Hijab: A Woman's Right To Choose

by Paula Geraghty Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:13

Copyright (c)

by Leon Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:14

See the first picture for what I mean.

If you are worried that these children will inflame lust in men who see them, then you really have internalised the values of the English tabloids.

No Gods
No Masters

by Leon Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:21

Why not call the protest Burkha a man's right to choose what is best for his womenfolk.

by pat c Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:32

what next? are swp women going to wear the veil? this is appalling, to see socialists consorting with the most backward of clerical obscurantism. shame on the swp.

what about seperation of church and state? what about the islam attitude to gays, to abortion etc etc.

we havent fought off one bunch of catholic mullahs to now surrender to these islamic priests.

down with all religion! all

by Leon Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:41

Most of the people in these photographs are not old enough to make a valid religious choice, in our system where schools are run by the RC church having an Islamic school (provided it teaches the state curriculum) is reasonable enough.

Clearly leftists of all stripes should oppose all sectarian education and the way in which these children are being manipulated is disgusting.

Would they have been bussed in for a demonstration dealing with reproductive rights for example.

Also what is with the Sikh? Is this woman even aware that not all people with brown skins are Muslims; just as not all Muslims support the hijab; and many who support the hijab demand the complete covering of women from head to toe.

Clearly people of colour like myself exist only as ciphers for the SWP. Ghosts whos lives are imagined in ways that validate the anti american prejudice of the moment.

by pat c Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:47

Sikhs wear the turban not as a religious symbol but to cover their hair, which their religion states should not be cut. the wearing of a turban is not a statement that they are better or lesser than anyone else.
(still think its silly, but so is wearing miraculous medals)

the wearing of a scarf, yasmuk etc in islam however is a statement that women are lesser than men and is a means of preserving and enforcing patriarchy.

i dont suppoert state laws banning scarfs from school but i do think all socialists should campaign against such symbols of oppression.

by Phuq Hedd Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:48

is something I'd definitely agree with. Religion is a private matter for an individual and legislation should not be passed by the State that interferes with an individual's choice in religion.

This applies both in promoting religion and in suppressing it.

The problem with the SWP being involved in this manner is twofold:
1. The use of the IAWM without consultation of its membership with this cause
2. The failure to provide a contextualizing criticism of certain branches of the Islamic religion alongside the statement of support for women to wear whatever the hell they like.

So, IMHO the SWP or any other socialist that cares about individuality and freedom from the interference of the State in matters of personal conscience should be happy to support a statement along the lines of:

"We condemn the attempts of the French State to interfere in the matter of what clothing is considered acceptable on religious grounds. It is especially disturbing in the light of both French colonial oppression of Islamic nationalist movements in North Africa, the racism experienced by North Africans (many of whom are nominally Islamic) in France and the current climate of hostility towards Islam in the Western nations. It is important to note that as socialists we deplore the attitudes institutionalized in certain forms of Islam and that we stand firmly in favour of women's right to choose any form of dress they wish, to control their own fertility and to choose sexual partners in whatever manner they as individuals deem fit."

Anyone concerned about institutional religion in schools can surely find a couple of Catholic schools with crosses all over the walls and fanatics of the Catholic faith in charge of young minds not very far from their own front doors.

by ger Tue Jan 20, 2004 19:55

"socialists consorting with the most backward of clerical obscurantism" jeeez.

Have you ever talked to an Islamic lady about it or are you making what your saying up based on typically ignorant beliefs????

by ec Tue Jan 20, 2004 20:13

Debate going on about this protest for last few days at this link: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63036

by Atheist Tue Jan 20, 2004 20:25

God does not exist!
He is a myth created by slow witted fearful sex obssessed life hating morons who want to drag the rest of godless(free) humanity down with them into the bottomless deep.
You can wrap your Korans in your headscarfs and fucking eat them if you like.
Keep State and Religion completely separate.
Practise your stupid superstitions outside of school time you losers.

by Sandra Tue Jan 20, 2004 20:54

There are a number of intertwined issues here.

In the French context, where most racism is aimed at North Africans, the ban is clearly aimed at further stirring up division between muslim and non-muslim workers. Chirac has not suddenly become a progressive.

Socialists should oppose this attempt to stir up racial divisions and should in any case oppose attempts by the capitalist state to tell people what they can and cannot wear.

In so far as they do that, the socialists who attended the protest were right. The problem is that people like the SWP leave the other side of the issue out for opportunistic reasons.

We should defend the right to wear the veil against a state ban but we should never forget that the veil is part of the oppression of women. We must oppose a state ban while at the same time arguing amongst muslim women that they should not wear the veil.

by Drbinoche Tue Jan 20, 2004 22:17

Right I think if any religion is gonna be taught in a school then it has to be taught right. Secondly if one gets taught then they all have to be taught. Its only right that Kids are given some fairness in their right to choose their religious beliefs [if any]. However, for alot of families it would never be that straight forward. Catholics/Christians/Muslims/Jews etc can all have families where its either practice the religion of the house or get a beating. I mean if they teach one religion in school, then all should be taught and I mean ALL, every single freaky and loony one would have to be taught. Including Satanism, Im sure the Church would fucking love that.

Also, if the Hajib is so needed then how come in some schools in Turkey a predominantly Muslim country, they forbid the wearing of the Hajib. In Turkey if you work in the Civil Service you are forbidden from wearing the sacrf. They want to maintain the complete seperation of Chruch and State. Somethign I whole heartedly agree with. Religion can be a great thing or a bad thing. Its caused more wars than anything else. It dulls people to true life and forbids em from making very valuable and personal choices. Now at the same time some people NEED to believe their lives are in the hands of someone who has more power than them, a Deity figure, but they should be asked to be practice this in their own homes or with their own community. If you believe in God go to Church and wear your huge Crucifixes, if you believe in Allah, go to the Mosque and wear your head scarf. Wear whatever you want in your own home, but do not force your kids to wear it when they are out in a public place being taught by the state. If you want them to wear it, then send em to a private school that allows it.

As for France. I heard that apparently 2/3s of the people who voted on this issue, voted for the ban to be enforced, so its hardly the Governments fault if the people asked for it to be introduced. They are bascially being yelled at for doing what they are supposed to do.

I would totally accept a ban on all Religious Idolitry in schools and public buildings in Ireland as it might help some of us escape the bollox that has been forced down the majority of our throats from a stupidly early age!!

by why? Wed Jan 21, 2004 02:55

Of course no state school should have one religion represented over another eg. Ireland
But equally banning the right of an individual not to allow them as parents to dress their children with religously symbolic clothing is a completely different thing. This is something which is much more complex and involves interfering with how parents teach and rear their children.

Perhaps the french government will ban kids from wearing the crucifix around their necks.

By the very fact that the French are doing this and the Turkish have similar laws for civil servants for exampe, the state is making a religious statement..

I disagree with the patriachal sexist use of the hijab by Islamic Fundamentalist rulers. But I also recognise the right of muslim women to wear the hijab as a symbol of their religion while at the same time many reject the sexist man-made reasons where-by their rulers enforce many other women into wearing it without choice. So it is a matter of having the right to choose, not enforcing the law to wear or not to wear.

I remember as a child being made go to religion class in school- no choice

I remember being dragged to church- no choice

I don't think my parents are to blame for any wrong-doing they raised me as they saw fit in the confines of the state we lived in and the catholic traditions and restraints on social freedom that came with that , I'd have preferred if their minds had not been imprisoned by such crap but there you go.
Just as Muslim parents are raising their kids. Islam/Christianity which is the lesser of two evils?
No-one has the right to dictate to another what their religion should or should not be, I don't believe in any established organised religion I see them as old fashioned forms of social control just as governments are. But that's another battle but one which is not as clear-cut as the battle against so called democratically elected gov.s
No religion should be above common law

But religion becomes really evil when it's being used by the state.
In the past religion used the state those days are long over, now the state is in full control and will use religion when necessary.

by mentorn - none Wed Jan 21, 2004 09:57

I think the above debate is very interesting. I say debate because thats what it is, a genuine debate, non personal exchang of views - shows the potential for indymedia as a resource. Im acatually affected by the posts - i usually just log on with my mind firmly made up on issues.

Tending to agree with Pat. C's contributions so far - will think some more and post my own thoughts.

cheers.

by Leon Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:55

Clearly a woman has the right to cover her hair.

Most of the people in this galleryare not women. They are children. Who is making the choice?

We are dealing with a conflict of rights. Who elected those who speak for the Muslims of Ireland, I assure you no women were involved in the decision. (Not the Irish can throw any stones on that issue.)

