I’ve wrote about the issue a few times already and still haven’t quite settled my position. Still, I won’t deny the rush of pleasure I felt when hearing that France’s lower house has passed a bill banning the burqa.

In a near-unanimous decision, the National Assembly voted 335-1 to ban the Islamic face coverings in public.

The legislation imposed a $185 fine or citizenship lessons — or both — on women caught outside their homes wearing the full-face coverings known as a burqa in Afghanistan and a niqab in North Africa. It set a fine of $38,000 and a one-year prison term for anyone convicted of forcing women and girls to wear such veils, reflecting a widely shared conviction here that Muslim women are forced to cover their faces by their fathers or husbands.

The bill is supposed to also pass easily through the upper house, but before being enacted into law, the bill will also be submitted to the Constitutional Council to ensure it meets commitments to human rights outlined in France’s constitution.

Surveys have shown overwhelming support for the ban, as well. A survey by the Pew Research Center conducted in April and May showed 82 percent of those questioned support the prohibition. In addition, the survey found that 71 percent of Germans, 62 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Spaniards would back similar bans in their own countries.

While I think that law can have an important educational effect on changing norms in a society, there will be enforcement issues, as noted by a BBC article on the ban:

Initially there will be a six-month period where women who wear the full-face veil are stopped and told about French laws and the reasons behind them. But after that period a police officer could tell her to remove the veil or risk a fine.

Clearly, in some suburbs of Paris with strong Muslim communities it would be very sensitive to order a woman to remove her veil. It will also be hard to prove that a woman is wearing a veil against her wishes.

Another risk is that the ban will create martyrs. Frederic Lagache of the police union said to me today: “Our concern is that some people will be manipulated by extremists and cause trouble on the streets when we stop them.”

Already a businessman has offered to set up a fund to pay any fines incurred by women.

There are also likely to be a series of legal challenges.

In far less controversial legislation, Ottawa may soon consider adding honour killings to its Criminal Code. Yesterday, Canada’s federal government affirmed its position against the practice, declaring such “barbaric cultural practices” as “heinous abuses” with “no place in Canadian society.”

Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women referred to:

“honour crimes and to the subjugation, oppression and repression of women and girls wherever it happens.

“Repression, oppression and violence to maintain a family’s honour may even happen because a girl wants to wear westernized clothing, date a boy who may not be from her own religion or culture or simply wanting to wear make-up.”

These comments come on the heels of a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which documented at least 15 honour killings in Canada since 2002, and issued 14 policy recommendations to the Canadian government to stop the crime.

Here’s hoping.

Bookmark It

Well, that’s what the headline should say. Instead, we’re choosing to call this man’s paying $100,000 for a 13 year old girl “marriage”. Did I mention he’s 49?

Ahmad Sani Yerima, former governor of the state of Zamfara, is responsible for the introduction of Sharia law into the state. Though he denies that the girl is 13, he also refuses to disclose her actual age, claiming:

“I consider all those complaining about this issue as detractors, because since 1999… many people have been waging different kind of wars against me,” he told the BBC’s Hausa Service by telephone from Egypt.

The senator said he had followed “standard rules for marriage in Islam”.

“I don’t care about the issue of age since I have not violated any rule as far as Islam is concerned,” he said.

“History tells us that Prophet Muhammad did marry a young girl as well. Therefore I have not contravened any law. Even if she is 13, as it is being falsely peddled around.

“If I state the age, they will still use it to smear Islam,” he said.

Luckily, some women’s groups in Nigeria are protesting the marriage and demanding to see Sani taken to court to face a jail sentence for contravening the 2003 Child Right’s Act.

But apparently this politician does not believe in the laws of men and his peers, preferring the self-selected “laws” of his fanatical version of spiritual beliefs that somehow justify buying and raping children. In his own defense, Sani claims:

“As a Muslim, as I always say, I consider God’s law and that of his prophet above any other law,” Mr Sani said.

“I will not respect any law that contradicts that and whoever wants to sanction me for that is free to do that.”

Apparently this one was not his first child “bride.”

Bookmark It

In a near-unanimous vote in the lower house yesterday, the Belgian parliament voted in favour of a ban on face veils, and any other item of clothing that conceals the identity of a person, being worn in public places. Though the law must still go through the Senate, the law is expected to pass within a month or two, which will make it the first of its kind in Europe. The vote saw 134 parliamentarians voting in favour, with two abstentions.

The law may seem unnecessary and even deliberately targeting, as apparently only 30 women in all of Belgium’s 500,000 or so Muslim population wear the full niqab.

