rfmcdpei: Letter sent to the Toronto Star

Randy McDonald (

rfmcdpei) wrote,
@ 2004-02-16 18:18:00

Current mood:	still anti-clerical
Current music:	Beck, "Diamond Dogs"

Letter sent to the Toronto Star
re: Prohibiting hijab fundamental issue

Mr. Ghanim's comparison of the hijab to prayer is off base, since the hijab is not a religious requirement of Islam. Modesty is a requirement, for both sexes. The three sections in the Koran dealing with the issue of dress command people of both sexes to cover "private parts," order women to cover their bosom, and require wives of Muhammad (not wives of all Muslim men) to seclude themselves to protect themselves from hostile men. Further, women are not responsible for men's lewd thoughts since they cannot be responsible for the sins of another. As the Koran itself says (24:30, 31), "Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display their adornment only that which is apparent."

The French ban does not force young Muslim women to be immodest. What it was intended to do was to respond to the concerns of many French--including a plurality of French Muslim women--that young women were being pressured by conservative relatives and neighbours to don the hijab against their own wishes. In the abstract, these women might have a choice to wear the hijab or not; if, in practice, their only choices are to wear the hijab or risk stigma and possible physical attack as immoral women, talk of choice is a mockery.

The law, as it is currently constituted, provides a space for young French Muslim women to refuse wearing the hijab at minimal threat to themselves. It isn't a harmless solution. So far, though, it seems to be the best of a set of options which all inevitably involve some degree of harm, allowing the largest number of French Muslim women to engage with their religious communities and wider French society on their own terms.

Randy McDonald
Kingston, Ont.

UPDATE: I go into more detail about my perspectives on the hijab here.

(Post a new comment)

creases
2004-02-17 07:45 am UTC (link)

You have a good point, that the hijab is not a requirement of Islam. But not all women who choose to wear the hijab, do so for fear of stigma. For many Muslim women it became a symbol of empowerment in a fundamentalist society, and in turn a symbol of faith. That's probably not a symbol grade school girls would understand, but you made it sound as if the hijab was the symbol of fundamentalism, which isn't quite correct.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:

rfmcdpei
2004-02-17 09:10 am UTC (link)

But not all women who choose to wear the hijab, do so for fear of stigma. For many Muslim women it became a symbol of empowerment in a fundamentalist society, and in turn a symbol of faith. That's probably not a symbol grade school girls would understand, but you made it sound as if the hijab was the symbol of fundamentalism, which isn't quite correct.

That's quite true. That's the biggest problem I have with the law. But.

The hijab per se isn't a requirement of Islam, no. The hijab is a relative neologism, an effort that's part of a general Islamic effort at revivalism and reelaboration of basic principles of the Muslim religion. Modest dress is a requirement, yes, but it can be satisfied through means other than the hijab. Deciding to wear the hijab implies the acceptance of a particular interpretation of Islamic practices.

The question of the hijab, in schools, comes down to that of choice, of a decision to engage or not with a particular interpretation of Islam. The problem is that many women choose to wear the hijab not because they want to, but rather because it's the only option available to them. The external pressure can be subtle, or it can be violent. Many women who don the hijab, so announcing their incorporation into a particular community, join this community not through a liberal process of dialogue and investigation, but simply through pressure. the fact that in the specific context of the French law being discussed, the women concerned are below the age of majority only makes the question more difficult.

Henry Farrell, over at Crooked Timber, argued that legislation acting agaisnt certain social customs could be acceptable, if the custom carried on through inertia since dissent from the custom could be made only at some personal risk. (Further down the page, he raised anti-duelling laws which gave men concerned with honour a legitimate excuse to back out of duels as an example.) He felt that it wouldn't work on the question of hijab in schools, but I'm fairly skeptical about this--that a plurality or slight majority of French Muslim women polled support the ban, for instance, suggests that the law would be welcomed among a sufficient share of its intended population.

The question can be made to resolve into a discussion of how you should deal, in a liberal society based on freedom of choice and association, with traditions and ideologies which deny individuals those freedoms. Myself, I strongly favour making practitioners of said traditions and ideologies quite clearly aware that their power is limited.