As a man if I were a Muslim I might choose to wear long pajama style trousers and a straggly beard, by doing this I would show that I am unconcerned with material things. However my family would not MAKE me wear these absurd clothes, whereas many girls are forced to wear the hijab.

H I J A B

not H A J I B.

Incidentally the government in Paris can stop girls wearing scarves to school, but if John Galliano in Paris tells women of all faiths and none to wear it next year no power on earth can stop them.

Also patc Kesh is inappropriate in the west Sikhs should asimilate and cut their hair. In fact I would bet that most men who identify as Sikh of working age don't wear long hair in the UK and Ireland.

by David Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:14

Parents have a responsibility to raise their children to be healthy balanced free individuals. this over-rides their right to shape a mirror of themselves!. Do Nazi parents have the right to raise miniature nazi children?
I don't think there should be any religous schools, not catholic not muslim. all schools should be secular and there should be no segregation between children of different cultures and colours.

by ryan Wed Jan 21, 2004 13:00

people are putting forward vague interpretations of the significance of the Hijab. And most of these points are founded on blatant ignorance that borders on racism. (comparing Islam to the Nazi's). A great many of Muslim women regard the Hijab as a liberation. Many Muslim women feel that a proportion of worth based on beauty is a form of oppression and that the Hajib can break that oppression. MAny regard the male standard of beauty tiring and humiliating.

As a western male it took me a while to come around to this - only after listening to Muslim women speak on the issue. So instead of perpetuating ignorance on the issue maybe its time to listen to what the muslim women have to say.

by Leon Wed Jan 21, 2004 13:19

There is no 'Islam', that was the point I was making in my comment about Islam and Capitalism. All brown people are not the same, all 'Muslims' are not the same.

perhaps ryan protected by your white skin (the skin of a slave owner and not of a slave) you might find this argument stupid.

Hardly surprising as your ability to read is limited (judging by the your reaction the comment about Aurungzeb). For those of us who are people of colour these issues of identity are significant and worth discussing.

Incidentally I now think the worst Muslim was probaly Timur and not Aurungzeb. I leave you to consider how he compared to Hitler.

by David Wed Jan 21, 2004 13:20

all religions to nazi simply because i consider all religions to be wrong and right wing institutions that have done much more harm than good.

by Concerned Parent Against Opium Peddling Wed Jan 21, 2004 13:23

"A great many of Muslim women regard the Hijab as a liberation."

So what.
Isn't it still true that "the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism".
The abolition of the illusionary happiness which religion seems to grant to the masses is essential to their real happiness.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Jan 21, 2004 14:47

Just to put this into perspective, wearing clothes of religious significance isn't a hate crime. Giving someone a choice in what they wear (or in what their child wears) to school isn't a hate crime either.

No matter how much someone's messages and symbols may bother you -- with the one exception of incitement to hate crimes -- shouldn't you defend their right to freedom of expression?

by Leon Wed Jan 21, 2004 14:52

No one has the right to make their kids look ridiculous. When they become teenagers they will do it for themselves

by kami Wed Jan 21, 2004 15:16

I DON'T LIKE ANYONE TELLING ME HOW TO DRESS.
DO YOU?

I DON'T LIKE ANYONE TELLING ME HOW TO THINK.
DO YOU?

RESPECT

by silo Wed Jan 21, 2004 15:29

sooo... did anyone at the demonstration attempt to articulate any of these ideas?

or rather... is it possible to march against the banning of the hijab (a violation of civil rights) whilst also making it clear that you regard the hijab as a symol of oppression?

by iosaf Wed Jan 21, 2004 15:52

and how many attended secular state schools and were sent home for provocative symbols such as
Piercings.... Tattoos..... that cool gothic fifteen year old death warmed up with a lighter look?

Ireland, is at a different stage in the development of personal rights in the educational environment. (in my opinion).

by Andrew Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:03

The WCPI have a press release on this which is worth reading under the heading 'Hijab in France: Battle for Islamic Political Uniform'. Include a short extract below which captures the flavor of the piece.

"In Western and North American countries, however, the power of Islamists is mostly limited to the inner life of their families and private institutions. As a result, they are unable to play a determining role in our societal life. In such cases members of their families and their fellow Muslims are the target of their values. For example, abusing women, forcing their wives and daughters to cover themselves in the Islamic veil, depriving them of basic activities such as sports activities, imposing forced marriages on the young, and so on, are the values they proudly practice in Western societies. In Islamic schools of Toronto, sexual-apartheid is as systematically practiced as in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Have any doubts? Ask any Imam or Mullah how he would, for example, react if he found out his daughter loved a Jewish, Christian or Atheist man. Or simply visit an Islamic school in your neighborhood."

by Aoife Ní Fhearghail - Irish Anti War Movement also SWP Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:16 aoifenf at yahoo dot co dot uk D6W 087 7955013

When the Irish Anti-War Movement set up, as well as opposing the looming war on Afghanistan, the use of Shannon Airport by belligerent powers and the on-going occupation of Palestine, 2 of our defining principles were opposition to the racism (or more particularly islamophobia) which is inherent in Bush's 'war on terror' and opposition to attacks on civil liberties.

Bush's 'war on terror' has been a useful tool to government's the world over which want to enact racist, anti-immigrant legislation and crack down heavily on civil liberties.

Clearly, the decision by the french government to ban a woman's right to choose to wear the Hijab in school is not just an infringement on her civil rights, but a continuation of France's generations-long attacks on members of the Islamic community. This latest decision is not designed to further the cause of women's liberation, but to demonise young french Muslim women. If you cannot understand this then you are either guilty of the most infantile ultraleftism or you possibly subscribe yourself to the Robert Kilroy-Silk school of thought.

The SWP as a socialist organisation is opposed to women's oppression and women being forced to dress/behave in a way they do not choose. However unlike other 'socialist' groups and individuals notably absent from Saturday's demonstration the SWP supports an individuals' right to practice their religion.

Young Muslim women living in Ireland have been at the forefront of all the anti-war demonstrations. Many organised walk-outs of their schools on March 20 last year when the invasion of Iraq began. Along with members of Catholic, Quaker, Jewish, Church of Ireland and Gandhian-individualistic brands of religion, they have played just as significant a role in the anti-war movement as those of us who are atheists, and just as they march in defence of freedom in Iraq, so we in Ireland must defend their civil rights in France.

by Andrew Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:28

I've not got my own mind made up on this as yet but it is quite clear that a number of left groups from the 'middle east' most of whose members would be from a muslim background disagree with the symplistic analysis Aoife presents above. As with the WCPI statement above they see the veil not as something (all) muslim women choose but rather something that is imposed on them in the home.

It may suit some opportunistic western leftists to present everyone from a muslim background as part of the same undifferented mass, in this case all clamouring to be allowed to wear the veil. But Aoife as you should be aware in that case it is the SWP making the Kilroy-Silk argument of 'all muslims think/say the same thing'.

All in all it strikes me as daft that anyone on the left should uncritically back either side in this argument.

by Leon Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:32

what book are the following quotes from?

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.


Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

It isn't the Koran -- the Christian bible Leviticus

Incidentally I preferred the original name of this thread.

Hajib a woman's right to choose.

It gave a clearer indication of the extent to which the children in photographs exist as more than ciphers for the IAWM cultists.

To those who are concerned only with struggle among whites the brown peoples of the world do not exist.

A new form of racism.

by Concerned Parent against Opium Peddling Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:32

"Clearly, the decision by the french government to ban a woman's right to choose to wear the Hijab in school is not just an infringement on her civil rights, but a continuation of France's generations-long attacks on members of the Islamic community. This latest decision is not designed to further the cause of women's liberation, but to demonise young french Muslim women. If you cannot understand this then you are either guilty of the most infantile ultraleftism or you possibly subscribe yourself to the Robert Kilroy-Silk school of thought."

By reading this you would think that the ban solely deals with the hijab. It does not.
I am guilty of the most infantile ultraleftism so - along with a lot of other leftist like the WCPI. It dosn't look like the IS have learnt the lessons of Iran.

I was wondering how the SWP holders of the franchise for the IS would ape their British comrades turn to Islam. I suppose this it.

by Henrietta Street Mouse Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:34

It looks the SWP are making progress. That new web address for the IAWM looks spot on with having the SWP on the same line.

by Dubzrool Wed Jan 21, 2004 17:42

If you support the ban or if you oppose it you're a racist?

Fuck Off.

It is very simple
Let girls wear it if they want.
If their folks want them to wear it but they don't want to help them tell their folks to fuck off.

