Burqa Ban

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Netherlands Burqa Ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6159046.stm)

Now i dont know if this sets a president in Europe, but if it does it means that other european countries might follow suit.

[TC]

I think Buraqa and Niqab outfits are sick and the left should never defend islamic, or christian or jewish, garb designed to compell its female follows to adopt a "modest" and even anonymous image.

That said the state has no right to tell people who they should dress and an attempt to *forcce* people to fit in that way is just a sign that they fear muslims and want to control radical muslim women.

[LSD]

Islamic "dress codes" are some of the worst examples of socialized oppression on the planet today. They should be fought with everything we've got.

But we should never start trusting the bourgeois state to solve these problems for us. Especially not when such "solutions" take the form of prohibitions on adult expression.

And not only is this a fundamental breach of basic human rights, but it's not even liable to actually accomplish anything -- other than making rightwing politicans feel good, of course.

Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices.

These women (the one's who won't be allowed to cover themselves any more) will still have to go back to oppressive husbands and exploitive socities. Taking away this one aspect of their subjugation is superficial and is much more about making white people feel better than making Muslim women free.

Of course, actually helping Muslim women escape from their reactionary "culture" would cost money; prohibiting superficial manifestations of that culture is much much cheaper.

Not that this has anything to do with actually helping women.

Europeans don't like to see women in Burkas, it bothers them. Not because they "fear" Islam, but because they fear what the Burka says about the world around them.

After all, no one's scared at the sight of women in Burkas; rather they're disturbed by it. It reminds them of the billions of women around the world who don't have even basic civil rights. It reminds them of all the inequalities and injustices going on, and it makes them angry.

And because no bourgeois government is about to do anything about the injustices that prop it up, they've come up with a far simpler solution: out of sight, out of mind.

If people don't see outward visible signs of sexism and oppression, maybe they'll forget it's going on. It still will be of course, even in their own countries, but so long as it's not in their faces ...they can ignore it.

This isn't about "attacking Islam", it's about maintaining the illusion of "enlgihtened" liberal republican society. If a few civil rights have to be trampled along the way, that's what they'll do, but nothing will get in the way of keeping the citizenry sedated.

***

It's also worth noting that this will apply to more than just "muslims", especially considering that the number of Burka-wearing women in the Netherlands is apparently quite tiny.


Originally posted by BBC article
But there are just a few dozen women in the Netherlands who choose to wear the burqa, a traditional Islamic form of dress.

...

Other forms of face coverings, such as helmets with visors that obscure the face, would also be covered by a legal ban.

Thee guesses on what happens the next time someone in Amsterdam tries to protest masked.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So LSD, is it a good thing europeans are disturbed by the sight of women in burqas?

But, more generally, isnt this more of a non-issue which is only being brought to our attention from the recent (past five or sic years) thrust of all things anti muslim (which often means anyone who is black and brown)?

[LSD]

So LSD, is it a good thing europeans are disturbed by the sight of women in burqas?

Absolutely. It is a visible example of some of the worst oppression going on in the world today (if not the worst).

We should be disturbed by the sight anyone being oppressed, whether it's a minority being assaulted, a child being beaten, or a woman forced to cover herself in "holy shame".


But, more generally, isnt this more of a non-issue which is only being brought to our attention from the recent (past five or sic years) thrust of all things anti muslim

It's been building for a while, but, especially in Europe, the change has a lot more to do with a rise in immigration rates than the (mainly US) "war on terror".

Besides, all the press given to Islam in recent years has only made the issue more present. Like the article said, there aren't actually that many women in the Netherlands who wear Burkas. But everyone in the Netherlands has read about places where they do.

So when they hear that their government is banning that symbol of oppression, they can feel good about their "civilized" nation and sit comfortably in the knowledge that at least in "their country", that kind of "barbarity" won't be tolerated.

Again, it's about keeping them sedate and avoiding having to actually adress the practical roots of the problem. Something which would require attacking patriarchy and "faith" in all its manifestations, something which the Dutch bourgeoisie is certainly not willing to do.