The Muslim Executive of Belgium has criticised the move, saying it would lead to women who do wear the full veil to be trapped in their homes.

Amnesty International said a ban would set a “dangerous precedent”.

In a statement, the human rights group said it would “violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or niqab as an expression of their identity and beliefs”.

The ban would be imposed in all buildings or grounds that are “meant for public use or to provide services”, including streets, parks and sports grounds.

Exceptions could be made for certain festivals.

It seems unlikely that the government means this law to be anything more than a statement against the full veiling of women mandated by Islamists, as the fine for wearing face-obscuring garments is 15-25 Euros.

Many people oppose the veil as an oppressive means of subjugating women, and legislation like this are meant both as a statement denouncing this subjugation and as a means of ‘liberating’ women from being forced by their families to cover themselves. However, as Amnesty International points out, it is unlikely to be the repressive political element in European Muslim societies that suffers from this legislation, and it will take more effort to educate women about their rights and social services available to them if they do feel forced.

My own feelings are split on the bill. On the one hand, I applaud any measures taken to combat the extremism of religious fanaticism that has been on the rise over the past decade. I applaud any attempts to ensure the full realization of one’s rights in the face of political and social oppression. But on the otherhand, I worry about unintended effects arising from such legislation, such as warned about by Amnesty International.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Bookmark It

Valentine’s Day is illegal in Saudi Arabia, and the police are out in full force to crackdown on shops selling anything red to ensure nobody in any way celebrates romance or love. Members of the religious police have been scouring shops for red roses, heart-shaped products or gifts wrapped in red.

Interestingly, these items are legal for purchase at other times during the year, but they are not allowed in the vicinity of Valentine’s Day. Apparently the Western notion of romantic love has been corrupting Muslim youth. A statement by the religious police posted in major media outlets read:

“Those who don’t comply will be punished,” the statement said, without spelling out what measures would befall the offenders.

I’m sure there are more than a few Western men that wouldn’t mind seeing such a draconian ban in their own cities. And while the commercialism surrounding any calendar date that can now be commercialised is enough to make anyone react in disgust, it’s clearly an arbitrary violation of basic rights. I could only imagine the reaction should, as happens in so many other Western countries at this time of year, a production of The Vagina Monologues was to open in Riyadh.

Bookmark It

In the wake of all the kerfuffle in France about the veil of late, the French government is putting its money where its mouth is and has denied the citizenship application of a Moroccan man who forces his wife to wear the veil on the basis that the practice is incompatible with France’s values.

According to French immigration Minister, Eric Besson, the man’s application was denied because of the behaviour he displayed towards his French wife, which Besson argues contravenes secularism and women’s rights:

“It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,” Besson said in a statement.

According to the transcript of his ruling:

“Monsieur X displays in an everyday manner a discriminatory attitude towards women, going as far as refusing to shake their hands and advocating the separation of boys and girls including, at home, of brothers and sisters,” the ruling read.

“The lifestyle he has chosen may be justified by religious precepts but is incompatible with the values of the Republic, notably the principle of equality of the sexes.”

For anyone following the French veil debate or my position on it, this statement may come as a bit of a surprise, but I actually commend France for this move. While I have said before that I believe their obsession with this particular cultural practice is misdirected, paternalistic, and punishing the very women they claim to be liberating, I actually commend legal sanctions against the men/institutions/power structures behind such cultural practices. It is not as though the man has been deported or lost his legal status in the country – he presumably retains his permanent residency status. I see this decision akin to putting a petulant child in a three-minute time-out. It is formally recognizing and condemning behaviour that the country hopes to change, or encourage change.

Don’t take this as my final say on the matter, but my gut reaction is: good on you, France. Let’s take more measures to make the oppression of women less appealling to men/institutions/power structures.

Bookmark It

A group of baptist missionaries have been arrested in Haiti on charges of trafficking children for adoption purposes. The group of ten allegedly attempted to smuggle 33 Haitian children into the Dominican Republic to set up an orphanage. The children, aged two months to 14 years, it has been discovered, are not all orphans.

According to the missionaries:

The church members, most from Idaho, said their Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission was aimed at taking youngsters across the border to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, where arrangements can be made for their adoption.

A spokesman for the group said: “In this chaos we were just trying to do the right thing.”

