I admit to feeling a little uneasy at the sight of a Muslim woman shrouded not simply in a headscarf but a face-concealing, head-to-toe chador, and wonder just how much choice she has had in deciding her lifestyle. I am not hugely sympathetic to a Muslim seeking asylum because he claims to have been discriminated against because of his support for sharia law.
I cannot celebrate such culture in the way that I celebrate Italian National Day in Leichhardt or the Tet festival in Cabramatta or Greek Orthodox Easter or a Seder at Passover or a service of Eritrean Orthodox Church, such as the one I attended a couple of years ago in a borrowed Church of England in London, or lunch with a couple of Palestinian intellectuals.
Some multicultural theorists will squawk and say that I prefer only a soft multiculturalism (if they insist on calling it that) that does not offend western liberal values. They would be spot on. My acceptance ends when the assault on the liberality of society itself begins.
– Andrew West, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald. (Link via Tim Blair)
Michael
I have many friends and family in Sydney. They are deeply saddened by the events at Cronulla but not surprised. This is a festering sore that has violently burst out into the open.
The consensus view i have received as to why are twofold
i) a dogmatic emphasis on multiculturalism over assimilation
ii) a police force unwilling (and possibly unable) to enforce the law.
very sad.
Woe is us, that libertarians should “dogmatically” prefer personal choice over State-enforced “assimilation”. I think some people on this blog seriously need to start examining where they’re actually libertarian or not.
I once walked into a cafe in which was seated a table of Muslim women. One of them — only one — was dressed in garb which totally concealed her (?) face.
I got an immediate sensation that I was observing a faceless person; it was extremely spooky and I have no hesitation in saying that there is something wrong about such hiding. I am not sure how to articulate it but I didn’t like it.
You have that 180 degrees arse about face. ‘Libertarians’ have no problem with free association and disassociation that comes from personal choice, it is state-funded non assimilation and multiculturalists group identity politics that they have a problem with.
And I think the contributors do not need to seriously examine that issue at all. I for one am more concerned with the truth and I am happy to let other people get worked up about the “isms”.
Try working through a project with a lady that is fully covered, like I had to at university. It is totally unsetteling since you cannot really judge what is going on socially, there is no smile, and no small face gestures that tell you how your effort to communicate is working, or how things are going in general.
I’ll never ever agree to something like that again, it was a horrible feeling.
Cinnamon
Women and girls dressed in those outfits are totally creepy and abnormal. Normal people enjoy looking at the faces of other people.
Whenever I see a woman covered from head to toe in this garb I always get the feeling that there is a kind of quiet desperation in her eyes as if she hopes someone in her culture (though not ours) would rescue her from this unnecessary imposition.
It looks even more so when often the woman has her husband walking alongside in casual western clothes as if he’s enjoying this new found freedom…
Verity, that is a very obvious but also perceptive point. People like to look at the faces of other people. Humans are biologically hard-wired to want to see how others appear, what their facial expressions are, and so forth. If our looks are concealed for any reason, it makes people wonder what folk have to hide.
There is something I find psychologically creepy about a religion that regards the faces of women as somehow not to be shown in public.
Jonathan, Yes, we unconsciously scan the faces of our fellow humans all the time. And we expect other people to scan ours. A skilled salesman can tell instantly whether the product he has just shown you has found favour or not. Humans are an intensely social species. We’re pack animals. We’re busy interacting all the time.
So these women and girls are creepy. And yes, it always sickens me to see a man in designer shorts and a designer t-shirt walking ahead with his similarly clad teenage son, followed by two or three ambulatory black-clad blobs (carrying the heavy bags).
There’s another horrible aspect to this. Seeing humans being so abnormally oppressed is similar (I hope I am not offending anyone here because that is not my intent) to how I would feel if I saw a black man walking in chains. It would turn my stomach. It’s completely abnormal – a degradation of a human by other humans. And god knows, I am not politically correct.
The other amusing fact is that, outside of Iran and Saudi Arabia, very few muslim women _do_ wear the hijab or chador all the time.
It’s generally the case that islamic expatriates cling more strictly to islamic rules (because it gives them a sense of identity maybe) – girls in Kuwait regularly cut their hair short and go out wearing jeans and similar, despite it being not strictly legal because most people there don’t care – over here, it’s a different matter.