[Noah]

Absolutely. It is a visible example of some of the worst oppression going on in the world today (if not the worst).

This is true but as you said many women have been ?socialized? to think that it is to their own benefeit, so when you take it away abruptly without educating them it looks like an attack on Islam which results in extremism.

Of course it is disturbing to see women covering themselves us like that, it demeans themselves and it also demeans men and makes us look like sex-hungry monsters that will attack them if they wear normal clothes...But I don't think banning it helps, it creates an antagonism between Islam and 'the west'..which extremists exploit for their own aims.

[Enragé]

I live in the netherlands

and this is indeed but the latest attack on muslims, to force them into the defensive, to alienate from the rest of the population. This only serves the elite, since it gives yet another reason for us to be divided, for us to be focused on non-subjects.

As the article says, ALMOST NO ONE wears a burqa, and this prohibition is likely to only INCREASE that number.


As leftists we are to stand against this latest attack upon the immigrant community, this latest step into transforming the netherlands into an evermore authoritarian, tighly controlled by the government society.

We are to spread our ideals, open people's minds, for that is the only way to combat a form of reaction such as the burqa, since a prohibition, countering it with force, will only lead to the further segregation of the muslim communities, and immigrant communities in general, from the rest of the netherlands, not to mention extremism.


Right wing, xenofobic parties are springing up, one even amasses such a following the fucker's going to get 6 seats in the elections on the 22nd of november. The guy says things which got Janmaat (extreme right wing politician) EMPRISONED 15 years ago, yet he gets away with it!

On a brighter not, the "radical" social democratic [in some parts of the programme you might even recognise vague anti-capitalism] Socialist Party (with maoist roots) stands on the verge of making a killer victory. They are set to become the 3rd largest party in the netherlands, going from 9 seats to a staggering 28, while the traditional "left" party is losing out, and the traditional liberal (capitalist) one is losing every day in polls.

All in all, the netherlands are polarising. It is the task of revolutionary organisations and individual leftists alike to finally UNITE, and continue to push for a revolutionary programme, radicalising those already attracted to the reformist Socialist Party, spreading class consciousness where now is vague leftism, swaying the country to the left.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 01:26 pm
Islamic "dress codes" are some of the worst examples of socialized oppression on the planet today. They should be fought with everything we've got.

But we should never start trusting the bourgeois state to solve these problems for us. Especially not when such "solutions" take the form of prohibitions on adult expression.

And not only is this a fundamental breach of basic human rights, but it's not even liable to actually accomplish anything -- other than making rightwing politicans feel good, of course.

Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices.
Absolutely. Exactly right - except this isn't limited to "adult expression" - the same considerations apply to teenage girls, with the French state's ban on headscarves in schools. That's done nothing to increase their autonomy from their families, or accelerate the social breakdown of reactionary religious strictures.

All it's accomplished is to encourage the creation of at least one Muslim religious school in France. That is, it's actually deprived some girls of a relatively secular education.

To pretend that only adults have rights points in the opposite direction from what's needed in order to break down reactionary family authority.

It should also be added: the dress code is often overemphasized; treated as if it's the primary form of women's oppression in Muslim countries and communities. It's not. The primary elements of women's oppression there are the same as in other countries - just often more intense than in advanced capitalist countries.

The fight is primarily for the same things women in the "West" have fought for or are fighting for: equality before the law, equal access to employment and education, the right to control their bodies and reproduction, etc. The fight against "the veil" and especially legal compulsion to wear it should be seen in that context, part of that fight.

It's a way of discouraging women from going out into the world and excercising all those other rights. Someone I know made this point about a visit to Iran. One evening she was going to leave her hotel room and go see more of the city. But with having to put on all that heavy clothing to do it, she decided she was just too tired. That's its function.

[LSD]

Absolutely. Exactly right - except this isn't limited to "adult expression" - the same considerations apply to teenage girls

There's an important difference between an adult woman who's already been fully indoctrinated and a developing child or teenager who's still in the process of socialization.