It seems to me that evryone has their own agenda here and no one gives a shit about French schools.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Jan 21, 2004 18:44

Think of all the other ways the State could helpfully interfere with personal choices in order to further whatever they decide is right for all women or children or men.

Depending on who controls the State at the time it could be decided that all sorts of things which some of us would find morally repulsive were to be enforced in the best interests of the people.

This is a clear cut case of individual freedom being interfered with.

This is a guaranteed way to reinforce the power of Islamic extremists within their own communities and to create a polarized and divided society.

It ought to be clear (to libertarians at least) that there should be no interference from the State in matters of religion (excluding obvious coercion). Some of the comments appear to argue that the voluntary adherents to the wearing of the hijab are deluded and brainwashed. If this really is the argument and I've not misunderstood it then I'd point out that the same can be argued about you. Ultimately we have to allow people choice.

The surest way to defeat clericalism, fanatacism etc is to allow people choice while steadfastly refusing to allow coercive interference with anyone else's choice.

If it were the case that it could be shown that there were hordes of weeping Muslim girls confiding in their teachers that they were beaten if they took off their hijab then it'd be a different situation.

It seems to me that there is a good deal of confusion surrounding this issue because of the inappropriate involvement of the IAWM. Aoife's statement notwithstanding it's not clear that the ANTI-WAR movement has any remit for this action. It's also obvious that the membership should have been consulted in a democratic manner about this action.

by Brian Cahill - SP (personal cap.) Wed Jan 21, 2004 18:50

The debate on this thread is very interesting.

I was moved to comment when I noticed Aoife's cheeky little dig about socialist organisations other than the SWP not supporting people's right to practice a religion. That is a cheap attempt to score points.

The Socialist Party is against a state ban on wearing religious symbols. As someone pointed out above, in the French context the ban is clearly aimed at muslim women and will have the effect of dividing workers of different religious and racial backgrounds.

Being against a state ban, however, does not mean celebrating a symbol of the oppression of women. Being opposed to the state telling muslim women what to wear doesn't mean that we gloss over the issue of the pressure on women within the Muslim community to conform.

Muslims, like other religious groupings, are not an undifferentiated bloc. There are socialists from a Muslim background, some still believers, some not. There are working class Muslims and there are Muslim bosses.

Opposition to racism and prejudice doesn't mean accomodating to any reactionary views held by its victims. Socialists should be arguing for class politics, against the oppression of women and gays, amongst all religious groupings. That means that we don't act as if one religious grouping is a homogenous "progressive" bloc.

by 1 of IMC IRL Wed Jan 21, 2004 18:56

As the sluggers say.

by David Wed Jan 21, 2004 18:56

are or have been in the past afiliated with the IAWM?
It seems the only organisation in the left in Ireland that has any concrete position on this issue is the SWP and it is further proof (as if any were needed) that the IAWM brand is regarded as property of the SWP who bear no notice to the stated aims of promoting a unified aliance of the left

by ME Wed Jan 21, 2004 21:14

so now they want to ban beards and bandanas (french education minister just remarked today) if there was any doubt that this law is crazy then this should now be vanquished. I suggest the French kids should all wear hare krishna beads and dreadlocks into shcool and all get chucked in solidarity with the persecuted muslim kids. and sorry is this isn't so sensitive, but the French or enough of them have always hated the Arabs, from ''standing on a beach with the sun in my eyes'' to Michel holleque excuse my spelling, horny writer but a racist (or at least his characters are, sorry Michel)to the genocide of Algeria. so fuck off with your P C Republique, it's a lie

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Wed Jan 21, 2004 21:22

I have spoken to several Muslim women who regard the hijab as a necessary part of their spiritual life and expression, and who wear it by choice rather than due to pressure from family, clerics or society.

As for the hijab being a "symbol of women's oppression" as Brian Cahill calls it, this is something which is context dependent. If a woman is forced to wear something against her will, then that item of clothing becomes a symbol of oppression. But there are many women out there who do not view it this way, and who would maintain that the tradition of wearing the hijab is actually a liberating one. If it is experienced as liberating and is done by choice, then an outsider with a limited understanding of Islam in its multiplicity of guises and traditions, has no right to come along and call you oppressed. It is the worst kind of cultural patronization. I get this sense from several of the contributions so-called socialists here who have a problem with people protesting the ban. The arguments are simplistic, they do not have any respect for cultural context, and display a certain kind of leftist fundamentalism which would impose its own strict orthodoxy if it had its way.

Messing with people's freedom of religion is always dangerous, and making stark generalisations about people of a particular religion is always dangerous. It stirs up cultural hatred and racism. We don't really have to go back too far in Europe's history to find this to be be the case. I find it worrying that this isn't obvious to people.

by Ludwig Feuerbach Wed Jan 21, 2004 21:36

that someone quoted Marx's juvenilia as a contribution to this debate. Marxists with their appalling history of murder, genocide, torture and obscurantism are the last people who should attempt to lecture anyone on freedoms.

by David Wed Jan 21, 2004 22:59

muslim women have, of course, the right to free religous expression, but the young girls going to school do not have that choice because they are very often too young or they are living in families where they are forced to wear the clothing against their will.
Children should not be targetted for indoctrination into any religion because they cannot decide themselves. the way things are now, most people who practise particular religion do so only because of an accident of birth.
I believe a child should have a secular education and be allowed to decide on his or how faith when he/she is informed and can make her own decision.

by Mark Wed Jan 21, 2004 23:02

As a feminist I feel very strongly on this issue. The hijab is just the tip of the issue. Every day the patriarchal sexists that control our society are allowing young children to wear bras to school. This symbol of patriarchal restriction of women's bodies is fit for nothing but burning. I call upon the state to outlaw the wearing of this implement of dominance that implies that womens bodies are shameful and must be controlled.

Burn the bra! Ban it now!

by Palmiro Togliatti Thu Jan 22, 2004 01:12

In Italy, a Muslim takes a court case against his childrens' school displaying crucifixes in the classroom and he's subject to nationwide revulsion.

In France a couple of Muslim girls object to being told that they can't wear a form of clothing which they feel is a religious obligation (when they could wear anything else they wanted) and they're pilloried and the issue ends up resulting in proposed legislation.

It looks like in Europe anything Muslims do that appears different or non-conforming serves as a lightning rod for a vast undercurrent of prejudice. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that life in America (both North and South) has generally been much easier for Muslim immigrants.

Many Muslim women feel that they are under a religious obligation to cover their hair. Any secular, egalitarian republican system worth the name should respect people's liberty to follow their conscience in matters of religion, as long as they're not infringing anyone else's rights in doing so.

It's true that in some countries - and these include France - Muslim women have been subject to harassment and even severe assault for refusing to wear what thugs or vigilantes deem appropriate for them. This isn't a problem which occurs in the context of the French school system, though, and an assault on the religious liberties of Muslim women there won't solve it. It's also the case that in Turkey and Iran sincerely religious - but by no means extreme or bigoted - Muslim women have been prevented from engaging fully in public life because a form of dress they view as essential has been banned in some contexts or in general, and people should bear that in mind as well.

In many Muslim families in Arab countries, you can see a daughter who wears a headscarf while her mother has a bare head, or two sisters, one wearing the hijab and the other not. Quite often it is simply a matter of individual preference. There are also plenty of sincerely religious Muslim women who don't feel that it's an obligation at all. But freedom of religion isn't a matter of giving people the freedom to comply with what you think their religion requires - it means giving them the freedom to compy with what they themselves think it requires.

Finally, for those ardent secularists who think that this is a good idea, even from a purely secularist point of view and without any consideration of freedom of religion, what is the benefit to be derived from it which outweighs the probable resulting exclusion of many young Muslim girls from a secular, integrated school system and potentially from involvement in many sectors of public life, and their further alienation from a society which has already proved itself deeply prejudiced against Muslims?

by Brian Cahill Thu Jan 22, 2004 01:44

Deirdre, the hijab is a symbol of women's oppression even if an individual woman chooses to wear it.

Choices are all shaped by our social experiences. Would you argue that just because some women see participation in the making of pornography as liberating that we shouldn't argue that pornography is linked to sexism?

by Mark Thomas Thu Jan 22, 2004 07:57

Aoife is right whe she says that the French ban is discriminatory. She is also right to say that it's important to defend the right of Muslim women to choose. The problem with her argument, and the with arguments put forward by the SWP in the UK, where they have allied with the "official" Muslim establishment, is that it is so simplistic and blind to the complexities involved with this issue that it ends up mirroring the kind of racism it claims to oppose.