MultiCulturalism = Nihilism
West is Best
“Woe is us, that libertarians should “dogmatically” prefer personal choice over State-enforced “assimilation”. ”
I somewhat agree. It is none of my business to presume coercion in wearing a certain type of clothing.
It is also none of the government’s business, unless the police are informed otherwise regarding coercion.
But it is no coincidence that the people that will cry racism at the suggestion that proper assimilation should including showing your face are the same people who advocate policies usurping the rule of law in the name of multiculturalism.
There is no reason to tolerate inciting violence at the pulpit. There is no reason to tolerate criminal illegal immigrants (though perhaps big reasons to change immigration laws). Especially in somewhat unassimilated areas, the “broken windows” idea is very important.
This very much relates to France & recently Sydney, where the police do not act appropriately, and the result isn’t simply an unassimilated subculture, but violence.
Indeed. However it must also be my right to put up a sign over my hotel/office/cafe saying “no [enter you do not like here] allowed”. Free disassociation is as important as free association. The state has no business preventing social pressures from developing just so long as violence is not involved. THAT is how you encourage assimilation.
What’s even creepier Verity is that there was a case in Australia a few years ago about a KINDERGARTEN teacher who sued to be allowed to wear a face-covering burka in class. Yes, you read right — A KINDERGARTEN TEACHER.
Imagine a group of fresh-faced 5-year-olds, already anxious about their first day of school, being confronted with THAT SIGHT their first and every day in class. No kind smiles when they do something clever; no frowns when they cross the line. Just a blank black bag of nonenity from which emanates a disembodied voice.
I would die rather than have my kid exposed to that every day for a whole school year.
Don’t remember how the case turned out. But there will be more of such cases, we can bank on that.
Under multi-culti, their rights to wear their nutty, woman-erasing medieval costumes overrules our kids’ mental and emotional development.
Actually, if you go shopping in Knightsbridge, London, or in and around Harrods, for instance, there are loads of these ladies dressed in this sort of garb. It is truly weird. One particular group wear these brass eye goggles over their capes, which adds to the strangeness.
There is nothing un-PC for feeling queasy at this. It is human nature to wonder what on earth has led people to be concealed in this way and whether the women have any choice in the matter.
Johnathan,
Even if the women CHOOSE to wear this hideous woman-negating bondage garb, it STILL sends a message to our children about females and female sexuality that I would rather they not be exposed to — especially not our daughters.
We have rights too. We have the right to NOT have our daughters assaulted with images that explicitly instruct them that female identity and sexuality is evil and filthy and must be hidden away.
I’ve already resolved to tell my daugher (if she ever asks me about one of these freaks) that they come from a culture which despises females so much that this culture teaches that all parts of a woman must be hidden from view. I will explain to her that it is very, very evil and sad that there are cultures which teach this message to their daughters.
This is what I will tell my girl, and I dare the multi-culti thought police to stop me from doing it.
Susan – These costumes are not “medieval” – at least as applies to Western Europe. Women wore all kinds of attention-getting headdresses and embroidered hairnets, jewelled clasps, etc, plus low cut dresses. There has never been anything at all like this in Western society. It’s not medieval. It’s not primitive. It is perverted.
I hate it when it’s little tiny girls wearing the full black gear – I think of it as child abuse and it makes my stomach turn over.
I always wonder if they’re beaten at home, are they hiding their bloody wounds with that garment?
There is no redeeming feature to it, none.
Oh PUH-lease. There is no “right” not to be confronted with images you find disturbing – so get over it already.
People definitely have the right to wear hijabs. They even have the right to do it explicitly for the purpose of making you (and your kids) uncomfortable.
The way to fight this is exactly as Perry suggests – by exercising your right to free dissociation where possible. Feel free to point and laugh, forbid them coming in your home and shops, etc. But DON’T tell them what they can and cannot wear!!!
Susan, I have two nieces and have no idea, when they are old enough to understand, what on earth certain cultures are about in requiring these things. The thought of these girls being taught by folk dressed to obscure their faces fills me with dread. That is unlikely, thank goodness.