I don't like the law because of the choices it imposes on young women who freely adopt the veil. Given that choice at it exists can't be exercised, and given the sufficient margin of support for the law, though, I'll go with it as the least bad option.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

creases
2004-02-17 12:55 pm UTC (link)

I'm always really, really leery when people start talking about "social pressure" in connection with law. "Pressure" is a subjective sense. Who can determine how much social pressure is too much? Or enough? How can you remove social pressure by force without limiting the freedom of others to express their opinions? Does the law do much to change people's opinions? Is it more effective than cultural action and promoting more autonomous lifestyles within an already generously circumscribed law?

The idea that you can increase autonomy by limiting freedom seems very suspect to me, and the idea that (human, fallible) lawmakers are in a better position to make decisions about their (human, fallible) subjects' autonomy than the subjects themselves, strikes me as a little condescending (or smug, depending on whether you consider the subject's relationship to the ruler, or the ruler's to the subject). This is the principle I'm talking about, regardless of the application.

The two ideas put together are downright insidious. They entail a process whereby the lawmakers collect to themselves the tasks that individuals need to cultivate in themselves in order to have an autonomous lifestyle. Government becomes babysitting. And when you have one person who fails to be autonomous and cannot divorce themselves from the weight of tradition, they hurt themselves; but when an all-powerful government makes a mistake, it hurts everyone.

On a similar note, I'm not sure you can divorce this veil business from rising anti-Arab sentiments in France. When we concede to the government the prerogative to decide what expressions of religion are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in the name of increasing autonomy, we also give the government the power to target religious groups that pose a political or cultural problem to those who take the reins.

To pick up on one of your themes here, do you really think there's a (legally relevant) difference between a person's religion and a person's interpretation of their religion? Doesn't freedom of conscience and of "religious choice" necessarily entail freedom of interpretation of one's own religion? Won't people feel their souls are on the line in either case, and if so, would you really want to interpose yourself between a person and their care of their own soul? The French law is provocative; I can't say it's infinitely provocative, since it pertains only to public schools. (Does France have a voucher system for private or religious schools?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re:

rfmcdpei
2004-02-17 07:06 pm UTC (link)

I'm always really, really leery when people start talking about "social pressure" in connection with law. "Pressure" is a subjective sense. Who can determine how much social pressure is too much? Or enough? How can you remove social pressure by force without limiting the freedom of others to express their opinions? Does the law do much to change people's opinions? Is it more effective than cultural action and promoting more autonomous lifestyles within an already generously circumscribed law?

Law can legitimate and open choices which have been closed. It's the long-standing difference between the pays légal and the pays réel, with contradictions between the one and the other providing openings.

The idea that you can increase autonomy by limiting freedom seems very suspect to me,

Perhaps not for people as a group. You can do it for the majority of a given population, though, when a minority uses its liberties to encroach on the freedom of others.

and the idea that (human, fallible) lawmakers are in a better position to make decisions about their (human, fallible) subjects' autonomy than the subjects themselves, strikes me as a little condescending (or smug, depending on whether you consider the subject's relationship to the ruler, or the ruler's to the subject). This is the principle I'm talking about, regardless of the application.

That principle is good in the majority of cases. Taken as a universal unbending rule, though, that discourages attempts to modify problematic areas of culture becomes suspect on the grounds of the reification of tradition, not only on the part of the state but on the part of any authorities. This strikes me as problematic.

The two ideas put together are downright insidious. They entail a process whereby the lawmakers collect to themselves the tasks that individuals need to cultivate in themselves in order to have an autonomous lifestyle. Government becomes babysitting. And when you have one person who fails to be autonomous and cannot divorce themselves from the weight of tradition, they hurt themselves; but when an all-powerful government makes a mistake, it hurts everyone.

The mistake, though, wouldn't impact everyone universally. A mistake harmful to everyone would seem difficult.

On a similar note, I'm not sure you can divorce this veil business from rising anti-Arab sentiments in France.

I don't think you can fully extract this debate from its more unsavoury contexts, whether anti-Arab sentiments in France contributing to Islamophobia, or reactionary Islamist sentiments in French Muslim communities contributing to an often-violent misogyny. I'm not sure if these contexts are necessarily relevant, on either side.

When we concede to the government the prerogative to decide what expressions of religion are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in the name of increasing autonomy, we also give the government the power to target religious groups that pose a political or cultural problem to those who take the reins.