When Aoife says that Islamophobia is inherent to Bush's war, she unwittingly replicates the argument about the "clash of civilisations" put forward by the ideologues of the Bush administration.

Bush's support of the Saudi or Kuwait's regimes does not strike me as particularly Islamophobic. Nor I can recall Bush having a particularly strong position against the stoning of women who demand the right to vote in those countries, which surely would be a very good excuse to condemn Islam.

It is true, on the other hand, that Islamophobia is an "effect" of the "war on terror". But the way to counteract this effect is not to reverse the argument: Islam=good because it is against American imperialism and has supported civil liberties in Iraq.

Muslim women have indeed the right to choose to wear the veil, but women from Muslim communities also have the right to rebel against and oppose the politics of the Muslim establishment. Many of them do: surely, I don't need to remind you of the many examples of this. It's very problematic when you build your alliances with the official representatives of a community, as your organisation has done in the UK. Because when the grassroots in that community stand up to their official representatives, you end up being on the other side.

Aoife, it really is racism when you identify, without making any distinction, a whole community with a religious orthodoxy.

by Leon Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:46

Let's not go down some theological cul de sac.

This is really about assimilation and the relationship between the over and underdeveloped worlds.

I think that all of us on the left must accept the notion of free movement of peoples. Which in practise will largely mean from the underdeveloped world to the overdeveloped world.

Does the host society have the right to hothouse assimilation?

Incidentally on further reflection the French stance is absurd.

1 Those girls who WANT to wear Hijab won't become 'more french' because they are forbidden to dress as they choose.

2 Those girls whose family make them dress in stupid clothes will stop when they leave home.

Why can frenchness include a skullcap but not a headscarf.

Surely the fathers of all teenage girls must now be considering converting to Islam. What parents don't want to control their kids sexuality?

Still think the SWP are racist assholes though.

by iosaf - sans papiers (helping people immigrate to France) Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:38

They listed the affiliation of the groups who they joined in protesting the _proposed_ ban last Saturday.
It would help everyone (of all faiths) in Ireland if that list was presented on a "who's who" basis.
It would help everyone if there was also presented a list of all those (of all faiths) who did not support the mobilisations in France last Saturday.

On a personal note, It would interest me greatly to know the relationship between Marxist Dialectism and Islamic Fundamentalism.

Might a SW member quote the relevant sutra of the Koran, and the relevant chapters of Marx?

And finally how many SW youth wore "scapulars" as children?
And how many would have preferred not to have? And what importance is placed to the right to free adolescent development in a humanist environment open to full expression of oneself, right which very much must be upheld, there many Islamic teenagers who _do not_ want to wear the Hijab, and are pressured by their _muslim_ peers to do so.

I prefer to leave this issue as an internal one for French groups to discuss, refine, adjust. I think it would seem most strange to Irish readers should solidarity demonstrations be held in a reciprocal sense for precieved attacks on "religious rights to choose" in Ireland by Marxist groups in France.

It is also quite ridiculous that this is the first foray by the SW into "foreign affairs", why did they not choose to highlight the ban on the Hijab which is operated by the Turkish State on it's civil service and University students?
Is the Turkish State racist as well?

At end this is a cyncial exercise, which capitalises on Irish ignorance of what exactly the French Secular State school system is, how it has operated and who it serves, also it is willfully of ignorant of how liberal and left wing groups in the French Muslim Community have looked for assistance.

and yet the "debate" rages on, without any back-up at all. Cynicism and manipulation of racism at it's worst. Surely the SW could have prioritised their "moral weight"? before engaging in an attack on the French Republic which curiously is very much supported by the present US administration. I may accept Irish SW members sincerity on this issue far, far away, but when I see who they are lined up with in france, I wonder-----

since when did the swimmies join the fascists?

by Yossarian Thu Jan 22, 2004 13:27

Having tried 561 times over the past couple of years to deter anyone with a brain from participating meaningfully in the so-called IAWM, the SWP controllers have come up with a new ruse to blow its existence out of the water.
"Hey, what if we march in support of some Muslims right to wear a Hajib in schools in France" the controller-in-chief might have said, "that'll show everyone that we have completely lost the plot and the IAWM will be doomed forever".
Thousands of activists with brains around the country cheered gleefully although they were sad that a potentially powerful movement was again succumbing to the manipulations of a centrally controlled political party. But a spark of hope was detected, that the anti-war movement might jetison its current form and morph into something that better reflected the variety of opinions amongst anti-war activists.
The controller-in-chief of the 'IAWM' was last night heard muttering "we must now have a new lesson, no. 563 just to make sure: support the right of the oppressed chief executives of multi-national companies to grant themselves multi-billion dollar wages, the anti-war folk will be creaming themselves to get involved in this, hehehe".

by other options Thu Jan 22, 2004 14:23

If you find that the values of your religion clash with the school you are attending then why not change to a religiously run school.

If you have a ban on all religious practice in a school that does not mean that secular kids cant dress in accordance with a religion for fear of punishment but religious kids can for fear of infringing their rights. Its one or the other. As for inclusion in secular schools, if you ended up being in a minority who didnt wear the hajib in a supposedly secular school that would constitute a form of oppression and exclusion in schoolyard politics. Its not a simple issue of one's right to wear the hajib, its about being inclusive. The trade off is you dont get to wear the hajib in school but you dont have to listen to a dotty old nun in religion class telling you that the religion you practice outside school is wrong and that an eternity in hell awaits you. I always like ending with facetious arguements so i wonder if circumcised males should technically be allowed to attend such schools, after all its as abusive to cut someone up as tell them they have to wear headscarves.

by Andrew Thu Jan 22, 2004 14:51

First off I don't think it makes much sense for libertarians to support the French states ban on the hajib. Why should the state be allowed to dictate what children can wear to school. The only sort of ban that might be worth supporting is removal of all religous images from the school itself (ie all those gory pictures and statues).

However its equally stupid to fall into the trap of uncritically opposing the ban. The hajib is a symbol of the oppression of women and Deidre this is not based on a westerner judging another context but on something all secular 'muslim' groups say. Some links to this already posted above.

I remember talking to an Iranian women a year or so ago and she remembered being terrified as a child when her mother was whipped on the street by religous police for wearing clothes they considered too revealing (I think you could see her ankles). In other 'muslim' countries women who fail to 'mask up' are subject to both vigilante and official attack.

So any real talk of choice in this are has to recognise that there are states that try and ban the hajib in school and then there are states that demand the hajib is worn by all women whenever they leave the home.One question worth asking here is if the wearing of the hajib is compulsory in the Muslim schools here. Do the girls pictured above have the right not to wear it in school if this is what they choose?

The issue of context is a bit of a red herring because all of us posting here to date are not from a muslim background and so we are all putting our interpretation on what various people and groups from a muslim background say. Some want the hajib to be compulsory, others want it to be banned.

The bottom line IMHO is that freedom of religion has to include freedom from religion. Any left intervention in this issue needs to raise both.

by Luke Thu Jan 22, 2004 15:35

Andrew how old was this Iranian women you were talking to? She must also remember the Shah's forced unveiling of Iranian women three years before the 'glorious' revolution. After this forced unvieling the number of girls attending schools in Iran halved as parents (mothers and fathers) refused to allow there children to go out naked. Since '79 Iran has become one of the leaders in the Muslim world in terms of female education.

The Hijab is a devisive issue in the muslim world. I have spoken to women who have been beaten for wearing it and women who have been beaten for not wearing it. Now in Iran you could be beaten for wearing the wrong sort of Hijab, the light 'western' Hijab is popular among young people but frowned upon by hardliners.

The French decision to ban the Hijab is clearly anti-Muslim and anyone who denies it is blind or racist. I agree with the fundamentals of the French government stance insofar as I believe schools should be secular however the timing, the atmosphere, and the thrust of the decision is anti-Muslim and racist.

Support the powerless, not the cynical politics of the powerful.

by Andrew Thu Jan 22, 2004 15:51

I think she was very young in '79 as she didn't have any clear memories of the revolution (or the time before it). She wasn't pro-Shah if that's what your implying and interestingly she said she found the relative level of freedom in modern Iran shocking compared to the situation when she was in school.

Your characterisation of the reason for the Chirac law may well be correct, as I said I see no reason to support it. But here in Ireland to uncritically defend the choice to wear the hijab (in France) without raising the right not to wear it (in Saudi or Iran) is just opportunism pure and simple.