If any devout Muslims happen to be reading this, apologies, but some of your religious practices scare the daylights out of people. I know of no other religion requiring humans to conceal their faces like this.
The place of women in Islam
(Link)
(Link)
Religious faith can give rise to any perversion. Religion needs to be attacked generally – it is by definition contrary to reason. And while religion in basically secular societies may seem tame and harmless (church on Sunday etc.), it isn’t – it teaches people to hold contradictions, ignore reality and it drives out reasoned moral guidance – and as long as any religion is given respect then what real grounds do you have to argue against the completely perverted?
Second what Freefire says.
Link doesn’t work, Chris.
I find even the hijab revolting. It is the natural desire of women to fix their hair to suit their face and to make themselves as pretty as possible, just as it is the natural desire of men to control the remote. This is human nature.
Women love make-up and hair colour and choosing clothes that will enhance their good points, and it is not because it is cleverly marketed to them. They always want to look more attractive. To take this basic instinct away from girls and women is vile, foul, abnormal. I have read that when Saudi women go to pick up their children at school, the only the way the children can identify their own mothers is by her shoes. This is beyond perverted.
The iron out women so they all look identical says an awful lot about Islamic men. An awful lot.
Freefire and Joshua “Religion needs to be attacked generally.” No, it doesn’t, you little Stalins. How other people find comfort and answers to their existence, and the workings of the universe, is none of your damn business. How dare you decide, in your majestic superiority, that people are to be denied comfort and hope?
What a pair of assholes.
Absolutely. I will never understand it. I like looking at women as much as they like making themselves pretty. It’s the natural order. I think “perverted” is the right word for this. It subverts nature in ways I find difficult to understand.
Verity, I meant medieval Arab costumes, not medieval European costumes. But I understand what you meant: there is no tradition in Western civilization of hiding women’s hair and faces as something obscene. We have three thousand years of paintings and statuary depicting Western women in all their beauty and glory. We have Winged Victory and the Venus de Milo. We have the Virgin of the ROcks.
Who are these freaks to tell us that our thousands of years of tradition is wrong?
Joshua, it’s not within my make-up to ridicule people on the street, even black blobs who’ve devoided themselves of all humanity. But I would fight tooth and nail to keep these freaks from teaching our children. Sue me.
Jonathan, devout Muslims don’t care if some of their religious practices upset or scare the kuffar. The Australian woman who sued to be allowed to teach little kids while tricked out like the Grim Reaper didn’t give a crap about those kids she taught. All she cared about was fulfilling the numerous requirements of her extremist personality cult, most of which involve imitating the lifestyle and actions of a 6th century Arab warlord, even down to copying his toilet habits and the way he styled his hair (for the men).
Take my word for it, I know. In a typical Christian viewpoint, hurting someone is a much worse sin than not taking communion on Sunday. That’s a no brainer to us. But the Muslim viewpoint is very often not the same.
Good ol’ Verity. She feels perfectly comfortable attacking the way Muslims find comfort and meaning in their lives – but western supersition is all ok.
I dislike religion because as far as I can tell it is a lie. Worse than that – it encourages people to pervert their natural desires with no good explanation given. If it makes me an asshole to say such things in public then I’m more than happy to be one.
Verity, if they don’t keep their beliefs to themselves and their beliefs thereby result in injustice to me or to others that I care about, whether directly or indirectly, then it is no longer a sacred issue but one subject to criticism. People can still have some comfort and hope if they want – it is perfectly reasonable to hold out the POSSBILITY that God exists – indeed it is unreasonable not to (and this thought may give a person a nice warm fuzzy feeling that they will like). But no human being can possibly know what is actually beyond the bounds of the ability to know provided by human cognitive faculties and experience – according to which any claim by a human for any actual existing God or divine principles is groundless – and I will tell anyone so. People can believe in God if they wish but they cannot claim any knowledge of truth about Him or how He wants them to behave so they are best keeping their beliefs to themselves – and acting according to the highest faculty He has given them: reason.
The basic idea is quite simple. In the ‘natural order’ of things women are deemed by men to be inferior, and are therefore viewed as property [and breeding stock].
This interpretation is a sustained by violence.
I have seen a young woman stoned to death.