That's true. It depends on what sort of political or cultural problem, though, is being posed. A threat to the liberty of citizens at large, involving the forced adoption of a particular interpretation of their religion, does strike me as a public security threat. Some action to try to relieve the pressure on the effected populations seems justifiable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

creases, 2004-02-18 09:03 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 11:43 am UTC

(no subject) -

creases, 2004-02-19 12:26 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 01:24 pm UTC

(no subject) -

creases, 2004-02-19 02:45 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 05:35 pm UTC

Re: -

nire_nagaf, 2004-02-19 08:28 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 08:49 pm UTC

Re: -

nire_nagaf, 2004-02-20 10:26 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-20 11:37 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 12:21 pm UTC

Re: -

creases, 2004-02-19 12:43 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 04:39 pm UTC

Tangent -

creases, 2004-02-19 06:15 pm UTC

Re: Tangent on Feminism -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 06:42 pm UTC

Re: -

creases, 2004-02-20 08:02 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-20 10:34 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-20 10:35 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-17 07:07 pm UTC

	mikedavsi 2004-02-17 03:22 pm UTC (link)
	You and I have had this discussion outside of here, but consider this: is it really our business to tell people if something is or is not part of their religion? By definition, if people believe a cultural practice is part of their religion, it _is_ part of their religion. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:

rfmcdpei
2004-02-17 06:02 pm UTC (link)

Which is true, and which is fine.

The problems are connected mainly with the facts that it's being imposed on others. I dislike attempts to impose specific religious interpretations on people who hold (or at least want to hold) different views, or who want to opt out of the system entirely.

The people who want to hold views different from the orthodoxy shouldn't be punished, either actively through community hostility or passively through the state's lack of concern for their well-being. The latter's particularly inappropriate in contexts, like schools, where the state acts in loco parentis.

Teachers in Ontario are required to act if they suspect that a student is being abused, and face penalties if they do nothing. I don't think teachers in France should have less of an obligation. It's certainly unacceptable to allow the abuse to go on during school hours.

I don't think it's a good option; I do think, however, that it's the least bad, certainly better than allowing the majority of young French Muslim women who don't want to be pressured into wearing the hijab to be pressured.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: mikedavsi 2004-02-17 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, as you say, there are no good options in this case. I disagree with the French government's decision on civil libertarian grounds, but there aren't a whole lot of alternatives. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	nire_nagaf 2004-02-17 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	I'm tempted to copy this and mail it to Sobia, because I think she in turn could give you a powerful counterargument to this. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:

rfmcdpei
2004-02-17 08:04 pm UTC (link)

If you want to, go ahead. I'd welcome the debate.

When I hear about young women forced to wear the hijab because their communities think this is the only way they can be moral people, I realize how lucky I was that I grew up in a society that really paid no attention to my sexual orientation. If I was forced, going to school, to constantly accept and affirm conservative Christian dogmas that the best I can hope for is a sexless celibate lonely life constantly under surveillance, I'd hope to kill myself. At least then the inevitable self-hatred would end.

There's a big difference, I know, between gay and bisexual North American males on the one hand and young French Muslim women on the other. I'd imagine, though, that the one would feel as relieved at being relieved from homophobia as the other would feel at being relieved from misogyny for the other.

Secularism, by and large, is a good thing. It's nice that conservative religious ideologues in the West can no longer force their moral perspectives on everyone. By the standards of a half-century ago, a fair number of my livejournal's readers would be immoral and worthy of persecution, whether because they weren't heterosexual, because they don't conform to traditional gender roles, because they were sexually autonomous (well, particularly if they were sexually autonomous women), or because they don't belong to the "right" religious, ethnic, or racial community. It's nice if everyone in a society has the same basic freedom to choose whether or not they want to belong to a particular community or adhere to a particular vision--native or immigrant, Christian or Muslim, male or female. Human rights are for all people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: mikedavsi 2004-02-17 11:06 pm UTC (link)
	>Human rights are for all people. Nnnnyes. The problem is that the only way France has found to protect the human rights of some is to take it away from others. It may well be the only solution, but it is one I find profoundly troubling. I hope a precedent has not been set in France, both for that nation and for the rest of the world. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 11:14 am UTC