It is not yet known how the group got the children, but since the disastrous earthquake struck Haiti, international adoptions from the country have surged, as well as illegal child traffickers. With high-profile third world adoptions such as those of Brangelina and Madonna have raised ethical questions about the transportation of children from vulnerable situations to the West. In the past few weeks, child welfare organisations have been flooded with offers from families in the US and elsewhere willing to adopt children, something British head of counter-trafficking Richard Danziger refers to as “cowboy adoptions.”

“In these kinds of situations, there are all types of charities and church groups with, to be fair, good intentions,” says Richard Danziger, head of counter trafficking at the International Office of Migration (IOM).

“But that’s not the way to go about it – it doesn’t help an already messy situation. Children with no documentation get whisked away, and their families don’t know what has happened to them. Not only is it against the law, but it is taking advantage of people in a lousy situation,” he said.

Haitian officials have spoken out against the attempted abduction, with Prime Minister Max Bellerive saying these missionaries “knew what they were doing is wrong.” Haitian Social Affairs Minister Yves Christallin said: “This is abduction, not adoption.” Cristalin went on to say, “This is totally illegal. No children can leave Haiti without proper authorization and these people did not have that authorization.” Haiti’s government has suspended international adoptions amid fears that parentless or lost children are more vulnerable than ever to child trafficking.

Another problem being witnessed are children being adopted whose parents are still alive, but in no position to provide for them since the devastation of the earthquake struck.

“Some parents I know have already given their children to foreigners,” said Adonis Helman, 44. “I’ve been thinking how I will choose which one I may give.”

“My parents died in the earthquake. My husband has gone. Giving up one of my kids would at least give them a chance,” said Saintanne Petit-Frere, 40, a mother of six. “My only fear is that they would forget me, but that wouldn’t affect my decision.”

International laws exist to protect against child trafficking in international adoption. According to Louise Fulford from Save The Children:

the priority is to keep the children within their “communities, their ethnic group and their cultures.”

Under the Hague Convention there is a preference for family-based solutions, she says. The second preference is to consider national adoptions, and when these solutions are not feasible then inter-country adoption would be a viable option.

Adoption within the country will be hardest to arrange with children who have health problems, such as HIV/Aids, disabilities, or many siblings. “Unfortunately, with inter-country adoption, it tends to be more the parents choose the child. People tend to want to adopt healthy babies,” Ms Fulford says.

UN guidelines stipulate that there should be no national or international adoptions for two years, she adds.

“This provides time to trace relatives. In most emergencies you can trace family members. It will take time. In the meantime, aid agencies are prioritising children who are unaccompanied – they are being referred to interim care centres. Agencies are working day and night to locate children on their own.”

Even before the earthquake, Haiti battled child trafficking, with roughly 2,000 children trafficked from the country every year. According to Unicef’s Roshan Khadivi “These children generally ended up being used as domestic labour, being sexually abused or illegally adopted in the US and Canada.”

Clearly, the problem is that poverty-reduction strategies and aid have not been effective in enabling a basic sustenance level in pre-earthquake Haiti. Funding should be available to communities and families so that giving up children does not seem like the only option available. I’m happy to hear that adoptions have been put on hold by the Haitian government as clearly more time is needed to reunify families before well-meaning but painfully ignorant and misguided fundamentalists fly in and try to save the bodies and souls of these kids.

Bookmark It

A French parliamentary committee commissioned to review and report on the proposed niqab/hijab ban released its findings today, recommending a partial ban on the Islamic face veil. The report, nearly 200-pages in length, said that said any requirements for women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality, and recommended restrictions on wearing the veil in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport. It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of “radical religious practice” should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

The report has also called on the government to adopt a formal resolution to state unequivocally that the veil is “contrary to the values of the republic” and that the country of France says ‘no’ to the full face veil.

In his presentation of the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said of the veil:

“It is the symbol of the repression of women, and… of extremist fundamentalism. This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing.”

Fortunately, the commission was wise enough to exclude outlawing the veil in the streets, in shopping centres and other public venues, due to doubts about the constitutionality of such a move. The full ban was the major issue that divided the 32-member, multiparty panel which ultimately heeded warnings that a full ban risked being deemed unconstitutional and could even cause trouble in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.

A bill entrenching this partial ban is expected to be proposed later this year. Polls done earlier this year suggest that a majority of French citizens support a full ban of the veil.

President Sarkozy attempted to appease concerns that the government is attempting to limit freedom of religion, and stated on Tuesday:

“Our country, which has known not only wars of religion but also fratricidal battles due to state anti-clericalism, cannot let French Muslim citizens be stigmatised”

If you want my take on the issue, see my earlier post on the prospect of the ban. For an interesting take on the issues, compare the comments of Raphaël Liogier and Joan Smith.