To see this is to understand the mentality.
Honour killings are not rare occurences in backward cultures.
Chris, that is rather shocking information. Where and how did you see a woman stoned to death? If you don’t mind sharing.
Agree with you fully on the property thing.
Joshua – Islam is a perversion of human rights. It strips women and little girls of their humanity. It teaches that a woman is worth half a man. Her testimony in court is worth half a man’s testimony. She can only legally receive an inheritance that is half that of her brother. Men can have “up to” four wives. They can get a divorce by saying “I divorce you” three times. Little girls are desexed around age 10 with horrendous clitorectomies, so they will never have the urge to stray and offend the Muslim male’s fragile ego.
I don’t know why this set of beliefs is categorised as a “religion”. Religions give comfort and succour to humans (that means both sexes) and try to divine the workings of the universe. Chritianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism try to make sense of the universe for their adherents. All encourage spiritual awareness and attempts to find answers via mediation (praying).
Yes, bad things have been done in the name of “religion”, but by and large, it has served the human race well by providing codes to live by and spiritual succour during tragedies and small sadnesses. Why would you want to take this away from people who believe it? You can say these codes aren’t divine, but man made – but they were inspired by spiritual seeking, which seems to lie within most of the human race.
No other religion victimises and subjugates 50% of the human race. I don’t think you can tar them all with Islam.
As long as they harm no one else, I think you should leave other people’s spiritual beliefs alone.
This is too big a subject, obviously – du-uh, Verity – for an impromptu contribution to a blog. But I find, Joshua, your statement that religion needs to be stamped out very communist/statist.
Freefire, I am perfectly comfortable with you preferring that people keep their religious beliefs to themselves – meaning, don’t prosylitise. But humans have a capacity for the spiritual – to look beyond themselves – which animals do not have. This ability to seek has provided comfort for billions of people in our history on this planet. I don’t think it “needs to be attacked generally”.
Most religions are benign. Islam seems to be the only belief system formally categorised as religion that is destructive and diminishes 50% of the human race to servitude.
I always thought the point of the hijab was to make the woman invisible to everyone but her husband.Pretty hideous in itself, the making of a vibrant living human FEMALE being a ghost, in god’s creation.
But in western society it just does the opposite.
These sad brown perambulatory sacks stand out like a sore thumb.They’re all Somali round my way and they favour brown for some reason.
I hear almost a hiss or wince from rather a lot of people when these ladies go by. We Britons are becoming offended by such behaviour in our land, because it smacks of taking the piss.
Besides why brown? How about paisley! maybe a bold tartan! If people want to advertise their difference , then for god’s sake have some fun and style .
Verity, I don’t agree with you here. Religion operates fundamentally on the basis of the mere authority of what someone says or what is written in some book. Apart from the fact that some people simply cannot accept things on faith and are thereby deprived of any moral guidance they can believe in, this deference to authority undermines the ability of humans to cooperate on the basis of reason. I do think there is something to be gained from studying religious principles – but only as a guidance to what the possibilities are for the best way for humans to live.
Hinduism is benign. Buddhism is benign. That’s two vast religions right there. Christianity is benign, save the delusions of some who practise it. But it teaches benignity; it cannot help how it is interpreted by people with needs for power. Judaism, I don’t know enough about, but certainly its strength has carried its adherents through extraordinary persecution, and the faith has produced extraordinary people out of all proportion.
Some humans, Freefire, would think they were cooperating with you out of reason that is based on their Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu beliefs. I simply do not understand the cruelty, the statism, of wanting to strip the human race of beliefs that have developed over thousands of years (all the major religions grew out of something, after all) because it doesn’t agree with the mighty Freefire. Forgive a dismissive wave of the hand.
First of all, it was worded by Freefire; I seconded it. Second of all, I did NOT call for the government to ban religion. As you well know from other discussions we’ve had on banning the hijab, I do not, generally, believe in allowing the government to tell people what sort of religious beliefs they should have.