BTW muslims are not a race but followers of a particular religion, one that prides itself on being color blind. I'm not just being pedantic here, its important to realise that most of what gets called 'muslim countries' include minorities of other religions and of course people of no religion. The clash of civilisation crowd might like to divide things into the 'muslim world' and the 'christian world' but we should avoid doing the same.

by iosaf Thu Jan 22, 2004 16:04

can you not see that this issue has been ignorantly manipulated by people of unarguably good conscience in Ireland, a state with a very small muslim minority?
Can you not recognise that of the varying issues facing the muslims of France, one of the priorities for "socialists" ought be creating a situation where more migrants may integrate and be welcome?

I defy anyone in Ireland who calls me a racist on this issue, I am merely heeding the French minister of the Interior's plea (supported by the Paris Mosque Imam) to let the French solve their own issues.

Minister Sarkosy has supported the muslim community in France, more funding has been given to Islamic cultural centres, mosque building, and of key importance the setting up of the first independent Muslim religious education option schools.

I am shocked at the selectivity of this campaign, people of un-arguably good conscience are choosing to attack France for a law yet unacted, and at the same time are either ignoring or refusing to interest themselves in equivalent "religious freedom" debates in Italy, Spain, Germany. Fuerthermore there is no discussion of Feminist Islamic changes in Morrocco, Libya.

The waste of activist energy must be condemned. This is cynicism at it's worse.

I very much doubt any school teacher in Ireland has faced the task of fostering the values of the Republic which are lay, secular enlightenment based humanist doctrines of equality, fraternity and liberty, facing a classroom where half the adolescent females are wearing _full hijab_ not just the head scarf of Ireland, but the whole burka.

Can you tell me, that under such overtly extremist Islamic influence, that the rights to full development in a _secular_ state can be guaranteed?

If France is so "islamophobic", then why have several Islamic majority states condemned those who organised the Saturday mobilisation?

Because in europe we are not "so simple", the ultra right in spain has launched a campaign to put "catholicism" at the heart of the Spanish Education system again. That means a return of all their symbols. ¿Are the SWM to fight for the self-flagelants right to control schools again? ¿Are the SWP to support Opus Dei?
In Italy, the one million muslim community have through liberal spokespersons approached the government to revise the "crucifix" law, which has stood since the Vatican/Mussolini accord, claiming a symbol from the Koran ought be displayed next to the Cross in _every state school_.

In the UK the established religion is the Anglican Communion, which has meant a very diffferent development of religious /secular / lay values, one with which the Irish are thanks to TV and history much more familiar. It is very apparant that many o the SW have chosen the Queen's solution over the Republic's. And isn't that sad?

As a rights activists, I and my colleagues would have preferred an Irish solidarity march with the women of Morrocco calling for more normalisation of their rights, or in support of the soon to be made redundant workers of france Telecom. The fact is the SWmovement or Party whatever they call themselves now, were and are dangerously poorly informed, and they have served to distort the debate and the roots of the debate in France.
=They allied themselves with Extremists.
=they berate us (who are neighbours) for not supporting a platform which included the French Hamas support group, and an Imam who has been implicated in ongoing legal cases accross Europe on the physical castigation of women.
=They made a mistake. pure and simple.
=They manipulated rights concerns and I suggest the feelings of indentity of Irish muslims.

And in so doing have tactically effected other campaigns which seek to extend immigration and normalisation and the funding of religious option schools in France.

And that is the sort of mistake that a few hundred poorly informed knee jerk marxist addicted to protest can not be allowed to forget.

Shame on you all.

by Jim Monaghan Thu Jan 22, 2004 16:23

To be honest I have not fully made my mind up. I feel that clothes are generally a matter on individual choice. The French rule on the Hajib does smack of intolerance.
Where I draw the line is on practices such as female circumcision. To my horror I have heard some social workers say they would collude with this on the grounds of multiculturalism. There are those who say it is a cultural practice. I do not accept this or rather there are certain cultural practices whiuch should not be tolerated.
In Ireland it was both custom/culture and law to regard a wife as a chattel of the husband. I am glad this practice/culture is mostly in the dustbin of history.
While defending oppressed groupings we should not defend their custom if it exists to further oppress a gender or caste in their own society.
None of these practices are either necessarily Islamic or practiced by all Moslems.
Fintan O'Tooles recent article should be read as a contribution to what is a necessary debate.

by Luke Thu Jan 22, 2004 16:54

I agree that the support offered by left wing organisations for the Hijab is opportunism and is cynical in its own right. However I think that the idea behind the French ban is a good one but the reason the state is doing it is a bad reason.

I know that Muslim or Islam doesn't speak of a particular race but when it is used in a 'clash of civilisations' or Huntington's sense it implies race. This is the way Islam is fed to us in the west, the American Taliban is often portrayed as a race traitor, and this is the way the French state seems to regard it. Therefore I think it is a racist or civilisationist action.

Iosaf you are incredibly simple in your analysis. Can you not see that the timing, and the thrust of this ban is clearly anti-muslim. This is not a secular act but a status quo act, the French state had has tolerated Christian and Jewish religious symbols since the setting up of 5th republic in '57. With the rise in religious Muslims who choose to wear the Hijab (many of their mothers don't) to affirm identity the French state acts. Strange that.

"=They allied themselves with Extremists.
=they berate us (who are neighbours) for not supporting a platform which included the French Hamas support group, and an Imam who has been implicated in ongoing legal cases accross Europe on the physical castigation of women."

Is this a joke? People support issues they believe to be right. Are you swayed from supporting Spanish workers rights because the extreme right also support them. In Ireland the Nice treaty was opposed by most of the left by your logic we should have supported the Nice treaty as right wing Catholics were also anti-nice.

As for your long lists of who supports who, does this matter? The Grand Iman of Cairo, probably the most powerful Muslim Cleric outside of Iran supported the French Government after the French minister of the Interior visited him but now it looks like he will lose his job as he has no popular support.

You forget about power in your analysis and seem to believe that the French states primary concern is secularism and abstract ideals. The reality of the situation is that in France there is savage institutionalised racism, projects surrounding all the major cities peopled by north Africans, and that the ideals of the revolution 'Liberte, egalite, et fraternatie' have never be relavant to the French state, never

by Phuq Hedd Thu Jan 22, 2004 17:09

QUOTE: I defy anyone in Ireland who calls me a racist on this issue, I am merely heeding the French minister of the Interior's plea (supported by the Paris Mosque Imam) to let the French solve their own issues.
ANSWER: I haven't seen anyone call you a racist. If they have then it's obviously stupid and incorrect. But your appeal to "let the French solve their own issues" is weak. If someone perceives that there's a problem somewhere else then they're obligated to weigh in on the side that they agree with. Otherwise we should have respected the request of the Apartheid government of S.Africa to not interfere, or we should not be concerned with the "internal" situation in Chechnya at present.

QUOTE:Minister Sarkosy has supported the muslim community in France, more funding has been given to Islamic cultural centres, mosque building, and of key importance the setting up of the first independent Muslim religious education option schools.
ANSWER: So, by the evidence you present the French State is supporting separate _religious_ schools and at the same time making it impossible for those that wear hijab to be present in explicitly _secular_ schools. See any problem with this?

QUOTE: I am shocked at the selectivity of this campaign,
ANSWER: It is selective and it does lack context and thought and makes it seem as if the SWP are piggybacking on the energy of Islamic extremists.

QUOTE: people of un-arguably good conscience are choosing to attack France for a law yet unacted,
ANSWER: I think it's important to recognise, as you do, the good conscience of people involved in this campaign. As far as the law being "yet unacted", well what better time to attack it?

QUOTE:The waste of activist energy must be condemned. This is cynicism at it's worse.
ANSWER: Only a waste if they're wrong.

QUOTE:I very much doubt any school teacher in Ireland has faced the task of fostering the values of the Republic which are lay, secular enlightenment based humanist doctrines of equality, fraternity and liberty, facing a classroom where half the adolescent females are wearing _full hijab_ not just the head scarf of Ireland, but the whole burka.
ANSWER: I very much doubt it too given that Ireland is not a lay, secular enlightenment based humanist State that values the doctrines of equality, fraternity and liberty. I also very much doubt that any teacher facing a classroom full of adolescent females that have been forced to remove a piece of clothing which they may see as an essential aspect of their identity will succeed in instilling those values.

QUOTE:Can you tell me, that under such overtly extremist Islamic influence, that the rights to full development in a _secular_ state can be guaranteed?
ANSWER: Can you tell me that the rights to full development in a _secular_ state can be guaranteed by stripping the right to practice religion in freedom?

