|
|
Rights, Freedoms and Repression
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
The Hijab : Freedom of Expression or Symbol of Oppression? international |
rights, freedoms and repression |
feature
 Wednesday January 21, 2004 17:54 by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland
 Range of Responses to IAWM support for recent International Protest against French School Ban
On Saturday 19th January the Irish Anti War Movement supported an international mobilisation against the banning of the Hijab in French Schools by taking part in a protest at the French Embassy in Dublin. This has lead to a heated debate on Indymedia Ireland which reflects the complexity of the issue. Below is one contribution to the debate: A defense of the stance of the IAWM contributed by Aoife Ní Fhearghail of the IAWM and SWP: "When the Irish Anti-War Movement was 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 - two 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 governments 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."
Debate Ongoing Here |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (10 of 10)
Jump To Comment: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Do people really have to copy the infantilism of the leading members of the IAWM.
Statements like the following ones surpass even the Bog of Allens stupidity.
"I think those who were duped into joining IAWM protests last year deserve to know what exactly the IAWM stands for."
Most people didn't know who or what the IAWM were, all they wanted to do was show their disgust with Bush, Blair and Bertie. Just because this fact has been lost on most of the IAWM doesn't mean that it has to be lost by its critics.
we believe scarf is the symbol of our religion, it shows the difference between a muslim and other religions. We think that banning scarf is not right because we think that this is attack on our religion especially than any other religion. We're not only talking about the muslims, we speak from the sikh's point of view who's symbol is their turban and christians who's cross is their symbol, it's like stopping religion. Please stop this now before it's to late. STOP THIS TERRORISM ON EACH RELIGION . IT IS GOING 2 FAR
thank you.
Were the IAWM out in solidarity with the international Sikh protests against the French ban on religious clothing?
If not, why not?
Is it because there is no Anti-American angle to expolit? Ot are Muslim rights more important than Sikh rights or Jewish rights?
I think those who were duped into joining IAWM protests last year deserve to know what exactly the IAWM stands for.
Abusing one network organisation because they obviously have full control of it by now. They can no longer even tell the difference between the SWP and the IAWM.
And by the way I'm horrified by the stupidity and racism of the French law.
"the SWM/IAWM/SWP made a mistake in an effort to manipulate the public, start a debate they can not win, and waste energy assaulting France.
Why didn't they join the many other campaigns?"
Because then they would have been accused of trying to manipulate a genuine movement for their own agenda/having an SWP front.
Kinda saves time not bothering, huh?
"democratic" centralism is the voice and law of the party. anyone who goes against it is an outcast.
the sharia is the voice and law of god. anyone who opposes it is an outcast.
it should be no surprise that RBB is lining up with the Mullahs.
Turkey the islamophobic state where the hijab is banned in Universities and the civil service.
Did anyone make a comparison between the "irish hijab" and the full burka head to toe french islamic extremist oppression which is to be seen in state secular schools? despite there being real efforts to provide state assisted religious education options?
No.
they did not.
Did any of the IAWM take the trouble to ponder religious symbol issues in the mainland states? No, for if they had they would have realised that this is not just a "muslim" issue. And did anyone consult an Islamic theologian?
no.
the SWM/IAWM/SWP made a mistake in an effort to manipulate the public, start a debate they can not win, and waste energy assaulting France.
Why didn't they join the many other campaigns?
If the SWP is concerned about freedom of expression for Muslim women, then the placards should say
"No hijab ban in France - No hijab law in Saudi Arabia" or something along those lines.
As things stand their criticism is only of enforced secularism, and not of enforced religious observance.
... that both are true.
Banning the hijab is an attack on freedom of expression, and given the context its directed against Muslims (though the law also bans skullcaps and large crucifixes).
At the same time, the hijab is a symbol of oppression. Muslim women are often forced to wear it, and children in particular often don't have any real choice in the matter.
Any campaign on the subject has to mention both of these aspects. Don't ban the hijab - but don't wear it either. Don't give in to prejudice - but don't accept repression. And the SWP campaign isn't doing that, from what I can see. Or did they give out leaflets on the demonstration, urging the women there to break the bounds of tradition?
Its a bit extreme to outlaw wearing scarfs. Women who have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy, whose hair has fallen out, sometimes wear scarfs, as wigs just look shite.
Orthodox jewish women are also required to wear wigs, or shawls, should these be outlawed too.
Scarfs/shawls/hijab aren't very flattering, and can be cumbersome when participating in sporting activities, but is this a valid reason for outlawing them.