be locked up for jamming those ideas down her throat, and her ass should sent to school anyways, without the head scarf.

cubist

24th December 2003, 18:36

if the redstar becomes illegal i will get one tatooed on my arse.

24th December 2003, 18:54

This is a head scarf, let's not confuse it with a veil.

http://www.amapolagallery.com/helenbamert/scarf.jpg

Socialsmo o Muerte

24th December 2003, 21:13

I was about to post the same thing

Socialsmo o Muerte

24th December 2003, 21:20

For those of you who are anti-religion (i.e. redstar), the passing of such a law will lead to results that wil only annoy you more. I think someone touched upon it, but if they don't allow Islamic girls to wear their headscarf then that will drive Islamic communities around France and, possibly, Europe to be even more protective about their religion. They will feel that their faith and their beliefs are being attacked once more and any attack on one's religon only leads to self-defence. Muslims will become even more isolated and separate from the rest of society and more strongly united against the authority.

I say Muslims but, of course, I mean any religious people who get their right to show their religious identities taken away from them.

Your Stalinist attitudes (i.e. "her parents ought to be locked up for jamming those ideas down her throat, and her ass should sent to school anyways, without the head scarf." - MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, Dec 24 2003, 01:09 PM) are exactly what is driving a wedge between religous and non-religious communities and it is YOU who should be the ones locked up, not the parents of a child trying to follow their faith.

Kez

24th December 2003, 21:46

we all agree religion should be got rid of, but chirac is doing this from the right, not the left.

this will divide the community, and polarise religion and athiesm, and indeed split the working class, when infact, regardless of religion we should smash capitalism, Lenin said that in time of agitation religion is not important (these are not exact words lol) and we should argue bout religion on barricades.

Guest1

24th December 2003, 21:53

thank you kamo. that's exactly what I'm trying to say here.

redstar, you might want to attack religion, and there is a way to do that. you ban religious symbols being shown by the school itself, you ban the teaching of creationary theory, you ban the teaching of homophobic views, you ban religious schooling, you legalize gay marriage, all of those things would do so much to eliminate religion from the state. this obviously does nothing to do that.

gawkygeek

24th December 2003, 22:39

Chirac's actions are completely in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration of Human rights articles 18, Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, 19, Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. and 26-2,Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace

this action discredits his detest for the United States actions against Iraq and entitles him to be tried by the ICC as a crime against humanity. it is not the place of government to end religous practices, it is their place to ensure that no one is being persecuted because of their religious beliefs. this just alienates the religious from recieving a propper education, and the most religious are often the poor, only they will be hurt by this inhumane action

Fidel Castro

25th December 2003, 01:02

This is stupid. We live in a world where most people are free to express their beliefs and observe their religion both publicly and privately.

It should be the duty of all socialists to promote freedom of expression rather than suppress it. Chirac has really come up with a stupid and rather fascist idea here.

Geng

Guest1

25th December 2003, 01:28

not only this, but everybody seems to be ignoring the second part of the law, the direct danger of allowing government to create a dress code has been shown surprisingly quickly. in the very same law, it also bans politically controversial clothing. swatikas maybe the real target, but I wouldn't be surprised if hammers and sickles were included.

it is not the place of government to legislate clothing. this is even more true in europe, where nude beaches are common place.

I expect, and hope, that everyone will be breaking this law left and right, and taking it to the supreme court.

with enough cases in courts, it'll become the next marijuana law, eating up public time and money because you don't like what someone is doing.

fucking rediculous.

redstar2000

25th December 2003, 01:57

They will feel that their faith and their beliefs are being attacked once more and any attack on one's religion only leads to self-defence.

Yes, I agree that it's likely that many Muslims will react in this fashion...especially in the older generations.

But, as the late Edward Said pointed out repeatedly, Muslims are as diverse a sample of humanity as any other large group of people. I expect that the new rule will have a psychologically "liberating" effect on young Muslim women and girls. If a symbolic scarf can be discarded--and "the heavens do not fall" after all--what else might be possible?

Chirac's actions are completely in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights articles 18...

This, I presume, is intended as humor. The record of the United Nations with regard to "human rights" weighs about as heavily as a starving insect.

Chirac has really come up with a stupid and rather fascist idea here.

Nonsense. And wouldn't it be great if people would learn something about fascism besides how to spell it...before casually sprinkling their posts with the word?

this will divide the community, and polarise religion and atheism, and indeed split the working class, when in fact, regardless of religion we should smash capitalism, Lenin said that in time of agitation religion is not important (these are not exact words lol) and we should [not] argue about religion on barricades.

Kamo, we're not "on the barricades".

And polarization is required if we are to advance. The development of revolutionary consciousness has a "million" forms--it's not just a matter of "a Leninist convincing a non-Leninist to buy a newspaper". Chirac is actually taking a tiny step that, regardless of his motives, will advance the revolution.

It should be the duty of all socialists to promote freedom of expression rather than suppress it.

No, it is the duty of socialists to promote freedom of expression for us and to oppose it for all forms of reactionary expression.

That's the logical consequence of class struggle.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

giant24us

27th December 2003, 04:59

It is up to a person what they choose to wear. what is wrong with a head scarf? it is a symbol of modesty.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

27th December 2003, 23:52

Kids aren't allowed to wear any sort of head coverings in school here, but where do you stop with that? What next? Allow Muslim women to see only women doctors? Broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day? Mandatory fasting for Ramadan? I say no special considerations for people on the basis of religion. Pretty soon it will someones religious belief to do something truely offencive like...dance around naked and urinate on the infidels, will we make accomodations to our laws for them too?

Misodoctakleidist

28th December 2003, 00:05

Redstar, you say that muslim girls would be 'liberated' but many are now wearing the veil through choice becuase it deters the attention of men, would they be liberated?

giant24us

28th December 2003, 03:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 01:05 AM
Redstar, you say that muslim girls would be 'liberated' but many are now wearing the veil through choice becuase it deters the attention of men, would they be liberated?
muslim women wear the hijab by choice. it is a CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS thing. taking it away forcibly is wrong.