At least with the latter there's a reasonble chance of interrupting that indoctrination.

And, besides, the French law in question is not like the Dutch one. It doesn't ban the wearing of headscarfs at all times in all places, it merely disallows it within school. Much like how, I'd imagine, the French school system bans displays of Nazi paraphenalia.

Is that a violation of free expression? Undoubtably, but when it comes to children and education, that freedom is not absolute.

Parents don't have the right to abuse their children and they don't have the right to raise them to subjugate themselves, no matter how "culturally" justified they may feel in doing so. And while I don't trust the bourgeois state to take children away from all orthdox Muslim parents, I certainly will not oppose any measure that weaken's their influence.

This isn't a matter of children not having rights, it's a matter of weighing those rights against the potential benefits of counteracting their socialization early.

The choice here isn't between sate coercion and freedom, it's between state coercion and parental coercion. Now, ideally both should be fought, but in the immediate present, that's just not a realistic option.

So just like we hold our nose and tolerate the bourgeois state when it acts against child abusers, so should we tolerate when it acts aginst "religious" child subjugation.


the French state's ban on headscarves in schools. That's done nothing to increase their autonomy from their families, or accelerate the social breakdown of reactionary religious strictures.

Unfortunately, no, not that any action by the French government had a reasonable chance of doing that.

What it has done, however, is provide at least one secular environment for developing children. One place where they can be free of the pressures and "reactionary religious structures" that bind them pretty much everywhere else.

I agree, that it's not nearly enough, but overall it's better than nothing.


All it's accomplished is to encourage the creation of at least one Muslim religious school in France. That is, it's actually deprived some girls of a relatively secular education.

Yet another reason why the French government (and all governments, in fact) should disallow private education and, in France's case specifically, stop actively funding it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this public school requirement is acceptable or not.


The fight is primarily for the same things women in the "West" have fought for or are fighting for: equality before the law, equal access to employment and education, the right to control their bodies and reproduction, etc.

Well, of course!

The "fight against the veil" is not and never has been the primarly battle in the war for sexual equality. And anyone who thinks that "solving" this one superficial issue is going to end patriarchy is insane.

That doesn't mean, however, that something can't be accomplished by addressing the reality of symbolistic oppression.

Symbols matter, that's why they're symbols. That's why people care when veils are prohibited. For women, and for girls especially, the symbol of the veil is one of subjugation and dehumanization.

Obviously it's a part of a much larger problem, but then no one ever said that the fight against prejudice was a single front campaign.

Economic integration is important, access to education is important, legal protections are important. But those all address the problem after it's already matured. Providing secular education combats it while it's still developing.

I can't guarantee that it will ultimately have a significant effect, but it certainly seems like it's worth a shot.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:46 pm
There's an important difference between an adult woman who's already been fully indoctrinated and a developing child or teenager who's still in the process of socialization.
As if socialization isn't a lifelong process.

You're just coming up with random excuses for your inconsistency here. As you said yourself: "Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices."

[LSD]

As if socialization isn't a lifelong process.

Sure it is, but there can be no doubt that children are more influencable than adults or that behaviours learned in childhood are more ingrained than those learned in adulthood.

That's part of why we allow adults more freedom than children, we recognize that with age comes discretion and the ability to excersize mature rational judgement.

There's a reason, after all, that the overwhelming majority of religious people come out of religious households and that most women wearing burkas today do so because they were taught to as children.

Now, once their adults, the damage is done and any effort to move them away from their reactionary "culture" will have to be gradual and indirect. But while their still children and still in the process of indoctrination, a more direct measure has a reasonble chance of success.

After all, it's not like socialization "just happens". Being born into a Muslim family isn't enough to turn you into a self-hating burka-wearing dogmatist. It takes years and years of constant subjugation.

A break in that process, even if it's only for a few hours a day might just be enough to break, or at the very least weaken that process.


You're just coming up with random excuses for your inconsistency here.

So now it's "inconsistant" to treat adults differently from children?