The former argues:

Whatever form the committee’s recommendation takes in law or decree, it will probably not be enforced, but a symbolic gesture, and a symbol of capitulation. The French Republic has become so weak, so morally corrupted, that it is ready to kick over its most cherished principles: liberty, equality, fraternity, on the part of the political elite, out of cynicism and petty tactics; on the part of the general public, out of irrational panic, even hatred for Muslims. In any case, those women concerned, in the case of a ban, will either refuse to discard a garment that they feel does no harm to anybody, go underground at home, becoming still more economically dependent on their families, or obey – but with a desperate feeling of frustration making them vulnerable to recruitment by Islamist groups.

The worst about all this fuss is that we are completely off target. Women ­donning the full veil are not against modernity but represent rather its sophisticated product, just like ­westernised Buddhists. The veil, ­surprising as this may seem, is good news for modern values. Some smart young women keep a niqab in their bag but only wear it in Paris’s Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud, in order to draw attention to the fact that they belong to the best Muslim set, that they really have got that Muslim chic, something like the equivalent ­behaviour in a gay district. This deep western social movement is no threat to modern values, but rather vindicates the ­latter under unexpected aesthetic guise: it is so ­individualistic and depoliticised that it is more of a real threat for Islamism and terrorist ­networks themselves.

Pretty standardly liberal argument. Here’s what Joan has to say:

The niqab and the burka are symbols of an ideology, not a fashion statement, and we shouldn’t be afraid of making a robust ideological response to them…
In effect, a woman in a niqab is wearing a mask, signalling her deliberate separation from people unlike herself. It’s hard to think of another form of dress which is so highly politicized — or so rejectionist of mainstream culture.

This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka. I’m aghast when they say it’s about personal choice, as though that removes the subject from the political arena; one of feminism’s most influential slogans – ‘the personal is political’ – exposed that as nonsense four decades ago.

No one is saying that women cover their faces for a single reason: a fairly small number believe their religion requires it, some come under family pressure, others adopt it for the political reasons I’ve outlined above. Whatever the motive, the symbolic meanings — separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame — remain the same. I don’t want to ban the burka but I do reserve the right to say, as politely as possible, that wearing it in the 21st century is preposterous.

I find the second far more convincing.

Bookmark It

As opposed as I am to oppressive cultural practices that get legitimized through fundamentalist religious beliefs, I don’t think I agree with this new initiative in France. In the midst of a public enquiry into the hijab and burqa, the government of France now wants to enforce its ban of the burqa by denying women wearing the garment access to public transport or government services. This declaration comes a day after President Sarkozy declared that women wearing the full face veils should not be granted citizenship.

Mr Lefebvre said: ‘When you don’t respect your responsibilities you should not have access to any benefits.

‘The rights and responsibilities of citizens in France are important.

‘When you ignore rules that make things illegal, like a ban on the burka, you have some of your rights taken away, like the right to state benefits or using public transport.’

UMP party chief Xavier Bertrand said on Sunday that women who wear burkas or niqabs should not be allowed to acquire French citizenship.

He said: ‘The full veil is simply a prison for women who wear it and will make no one believe a woman wearing it wants to integrate.’

The proposals have gone further, with another prominent UMP member, Jean-Francois Cope, calling for women to be fined more than £700 for wearing the burqa and the niqab (veil) in public. He also wanted any man forcing a woman to cover her face burka should be fined even more, with those who refuse to pay up facing arrest and prison.

While I fully support government regulation of harmful cultural practices, I think this approach is going about the liberation of women in a completely misguided way. If it were, in fact, women that the government were concerned with, why would they be seeking to punish these women? Roughly 2,000 women wear the niqab in France, for whatever reason, and I’m sure for some of them the reason involves pressure or threat of violence from a family member.

But then, maybe drastic measures are necessary, given it was draconian laws that converted once liberal Mideast countries into the fundamentalist nightmare for women they are today. And it’s been incredibly effective at changing public opinion. And part of me really wants to trust the intentions of the UMP, since they have also just announced proposed legislation mandating all corporations to appoint women to at least 40% of their board seats.

Unfortunately, a side-effect of extreme measures is the influence it has on the rest of the French public. With such demonization of the burqa in the French media, there are reports of French muslim women being verbally abused in the street for wearing a burqa.

Dalila, who grew up in a poor suburb of Dijon, said she has been insulted in the streets and attacked by a man who told her to “go back to Afghanistan.”