28th December 2003, 03:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 07:52 PM
Kids aren't allowed to wear any sort of head coverings in school here, but where do you stop with that? What next? Allow Muslim women to see only women doctors? Broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day? Mandatory fasting for Ramadan? I say no special considerations for people on the basis of religion. Pretty soon it will someones religious belief to do something truely offencive like...dance around naked and urinate on the infidels, will we make accomodations to our laws for them too?
The slope is not that slippery.

apathy maybe

28th December 2003, 05:56

I know that I will get into trouble for this but hell,

Freedom, people should be allowed to speak whatever they want (even promoting fascist ideas), wear whatever they want (including religious and political symbols), and do whatever they want (so long as it doesn't harm another person).

For if you ban one end of the spectrum, why not ban the other? And I'm on the other so I'ld rather it not be banned.

ComradeRed

28th December 2003, 06:39

Assume temporarily that your defintion of freedom (people should be allowed to speak whatever they want (promoting fascist ideas), wear whatever they want (including religious and political symbols), and do whatever they want (so long as it doesn't harm another person).) is correct. Isn't promoting fascist/nazi ideas harming people (gypsies, jews, communists, etc.), thus it's not freedom according to your defintion. So either: a), your defintion is incorrect or b), freedom doesnt include promoting fascist/nazi ideas.

28th December 2003, 07:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 02:39 AM
Isn't promoting fascist/nazi ideas harming people (gypsies, jews, communists, etc.), thus it's not freedom according to your defintion.
It doesn't harm anyone physically, and should be protected as a persons right to free speech.

redstar2000

28th December 2003, 07:57

Muslim women wear the hijab by choice. It is a CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS thing. Taking it away forcibly is wrong.

I greatly doubt that Muslim women do anything "by choice"...unless they are prepared to risk their lives.

Do you know what "honor killings" are?

If, in the opinion of her male relatives, a woman has said or done anything that "brings dishonor on her family", it is the solemn obligation of such male relatives to murder her and "remove the stain of dishonor".

It would not surprise me to learn that every Muslim mother teaches this lesson to her daughters with grave diligence: disobedience to males = death!

Chirac's move forces a tiny crack into that monstrous "cultural and religious thing".

If it were up to me, French schools would have a really honest course in religious history and customs...taught by fire-breathing atheists.

Oh well, after the revolution...

Redstar, you say that muslim girls would be 'liberated' but many are now wearing the veil through choice because it deters the attention of men, would they be liberated?

Don't know much about adolescent females, do you? You might want to scan a few of the "sex, courtship & flirtation" threads in Chit-Chat.

Adolescents of both sexes positively delight in attention from potential mates--the hormones are pumping away at the highest rate they ever will.

I can still remember what it was like being a teenager...I was ready for sex a dozen times a day.

I don't think I was "unique".

What is wrong with a head scarf? It is a symbol of modesty.

Only in the eyes of her male relatives. To everyone else, it's a symbol of her oppression.

And "modesty"? Good grief, what an absolutely archaic idea!

Do you cross yourself when passing a church?

...a person's right to free speech.

There's no such thing.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Guest1

28th December 2003, 09:12

vile, vile, vile.

I will be the first, redstar, to condemn the oppression of women in Islam. I was once almost stab for trying to do that, by my very own cousin.

believe me, I am very radical in my hatred for my relatives' closed-mindedness. but this is bullshit.

you, my friend, have never met any teenage muslims. if they are in a western coutnry and haven't taken the veil off by their teenage years, it is because they genuinely want to keep it. if they didn't, trust me, I went through it, my cousins went through it, all hell breaks loose. the teenager will get what they want in the end. and stop wearing the veil, or in my case, grow my hair long, etc... etc...

have you never met a geek or nerd, or a generally introverted person? someone who just doesn't drink, or go out much, or is really late in getting into dating, or doesn't really want to have sex yet.

they exist.

my best friend is an atheist, and one of them

as for honour killings, they're very, very rare. a sign of disturbed people. and not wearing a veil is hardly sex before marriage, or adultry. to assert that a muslim woman in the west doesn't have the choice of not wearing it for fear of honour killings is rediculous.

you're tripping over yourself redstar. bubbling with hatred for cultural evolution. evolution will obliterate religion and burn its books. and evolution will not bear any being arrogant enough to think he can do the job better. you or chirac

redstar2000

28th December 2003, 10:20

you, my friend, have never met any teenage muslims. if they are in a western country and haven't taken the veil off by their teenage years, it is because they genuinely want to keep it. if they didn't, trust me, I went through it, my cousins went through it, all hell breaks loose. the teenager will get what they want in the end. and stop wearing the veil, or in my case, grow my hair long, etc... etc...

Yes, I imagine "all hell" does break loose.

As a guy, you can wear your hair long and not run into "honor" problems; in fact, there are probably conservative Muslims who would endorse long hair on males (and not shaving the beard either).

What a teenage female raised in the Muslim tradition "wants" is much more problematical. Does she want "all hell to break loose"? Especially, if it could cost her the risk of injury or even death?

Remember, Muslims are not clones...perhaps your family is actually more "westernized" than many.

have you never met a geek or nerd, or a generally introverted person? someone who just doesn't drink, or go out much, or is really late in getting into dating, or doesn't really want to have sex yet.

Of course. Justifiably or unjustifiably, they believe themselves deeply unattractive to potential mates; fearing rejection, they block that possibility in advance...by rejecting any interest in the matter at all.

Of course, a few kids are a lot more "serious" than most others; whatever their passionate interest might be, it doesn't leave much time for courtship rituals.

But I doubt very much that teenage Muslim girls are so absorbed in their academic studies that they wish to "cover up" and/or "ugly down" so as to avoid teenage male attention. A few perhaps...but no more than a few. And you don't need a headscarf to do that...

as for honour killings, they're very, very rare. a sign of disturbed people. and not wearing a veil is hardly sex before marriage, or adultery. to assert that a muslim woman in the west doesn't have the choice of not wearing it for fear of honour killings is ridiculous.

Frequency is not the issue; possibility is the issue. Because "honor killings" exist and are known to exist, every Muslim woman is always aware of "what could happen". And when men and boys are not present, you can be certain that she teaches that lesson to her daughters. It's a "life and death" issue.

Just as sensible women avoid "dangerous neighborhoods" at night. Objectively, the chance of rape/murder might be quite minimal--1 in 5,000 or 1 in 10,000 or whatever--but why risk it?