Re: -

mikedavsi, 2004-02-19 12:01 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-19 12:34 pm UTC

Re: -

mikedavsi, 2004-02-20 12:02 am UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-20 07:12 am UTC

Re: -

mikedavsi, 2004-02-20 02:50 pm UTC

Re: -

rfmcdpei, 2004-02-20 03:38 pm UTC

schizmatic
2004-02-17 08:13 pm UTC (link)

Here is a brief thought. The ban seems not to make sense because for those women who do worry about being controlled by their male relatives, well, their male relatives are going to simply yank them from the public schools and put them in a Saudi-funded religious school. Those who legitimately want to show piety, then, are the only ones who are really punished.

I think that a better solution would be to have the government *severely* punish those young thugs who rape and beat women for being immodestly dressed. The fear does not come from the head scarf; the fear comes from the worry that you will be brutally gang-raped because your dress is un-Islamic. The people the French government needs to crack down on are the rapists and those doing the beating, not the women who are legitimately trying to do what they think God wants.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re:

rfmcdpei
2004-02-17 08:42 pm UTC (link)

[T]heir male relatives are going to simply yank them from the public schools and put them in a Saudi-funded religious school.

Not necessarily. Other factors will come into play. Many conservative parents, for instance, will be appalled but will place education and the promise of material success above strict religious conformity. Many children will be able to manipulate their parents--if worse comes to worse, appealing to authorities for protection. I think non-heterosexual children in France can appeal to child protection authorities for protection against homophobic parents, after all.

I agree that better policing is essential, to say nothing of integrating the unemployed of the banlieues into the French labour market. Assimilation is already high, after al;--45% of French Muslim men marry non-Muslim women, half of the current generation of French Muslims speak only French, religious practice is fairly low.

The question, though, is what should be done in the interim. It's a bandage solution for the time being, and if it's the only thing ever done it would be a tragic joke. It's certainly not an interim solution I favour; I do think, though, it's the least bad solution.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

veil
(Anonymous)
2004-02-17 11:25 pm UTC (link)

Quick comment, it's late and you already know my opinion :).

Liberal societies win out in the end when they have the guts and faith in their principles to act like liberal societies. The French have enough experience with secular tyranny to know better, imo.

Generally, whenever possible, it's better not to meddle in things unless considerable clarity exists. It does not in this case. Trampling on civil liberties in the *law* is a dangerous thing no matter how liberal the ends. I do think I see what the French are trying to do, and I have to admire the tactic for its elegance. But assimilation through quiet seduction where immigrant cultures have been generally allowed to try and retain heir cultures as best they can has proven to be a very effective "technique". French Muslim women live in a country where the law gives them not inconsiderable traction to pursue their own freedom. I think the result will likely be more rewarding to let people deal with their struggles and let nature take its course.

Stephen

(Reply to this)

the sign vs. the signified

creases
2004-02-22 05:05 pm UTC (link)

This is not material for further debate, but a question for the sake of clarification

Sikhs are also affected by the new policy as it has been formulated. Not to mention Jews. These groups do not have a tradition of pressing for legal privileges, and although they are both very conservative groups, they do not have much of a history of fundamentalism. How does this "collateral damage" to the articulated policies factor into your support for them?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	public spaces creases 2004-02-22 05:06 pm UTC (link)
	Chirac has also suggested that he might push to realize the policy in public hospitals as well as schools. Would you support that? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: public spaces

rfmcdpei
2004-02-22 07:23 pm UTC (link)

I would not, no, given how public hospitals don't play a role in socializing people like public schools. (Under most circumstances. The sole situation I can imagine where it would be justified would be one where females wearing the hijab would refuse to get examined by female doctors not wearing the hijab.)

My opposition to the hijab, to clarify in case I haven't already, is based on the specific circumstance of girls attending public schools in France. This specific case has three critical qualifications for me:

There is already a tradition of using public education as a way of socializing people in the norms of national society;

There is already a tradition of aggressive campaigning against religious proselytization, active or inactive, on the part of students;

There is a serious concern that many young French Muslim women, below the age of majority, are being pressured into wearing the hijab.

Consequently, this creates a need on the part of the French public school system--especially given the first two established principles--to try to relieve this pressure.