QUOTE:If France is so "islamophobic", then why have several Islamic majority states condemned those who organised the Saturday mobilisation?
ANSWER: Like the corrupt governments of Egypt, Algeria and Turkey who have through their lack of democracy helped to create a situation in which the only opposition comes from the Islamic extremists? Are those the ones you mean? The "Islamic majority" states which are engaged in near civil war with the communities that never saw the fruits of national liberation and democracy. Nice.

QUOTE:Because in europe we are not "so simple", the ultra right in spain has launched a campaign to put "catholicism" at the heart of the Spanish Education system again. That means a return of all their symbols. ¿Are the SWM to fight for the self-flagelants right to control schools again? ¿Are the SWP to support Opus Dei?
ANSWER: Should students be strip-searched every morning to make sure that they aren't covertly wearing the "ciele" (reputedly a coil of barbed wire worn around the thigh for two hours per day by initiates to Opus Dei for the purposes of mortification of the flesh)?

QUOTE:In Italy, the one million muslim community have through liberal spokespersons approached the government to revise the "crucifix" law, which has stood since the Vatican/Mussolini accord, claiming a symbol from the Koran ought be displayed next to the Cross in _every state school_.
ANSWER: And that is an intrusion of religion into the institutions of the state and should not be allowed. If, on the other hand, students wish to wear crucifixes or pentagrams or crescents or whatever then they should be allowed to.

QUOTE:As a rights activists, I and my colleagues would have preferred an Irish solidarity march with the women of Morrocco calling for more normalisation of their rights, or in support of the soon to be made redundant workers of france Telecom.
ANSWER: I think those might ring a little hollow if there were not ALSO a march against the unwarranted, probably politically motivated, intrusion by the French state against the freedom of Islamic women to adhere to their religious principles.

QUOTE:The fact is the SWmovement or Party whatever they call themselves now, were and are dangerously poorly informed, and they have served to distort the debate and the roots of the debate in France.
=They allied themselves with Extremists.
ANSWER: French fascists and Islamophobes would agree with you that the hijab should be banned so you too are allied with Extremists, calling names doesn't help at all and it's exactly what you objected to at the start of your post when you claimed that you were being labelled "racist".

SUMMARY: The mistake that the SWP made was to descend to simplistic, non-contextual condemnation of the ban. A clear dismissal of the ban as a probably political manoeuver by the worst elements of the French State, while also making it clear that Islamic extremists can eat their burkhas is the only logical response from someone that supports individual liberty.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Thu Jan 22, 2004 18:09

No I wouldn't argue the same about pornography, but I have yet to hear a woman argue intelligently that her involvement in same has been liberating (I've heard it said but not developed as a coherent argument). I have heard intelligent arguments about the hijab being a legitimate choice of religious attire. Also, I think the juxtaposition is false. I would definitely agree that forcing a woman to wear anything against her will is oppression. But you can hardly compare hard pornography to the hijab. I am aware of the arguments about false consciousness being a factor in certain choices oppressed people make; this is sometimes a factor undoubtedly. There is also no doubt that in some Muslim countries women wear the hijab merely for their own safety, which even then isn't guaranteed. However, it's not always the case. It's certainly not the case with several Irish Muslim women I have met, who profoundly oppose gender-based oppression and who are highly conscious people.

Certain outmoded feminist orthodoxies, such as the hijab being *always* a symbol of oppression, have been challenged within feminism since at least the early '90s, especially with the new respect for cultural contingency which critical theory injected into feminist thought. So many feminists would even have a problem with such sweeping statements. It's a relic of the 1970s, when we were told that the shaving of bodily hair was a symbol of oppression for women in the West, which many young feminists would now scoff at. Like anything, it's the element of choice that is the issue, not the actual sartorial or cosmetic "look" in and of itself.

Symbols are made, they don't exist in a vacuum; and they don't always apply cross-culturally.

by Dermot Thu Jan 22, 2004 20:14 the_meaning_of_it_all at yahoo dot co dot uk

As far as I now, the law bans all identifying religius garments, like yamulkas and the Sikh turban.
As for the difficulties in teaching a class of hajib-clad girls about equality, surely its better to let them wear a scarf and keep them in the secular state system? They are more likely to be exposed to "republican values" there than in a paralell Islamic system where liberty equality fraternity would probably be dirty words.
I'm not convinced by all the testimonials to the wonder of the hijab, btw, just think its more use to those girls who do want to break out of their religious heritage if they have a lifeline to secular society, and school has to be the best venue for that.

by BigMac Thu Jan 22, 2004 22:36

I can't help noticing the contradictionary viewpoint a number of self-confessed secularists are making in this debate. I am a secularist who believes in the complete separation of church and state. I don't subscribe to any religion, yet I have no problems with people being religious, attending services, believing in holy books and trying to live their lives according to whatever rules they choose.

Yet here we have some people who claim to be secularists who are urging a conservative government in France to introduce legislation to ban children from wearing head-dress in schools.

Those supporting the proposed French law could do themselves a favour by casting their eye back on history to see that similar ventures have invariably resulted in the opposite to what they set out to achieve. Whenever the state gets involved in suppressing religious practise, very often there is a backlash from those who feel that their rights/traditions/customs are coming under attack.

- Bismarck directed the Kulturkampf in Germany which resulted in an upsurge in Marian aparitions, the rise of the Zentrum-Partei and a strengthening of Ultramontanism, thus defeating the whole point of this 'cultural struggle'.

- No matter how hard British Protestantism tried to rid Ireland of Popish backwardness and dominance, Catholics rallied ever more to the Catholic church. British policy resulted in nothing more than a resurgent church and an intertwining of nationalism and Catholicism in Ireland (from which we're slowly being released)

It's a highly paradoxical situation when you see liberal and enlightened values used to justify the exact opposites of intolerance and bigotry.

I believe that it is best left to Muslim girls and women themselves to decide whether they want to wear the headscarf or not. Of course, many of these women don't have a choice. Yet, at the same time many do and make a conscious decision to wear the headscarf, which has become more a badge of identity than a religious symbol. For many women, the scarf is an accessory which can be worn one day and left in the wardrobe the next.

Those supporting the French government on this should take a look at who they are sharing the ranks with. The German right-wing CDU, Berlusconi, and other (christian) right-wing governments.

And only today was a French government spokesman on the BBC World Service to state that beards could also fall under the provisions of the new legislation if they are seen to be a religious symbol! What next - a state committee to quiz bearded young Muslim males to establish if their beards are relgiously motivated? Will Rastas be forced to shave their heads?

Andrew's proposal for any political activity on this issue to focus on the right to wear the scarf in France as well as the right not to wear it where it is compulsory is the best way forward.

by iosaf - yawn yawn. Thu Jan 22, 2004 23:43

A secular state school system is being presented (yawn yawn) with the _next stage_ of a executive decision by the president of it's republic made on the 17th of December 2003 to call a cross party investigative commitee (roughly equivalent to the anglo saxon "select comitee") to ascertain whether a change was needed to the law.
That change was recommended and approved by the democratically elected Republic's assembly on the 20th of January 2004.
The opposition parties in the democratically elected Republic have now taken their respective positions.
The ruling party is supporting it's leader and more interestingly it's minister of the Interior the noted "islamo-phile" Sarkosy.
The Socialist Party (roughly equivalent to the Spanish PSOE party) has so far _not_ offered a position.
The UMP's Leader Jacques Barrot, today allowed his party members freedom to vote for this law to be enacted according to the democratic principles of this republic according to their conscience and in private.
yawn yawn (there is time difference remember over here on the mainland it's later)
These parties account for over 28,000,000 legal votes.
The Socialist workers in Ireland, (who have never elected a leader) [or even got their deposit back] have however sorted the whole thing out,
as just a matter of "racism",
and now that we know all muslims are one "race", we can look forward to great leaps in the material dialectic Trotter Weekly which shall no doubt be hitting the streets of little Ireland complete with "warnings" on something that we really have to tell you.
IS NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue that is drawing all you Irish readers to these multiple threads, is the certain knowledge that a "split" has occured.
And you like that.

I shall go on...