"Honor killings" are quite rare in western countries--that's true. The men who do them are treated just like any other murderer; unlike Jordan, for example, where the typical sentence (upon conviction) is six months...and afterwards, you're a "man of respect" in your neighborhood or village.

But "honor killings" happen here too...in California, in London, and, I'm sure, in France. A non-conforming Muslim female is not "safe" just "because" she lives in a western country.

And she probably knows that, even if only "in the back" of her mind.

you're tripping over yourself redstar. bubbling with hatred for cultural evolution. evolution will obliterate religion and burn its books. and evolution will not bear any being arrogant enough to think he can do the job better. you or chirac

How does "cultural evolution" take place except through struggle?

You may not care for my methods...or Chirac's. That's a difference of opinion regarding tactics. You want to go "slower" than I do (or Chirac does)...but you want to move in the same direction, right?

Right???

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

cubist

28th December 2003, 15:53

the girls that where it through choice and not faith wouldn't be wearing a religous symbol would they

Hate Is Art

28th December 2003, 16:35

i think redstar is right, he is just giving the muslims a push over the edge into religous uncertantity while you are trying to convince them to go freely.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

28th December 2003, 20:54

I think we all realize how a religiously devout population affects what happens in a country. The Inquistion, KKK, Holocaust, genocide against American Indians, and what we are seeing today, is all because of religion. I feel that everything bad that happens in the world, if not because of some nutcase, or because of capitalism, is because of religion. Once again, like with drugs, I'm stuck taking the authoritarian stance. I say ban it outright.

ComradeRobertRiley

28th December 2003, 21:04

Religion of all/any form should be banned, drugs should be legalised.

Danton - Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive?

LOL that was the funniest thing ive read in a long time!

Pete

28th December 2003, 21:56

it's rediculius, just an excuse to attack france's muslim minority. effectively, they are banning practicing muslim girls from attending school. that is what the result of this is gonna be. families religious enough to make their girls wear the veil, will keep them home.

It is not an attack on Islam only, the way you worded your post made it seem like you believed it was. That is just willfull blindness. The media here (in Canada) is playing the same trick, in their headliens and first few paragraphs, and then after you get through the opening and catchy pictures and title you see that it is all religious symbols, yet people see it as a vicitmization of one religion.

Anyways, willful blindness is horrible, something everyone, espeically leftists, should avoid. If you want to put a group into the light of victim here, don't limit it to Muslims, that is a lie in its self. All religions are being targeted.

I know of the explusions for wearing head scarves, but if this law is anything, it is not discrimnatory based on religion.

-Pete

Hate Is Art

28th December 2003, 22:23

willfull blindness is horrible and i was wondering i someone was completely free to choose a religion would they? or would they go with aethiesm?

Misodoctakleidist

28th December 2003, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 10:04 PM
Religion of all/any form should be banned
Oh yeah, and how do you propose that should be enforced?

Will people be arrested for having religious thoughts?

How do you define religion?

dannie

28th December 2003, 23:03

i think a better idea is to ban religious institutions, if people are religious in their own homes i think it will be easier to take care off

ComradeRobertRiley

28th December 2003, 23:08

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Dec 29 2003, 01:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Dec 29 2003, 01:50 AM)
[email protected] 28 2003, 10:04 PM
Religion of all/any form should be banned
Oh yeah, and how do you propose that should be enforced?

Will people be arrested for having religious thoughts?

How do you define religion? [/b]
Its an opinion not a method.

What I mean is that there shouldnt be effort/money on building stupid waste of time churches.

You cant stop someone from thinking that there is a god, just try to educate them.

Misodoctakleidist

28th December 2003, 23:20

I think we should just leave religion alone, don't encourage it, don't discourage it.

We should concentrate on class equality once that's achieved religion will pretty much disapear anyway, it's already in decline.

29th December 2003, 04:08

Honor killings are Cultural. Religion and culture are often confused.

Guest1

29th December 2003, 07:17

that's what I tried to say, redstar doesn't wanna listen.

as for why I think we should "go slow", religion si already on the decline, church attendance is at the lowest level for a century across all the developed world. you know why? because the strategy of choking it out of government institutions is working, all we need now is to ban those televangelist infomercials, and keep eating away at it by subversively promoting atheism. ignoring it is working, this stupidity is only going to bring it back into the spotlight, and make it into a rallying-call for religious institutions to awaken their drones who were drifting away.

it's idiotic.

Danton

29th December 2003, 09:49

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 29 2003, 08:17 AM
ignoring it is working
That's your assertion, it comes without any evidence. I ignore the bills and hope they will go away but I have to pay up eventually, proactivity is what resolves these matters. These religious items are already banned for public sector workers....

choking it out of government institutions is working

Why then should schools or hospitals be any different? That goes for swastika's, hammer's and sickle's, star of david etc... No place in state run schools!

As for segregating muslim children, it is the hijab itself which is already doing that, this legislation proposes to intergrate children of all races/cultures equally, regardless of the religion their parents foisted on them...

redstar2000

29th December 2003, 10:23

Honor killings are Cultural. Religion and culture are often confused.

I've heard that "excuse" before. The last time was, I believe, when unveiled women in Bangladesh had acid thrown in their faces.

Or was it when some gay men received prison terms in Cairo?

Well, people, here's a "news flash"--religion is cultural.

It doesn't just "fall out of the sky" like "divine revelation"...although it always claims such origins.

It reflects the culture in which it grew up and, in turn, affects other traits of that culture...usually reinforcing them.

A primitive culture which treats women as property will have a religion in which such treatment is "God's will".

The specifics of the mistreatment--honor killings, acid baths, genital mutilation--may differ from one part of the world to another...the religion is "comfortable" with all of them.

Why shouldn't it be? It was invented for the purpose of reinforcing an existing culture.

It will try to adapt to new cultures, of course, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. It will try to adapt to the changes in existing culture, when it can.

But escaping from its roots in the old culture in which it originated is very difficult...it "wants" to "keep things the same".

Inevitably, it becomes reactionary.

ignoring it is working, this stupidity is only going to bring it back into the spotlight, and make it into a rallying-call for religious institutions to awaken their drones who were drifting away.

Well, that's speculation. You might be right and you might be wrong.