These factors do not operate in the private school system, and they do not operate in the public health system, or indeed in state bureaucracy. I believe I haven't defended the application of the law to these other domains, though I do think that I should have made my opposition to the extension of this law to other domains clear. For this, I apologize.

As for the impact on Jews and Sikhs, well, the impact on those groups is another reason why I call this the "least bad" solution as opposed to a good solution. I believe, though, that on the whole the positive results of the law as it is applied to the French public school system, will outweigh its negative results (again as it is applied to the French public school system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-03-01 04:33 pm UTC (link)

I’ve been dying to voice my opinions/views being a practising Muslim woman who does not wear the hijab.

First, let me make sure I understand Randy’s view. Randy, you feel that although the French government’s decision is not the perfect solution, it is the best they can do. You also feel that such a decision will protect Muslim girls who do not want to wear the hijab from hostility, pressure, forced conformity, intimidation, and, perhaps, even violence. You also feel that the women who wear the hijab, or at least many of them, are forced to accept a specific religious interpretation of Islam. Is this accurate?

I totally disagree.

This action on the part of the French government is a form of religious oppression. Wearing the hijab, to many women is not just a form of religious expression, it is a form of modesty which cannot morally be departed with. To many Muslim women and girls who wear the hijab, taking the hijab off in public would be like taking their shirt off in public. How many women, Muslim and non-Muslim, would feel comfortable walking around in public in just a bra and jeans? Not me that’s for sure. So right away, I hope you can see, the issue of the hijab is not simply a religious one. It’s much more than that to a woman, or girl, who chooses to wears the hijab.

On that note, let’s talk about choice. You mentioned many times that Muslim women and girls should not be forced to wear the hijab and that this law will ensure that to some extent.

“The problems are connected mainly with the facts that it's being imposed on others. I dislike attempts to impose specific religious interpretations on people who hold (or at least want to hold) different views, or who want to opt out of the system entirely.”

Fair enough. It is wrong to impose ones religious beliefs on another. And yes, that does happen. Many Muslim girls and women are forced to wear the hijab and that is unfortunate. However, many Muslim women and girls who wear the choose to wear the hijab especially in the Western world where we are minorities and are trying to hold on to our religion and express our pride in being Muslims. And I dare say most Muslim women and girls who wear the hijab choose it, though I don’t have the exact stats. Few Muslim countries actually force their women to wear the hijab by law. Most have no such law.

I'm running out of space so I'll continue this arguemnt in the another posting to follow.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

rfmcdpei
2004-03-03 11:01 pm UTC (link)

First, let me make sure I understand Randy’s view. Randy, you feel that although the French government’s decision is not the perfect solution, it is the best they can do. You also feel that such a decision will protect Muslim girls who do not want to wear the hijab from hostility, pressure, forced conformity, intimidation, and, perhaps, even violence. You also feel that the women who wear the hijab, or at least many of them, are forced to accept a specific religious interpretation of Islam. Is this accurate?

Yes. I've no contest with your description of my argument.

This action on the part of the French government is a form of religious oppression. Wearing the hijab, to many women is not just a form of religious expression, it is a form of modesty which cannot morally be departed with. To many Muslim women and girls who wear the hijab, taking the hijab off in public would be like taking their shirt off in public. How many women, Muslim and non-Muslim, would feel comfortable walking around in public in just a bra and jeans? Not me that’s for sure. So right away, I hope you can see, the issue of the hijab is not simply a religious one. It’s much more than that to a woman, or girl, who chooses to wears the hijab.

I do see that. For a women or girl forced to wear the hijab, though, I can see equally deleterious psychological consequences. To be forced to cover one's body, even if one doesn't want to, on the grounds that your body is somehow innately destabilizing (if not dangerous), wouldn't seem well-suited to promoting psychological health.

I've no issue with women who want to wear the hijab of their own choice. I'm not religious, but if people want to express their faith in that way, demonstrating their conviction, fine.

My problem, I guess, lies with the way that other people have imposed a specific meaning on the hijab in relation to women. You mentioned that many women wearing the hijab would feel, if forced not to wear it, like they were walking around in "a bra and jeans." A large majority of Frenchwomen--and, as polls suggest, a significant majority of French Muslim women--would disagree.

