Comments on: Sarkozy’s proposed burqua ban is a blunt instrument

By: John Passant

John Passant — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:12:45 +0000

jacks

That’s why its racism without racists. And so they could well say what you say - I don’t care what colour people are - possible but unlikely since most muslims are not white. Or they could say I’m not anti-Muslim but …

It is all the old racist prejudices and attitudes packed into a new box of anti-Muslim words and action.

But look, if it makes you feel more at home intellectually, let’s call it is islamophobia. It’s still on a par with racism.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:58:05 +0000

PS: Whereas the professional religious groupies can wear sack cloth and ashes, shrouds and whatever else they choose. It would be a brave cop who would haul them up before a court.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:54:53 +0000

Jacks, John Passant, etc. When I rant about the burqua I want to make it quite clear that I find orthodox Jews to be just as offensive. All those men running around with Dutch Caps on their heads and the obligatory Shirley Temple ringlets dangling down. Catholics who wear large crucifixes are equally as offensive as are the Steve Fieldings of this world. True, he doesn’t wear a huge cross. He doesn’t have to. He makes it clear he believes only what was written in the bible. WTF he took a fact-finding trip OS when he’d already made his mind up re global warming was a total waste of money.
All religionists who indulge in this sort of extravagant group behaviour do so because they believe they are morally superior to people who don’t hold their beliefs.
It is an ego sodden up yours Kazaly attitude I find to be nauseating. Worse, they hold a peculiarly nasty gun to the heads of the weak-kneed, PC politicians and PC voters to ransom. Those people who question this behaviour are racists. Pity about those of them who have brought a great deal of thought to arrive at their opinions. As fine a piece of blackmail as I will ever see.
If you doubt what I say go out yourselves in burquas-with only your eyes showing and have a huge letter sown back and front. A for Atheist, P for Presbyterian GB for god botherer, etc, etc. The cops will have you up before the law quicker than an eye can blink. The charge? Making a public nuisance of yourselves.

By: jacks

jacks — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:53:49 +0000

All the old racist stereotypes find a new bottle in islamophobia? I guarantee you that very people who take issue with islamic human rights issues, sexism and violence care too much whether the person is black, white or asian. It doesn’t matter.

By: John Passant

John Passant — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:50:39 +0000

JACKS, I do have a first name by the way.

Racism has never been just about race.

The horror of the racist project in Nazi Germany now sees dawn upon us the racism of culture. All the old racist stereotypes find a new bottle in islamophobia.

I’d suggest you read for example S Sayyid on racism and islamophobia in dark matter. See http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2008/03/26/racism-and-islamophobia/

Islamophobia is the new and almost acceptable racism – the racism without racists as Sayyid so eloquently and sarcastically puts it.

By: jacks

jacks — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:22:22 +0000

Passant, anti-semitism is typically directed at people who are actually ethnically jewish. Islam however is not, and has never been an ethnicity. The fact that people criticise islam has nothing at all to do with people being from Africa, you are just trying to divert attention away from the fact that people’s issues with islam have NOTHING to do with the colour of their skin.

Next, I would say that the french presidents comments say more about the French view on secularism than islamophobia - in France religion has a very specific role that is supposed to be private and left to the individual.

By: John Passant

John Passant — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:58:52 +0000

JACKS

Thanks for the Daniel Pipes argument. Hmm, you could say the same think about anti-semitism too, but I would think anti-semitism is racism on the basis it is a reaction against the ‘other’ for their supposed difference.

And your specious argument ignores the fact that most Muslims in France are either from, or the descendants of, people from its former colonies in North Africa. That looks like racism to me.

The liberation from above left, having supported US imperialism in Afghanistan to ‘liberate’ women, now turn theri authoritarianism to Muslim women in France to help Sarkozy stir- up islamophobia and divert attention away from the great recession.

If it is OK to ban the burqa as disempowering women, then why not the bikini too? And who decides what is empowering and what is disempowering?

Liberation comes from struggle from below, not from laws from the very people who benefit from women’s oppression, the ruling class.

By: jacks

jacks — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:00:22 +0000

Passant thinks this is part of Sarkozy’s racist agenda. Since when did Islam become a race? I didnt know that there was a Muslim ethnicity. Know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. There are white, black, asian etc etc muslims. Stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by trying to place criticising a religion under the same bracket as racist. They are nothing alike.

By: chrispmck

chrispmck — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:23:29 +0000

I appreciate everyone’s responses; they confirm my initial point.

It centres on the misunderstanding of ‘choice’; so much misinformation is out there. It is similar to when people throw around the word the ‘choice’, describing the supposed ‘choice’ someone makes to be gay, as if accepting your sexuality is like choosing between a well-done or a rare steak. The gay community has failed to articulate that being gay (or accepting a queer identity, a bisexual one etc) is not the choice; accepting it is the choice. The Muslim community has failed to articulate why women wear the burqua (or a face-covering), and the above article and the subsequent posts confirm that.