And, in this complex matter, you could be both right and wrong. Some conservative Muslims and their followers will see this as a "rallying" issue; others may see it as an opportunity to get "out from under" the mullah-wannabes.

Cultural change is complicated. The decline of the influence of religion in the west had/has both "passive" and "active" components. People "drifted away"--true--but people were also encouraged in that "drift" by active changes in the law.

Divorce and safe abortion, for example, were always available to Italy's ruling classes...but legally prohibited for ordinary people for "religious" reasons. Now that is no longer the case. The "big issue" in Italy at the moment is the removal of crucifixes from the walls of public schools. The church is howling in outrage (like the mullahs in France, no doubt)...probably to no avail.

The struggle continues...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

ComradeRobertRiley

29th December 2003, 11:01

But religion contributes to inequality.

Guest1

29th December 2003, 18:22

-American church attendance (http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-around-church/church-addendance.htm)
-Irish church attendance (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-09252003-166742.html)
-Canadian chruch attendence (http://www.canoe.ca/LifewiseHeartSoulwise01/0131_attendance_cp.html)

as for religion contributing to inequality, I still don't see how wearing a cross does. The veil, I can understand it contributing to inequality, but this attack on this specific custom will do nothing to bring it down. we need to attack the religion itself, which is what we have been doing.

you want to extend this to hospitals? what, you gonna refuse muslim women in the emergency room? I'd like to see you get away with that one.

and how can you honestly agree to ban hammers and sickles in schools and hospitals? schools are where alot of people first become politically awakened. you're killing the revolution before it begins.

and redstar, you must understand, religion is backwards, and the west has had the years it needs to pretty much rid itself of it. it's true, we haven't done the same. i'm sorry the third world hasn't had anything to show it that living on this earth is worth it without believing in fairy tales. i'm sorry the west has aided our elite in their quest to crush every secular movement, holding us back. I'm sorry that the hunger and poverty the majority of the arab world lives in compels them to hope for something better.

you had time to evolve culturally and rid yourselves of it. what you should be doing now is being patient, aiding as much as you can, but not forcing them.

this is so typical of the white man. speaking of civilizing the backwards easterners. excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt, I don't need your white man's burden.

redstar2000

30th December 2003, 00:53

this is so typical of the white man. speaking of civilizing the backwards easterners. excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt, I don't need your white man's burden.

This is "so typical" of someone with a weak argument who wishes to impugn the integrity of someone with a stronger argument.

At no time have I ever expressed the view that "white men" should go and "civilize" easterners.

It is, in fact, my view that people "civilize themselves". For example, it would do little good for a "Red EU" to demolish the great mosque at Mecca...in a few years, people there would just re-build it, probably on an even grander scale.

You must do it yourselves.

But I feel no inhibition in telling you that's what you need to do...if you want to enter the modern world.

Nor do I see any reason why I "should" be inhibited about that...I say exactly the same thing to my "fellow westerners"...you yourself have acknowledged the fact that a zealous Christian can't stick his head out from under a rock on this board without me "casting the first stone"--99.99% of the time, I'm trying to "civilize" westerners.

And having a tough time of it, I'll have you know!

Please recall that Chirac wants to get rid of the ostentatious crosses and Jewish skull-caps too. Chirac is, in his own small way, also trying to "civilize" westerners. And he's not having a much easier time of it than I am.

and redstar, you must understand, religion is backwards, and the west has had the years it needs to pretty much rid itself of it. it's true, we haven't done the same. I'm sorry the third world hasn't had anything to show it that living on this earth is worth it without believing in fairy tales. I'm sorry the west has aided our elite in their quest to crush every secular movement, holding us back. I'm sorry that the hunger and poverty the majority of the Arab world lives in compels them to hope for something better.

This sounds like the whiny plea of some poor bastard in court charged with vagrancy.

I'm not your "judge"--don't whine to me! I was making speeches in support of Arab secular resistance to western imperialism when I was in high school (1956-60). I'm almost certainly the only person on this board who has actually read the United Nations reports that led to the partition of Palestine and knows first hand how unjust they really were from the beginning.

You want me to say: "Aawww, poor Arabs, they're so backward and fucked up that they just can't help themselves."???

Wrong department; try the "tea & sympathy" department across the hall. They accept all excuses at face value.

In "my" department, excuses for "being patient" with reaction are steeply discounted. Generally, we use them whenever we run short of toilet paper...or pages torn from "holy books".

As a matter of record, 9th century Baghdad and 12th century Spain pretty much demonstrated that Arabs could "lead the world" in "civilization"...so capability is not at issue here.

What's at issue is the willingness of Arabs to struggle against their own reactionary ideas...particularly Islam.

Please don't shoot at the messenger...even if he's "white".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

30th December 2003, 03:12

IMO it is not the religion that is the problem, it is how people practice it.

The way Muslims practice their religion in America is different to the way Muslims practice Islam in Saudi Arabia, or Iran. What accounts for this? People can keep their faith (religion), and still be "civilized"

I don't think that Chirac's is trying to "civilize" anyone.

Guest1

30th December 2003, 04:48

my point was exactly that you haven't said anything about it. white man's burden involves good intentions, it always does. you don't realize you're speaking from a position of experience, a history of subversiveness. it is precisely because I have alot of respect for you that I am pointing this out. these people don't have that history, or that position. they have not been exposed to anything but the myths. to force them out now, into the cold world, where god doesn't exist. that would be like robbing a child of its chance to grow out into the world where santa doesn't exist. sure, he should never have been made to believe in his existance to begin with, but telling it to a child just like that causes some serious psychological issues. trust issues, where he will never want to believe anyone again, not even you. or maybe he'll just try even harder to hold on to santa and end up being the only kid who didn't outgrow him.

I'm sorry I lost my cool, but it's very frustrating arguing with someone about this law. the government should never have the right to legislate what we wear, I don't even believe in anti-nudity laws. ontop of the debate I was havingw ith you, someone comes in in responds to my point that the law includes political symbols by saying that hammers and sickles should be banned from schools and hospitals too. does no one else see the lunacy?