The problem comes about when other Muslims, who see wearing the hijab as a minimal standard for female decency, take object to women who choose not to wear the hijab, and take specific offense to women who, because of their religious backgrounds, are supposed to be minimally decent by wearing the hijab. The easiest reaction, when faced with a member of one's own community who doesn't obey what you define as minimal levels of decency, is to define said member as belonging to an outgroup of immoral people. If they don't conform to certain standards of sexual behaviour, one can readily define themselves further as sexually promiscuous people, as people beyond the pale of civilization and its protections.

In so doing, a situation is created where this outgroup can be readily victimized. What Robert Pickton managed to get away with for a decade is an extreme example. (Presumably he'd have been stopped before he murdered at least 31 women if he'd been killing soccer moms.) A more conventional example is the old excuse proferred by rapists that if their victim didn't want to have sex, she was being needlessly provocative, what with wearing a certain cut of skirt, walking at a certain time of night, or so on.

There seems to be enough reason to suggest that, in many French Muslim slums, women are faced with the choice of wearing the hijab (and adopting a restrictive accompanying set of social values) or running a highly elevated risk of physical attack. The imposition of this choice, by a small minority of French Muslims, strikes me as an innately misogynistic act, requiring action.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

rfmcdpei
2004-03-03 11:01 pm UTC (link)

On that note, let’s talk about choice. You mentioned many times that Muslim women and girls should not be forced to wear the hijab and that this law will ensure that to some extent.

[. . .]

Fair enough. It is wrong to impose ones religious beliefs on another. And yes, that does happen. Many Muslim girls and women are forced to wear the hijab and that is unfortunate. However, many Muslim women and girls who wear the choose to wear the hijab especially in the Western world where we are minorities and are trying to hold on to our religion and express our pride in being Muslims. And I dare say most Muslim women and girls who wear the hijab choose it, though I don’t have the exact stats. Few Muslim countries actually force their women to wear the hijab by law. Most have no such law.

I quite agree.

My initial stance on the hijab inasmuch as it related to French education policy was that French hostility to the hijab was foolish, for the reason that it was a harmless symbol of ethnic/religious pride as an alienated minority within French society.

This changed, though, when I learned that force was a primary reason that many French Muslim women--particularly young women--wore the hijab. Opinion polls return a poll of half of French Muslim women supporting the law under question (the figures I've seen suggest ~50% for the ban, ~20% against). The venerable anti-racist group S.O.S. Racisme supports the law, criticizes people on both sides of the debate who want to reduce it to a communal dispute, and calls many people who oppose the law people who want to use feminism against women's rights. Perhaps the most prominent French Muslim women's group (Ni Putes Ni Soumises [Eng: Neither whores nor submissives]) sees the law as a necessity condition for women to acquire autonomous personalities and safety. This suggests to me that for a majority of French Muslims (and, more specifically, for a majority of French Muslim women) the hijab is not seen primarily as a harmless symbol of one's membership in the Muslim community (itself immensely diverse, notable primarily for its lack of adherence to tradition, whether measured in terms of intermarriage, language fluency, or religious practice), but rather as a personal threat.

(I'll go more into the use of threats directed towards women refusing to wear the hijab, and the close association of groups compelling the wearing of the hijab with misogynistic attitudes generally, in my next post. Suffice it to say that though laws might not require it, social pressures make it a necessary precondition.)

I'm not an enthusiastic fan of the law, mainly because of its potential to (as you noted) inflict trauma on young women who want to wear the hijabhijab and fall into line with a restrictive concept of morality, given how other methods of effectively combatting this method would either 1) take unacceptably long amounts of time or 2) involve the imposition of police-state methods directed towards the French Muslim community, and given how the failure to act would continue a generation of neglect towards the French Muslim community and allow the forcible subordination many women in that diverse community to a restrictive interpretation of their religion, I'm inclined to accept it as the least bad solution to the problem at hand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-03-01 04:34 pm UTC (link)

Also on this point, I have to say that I am insulted that you would condemn the whole Muslim world to being so intolerant. I am not angry but appalled that you would assume that we are so intolerant. We are like other religious groups. We have our fanatics but most of the Muslim world is tolerant. As mentioned before, I am a practising Muslim who does not wear the hijab. I have never felt an hostility from other Muslims, nor any intimidation. I have always felt comfortable with my decision and have never been made to feel otherwise. Yes, I admit, our community does have it’s share of those who think themselves to be holier-than-thou, thinking they are better Muslims because they wear the hijab, but their way of thinking has never made me feel the need to conform. I am not an exception.