Your statement that my beliefs on religion are “statist” is simply nonsensical. By seconding what Freefire said, I was expressing a general desire to see society move away from religion. This is no different than both of us wishing, for example, to see society move away from dependence on welfare systems, move away from political correctness, etc. Everyone on this blog constantly talks about things in society they dislike and would like to see change. Collectivism, like religion, has been around for a long time and has arguably given “comfort” to a great many people. That hasn’t stopped a lot of us from dreaming of a freer, more individualist society!
Religion may “provide comfort” to people, or whatever, but it is a false comfort if what they believe isn’t true. And anyway, I fail to see how it can be a bad thing to ask people to give up on trying to follow the whims of something they’ve never seen, never touched, never directly talked to, etc. Sure, there are some people who are purely spiritual about their religion – right. But the vast majority of religious people here are into billboards, collection plates, laws against selling liquor on Sunday, telling their children not to dare have sex until married, and several equally ridiculous and – it must be said – non-spiritual things. There is no better reason to believe that Christianity is true than there is to believe that Islam or Buddhism is true. In all cases, it more or less involves people simply asserting that, say, Buddha achieved some mystical enlightenment mysteriously unavailable to the rest of us, or that there is a place called Heaven where Jesus is that you go when you die. What comfort is it when someone you love gets killed in a tragic accident to hear someone say “it’s OK – God did this for a reason as part of his giant masterplan?” This is your idea of comfort??? Because I personally would rather just hear “I’m sorry to hear of your loss, I know this is hard for you – I’m here if you wanna talk.”
In any case, you may well disagree with my views, but shouting names like “statist” and “asshole” at anyone who doesn’t share your attitude to religion doesn’t seem very useful, convincing, or rational.
Susan,
I sent an e-mail to you but it was returned back to me.
I have always had the impression that the full head-to-toe body-bag-textile-time-warp cover was intended from the outset to make women conspicuous as a (slave) class but nonexistent as individuals. How can you properly dehumanize a person when they stand before you as human beings? I hate to see people repressed to such depths, and even more, the “multiculturalists” who encourage them to stay clumped together in their wretched condition. Multiculturalism = apartheid lite.
RAB
I think you’re on to something. How about a burberry burqa – it could be called the churqa.
Joshua – I’m not going to waste time arguing about religion, in which I have no vested interested. But I think it is bossy and foolish of you to say that something that has been the bedrock of our, and other, civilisations and a deep spiritual comfort for billions of people in human history “needs to be destroyed”. The only “religion” that is harmful is Islam. My opinion that it is a statist/communist position is unchanged.
I think Britain and Europe should have a Yank-A-Burqa Day, in which anyone passing an ambulatory black blob yanks their burqa off.
What is appalling is the concessions the West has made to this foul disease. If I went into a bank wearing a clown’s mask, the tellers’ windows would snap down, the doors would lock and the alarm would go off. Yet these ignorant, aggressive garbage bags get a pass. It will take one of them going into a bank and doing the world a favour by blowing herself all over the walls to get up the nerve to stop pandering to “diversity”.
That’s another thing: not only do they allow themselves to be victimised by men and made to hide their faces, but the women themselves are aggressive.
This is not what I said, Verity. I do not want to “destroy” religion. I want to do my part to talk people out of holding religious beliefs. People can, will and should believe what they want. The same applies to me. I think the world would be a better place if people got their “comfort” from reliable sources. Just because religion was the bedrock of society in the past doesn’t mean it still should be. Monarchy used to be the going form of government too, but one day we realized it was out of step with the times, and we got rid of it. In the countries where monarchs remain, few people today believe that God has chosen their particular monarch to rule them. Arguments for monarchy in the UK, for example, rarely if ever start with the proposition that Elizabeth rules by the Will of God and therefore must be obeyed! And yet, there was a time British history when that belief was held by the overwhelming majority. To deal with the other part of your argument – tribalism has been here since the dawn of history too, but that does not mean I approve of street gangs or seek to join one. No doubt the members of these gangs get a sense of comraderie and beloning, “comfort,” if you will. That explains why they do it, sure, but it’s a long way from proving that it’s an appropriate or advisable thing to do – or even that it is the best available source of comfort or comraderie.