30th December 2003, 05:38

Another thing, I wouldn't really have much of a problem if they just banned veils. There is an identity/security issue with that.

leftist manson

30th December 2003, 06:17

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 24 2003, 10:20 PM
For those of you who are anti-religion (i.e. redstar), the passing of such a law will lead to results that wil only annoy you more. I think someone touched upon it, but if they don't allow Islamic girls to wear their headscarf then that will drive Islamic communities around France and, possibly, Europe to be even more protective about their religion. They will feel that their faith and their beliefs are being attacked once more and any attack on one's religon only leads to self-defence. Muslims will become even more isolated and separate from the rest of society and more strongly united against the authority.

I say Muslims but, of course, I mean any religious people who get their right to show their religious identities taken away from them.

Your Stalinist attitudes (i.e. "her parents ought to be locked up for jamming those ideas down her throat, and her ass should sent to school anyways, without the head scarf." - MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, Dec 24 2003, 01:09 PM) are exactly what is driving a wedge between religous and non-religious communities and it is YOU who should be the ones locked up, not the parents of a child trying to follow their faith.
so very right
i totally agree

leftist manson

30th December 2003, 06:20

Originally posted by (*@Dec 30 2003, 04:12 AM
IMO it is not the religion that is the problem, it is how people practice it.

The way Muslims practice their religion in America is different to the way Muslims practice Islam in Saudi Arabia, or Iran. What accounts for this? People can keep their faith (religion), and still be "civilized"

I don't think that Chirac's is trying to "civilize" anyone.
ummmmmmmm
that's like a true philosopher

Guest1

30th December 2003, 07:37

I would have much more of a problem with it if they just banned veils, then it wouldn't just be lunacy, it would be persecution too.

redstar2000

30th December 2003, 11:14

People can keep their faith (religion), and still be "civilized".

Well, that's debatable, is it not? American Christian fundamentalists strike me as a pretty barbaric bunch of assholes, for example. I think they'd burn a "witch", if they thought they could get away with it.

white man's burden involves good intentions, it always does.

Who believes that, aside from Rudyard Kipling?

Most people, when confronted with "western" pretensions of "helping" the "backward peoples", know enough to look for the scam...there pretty much always is one, you know.

Certainly we know that.

Kipling coined the phrase "white man's burden" in a poem addressed to Americans, following their conquest of the Philippines. He was extremely blunt in his views, suggesting that the "eastern peoples" were "ungrateful children"--hinting, I suppose, that it would be "ok" to "discipline" them.

The U.S. "disciplined" the "ungrateful children" of the Philippines by murdering 5,000-50,000 members, dependents, and random by-standers of the Philippine independence movement.

I mention all this simply to point out that it has nothing to do with my own views at all. I don't think the various western imperialisms that have inflicted so much misery and ruin on the Arab world have ever acted from "humanitarian" motives...their verbal pretenses notwithstanding. Nor do I think they ever will. If they do something that "looks humanitarian", it's time to start digging for the real motive. At best it will turn out to be a cynical maneuver...and at worst, well...you know as well as I.

they have not been exposed to anything but the myths. to force them out now, into the cold world, where god doesn't exist. that would be like robbing a child of its chance to grow out into the world where Santa doesn't exist.

But Arabs are not "children".

The implication here is that if Arabs were to learn that "Allah" does not exist, they would be "crushed".

They are "too weak" to face the truth.

I don't see how you can say this. They were not "too weak" to smash French imperialism in Algeria and even bring down the French 4th Republic in the process.

They were not "too weak" to overthrow the British puppet regime in Iraq.

They were not "too weak" to take back the Suez Canal and make it stick...causing the permanent downfall and disgrace of the odious Anthony Eden.

And they are turning out not to be very "weak" at all in Iraq now...as America's lackeys (like Thailand and Bulgaria) are finding out to their cost.

The Arabs are not "weak". They are as strong as any people. They can face the truth.

Look, you and I face a situation that is actually very similar. I have to tell Americans that imperialism sucks...even though most Americans "believe in it".

You have to tell Arabs that Islam sucks...even though most Arabs "believe in it".

Neither of us has a "popular message". Both of us have been and will be accused of being "traitors" or worse.

It is also a "dangerous message"...under certain circumstances, we could be killed for telling people what they don't want to hear. Thus, prudence is required.

In Miami, anti-imperialist demonstrators are beaten and raped. In "Saudi" Arabia, protesters are shot or beheaded. It's a very nasty world out there.

But if we don't take the initiative to tell people what they need to hear even though they very much don't want to hear it, who will?

And if not now, when?

Am I supposed to wait until the next "Thomas Jefferson" becomes president before speaking out? Are you waiting for the next "Gamal Abdul Nasser"? Or a Syrian version of "Chirac"?

I know this sounds "hard"...but there are ways to fight reactionary ideas even under the most repressive conditions. I'm not telling you to risk "life and limb" as a matter of "principle"--I'm telling you to figure out some "safe" ways to do it and then do them. Secular thought in the Arab world does not need martyrs; it needs effective propagandists.

Or else, things will continue as they have.

the government should never have the right to legislate what we wear, I don't even believe in anti-nudity laws.

In principle, I agree with you, of course. In communist society, with no "government" at all in the contemporary sense, I don't imagine people will take much interest in the clothing/lack of clothing of others at all...except to make judgments of fashion. I do hope that "ugly people" will remain clothed, but otherwise...

However, things are different when you live in class society. One of the last Weimar governments prior to Hitler attempted to undercut the popular support of the Nazis by banning the wearing of quasi-military uniforms and Nazi insignia in public. The ban was only partially enforced--lots of cops were pro-Nazi and "looked the other way".

The efforts of Chirac--who is widely supported by secular elements in France on this issue--has a similar motivation in the eyes of many. Everyone knows that Islam is the only religion that is growing in the EU...and tackling its symbols is an attempt to undercut its popularity among young Muslims.

Maybe it will work; maybe it won't.

But it's worth a try.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

30th December 2003, 12:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 08:57 AM
Kipling coined the phrase "white man's burden" in a poem addressed to Americans, following their conquest of the Philippines. He was extremely blunt in his views, suggesting that the "eastern peoples" were "ungrateful children"--hinting, I suppose, that it would be "ok" to "discipline" them.
Redstar this is mainly about your view of Rudyard Kipling. Tell me have you read the poem "the White Mans Burden"? If you haven't I suggest you do, you see it is a clear attack on imperialism. In the early verses it discusses what the white man hopes to achieve by his invasion, and how he (the white man) views the native people of the country invaded. The rest of the poem, basically shows how these views are false, and that imperialism is not worth the cost which it entales. A good verse to read is this one: -

"Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?""