“I told him ‘I’m French’,” said the student, who has been wearing the full-face veil for five years.

The danger of implementing ad-hoc laws to address social problems is that they risk stigmatizing Muslims in France and do not really address the root of the problem in the first place. Much like the Australian laws aimed at particular social problems, the drafting of another piece of legislation targeting a specific issue serves only to limit freedoms rather than address the actual problem. If France is worried about women’s freedom, it is probably more effective to promote education and dialogue around oppressive cultural traditions rather than actually limit women’s freedom by dictating what they wear.

So while I totally oppose the burqa, I just don’t think these legal measures will have the desired effect, but could rather create negative repercussions for the integration of muslims in French society.

Bookmark It

Well, I guess science can go ahead and stop searching for a cure for cancer – the head of Australia’s Catholic Church, Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell has stated categorically that prayer cures cancer.

Pell’s statement comes on the heels of news this week that Australian nun Mary MacKillop is set to be beatified for the miracles she performed in curing two cancer patients. Bear in mind, she performed these miracles from beyond the grave, as she’s been dead 100 years. According to the application for beatification, her second miracle was curing a woman from terminal leukemia in the 1990s.

Beyond the mere fact that it is absolutely annoying to have my intelligence insulted with the suggestion that prayer cures cancer, what I find most outrageous about this story is how it has been politicized into a tool of nationalism. After the news broke that the Vatican was nearing the point of canonizing MacKillop, Kevin Rudd was quick to hold this up as a symbol of Australian patriotism:

While not revealing if Rome had sent agreement his way, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared Mother Mary a woman admired by all Australians.

“All Australians, whether they are Catholic or not, whether they are religious or not, have a high degree of admiration for the achievements of a very strong woman,” he told reporters at a Canberra school on Monday.

What he should have added was, “however, since her death 100 years ago, she has had no influence on the health of the terminally ill, regardless of the direction of their prayers.” He should have said something along the lines of Dick Gross in today’s the Age:

It is dangerous to give poor Mary post mortal credit for curing cancer. It is palpable nonsense and only gives legitimacy to those who prey (no pun intended) upon the dying.

The politicization has extended even to the local council of Sydney, where plans are underway to exploit tourist dollars they anticipate will be associated with this sainthood.

The most unsavory aspect, though, is what this canonization means for medicine. Believers already have enough faith in the supernatural and self-righteousness to oppose genuinely miraculous and life-saving medical discoveries, like the benefits of stem cell research, or the necessity of environmental protection. The Church is an incredibly powerful and manipulative institution with the ability to influence vulnerable believers for profit and power-maintenance. It is incredibly dangerous to have such influential people as Archbishop Pell and Prime Minister Rudd stating or implying a belief in prayer as cure.

Bookmark It

Two quick hits on the fundamentalism news-wire today. The first is a story out of Saudi Arabia, where a fundamentalist cleric is telling women to wear a one-eyed niqab – because, clearly, exposing both eyes is too racy:

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

Besides the obvious coordination issues, Salon points out the inverse correlation between veiling and seductiveness:

When it comes to veiling, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between the amount of coverage and the erotic charge of what’s left uncovered. If two dramatically framed eyes are enticing, maybe a single window to a woman’s soul is even more inviting. Also, if the veil drives women to seductively paint their eyes, won’t the one-eyed veil only heighten that effort?

Clearly, the problem is not how seductively a woman can gaze at a man through one or two eyes. As Amit Varma charges, if men are so incapable of resisting the seductive gaze of women currently in full niqab, perhaps it is this sex that should have both their eyes veiled.

The second story is out of Nigeria, where an 84-year-old Islamic cleric accused of illegally having 86 wives saw his charges dropped after the case was transferred to criminal court:

The Niger state Sharia commission withdrew the charge of illegal marriage against Muhammadu Bello Masaba when he appeared before a magistrate court, after his case was transferred from an Islamic Sharia court a day earlier.

He will only face one charge of disturbing religious peace for claiming to have seen Allah in interviews he granted the media, court clerk Abdullahi Dangana told AFP.

Masaba pleaded not guilty to the charge, Dangana said.

Since Nigeria returned to civil rule in 1999, a dozen of its predominantly Muslim states have re-introduced a version of the Islamic Sharia legal system. Under Sharia law a man may marry up to four wives. Masaba later agreed to divorce 82 of his wives following an ultimatum issued by the influential traditional chief of his home town, Bidda, that he comply with the law or be forced to leave the town.

Well… so long as justice is restored…

Bookmark It