Freefire wrote this excellent line:
As usual, rather than address the points raised here you have resorted to namecalling to make your “point.” I’m sure we’d all be interested in hearing you try to respond to the actual issue at hand. Doesn’t religion teach people to hold contradictions and if so, how is that a good thing? Doesn’t religion teach people to ignore reality and if so, how is that a good thing? Doesn’t religion drive out reasoned moral guidance (by replacing it with philosophically weak appeal to authority arguments) and if so, how is that a good thing?
Then that is probably because you don’t know what “statist” means, or at the very least use the word in inconsistent ways.
As I said, Joshua, I am not going to waste time arguing about religion. I disagree with you. You are not going to change my mind. Nor am I going to change yours, but I do not seek to, whereas you seek to persuade me to your point of view. I have nothing further to add and will not respond to future posts on the subject.
I think the Aussies should have wet burqa contests. Of course, the blobs themselves wouldn’t enter, but if lots of sheilas entered, they could bring the whole outfit into disrepute. Men would start whistling at bin Linas on the streets and ruining the whole ethos.
Men would start whistling at bin Linas on the streets and ruining the whole ethos.
If you tried that in Britain you’d get done for a hate crime.
In which case here’s a personal request: refrain from namecalling and general hostility about subjects which you are unwilling to discuss.
Well we can but try!
I’d love to see the Sun headlines on the trial of a scaffold full of builders giving the “Whistle” to a little brown sack and her shopping with a quick chorus of “Oh little brown blobby– dang a lang!” under the heading of race crime!
More python or Dali surely?
Joshua: Request denied. That you want to argue about religion tells me you are very young.
John K – Someone should make a movie called “Beach Blanket Burqas” or “Burqa Bimbos”. Trash the whole concept.
RAB and John K – You could claim you were just being inclooooosive. It was a kindness!
Here’s an idea for an interesting experiment.
Ladies, acquire a hijab, or burka, pepper spray, and a police whistle. Line up a bunch of friends who are good sports, and can handle themselves in a tight spot on the street (your backup).
Don the stuffy, hot, restricting, degrading thing, and organize your backup into a loose formation which drifts around near you at all times, although not in an obvious fashion. They might walk ahead or behind at a certain distance, pretending to argue with each other, or talk on their telephones, or window shop. Couples might walk hand in hand.
Walk down the street in your burka, and, whenever you damned well feel like it, but preferably around other hijab-wearing persons, remove it with a flourish, exclaiming something which expresses how glad you are to be rid of it. Please remember to be dressed underneath it, nudity is not the point, for the purposes of the exercise. No need to make an explicit reference to any religion, anybody has a perfect right to walk around not wearing a squad tent if they’d rather not.
At this point, the necessity for equipping oneself with measures for self-defense, such as gear, or stout-hearted companions, ought to be obvious. One can never tell whether there might be a mob of surly Islamists in the vicinity, and Islamic culture seems to give the ‘green light’ to bullying women. Come to think of it, there is no reason why the role of burka bait ought to be restricted to women–there’s no way to tell what’s under the tarp in any case, is there?
The object of the experiment is to observe and record the reactions of onlookers, particularly the Muslim ones.
Oh hell, I’m not fooling anyone. The point is to demonstrate to the oppressed that people can dress as they please in a free society, and no unshaven clergyman has the power to dictate otherwise. Think of my idea as an object lesson for the Faithful.
But do bring a long a pair of sap gloves and a bunch of large, devoted friends. Some lessons won’t come cheap.
There was a fashion designer three or four years ago – I think he was actually a Middle Easterner living in London – who designed a collection of revealing, low-cut gowns and clinging dresses and on the catwalk, the models all wore those full hijabi deals over their faces. It came across as rather bondage.
We need more of that. Sexualise the burqa and make it unacceptable to Muslims. Steal it from them. And Victoria’s Secret burqas! That would be the end of the burqa for aggressive, resentful, unpleasant Muslim women in Britain.
I can’t remember the name of what that schoolgirl in Luton won a case to wear to school, but whatever it was, you could have a peek-a-boo version widely publicised and ruin it for her.
BTW, Stephen Pollard on his blog has some new football chants: “But best of all was the one to be directed at Iran’s female supporters, a chant which combined in seven short words not just gratuitously offensive sexism, but an incitement to racial and religious hatred: “Get your face out for the lads.”
Americans may not understand, but that is funny!