(oh by the way the link will bring you to a statement by a french politician suggesting that this matter be solved "tranquilly" at the local school level, this is a favoured option by many local interests. But the IAWM know better don't they?)
THE front national have not issued a statement, and are happily watching the internationalsed situation do much of their work for them.
Incidently I joined many others (350,000 to be precise) in 1996 in Strasbourg @ the invitiation of the European Youth Council against Racism, whose nifty logo at the time was four skulls. Three of equal size African European Asian and one little inchy weedy one "racist". Older readers will remember the logo featured on MTV Europe at the time, oh so long ago, anyway the FN were stopped from extending their electoral base into Strasbourg. A lot was learnt....
weedy inchy little brains knee jerk.

by iosaf - ipsiphi (we knew the IAWM are the SWM but it's nice to read it finally) Fri Jan 23, 2004 00:01

do you like the challenge?
I really like how the centralised brain wheeled you out. So you in the first lines claim that the IAWM was formed to fight "racism" and them "yawnyawn" it became "islamophobia".
And then you CONDEMN the french government decision.

Aoife, since you are now spokesperson in charge of manipulating Irish fears of racism and being seen as racists as well as manipulating Irish muslim's sense of indentity, I thought to leave you the timetable:

(you see brethren the decision hasn't been made, and if you knew anything about French politics you would have like everyone else watched how it played before taking sides)

Dec 17 2003 Chirac exercised executive privelege to propose formulation.
Jan 20 2004 formal acceptance of the recomendations of the select comitee.
by the deputies of the national assembly which recommended _much further thought_ (you didn't do that Aoife- that was agreed long before)
Jan 28 2004 The Council of Ministers will do the arguing bit in private. One of them asked everyone to like hold their peace. He builds mosques and is a favourite to be next Presidential candidate. (do you know his name age and personal interests or religion Aoife?)
Feb 3 - 5 2004 The draft law and all it's extra little bits and they are really always the most interesting, will be put for examination to the legal beagles and political elected representatives of the French State at the Palais Bourbon. (you know how the French state works don't you aoife?)
they are going to have a meeting of the estates.
And you were'nt invited.

Now that you have done so well with waving the racism thing not only at home and abroad, and face it "I have treated you kindly" (I could have issued all the names of your enemies, the links to criticism of them in your website and qouted the speech by the man who condones physical castigation in both my mails to your party and here. but I haven't)
I wonder-
do you have a position on the Italian Crucifix law?
do you have a position on how to increase immigration to France?
do you have a position on Libya since it¡'s leader just agreed something massive with Señora Palacio who is visiting your country tomorrow?
do you need the IAWM site taken off line again to airbrush it of dodgy non party line statements?
did you wear a pioneer badge?
did you wear a scapular?
do you support the Opus Dei campaign to enshrine RC values in state schools in Europe?
Do you have a position on religion in the European Constitution?
Do you really @ heart regret making the big silly mistake?

by Derry Fri Jan 23, 2004 00:09

Iosaf, don't you mean SWP, not SWM?
SWP are the RBB crowd.
SWM are anarchists (aren't they?)

by iosaf Fri Jan 23, 2004 00:26

I agree that The freedom of worship is a universal right.
It has been enshrined in every but the first French Republic which saw sticky days for those commited to the pillars of equality, liberty, fraternity and deistic tradition.
It has not been suggested that either religion or ethics be downgraded in the educational system of the republic only that their expression be put to debate.
I argued tonight with a friend, a woman, muslim, half Turkish half Catalan on this issue. But not as some above would hope.
We reflected on the sutra which calls for the covering of the head. We reflected on her reaction that Turkey's law banning the "chador" in universities and civil service was modernisation. She felt disgust that last Saturday's demonstration of several thousand women was addressed by very few men, who the Socialist Workers have (I believe) condemned in the past. She spoke of a young muslim girls' natural desire to emulate their mothers' appearance. Then she spoke of how her teenage had been different. And wasn't yours?
I am surprised that proponents of liberation theology have not seen fit to suggest different interpretations of the role played by many religious symbols. And the obvious politicisation of those symbols in our contemporary world. But even she (my muslim friend) was prepared to see the couldron stirred in France, and so it is being stirred.
And the SWM would have Irish people believe that is in some part their work.
but the IAWM / SWM / SWP / Swimmie of old- position was an ignorant one and will not in any way "influence" the eventual decision in France. So why all the fuss? Are we to see a new surge of interest on their part in such matters? Will the IAWM now extend to other areas of "morality"?
I am truly stunned seeing people who I know to be resident in Ireland discussing this issue as if they lived in France or were French when in fact it is quite obvious they are talking about Ireland.

& that is what pisses me off, Deirdre, all of you are writing about Ireland and Islam.
without the integrity to admit it.

by iosaf - (out of town and far far away with fading memory) Fri Jan 23, 2004 00:31

it's a great and most interesting debate.
We should all split up more often.

and it's the SWP????

by iosaf - (sorry for taking up so much space - it's a time thing) Fri Jan 23, 2004 01:34

I've been reflecting all on the really well presented stuff above, and I am going to do something the SWP/IAWM never do-

=apologise and say
I got it wrong.

Opium is great in small doses, every minority identity from 1930s Ireland to France's 12.5% religious minority deserve their religious symbols and deserve them to be Big, Splendid and if possible Black and come to be seen as the source of anguish in future generations and the excuse for abuse of the individual.
I am rightfully ashamed of all that anarchist church burning in the 1930s and the nasty institutionaised anti-religious baggage that gives.
I uphold the right to religious freedom.
I admit the weaknesses of my arguments were exposed by Phuqhead and Luke.
I admit I was rude to Aoife and icky to Deirdre, and upset my muslim friend.

I still think school is better without any religious symbol but the parents and teachers ought decide such things amongst themselves.

Fuck the State
& Feck Religion.
%-)
(and photograph those kids above again in ten years time)

Amen & Saleem - Okupe and Resisteix.

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Jan 23, 2004 02:24

With regard to Iosaf's statement "& that is what pisses me off, Deirdre, all of you are writing about Ireland and Islam.
without the integrity to admit it."

Actually, I did say that I had spoken to Muslim women living in Ireland, so there was nothing to admit - it was already stated. But actually, they there women are not necessarily all Irish by origin. So I am not sure what your point is about my or indeed about Aoife's posting.

by iosaf Fri Jan 23, 2004 14:24

I'm sorry,
Last night after hours and hours away from the discussion I came back to indymedia.ie and started reading thousands of words, and tried to reply to most of the best.
But then sleepyness got the better of me, and then something wonderful and ROSY happened!
I was swayed by argument.
I experienced "peer responsiveness" and changed my mind. I ceased to support the complete ban, and now favour school/parent councils at local level. I however maintain that full coverage or burka ought be banned, and that European legislation is needed to combat the increasing politicisation of religious symbols.
If i had your email address, you would have received this morning a short note saying as much, and apologising for (possibily) misunderstanding/offending you.
%-) forgive me please.
***************************************
Anyway, 12.5% of the population of France chooses a religious option that is "Islam". It is increasingly a very popular reigious option, each year more people convert to Islam than christianity, budhism or judaism. As I write the local mosque has finished it's mid day prayers and the men are going back to work or home, and I assure you just as in France as in Bcn, they are not of "one race", nor of "one ethnic background". There are officially 439 Irish citizens resident in BCN, there are over 2000 Muslim converts.
There are more French muslims than french gay people. There are more French Muslims than French left-handers. Just think about that for a moment.
That means the minority educational rights of both gay and sinistral are more _minority_ than those follow the 7 principles of Islam.
We both Deirdre I presume count amongst our friends, muslims, gays and lefthanders.
I myself am lefthanded, and wash both my hands regularly, (I wipe with my right) yet everytime I eat with in a "multi-cultural" environment, I eat with my right. [So as not to offend the sensiblities of my friends].
And there is something in that, which today I shall not go into...
Deirdre, I'm sorry for offending you, but I think as a tolerant, liberal, I believe "liberation theologist" you would agree with Leonardo Boff, that "globalistion will either damn us all, or we will all together find our common redemption". I know I do.
And I think that Ireland has not as of yet witnessed any form of the extremism that started this "backlash". And so yes, I _do_ think that most above [but not you] lack the integrity to open a debate on "religion" which is not presented as a "race" debate, and to formulate some policy on "religious symbolism" in educational environments.

Interestingly the left-handed french muslim community and the gay french muslim community also number more than the Irish muslim community. And even more interestingly no-one has gone near their rights to free and full development.
It must be tough no?

anyway, rosy glow from me to my peers.

by Andrew Tue Jan 27, 2004 15:21

The CPGB have published a long and useful report on the London demonstration at http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/512/protests.html It cover both the demonstration and counter demonstratio, A few extracts follow

"However just their nominal cause, there was no question that the methods and aims of the MAB were deeply reactionary. They began by segregating their protestors by sex. I and other CPGB comrades had to argue with male MAB stewards who attempted to prevent us approaching female protestors. Slogans like “protect our modesty” chanted by women covered so completely that only their eyes were visible eloquently testified to a dark and unhealthy attitude to women and femininity. We were there to protest against an undemocratic law, and to talk with individual muslims, but the MAB was afraid.