People often use this poem as an example of racism, of course they dont actually read the poem, nor do they read other poems such as Gungadin.

Enigma

PS I would like you to show me where he describes the conquered as ungrateful childeren, or even hints at it.

prolific

30th December 2003, 15:02

This (these new laws being passed by chirac) is blatant censorship!

isn't this what all you fucking lefties are fighting against??? censorship of ideology and information???

let them wear what they want, when they want, where they want.... even bastards such as bush haven't gone so far as to ban certain apparrels of clothing which might go against his regime or his beliefs (i think he's christian), but then again, he just bombed the shit out of them... but no matter what the belief people should be free.... open you fucking eyes

:D hooray for spongebob! :D

James

30th December 2003, 20:09

Its one of the foundation columns of the French republic: equity.

Thus state schools must be neutral - they arn't banning religion, just an infringment of a founding principle, in state schools. Or so they would argue.

Of course there is non-state schools you can go to if you don't like it... or even other countries!

EDIT:
I don't know if this has been discussed...
Is the head scarf actually part of the religion? Or is it like the Christian crucifix? in that its not part of the written teachings, more of a tradition that came afterward?

James

30th December 2003, 20:14

RedStar;

QUOTE
People can keep their faith (religion), and still be "civilized".

Well, that's debatable, is it not? American Christian fundamentalists strike me as a pretty barbaric bunch of assholes, for example. I think they'd burn a "witch", if they thought they could get away with it."

Who do you consider to be civilised?

cormacobear

30th December 2003, 23:03

Let's face every time a religious group is marjanalized they band together and generally become more fundamental, the reaction often becoming violent. The majority of France is still Catholic if they can't innfluence the government to abandon the law they will move in greater numbers to catholic schools and the muslims will follow suit.

I have a cross tattooed on my hand and what about thee Coptic christians tattooing religious symbols on their hands arms back, and necks is the standard religious practice amongst them dating back mre than a thousand years. This law is cruel, it will push society in the wrong direction, because the religious may sway but they have almost never been broken by force it generally strengthens their resolve.

redstar2000

31st December 2003, 00:30

Let's begin with a news flash from the BBC...

The head of one of the world's most prestigious centres of Islamic learning has upheld the right of France to ban headscarves in state schools.

Speaking in Cairo in the presence of Mr Sarkozy, Sheikh Tantawi said the veil was the divine obligation of Muslim women.

In other words, it is less harmful for a Muslim girl in France to refrain from wearing the veil at school than breaking French law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3358363.stm

I added the emphasis; the veil--some form of it at least--is a "divine obligation" for Muslim women.

Note also the argument suggested by the Sheikh...that "obedience to the law" is an even greater "moral obligation" than "divine commands". I have said many times in threads like these that "obedience to authority" is the fundamental core value of all religions...which is why they are always reactionary in the end, no matter what else they might say.

Let's face [it,] every time a religious group is marginalized, they band together and generally become more fundamental[ist], the reaction often becoming violent. The majority of France is still Catholic; if they can't influence the government to abandon the law, they will move in greater numbers to catholic schools and the Muslims will follow suit.

Yes, that could happen--a lot depends on how seriously the French take their Catholicism. My impression is that most French people--especially in the cities--are already de facto atheists. That is, if asked, they will say they "believe"...but religious beliefs and practices have no influence on how they live their lives. They don't go to mass or confession; they don't wonder "what would Jesus do"; they don't give money to Catholic charities; they don't support pro-Catholic political parties; etc.

Some do; most don't.

Most Muslims in France are recent immigrants from North Africa. They go there for the same reason that Mexicans come to the U.S.--to escape the poverty of "third world" underdevelopment.

They live in ghettos, for the most part, partly because French landlords discriminate against them and partly because they wish to recreate the kind of life they knew "back home".

They work the shitty, low-pay jobs that native French workers will avoid if at all possible.

Their mosques and mullahs are paid for by the "royal" family of "Saudi" Arabia.

They also have religious schools where kids are taught the Koran...but I doubt if they have any modern schools where kids could receive an education that would fit them for participation in modern French society.

So if Muslim fathers were to withdraw their daughters from public schools, then the girls would probably receive no education at all.

The French Government, you may be sure, would not tolerate this.

I have a cross tattooed on my hand...

I understand it can be removed painlessly these days with laser surgery.

This law is cruel; it will push society in the wrong direction because the religious may sway, but they have almost never been broken by force; it generally strengthens their resolve.

Really, you are being quite pathetic here. In what sense is it "cruel" to ban ostentatious religious symbols in public schools? How is it moving society "in the wrong direction"?

And, by the way, religions can be and have been smashed by "brute force". Christianity in Japan was utterly destroyed back in the 17th century (or 18th--not sure exactly) by the simple expedient of killing anyone who refused to publicly renounce the faith.

It wasn't until the latter part of the 19th century that Christianity gained a small foothold in Japan again--and although the Japanese celebrate Christmas, they have never become Christians in any significant numbers.

Who do you consider to be civilised?

None of us anywhere close to where we ought to be! I suspect by the standards of a classless society two or three centuries from now, all of us will be looked upon in a pretty grim light.

Indeed, it is probably just as well for our self-esteem that we can't read what future historians will write about us and our "civilizations".

This (these new laws being passed by Chirac) is blatant censorship!

Isn't this what all you fucking lefties are fighting against??? Censorship of ideology and information???

Your "rant" is mis-directed and should perhaps be forwarded to the American Civil Liberties Union...they are the "lefties" who are against all forms of censorship.

Speaking only for myself, I am in favor of censoring all reactionary ideologies...and that definitely includes religion.

As to your curious phrase "you fucking lefties"...perhaps this is a good place to remind you that if you are not "a fucking lefty" then you are only allowed to post in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

Redstar this is mainly about your view of Rudyard Kipling.

Please start a thread in the Literature forum, copy and paste the entire text of the poem, and, if I have the time, I will debate Kipling with you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

31st December 2003, 03:16

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2003, 03:37 AM
I would have much more of a problem with it if they just banned veils, then it wouldn't just be lunacy, it would be persecution too.
I'm talking in schools and certain other places, where it is necessary to know who the person is.
I could walk around in a veil etc. nobody would know who I am.