“...the treatment of women under (very different) Islamist regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, the apparent deterioration of women's status in Iraq following the, and the GIA's ghastly massacres in Algeria,....That the wearing of the hijab is compulsory for women in all these situations where revolutionary Islamists have power isn't a coincidence.”

I’m sorry, I really don’t get the connection. I really, really don’t. (?) So please explain how the hijab has any connection with massacre. By the way, Iraq never had compulsory hijab for women. Countries like India and Pakistan are patriarchal countries. The hijab is not compulsory in either. As mentioned before, most Muslim countries do not have any such law. Again, what is the connection. Many non-Muslim countries have committed autrocities as well.

“Abuse (as distinct from a simpler conservatism) motivated by sincere religious belief doesn't seem to be treated differently--or, at least, shouldn't be treated differently--from abuse motivated by power considerations, or simple negligence.”

Parents making their girls wear the hijab is abusive ???!!!!! So, is parents not allowing their girls to wear skanky little skirts to school abusive too? I’m not getting your logic, man.

That’s all I have to say about this issue for now. Sorry if I may have seemed a little defensive at times. I think you can understand why.

(Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2004-03-01 04:35 pm UTC (link)
	By the way, this was Sobia. Not ever having used this forum before I forgot to put my name on it. Sorry. (Reply to this)

rfmcdpei
2004-03-03 10:00 pm UTC (link)

Also on this point, I have to say that I am insulted that you would condemn the whole Muslim world to being so intolerant.

I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about here. See below.

I am not angry but appalled that you would assume that we are so intolerant. We are like other religious groups. We have our fanatics but most of the Muslim world is tolerant.

I thought I made that clear above, by trying to demonstrate that what's going on is a minority of people trying to use illegitimate tactics (including threats of personal violence) to pressure people into adopting specific interpretations of Islam so as to limit female autonomy.

I have never felt an hostility from other Muslims, nor any intimidation. I have always felt comfortable with my decision and have never been made to feel otherwise. Yes, I admit, our community does have it’s share of those who think themselves to be holier-than-thou, thinking they are better Muslims because they wear the hijab, but their way of thinking has never made me feel the need to conform. I am not an exception.

I don't think you are an exception. My specific concern was aroused by a rather different situation, that of French Muslim communities, more specifically, that of French Muslim communities which have been ghettoized by local racism and poor economic prospects.

Canadian and French Muslim communities are quite different, in their origins, in their current statuses, in their relationships to non-Muslim populations in their countries, and in their future prospects. I don't think that the experiences can be examined side-by-side save in a comparative perspective, i.e., what has gone right in Canada and gone wrong in France.

re Algeria

So please explain how the hijab has any connection with massacre.

It's relevant inasmuch in Algeria, pressure for women to wear the hijab is but one element of an appallingly complete sort of misogyny advocated by the Front islamique du salut. Women have to wear the hijab, no matter what their individual choices are. They have, in this reading, no legitimate place as actors in Algerian society, with no right to autonomy. To wit:

A cornerstone of the fundamentalist agenda is the imposition of gender-apartheid and the targeting of women who deviate in any way from their very restricted prescribed role within the fundamentalist framework. After legalization of the FIS and prior to the elections, Ali Belhadj stated that "the woman is a producer of men, she produces no material goods, but this essential thing which is the Muslim.'' Abassi Mandani also stated:

"Recent demonstrations of women against violence and intolerance are one of the greatest dangers threatening the destiny of Algeria...[they are] defying the conscience of the people and repudiating national values.''

During that time when FIS legally controlled a substantial number of municipalities one of FIS's iman Abdelkhader Moghni stated:

"Women should go home and leave their jobs for the thousands of young unemployed men. They waste their time, spending their salaries on make-up and dresses.''

This rhetoric was backed up by political action on the part of FIS elected officials as well as the threat of force.

[. . .]