At 2pm a march organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir from Marble Arch reached the embassy. This group describes itself explicitly as a political party based on the ideology of islam, and campaigns to abolish democracy and secular society and re-establish the caliphate. Banners carrying the slogan ‘Secularism has failed’ represented the politics being offered to those young muslims the left fails to reach."

"In fact, some of our friends and comrades were across the road, staging a counter-demonstration. The Organisation of Women’s Liberation for Iran and the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq had assembled a small group (including members of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq), of perhaps 50, in what they saw as a defence of secularism.
...
"Though the OFWI demonstration had been prompted by that of the MAB, the comrades were keen that the press conference should not be dominated by discussion of the French ban. Houzan acknowledged that the subject was important, but asked us to focus on the question of the imposition of sharia law, and the oppression of women, in Iraq.

They explained that with the complicity of the US occupiers, political islamists had been quick to seize the opportunity afforded by the defeat of Saddam Hussein, and his dictatorial but largely secular regime, to drag the country into fundamentalism. Women were already being denied access to schools and universities if they did not wear the hijab. The rape of women who were either ex-Ba’athists or seen as collaborators with the US occupiers was widespread: male collaborators, said Nadia, rarely faced sanctions. Most dreadfully of all, women raped in this way then faced the danger of being murdered by their own families in ‘honour killings’, as suffering the crime committed against them was taken as a sign of shame."

Full report is at http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/512/protests.html

by Chris Copsey - Ulster Humanist Association Tue Feb 17, 2004 13:28

The decision made by the French Government was correct. It was not made as an act of repression but as a staement of its universal republican values. Is there anyone protesting against the banning of crucifixes and skullcaps? Allowing the hijab today may be the slippery slope to religious schools and just look what that segragation has done here in Ulster and doing in the communities of the UK. I thought socialists were generally atheists? Or are they born again?
Chris Copsey
Chair, UHA

by Christine Wed Feb 25, 2004 20:46

Muslim women like myself choose to wear the hijab to symbolize our relegion, we are proud to show everyone that we are muslims.The second reason for the hijab Is for modesty. IT protects us from unwanted attention.When a woman wears a hijab it's as if she's saying see me for the person I am, not my physical attributes.

Most people think that we are opressed in fact i feel lucky that I don't have to worry about what i wear , how to do my hear or cry about hopeless boyfriends

I don't think it is right for someone to comment on our relegion as backward. Who discovered algebra? MUSLIMS! Who started off universities MUSLIMS! Who was one of the first physologist? A MUSLIM! Point made clear hopefully

by aman Wed Feb 25, 2004 21:52

great so muslims started up a few things, so wot. BTW the number system was created by Hindus. And ur right muslims have started up a lot like terrorist attacks and oppression of women and freedom of man to beat his wives(hes allowed more than one and u oppressed women have 2 share him). BTW did ur husband make u write this?

by Kiran Randhawa Mon Mar 01, 2004 04:02 kiran_randhawa03 at hotmail dot com

I understand what woman feel like in Afghanistan. All they need is to live free, knowing that they have nothing to be afraid of. Would you be able to survive such a life?Would you be able to stand such a disgrace?Well i wouldn't, I say let them live free, happy , and let them live like every other happy woman there is out there. This is suppose to be a happy and respecting world, but now Afgahanistan woman are living in such a way that it changes the happiness!So let them live free so you won't be haunted by there ghosts once you get rid of them!

by Danny Gillard Sat Nov 27, 2004 06:25 djmn at personainternet dot com 1183 Lozanne Cr. Timmins ON. P4P 1E8 705-268-4083

It amazes me to see that even today after all these centuries of war and strife that man-kind is still unable or unwilling to get the message. True peace and harmony comes via honest and open dialogue. I believe that unity amongst members can be realized by accepting, honouring and believing in the value of diversity. "Unity in Diversity" is the reality of conflic resolution. We seem to continue to be blnd toward the similarities of others ; while we speak out and broacast the differences amongst each other. I feel that together mankind has the ability to create and establish superordinate goals so as to achieve a consesous amongst all that together we can resolve conflicts.

by naseem Sun Jan 09, 2005 00:59

Why is it ok for a woman to go around showing off most of her body, but it's wrong for a woman to not want to be seen as just an object of pleasure and not a human being with intellect?

Everyone should go and see what hijab truly is about instead of basing it on what a group of ignorant people say. Go ask Muslim women who wear hijab (like myself) if they find it oppressive or not.

by Big Irish from the USA Sun Jan 09, 2005 20:21

I don't see too many of these islamo-feminists outside the French embassy protesting about the ban on the yarmulke....

by pat c Sun Jan 09, 2005 21:32

what about the women who are forced to wear the hijab in the islamic states? what are you doing to defend their civil rights?

by jsr Sun Jan 09, 2005 21:44

If someone is forced into something by the state chances are they have no civil rights! In states where there is religious freedom their right to choose should be protected. Can't you see the difference between defending choice and supporting dictatorship? do you have a bag on your head?

by pat c Sun Jan 09, 2005 21:59

do you want to put a bag over womens heads?

in islamic states women do not have a choice as to whether or not they wear the veil, hijab etc. i an curious about these islamic women who see the wearing of the hijab as a civil right. what are they doing about the civil rights of their sisters who dont have a choice?

as far as iam concerned the wearing of the hijab is oppression of women which is enforced by male islamic clerics and islamic women who have bought into the islamic power structure.

i have spent too long fighting catholic fundamentalists to now bow down before islamic fundamentalists. i am opposed to any state ban on the hijab but imho , socialists should be exposing the hijab as the instrument of oppression it truly is.

if the roman catholic or free presbyterian churchs were pushing for women to wear the veil, then i doubt very much if anyone on the left would be supporting it or sharing platforms with homophobic, misogynistic antisemitic clerics.

all religion is nonsense!
no gods!
no masters!

for womens liberation and gay liberation!

by hs - sp Mon Jan 10, 2005 01:09

I think there should be a complete seperation of state and education, no religious symbols at all allowed in state schools. Students should have the right to wear what they want within reason (nothing offensive to others, ie KKK hoods). Students should also have the freedom to change out of whatever their parents might have made them wear, without teachers ratting them up. Children should be free to reject religion in there own time and at their own pace, like anyone over the age of 25 did in our own catholic state! The state telling people what to do usually backfires, especially with young people. And there is also the danger of muslims pulling their kids from state schools because of the ban and them going to private islamic schools, where they won't be free to reject religion when the time comes. Banning the scarf can also alienate newly arrived immigrant communities.

Secularism means the freedom to practice all or no religions without state interference, either from an islamic state, catholic state or atheist state. All attempts to ban religious thought are doomed to failure. This means the religious have no right to attack me for having sex, drinking or my sexual orientation. (or that all buisnesses should be taken over by the workers, for that matter). On the other hand I can't really stop them reading bibles or wearing crosses.

Let people have their beliefs and as long as it's kept to themselves and doesn't effect or hurt anyone else.

Headscarves are headscarves until someone forces you to wear one or not to wear one, only then does it become a political issue.

In conclusion the french ban is a mistake as it can alienate immigrants and muslims, force students out of secular state schools, and probably encourage young muslims to wear the scarf (cause they're not supposed to).
The best way to drive a wedge between people and their priests is standing with them on class issues and rights issues rather than banning.

On iranian and other islamic dictatorships, france isn't one so can't really compare. Usually if people are left to their own devices they can integrate and lose the religion. This can only serve to alienate and make the position of the priest stronger.

On the swp giving out that no other socialists were there, well I can only answer that while I agree that women should have every right to wear anything they want. (incidently the ban is only inside schools). I won't go as far as to promote the wearing of the scarf or any other religious symbol. In the end I remain a socialist and committed to a world without religion as I believe in the end they (the priests) always take sides, and it's rarely ours.

by thomas Tue Jan 11, 2005 14:51

There are Islamic women in Ireland who are afraid not to wear one, or to go to a swimming pool, etc. Who's standing up for them?

"I don't think it is right for someone to comment on our relegion as backward. Who discovered algebra? MUSLIMS! Who started off universities MUSLIMS! Who was one of the first physologist? A MUSLIM! Point made clear hopefully"

That was a LONG time ago. Pre-Renaissance. Read about the Ottoman Empire and the like.