Danton

31st December 2003, 09:12

you want to extend this to hospitals? what, you gonna refuse muslim women in the emergency room?

This is about staff not patients and why do you keep insisting this is an attack only on Islam when it extends to all religious and political symbolism?

and how can you honestly agree to ban hammers and sickles in schools and hospitals? schools are where alot of people first become politically awakened. you're killing the revolution before it begins.

In the name of equality! I don't need a badge to tell me who I am, neither do politically awakened youth.. The third part of your statement is ludicrous.. I am killing nothing, I only beleive that oppressive symbols must be swept away, starting in the classroom..

as for religion contributing to inequality, I still don't see how wearing a cross does.

Tell that to the millions persecuted and oppressed by christianity throughout history...

this is so typical of the white man. speaking of civilizing the backwards easterners.

I'm not white and it's only you who calls easterners backwards, I call all religion and spiritual belief systems backwards and I call for them to be extinguished, not left to rekindle - this law will seperate the moderate from the extreme...

IMO it is not the religion that is the problem, it is how people practice it.

People use the same argument when considering gun laws. "Guns are not dangerous it's the people who misuse them"... If you take away the gun it cannot be misused, Religion is a loaded gun...

31st December 2003, 17:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:12 AM

IMO it is not the religion that is the problem, it is how people practice it.

People use the same argument when considering gun laws. "Guns are not dangerous it's the people who misuse them"... If you take away the gun it cannot be misused, Religion is a loaded gun...
Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with Communism as a theory, but it is a problem when it has been implemented.
Same argument there.

Rastaman

31st December 2003, 17:51

wait a minute.. i thought u guys were communist??? what about the fact that religion causes a hell of a lot of wars??? So as soon as thats history the better???

Guest1

31st December 2003, 22:05

fuck, this does nothing to eliminate religion, it's only gonna piss people off. and I'm getting exceedingly furious here at the fact that the second part of this law is being ignored by all except for a self-hating commie.

not allowing kids to wear hammers and sickles contributes to equality, wonderful. i read about che guevara the first time and began learning about communsim because of a che guevara t-shirt I saw a friend wear. that is why I say you're gonna be killing the revolution before it starts. if students can't wear political clothing, why not ban political speech too?

I'm sorry, but this goes against my convictions. regardless of what religion has does, wearing a cross or veil does not contribute to inequality. but the biggest reason I don't support this, it sets a precedent for governments across the world. the tone with which this law is being passed, I'm just waiting for legislation against "thought-crimes". Once again, no government, no matter what the cause, no matter how noble, should be allowed to legislate clothing.

redstar2000

1st January 2004, 03:27

More from the BBC...

Samira Bellil, a 30-year-old Algerian-born Frenchwoman is just as passionate as Antoine in her rejection of the hijab.

She has become involved in a Muslim women's campaign against the headscarf in schools.

She says girls are being pressurised to wear it, as much to protect themselves from the casual violence of the ghetto, as by their families or religious leaders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/fro...ent/3334881.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3334881.stm)

By the way, this story mentions that there is one private Muslim school in France that teaches the secular French curriculum...and it has about 20 students.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Danton

2nd January 2004, 10:43

Originally posted by (*@Dec 31 2003, 06:30 PM
Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with Communism as a theory, but it is a problem when it has been implemented.
Same argument there.
There is plenty wrong with Religious theory though so it's hardly comparable...

and I'm getting exceedingly furious here at the fact that the second part of this law is being ignored by all except for a self-hating commie.

Why such fury, is this effecting you personally? You do give that impression. I don't hate myself I'm ambivilant, I hate that word "commie"...

if students can't wear political clothing, why not ban political speech too?

Your in hysterics here.. It's a massive leap of the imagination.. Tell me one reason why if the Hammer and sickle is allowed the swastika should be banned? Or do you condone total freedom of students to wear and say what they want?

I'm just waiting for legislation against "thought-crimes".

Really? Or are you just trying to turn this into some kind of Orwellian nightmare when in actuality it is an equalizer, it gives the children rights to determine thier own identity without parental or peer pressure and it gives Woman rights to say no to being covered up like some kind of freak because men are unable to control thier desires if they glimpse a bit of flesh...

I had to sit at school on cold floors and listen to lies, I had to sing their songs, I was frogmarched down the church with the other kids... I envy these French kids, they have the chance to find their own way in life...

James

2nd January 2004, 11:21

redstar

None of us anywhere close to where we ought to be! I suspect by the standards of a classless society two or three centuries from now, all of us will be looked upon in a pretty grim light.

Indeed, it is probably just as well for our self-esteem that we can't read what future historians will write about us and our "civilizations".

Ok who or which people do you consider to be the most civilised?

Also, again, is it in the actual scriptures, or is it more convention? (the wearing of scarfs on the head)

Guest1

2nd January 2004, 11:58

so the best way to free them from their parent's influence is to not allow them to show political or religious beliefs through their clothing? I personally don't buy clothing much. when I do, it's political. I'm always wearing a red star, or che guevara's face, or a hammer and sickle, or the american flag with "nation of sheep, owned by pigs, ruled by wolves" underneath, or george bush's face with "international terrorist" written underneath.

as for the swastika, it depends, in a perfect world, I would ask that the government not legislate clothing at all. however, we are in a world ruled by rediculous laws. is the hammer and sickle really the same as the swastika though? in one case, it's banning racist shirts, in the other, it's banning controversial ones.

that's why I think you're a self-hating commie. if there's anything I hate more than a censor, it's a so-called radical that censors himself.

Danton

2nd January 2004, 12:15

I don't censor myself, nor do I go around wearing slogans of any kind.. You see I'm no-one's walking fucking billboard and I don't need a badge to remind me who I am... I actually belive in school uniforms for children - shock horror!

so the best way to free them from their parent's influence is to not allow them to show political or religious beliefs through their clothing?

YES!

is the hammer and sickle really the same as the swastika though?

They are both political symbols...

so-called radical

Who called me radical? I'm sorry you hate me, I respect your opinions and convictions though I disagree... You are very emotional about this matter..