The only way forward is to have that open discussion, which I am glad to be part of.

By: nwatts88

nwatts88 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:50:24 +0000

Whilst I dislike Sarkozy and don’t like the idea of supporting him, I agree that the burqua should be banned. The social attitutde that comes behind it, from women who choose to wear it, and more specifically from men who create an atmosphere where women choose to wear it, has no place in any society.

I also find it amusing when people label Sarkozy “racist” over this issue. No one has a clue what racism is anymore. It’s just a good word to throw around when some hysteria is called for.

By: AR

AR — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:23:04 +0000

Shrouding is nothing to do with islam- it was an ancient persian/class perversion, adopted by the triumphant meccans surging out of the Empty Quarter into the decadent, crumbling bronze age empires of the more ancient (and matriarchal) Fertile Crescent shattered by irrigation born salt and crazyily monotheistic nomads.
If only more westeners would read the Kortna, it’s barely 150 pages of (very) widely spaced verbiage, described by a 19thC french arabist as “..the Torah editted for the arab mind..”.
It is NOT abiut protecting women, it is about porotecting men from their worst instincts, pace Raw Meat Hilaly “I don’t wish to be anonymous - I, Epicene wrote-
“If only more westerners would read the Koran. It’s barely 150 pages of widely spaced sentences - nowhere near as tedious as the Torah or NT; as a 19thC french arabist it was simply the OT redacted for the arab mind.
The thing that really pisses me off is seeing young, pre pubertal Oz girls shrouded.
As Pascarl accurately points out “the veil, much lauded by so called Islamic teachings, is a protection for men” which I STRONGLY RESENT as it implies I am something I am not.
If their kultur has so warped muslims that they have to do something to someone else to cover up their own failings then it is they need education.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:53:41 +0000

Chris: “Is it a choice? Is it men oppressing women? Why do some Muslim women
wear it while others do not?” I’m about to indulge in a piece of heresy by saying that apart from the countries whose leaders insist on burka clad women it’s about fashion and snobbery as much as anything else. For hundreds of years the West was asking your exact questions about foot-binding in China. Which was also about fashion and snobbery. If a woman had unbound feet she was deemed to be a peasant-yes there were people like the Hakka who didn’t do it.

When I was in Iran I met women who saw great virtue in wearing hebjab and burkas. The greater the time spent being totally covered the greater the virtue of the wearer. One lady I met was so devout (?) she wore the hebjab in her own house causing her brother to whisper to me “Doesn’t she take herself so seriously?”

I find it offensive that Muslim ladies-especially the converts-to hold governments to ransom and political correctness over a practice of fashion and snobbery, and all in the name of religion.

What would the government do if all the women of Oz decided to get into burkas? But then we wouldn’t have the chutzpa to do it in the name of religion. Would we?

By: auntypizza

auntypizza — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:36:13 +0000

I agree with the article written by Jill Singer in The Herald Sun June 25th;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25685364-5000117,00.html

She says, and I quote … “It’s all such a load of male supremacist tosh.” and

“I’m with Sarkozy on this — the burka sends all sorts of messages that are anathema to ideals of freedom and gender equality.

Sure, there are women who say it’s their right to dress as they like, but there are also women who think they should have the right to slice off their daughters’ clitorises.

Such controls on women’s sexuality are pointless, and that should be condemned along with other mumbo-jumbo still practised across the world. “

The first time I saw the full black muslim womens regalia I was stunned. To me, it’s obvious it’s a control thing by muslim men.

By: chrispmck

chrispmck — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:22:27 +0000

I am not going to “get behind” the burqua, nor will I unveil it. What I am going to say, quite simply, is that I do no believe there has been an adequate articulation of what it means for Muslim women to wear the burqua (or face-covering). All these questions - is it a choice?; is it men oppressing women?; why do some Muslim women wear it while others do not? - remain unanswered.

I have asked many Muslims woman - and men, too - about the importance of burquas/hijabs/face-coverings and I have received a range of responses. These included “it’s a choice” right through to “it’s the law”; indeed when I was studying at university in Turkey, it was against the law for woman to wear a face-covering (to university).

As I mentioned, I am not arguing for or against the burqua. My point is there has not been that clear articulation, and most of us know what ignorance breeds…

By: John Passant

John Passant — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:21:40 +0000

Thanks Shakira. I agree with your sentiments and think this is part of Sarkozy’s racist agenda to divert attention away from the great recession and placate a possibly combative workign class. I wrote to similar although more strident effect on my blog, En Passant, in an article called Ban Sarkozy, no the burqa.(See http://enpassant.com.au/?p=3816).

By: Kim Smith

Kim Smith — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:50:29 +0000

Isn’t there also a persepctive worth considering that by banning the burqa marginalisation of the muslim community will actually decrease? Sarkozy talked about the barrier people perceived when interacting with women wearing the burqa, so is this not an attempt to remove that barrier and facillitate communication, exchange and understanding?