Seems to me that it's just plain rational.


As you said yourself: "Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices."

A position which I still maintain, I just don't think it applies to children.

It's no different from how I recognize the rights of adults to attend any kind of meeting they want, even, say, a Klan rally; but I would not support them bringing their children with them.

[Noah]

LSD I can understand how the burka ban could stop children being effected by the influence of Islam but it could also lead to Muslim people, male or female, feeling strong resentment towards their country which could lead in Muslim extremism.

But I also think that if there was a slow process of education it would cause ongoing riots and anger especially within male Musims.

So I would say I'm split on the topic because both of them have cons...But the bottom line stands that Muslims will see this as an attack on their faith.

[BuyOurEverything]

While I disagree with the wearing of Burkas and Hijabs, it is pure ignorance to think that women, especially in the west, wear them solely because of patriarchal oppression. Many women wear the veil as a (misdirected) sign of resistance against American cultural and political imperialism.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:09 pm
While I disagree with the wearing of Burkas and Hijabs, it is pure ignorance to think that women, especially in the west, wear them solely because of patriarchal oppression. Many women wear the veil as a (misdirected) sign of resistance against American cultural and political imperialism.
Yeah, I was just having this discussion with someone the other day... Basically it seems that the increase in veiling in the west is due to ideas of resistance to western domination etc, but that there's a baseline level of veiling- often because of the subordination of women.

I hope that overly mathematical analysis makes sense. I know I was too drunk to explain it properly at the time.

[norwegian commie]

I think banning it is a good idea.
Egypt banned hidjab on public schools, but then islamism kinda blew ower the countrie and it was allowed again. Anyways the ban worked fine.

A prob can be that muslim families dont send ther kds to a school not allowing them to practice their religion

[Severian]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 07, 2006 02:53 pm
I think banning it is a good idea.
Egypt banned hidjab on public schools, but then islamism kinda blew ower the countrie and it was allowed again. Anyways the ban worked fine.
Did it? Rather than "blowing over" Islamism remains powerful in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful opposition party there. It's full strength may be partly disguised by the repressive one-party state.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

At first I wasn't going to side with LSD, but I've been convinced. A child needs a religious free environment when they are undergoing the process of socialization. In my opinion, forcing religious views on a child is the equivalent of abuse and require state (or the collective) to intervene. Unfortunately, adult muslims with no alternative will see it as an attack on their religion. Well, it is. Secondly, I think the obligation to the rights of the child is higher than that of someone who is already gone and became a religious moron.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Dooga
in my opinion, forcing religious views on a child is the equivalent of abuse and require state (or the collective) to intervene.

So would you support child removal in this instance? What kind of 'intervention' are you talking about?

[STI]

Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices.

Attitudes follow behaviour, LSD, even when it's manditory behaviour and especially over generations.

Whether the bourgeois state is being draconian about it or not, the Burqa-ban will probably end up being a positive contributor to progression.

[The Grey Blur]

"This issue (of Muslim dress) is not only controversial in the West but also in countries with a majority Muslim population. In recent years, especially after 9/ 11, right wing political leaders in the West have used this issue to muster political support from more reactionary sections of the population. On the other hand the Islamic Mullahs use this issue to get support from the most rightwing section of the Muslim population. Both the political right and religious right are using this issue for their own interests. One forces women to remove the veil, while the other wants to force the women to wear the veil.

Socialists oppose both approaches, for us it is the right of every woman to wear or not to wear the veil. The state and the religious right have no right to interfere in the personal lives of individuals. Every woman has the right to choose. Most Muslims think that it is wrong to force women to remove the veil, but for some it is not wrong to force women to wear the veil. Socialists oppose a ban on the veil but they also oppose the forced wearing of the veil."

I think that's the best analysis of it...I dislike the patronising views of Western "Socialists" towards those who wish to wear the veil.

Taken from www.socialistworld.net/

[Hanguk_Leftist]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet but, very few women in the Netherlands wear burqas, I read it's under 100 or so.