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

2nd January 2004, 13:51

I think everything that could be attributed to racism, chuvanism, or would try to make people come to an unfair conclusion about anyone else should be banned. Religion, because they hate the infidels and pagans, Nazis, KKK, confederate flag, because they are racist.

James

2nd January 2004, 14:56

some pagans are religious (whilst others are not, if we are being silly about what the actual word means)

2nd January 2004, 17:20

Stalin is to communism as Religious fundamentalists are to my religion

redstar2000

3rd January 2004, 03:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:21 AM
redstar

None of us anywhere close to where we ought to be! I suspect by the standards of a classless society two or three centuries from now, all of us will be looked upon in a pretty grim light.

Indeed, it is probably just as well for our self-esteem that we can't read what future historians will write about us and our "civilizations".

Ok who or which people do you consider to be the most civilised?

Also, again, is it in the actual scriptures, or is it more convention? (the wearing of scarfs on the head)
Off the top of my head, then...

1. Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland (tie)
6. Netherlands
7. France, Italy (tie)
9. Cuba, Greece, Belgium (tie)
12. Germany
13. New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland (tie)
16. Austria, Spain (tie)
18. United Kingdom, Australia (tie)
20. Ireland, Japan (tie)

You understand, of course, that such a list is inherently subjective...and hardly based on an "exhaustive" knowledge of their respective cultures.

I'm sure that with greater familiarity, I could easily locate barbarous practices and customs in all of the countries on my list.

But you did ask for "most civilized"...and I think this list answers your question.

And yes, by the way, the veil (in some form) is "the divine obligation of women" in Islam...at least according to the BBC report that I linked to on the previous page of this thread.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

James

3rd January 2004, 12:38

I'm interested in why you think they are most civilised there - i alas have never been to scandinavia :(

EDIT;
oooh, how about a list as to what are the ingrediants of a civilized soceity. And i guess a definition - and ideal society.

James

3rd January 2004, 12:43

"advanced social development" - rather subjective though isn't it... personally i'd argue;

Low(ish) population
Low(ish) density
Sense of community - this can be achieved through working on the land as a community, having many socials?; i suppose generally living as a community.
9-3 work hours :P
Tolerance and respect for others
Low crime
Healthcare for all
High healthcare and education standards
Youth schemes
Rural?

erm, well you get the idea

Blackberry

5th January 2004, 02:17

Afghan Women Remain Stifled

By Meena Nanji

At the convention of the loya jirga, or grand assembly, to debate
Afghanistan's new constitution, an extraordinary thing happened.
Malalai Joya, a 25-year-old female social worker from the rural
province of Farah, stood up and said what no one up to now had dared
say: that many of the jirga's committee chairmen were criminals.
Instead of being given influential positions, they should be tried
for their crimes. The actions Joya referred to were committed by
Islamic fundamentalists — moujahedeen, or holy warriors — from 1992
to 1996 and included widespread rocket shellings, torture, rape and
mass killings of civilians.

Joya's impassioned plea was particularly daring in Afghanistan.
Although the United States and the United Nations hailed the defeat
of the Taliban as a "liberation" for the Afghan people, the reality
is otherwise — especially for women. Most people are afraid to speak
out against those in power for fear of physical retribution. Joya is
now under the protection of the U.N. after receiving death threats.

U.S. support of fundamentalists in powerful positions throughout the
country has left Afghanistan's dreams of freedom dashed, and women
far from liberated.

Earlier this year, I visited Kabul to finish shooting a documentary
about Afghan women. One of the women I followed, Shapiray, had
returned to Kabul from a Pakistani refugee camp, where she stayed
after fleeing the Taliban in 1998.

Shapiray's circumstances exemplify the many difficulties women still
face. She teaches in a small girls school near her home, 40 miles
from Kabul. Walking to and from the school, she wears the traditional
burka, the head-to-toe garment. She doesn't wear it out of religious
duty, but as a protective measure; she is fearful of public
humiliation and physical attack at the hands of armed Northern
Alliance moujahedeen who rule her area.

The moujahedeen do not approve of women leading any part of their
lives in public, and harshly intimidate those who think differently.
Except for going to work, Shapiray does not leave her home. She does
not go to the bazaar for groceries; this is done by her husband.
Increased opportunities for education, health care and employment for
women are largely restricted to Kabul, where they have some measure
of independence and security due to the presence of international
peacekeeping forces.

In the rest of the country, however, where U.S.-tolerated regional
warlords hold power, opportunities are severely limited. The U.N. and
international human rights groups recently released reports detailing
widespread beatings, kidnappings and rape by these warlords and their
militias. And several girls schools around the country have been set
on fire.

Women's rights are under attack even in the courts. This is largely
due to President Hamid Karzai's appointment of Fazal Hadi Shinwari as
chief justice of the Supreme Court. In violation of the constitution,
Shinwari is over the age limit and has training only in religious,
not secular, law. He is an ally of the pro-Wahhabi, Saudi-backed
fundamentalist leader Ustad Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, who is a committee
chairman in the loya jirga.

Shinwari has packed the Supreme Court with sympathetic mullahs,
called for Taliban-style punishments and brought back the Taliban's
dreaded Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,
renamed the Ministry of Haj and Religious Affairs. It deploys squads
to stop public displays of "un-Islamic" behavior among Afghan women.

The litany of laws passed this year to govern women's conduct reads
like a page out of the Taliban handbook. They include the banning of
coeducational classes; restrictions on a woman's ability to travel by
limiting the time she can be without a mahram, a male relative or
husband; and forbidding women to sing in public. The biggest blow to
women's rights was dealt in November when a 1970s law prohibiting
married women from attending high school classes was upheld. This is
a major step backward for women and girls because many underage
girls — some as young as 9 or 10 — are forced into marriage and have
no hope of improving their lives.

What is particularly ominous about Afghanistan's situation is that
the oppression of women is once again being given legal and religious
justification by the state. It is vital that Americans speak up now
against this. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush
said that in Afghanistan today, "women are free" — but he was wrong.

Malalai Joya's courageous stand must be supported and her charges
against the fundamentalist leaders investigated. The U.S. should stop
its support of fundamentalists and demand that women's rights be
explicitly protected under Afghanistan's new constitution.

-------------

Meena Nanji is a filmmaker based in Los Angeles and New Delhi.