The fundamentalist agenda to institutionalize extreme discrimination against women -- the beginning elements of gender apartheid -- became even clearer between 1991 and 1992 when the FIS exercised official power in a number of municipalities. While FIS often co-opts the language of human rights, even in relation to women, the programs they implemented that year through fiat and threat of violence to resisters -- sex segregation in the schools and on the buses, prohibi?rls from sports, imposing the wearing of the veil, forced religious worship, and prohibition from certain employment -- clearly demonstrates the contrary.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

rfmcdpei
2004-03-03 10:00 pm UTC (link)

Aicha Lemsine has observed that in contemporary Algeria, "wall posters threaten women with death if they go to the hammam (public baths for women), frequent beauty salons, work, play sports or study music or art. The hijab is now the supreme obligation."

By the way, Iraq never had compulsory hijab for women.

There might not be a law in Algeria forcing women to wear the hijab. I don't think that freedom of choice can be exercised, though.

Iraq never had compulsory hijab for women.

Under Saddam, yes. After Saddam, though, it is being imposed. Add to this the concerns of many Iraqi women with plans to weaken the status of women in family law using the excuse of religion and death threats made against female politicians, and some concern about how the hijab is being used as a signifier/signified seems justified.

Countries like India and Pakistan are patriarchal countries. The hijab is not compulsory in either. As mentioned before, most Muslim countries do not have any such law. Again, what is the connection.

I agree that it's not compulsory. I do believe that there's evidence to suggest that for many Muslim women who don't want to wear the hijab, taking it off is impossible given the real and present threat of physical violence coming from outside the state, though perhaps with tacit state approval.

Many non-Muslim countries have committed autrocities as well.

I quite agree. If I was talking about misogyny in India, I'd raise the subject of how women are systematically abused based on their caste. If I was talking about misogyny in China, I'd talk about the high rate of selective abortion of female fetuses.

As it happens, I'm talking about the situation of French Muslim women who don't want to wear the hijab because they see in its imposition a threat to their personal autonomy. I was not talking about misogyny in India or China in that letter, and in the subsequent commentary since because it wasn't the subject of my writing. I've criticized Israeli behaviour in the Palestinian territories, but by not mentioning (say) Russia in Chechnya or China in Tibet in the same breath I didn't think I'm either ignoring the situation of those territories or placing unfair emphasis on Israeli (much less Jewish) misdeeds.

?Abuse (as distinct from a simpler conservatism) motivated by sincere religious belief doesn't seem to be treated differently--or, at least, shouldn't be treated differently--from abuse motivated by power considerations, or simple negligence.”

Parents making their girls wear the hijab is abusive ???!!!!! So, is parents not allowing their girls to wear skanky little skirts to school abusive too? I'm not getting your logic, man.

I'll distinguish between conservative Muslim parents who don't use threats of physical violence against their daughters to make them wear the hijab, and conservative Muslim parents who do. The former I've no issue with; the latter, I most definitely do.

That's all I have to say about this issue for now. Sorry if I may have seemed a little defensive at times. I think you can understand why.

I do. I believe that Islamophobia is a real and present threat in the modern-day world, that there's a consistent tendency towards alarmist and apocalyptic thought that's often self-fulfilling. The Muslim is the Other only if you want him (or her) to be.

I also believe that there are serious issues which need to be raised, specifically in regard to women's autonomy in deciding not to wear the hijab. My first post says basically everything I want to say.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	creases 2004-03-04 08:52 am UTC (link)
	Again, I reiterate that in Canada, we have solved this problem by teaching kids in public school what domestic abuse is, and how to resist it. It helps that we don't have Muslim ghettoes, either. (Reply to this) (Thread)

rfmcdpei
2004-03-04 02:39 pm UTC (link)

Again, I reiterate that in Canada, we have solved this problem by teaching kids in public school what domestic abuse is, and how to resist it.

Yes. There's also, through the safe schools philosophy increasingly in vogue, a tendency to circumscribe bigoted behaviours on the parts of some students towards others. Particularly given the specific anti-clerical/anti-proselytization traditions of the French school system, this fits.

It helps that we don't have Muslim ghettoes, either.

Definitely. It should be a top priority of the French government to help people in the banlieues escape ghettoization. Economic reform would be nice. So's social engineering.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs