“The only Zionism of any consequence today is xenophobic and exclusionary, a Jewish ethno-nationalism inspired by religious messianism.”

Antony Lerman, in today’s New York Times, notes “the disgraceful antics of the anti-democratic forces that are setting Israel’s political agenda,” and notes also (this blog is interested in education and women’s rights) its social agenda. He touches on Israel’s “strictly Orthodox,” and no doubt has in mind, among other influential and populous communities, the notoriously ignorant haredim. Again and again Israel attempts to get this increasingly demographically dominant group to adopt even a small portion of the country’s national education standards; again and again haredim schools refuse to teach their students mathematics, the use of computers, science, English. It was the same thing recently in Belgium, whose government also insisted that their haredim teach their children how to function and qualify for employment in the modern world. Amazingly, the haredim there responded by arguing

that the restrictions limit their freedom to educate their children according to their beliefs and asked the court to fine the government $6,780 per child for every day the limitations are in place, according to a report by Belga, the Belgian news agency.

You read that right. Make the government pay for every day that the education of one of their children is threatened. Understand? Make the government pay for every day that the government threatens to educate their children.

Lerman writes that in Israel as in all countries “[t]he indivisibility of human, civil and political rights has to take precedence over the dictates of religion,” but he perceives that – as in the example of the Israeli state’s inability to do anything about the growth of an ignorant, illiberal, anti-modern, sexist, and messianic group within it – the understanding of and commitment to this indivisibility is vanishing.



“[M]ainstream Muslims should be at the forefront of the campaign for a ban, not least because the burka so badly undermines the credibility and reputation of our faith.”

A prominent British imam, in the wake of the European Court upholding the French burqa ban, launches a campaign “led by Muslims, speaking for the moderate majority whose voice has been unheeded up to now,” to ban the burqa from that country’s public spaces.

Read all of UD‘s commentary on the burqa by clicking on the category democracy at the bottom of this post.

July Fourth Instablogging.

I do this every year.

I am instablogging the Garrett Park Maryland July Fourth parade, which goes right by my house, and how could it not, given the Lake Wobegone size of Garrett Park. It is now ten in the morning; the parade leaves the Garrett Park Elementary School grounds at 10:30. Wee UD graduated from the school, but back then GPES was a dull low-ceilinged brick dealie with cinderblock rooms… Two years ago they tore it down (the population in madly sought-after ‘thesda has grown insanely) and an actual architect vastly enlarged and rebuilt it, so now it’s all way-high skylights and winsome curving hallways and rainscaped gardens.

I have swept my storm-tossed front steps and driveway, I have swept even the street in front of my house (don’t want the floats wobbling on the branches that came down last night), and I have placed one of my deck chairs at the end of my driveway. From this very chair I will blog the event (assuming internet connection’s okay – after the storm we lost it for a few hours).

After a typically grim July morning, things have picked up out there sun-wise, and it’s not even stifling. There’s even a breeze.

UD is hoping her elderly Latvian neighbors will also be out watching the parade, because Les UDs recently got a rather elaborate letter from, er, Latgales Regionala Nodala (stick a bunch of diacritical marks on some of those letters) about their Latvian snail farm. (Longtime readers know that Les UDs own a Latvian snail farm. Another way of looking at it is that Mr UD inherited property, post-communism, from Latvia, because it had been owned by his family. And it isn’t an active snail farm; it is simply full of snails that someone imported onto the property long ago in the thought that the family might want to farm snails. Something like that.) Said letter includes photographs of their property plus official-looking language and stampings… Is the paltry tax they pay on the thing about to climb to fifty million dollars a year? UD is hoping her neighbors are willing to translate this document for her.

Okay, I’m moving my operations to my driveway.


Internet connection so far fantastic. Cannot believe this is July and I am not sweating my guts out. A cool, breezy, sunny, morning.

Distant patriotic music!

And now, to my left, my down the street neighbor Peggy (I’ve known her for fifty years) puts out white folding chairs; and to my right – a big crowd of neighbors comes barreling down Rokeby Avenue… Looking for a prime viewing spot? Plenty of those, plenty of those… Like Lake Wobegone, we’re so small most of the townspeople are in the parade.

Hi Jack, says UD to her neighbor Jack.

I like the way you’re… [Jack mimics typing]

Someone’s got to blog the parade, says UD.


Sounds of sirens!

Many dogs, mainly poodles.

Wind instrument: bugle?

Very loud siren – must be coming from the fire engine that heads the parade.

Bigger crowd than usual this year – good weather?

Flashing lights stage right. Here comes the fire engine.

Way loud sirens as the fire engine comes down Rokeby Avenue.


Hokay. Much later. I managed to miss a good deal of the parade because a bunch of neighbors gathered around my chair and we all got to talking. So no real instablogging possible as UD learned of her neighbors’ new jobs, visits to Mexico, etc. UD also learned that the song she wrote for Garrett Park’s spring concert (a fund-raiser for a music scholarship) was – or so the event’s organizer claims – “a hit.” The musicale’s theme was Recycling, and UD put Garrett Park-related lyrics to Second Hand Rose. But she was at the beach when the concert took place. She had wondered how the lyrics went over…

Anyway. A good year for my town’s parade. Lots of kids, lots of clever takes on the parade’s theme: Garrett Park Through the Ages. UD‘s favorite thing: A bright red VW beetle convertible full of hippies. On the sides of the car were big white flowing letters that read LOVE PEACE HAPPINESS LOVE PEACE etc.


Here’s what it’s like at 9:30 on the evening of the Fourth.

UD is lying down on the grassy hill halfway up her half acre. She is gazing high into the branches of her high old trees at three thrushes who are all very loudly singing their eerie thrush song.

Imagine the sharp harsh sound of the first high notes; imagine the strange low-throttle trill after that; and, after that, the famous ee-oh-lay. You lie there listening to them cycle through the three parts again and again, with variations…

The air is thick with fireflies.

From every direction, little local fireworks displays are popping and booming in your ears.

Veiling the Truth

The politics of the increasingly popular far-right aims to tap into fears and hatred of difference and migrants. In the race to ban the niqab, which has come to symbolise all that the far right hate, the French government, and now European Court of Human Rights, are leading the charge to give away the rights that were born out of the wars that were the ultimate manifestation of the hatred of the other.

This comment, a response to the latest legal confirmation of a country’s burqa ban, touches on a couple of the big mistakes and elisions to which one has become familiar in this important cultural debate.

The most important elision involves the writer’s suggestion that burqa bans are about political and legal institutions forcing it on countries (“the French government, and now European Court of Human Rights”). Shelina Janmohamed fails to mention strong to overwhelming popular support for burqa bans in several European countries:

82 percent of [French] people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved… Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain..

Current details here.

The latest from one country, Norway, here. A detail from Norway:

Labour has previously been split down the middle on the issue. The Progress and Labour parties have a combined total of 84 representatives in Norway’s parliament and are thus missing one vote in order to secure a majority for a possible ban.

Janmohamed casts opposition to the burqa as a far right phenomenon. It is not. Certainly right-wingers tend to like the idea; but as the poll numbers suggest, it is a position attractive across the spectrum. For details, go here, here, and here. Discussion here.

Finally, related to that last point: The primary reason many on the left favor burqa bans in most if not all of the public realm is that, as Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2010:

[W]e have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way.

That is, many people seem to see their position opposing the burqa having to do with protecting the rights of the women wearing them, not with responding in a panicky bigoted way to fear of the other. When I see a little girl in a burqa I don’t run off screaming with hatred and fear of difference. I feel solidarity with her as a young woman who deserves but isn’t getting the same democratic rights my daughter enjoys. As for adult women in burqas: My reading over many years about the response of people to fully veiled women reveals that the main response, rather than hatred or fear, is pity.

“The European Court of Human Rights Tuesday upheld France’s ban on full-face veils such as burqas and niqābs, in a ruling that sets out how far governments can go to limit the display of religious symbols.”

UD is not surprised. She is, however, very happy to see this confirmation of a decision by France (and growing numbers of other countries, all of whom will be encouraged in the right direction by this decision) to ban the burqa.

If you click on this post’s category – democracy – you’ll find UD‘s many posts about the burqa.

Here is a longer piece she wrote about it, for Inside Higher Education, in 2010.



Cesare Pavese, the Italian writer who killed himself in 1950, when he was 41, once wrote: “Every luxury must be paid for, and everything is a luxury, starting with being in the world.”

One of the strange blessings of the burqa – the black robe that entirely hides a woman, even her face – is the way its presence among us reminds us of this truth. Existence, we remember when we pass blank sheaths on our streets, is a luxury – a brief, beautiful luxury, a flash of light before darkness. We should not extinguish that light.

The darkness of the burqa, the blindness, constriction, anonymity, and silence within it, intend to annihilate a person’s existence, to make her invisible, expressionless, lifeless. Yet far from accomplishing this erasure, the burqa has done no less than rivet the eyes of Europe. It has become one of the most expressive artifacts of the modern urban setting. It has drawn from people and governments such strong responses that, by overwhelming majorities, one European nation after another is banning them.

Why is the burqa so riveting? Why is it generating such intense responses?

I think it has to do with the way it parades total darkness, total rejection of life – a woman’s life. It parades self-nullification for oneself — and also for one’s daughters, small children just beginning their lives. And there is no way around it — however complex personal motivation on the part of the mother might be — and of course there can be no volition on the part of a seven-year-old — this sight is, for most free people, and certainly for most free women, terrible. It is generally terrible in the totality of darkness it expresses, and it is particularly terrible in its suppression of the existence of women.

Western literature features a few symbolically burqa’ed characters, whose total rejection of life with other human beings, whose refusal to have an identity, profoundly disturbs the people around them. Non-beings like Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener and Kafka’s hunger artist draw fascinated crowds to the spectacle of their dissolved being; their absence from the human story is so complete as to be ostentatious.

Certainly there’s a morbid curiosity about the sort of people who exhibit the possibility open to any of us to say no to existence while still maintaining a shadowy silent aspect on the street. But like the lost-to-public-existence woman in the burqa, these fictional characters also tend to make the people around them more aware than they were before of the luxury of being in the world. By showing us what it looks like when you stop the world from happening to you, when you elaborately outfit yourself to arrest the slightest overture from the human realm, these people sharpen our awareness – an awareness we usually don’t have, because almost everyone we know is letting the world happen to them – of what it means, of how precious it is, to be an existent human being in the world.

The burqa, in fact, is at once the most inexpressive and most expressive object in the city. The appareled energy it brings to the policing of every digit of a woman, its elaborate abolition of a self, tells us precisely how much some people have to pay for the luxury of being in the world. It tells us that being is indeed a luxury, for which some of us must pay very dearly.

That is what it says to us. This is what the burqa says to the woman – or child – inside it:

Yes, you may exist. If you insist. But in order to be allowed to exist, you will have to pay the ultimate price – non-existence. No one may see who you are. You may never exchange a smile on a street corner. Your thoughts you may keep. To yourself. The burqa covers your mouth, conveying to you, and to the world, your muteness.

Our response to the burqa is a variant of horror vacui; appalled at the nullification it represents, we attempt to dress it up, give it features, somehow animate it into a person. Indeed one defense of the burqa you sometimes read among Europeans and Americans has it that the burqa really makes no difference: If you look closely, you can discern a woman’s smiling or frowning eyes behind the mesh; and if you talk to her, and she talks back, you’ll begin to realize she’s just like everyone else. If her seven-year-old daughter is also in a burqa, you should make the same effort to treat her as you would any other child.

The enormously strong opposition to the burqa in much of Europe suggests that efforts like these to regard it, and the women and children inside of it, as part of normal multicultural human life have failed. Again, why?

More often than not, when women who wear the burqa are interviewed, they say little or nothing about religion. Typically, they speak of their fear of male harassment. The burqa, they say, protects them from men.

Outside of countries like Afghanistan, it is abnormal to harbor so extreme a fear of public interaction with men that you feel you must wear a burqa. Women this traumatized, this imprisoningly beset by distorted perceptions of the world, should be helped to overcome their distortions and rejoin the human race. It’s bizarre, and inhumane, to respond to women who say these things by nodding your head understandingly and keeping them in their sacks.

Or do these women say these things because their husbands have made them afraid of men? Because their husbands have told them that if they go outside uncovered their husbands will kill them? That if they ever look at a man in public their husbands will kill them?

If my husband told me these things, I would certainly be afraid of men. I would also be living in a situation in which the courts of my country should take an interest. But since I’m afraid to say anything because of my husband’s threats, there is no way for the state to know that I’m living with a criminal. As are my daughters.

It is also possible that there are burqa wearers who truly believe that men will rape them or harass them mercilessly if they walk outside wearing a dress rather than a sheet and a mask. I mean, these women believe this on their own; they have derived a sort of Andrea Dworkin on steroids sex philosophy in which it is literally true that the act of being a visible woman in the world is simply impossible. Can’t be done. Woman equals red flag to a bull.

When interviewed, these burqa wearers typically berate women who go outside in jeans and blouses and make men rape them. They express a complacent moral superiority to loose women who instead of parading their nothingness parade their life, their equal share of the world. Women do not get to have a world. Only men do. Good women know this.

Self-nullified women, today’s Bartleby’s, tell modern democracies that they can extend equal rights to all, but there will always be some people who disdain the hard-fought right to exist, to be part of the social world. Not for them the luxury of being; it costs too much, this business of leaving your private retreat and venturing into the world of other human beings. These women will live in horror – they will teach their daughters to live in horror – of the free world. They will parade that horror every day.

This self-nullification, imposed or embraced, is why, one after another, the countries of Europe are saying no to the burqa. The burqa is one luxury no self-respecting democracy can afford.


UPDATE: Reactions to the court ruling:


French politicians in favor of the ban have continued to argue that the government is acting to “protect gender equality” and the “dignity of women.” Some have even referred to it as a “walking coffin, a muzzle.”

Calling a burqa a muzzle! Imagine that!


“Shocked… shocked… shocked…”

And yet how can that be? Are these people and organizations unaware of the broad support for the burqa ban in France? Unaware that the law passed “by overwhelming margins,” and that

82 percent of [French] people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved… Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain…

This has been known for years.

Defenders of the burqa are in the awkward position of believing their position to be morally obvious and unassailable, while at the same time having to deal with the fact that huge majorities of populations do not agree with them. Given this awkwardness, their choices are few. They can condemn much of the world – citizens, courts – as morally degenerate. They can – by expressing shock at outcomes like this latest one – pretend that right-thinking people agree with them and these little blips – 82% of the French population, increasing numbers of court decisions – are just … little blips.

These do not strike UD as winning strategies.

“Instead of promoting a secular state education system, with a shared educational framework that would ensure that all children are taught to a common standard, the government has encouraged different minority communities to define their notion of education and to devise their own curriculum.”

An important reminder that the gender apartheid we’re seeing in public events at British universities is nurtured before women get to British universities.

See UD‘s posts on enforced gender segregation at universities here.

University College London: Enforced Gender Segregation …


The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, no.

Israel’s …

Doctor Who.

An Adjunct Union Might Help…

… but I don’t think J.D. Winteregg does unions.

College-Prep, Birmingham, England: Preparing girls to sit in the back and boys to sit in the front…

… and introducing them to the thoughts of certain zealots… all at taxpayer expense! – so that when they get to university they’ll be ready to be forcibly sex segregated while listening to the zealots…

Here in the States we complain about all sorts of ridiculous stuff our taxes go toward; but turning our daughters into compliant … the favored term is sisters … is not, I think, one of them.

The University of East London Doesn’t Fuck With that Shit.

But you’ve got to let them know. There have to be people out there watching for sex-segregated events at university campuses. Thank goodness there’s Peter Tatchell. He told UEL what the school was about to host, and UEL immediately cancelled the event.

OTOH… It occurs to UD to ask… Why didn’t UEL know about this? The organizers sent out via Facebook and all a big poster trumpeting the enforced segregation of women… Trumpeting also the preacher who instructs us to throw gay people off of mountains…



Okay, so UD has a slightly different take on the…

… controversy currently raging about Brandeis University having changed its mind about the honorary degree they announced they were going to give Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a very outspoken – really, at times, an over the top – critic of Islam.

You’re supposed to be on one of two sides about this: She’s a pernicious Islamophobe and good riddance; or, she’s not all that different in the ferocity of her some of her statements from other people who have been honored in this way by Brandeis so what the hell.

UD‘s thing is: Whatever brings more attention to this woman’s powerful attacks on female genital mutilation and full veiling is a good thing. Instead of Hirsi Ali getting a nice little notice in a Brandeis University alumni magazine, she’s getting immense tons of coverage from the world’s media. Brava.


UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan gets it said.

Mr UD’s Colleague, Karen Dawisha…

… (she left the University of Maryland a number of years ago for Miami University) writes a manuscript about organized crime and Vladimir Putin that scares the bejaysus out of Cambridge University Press. Libel laws! No can publish.

This is from Karen’s response to the editor there:

Last week the EU and the US Government issued a visa ban and asset freeze on the very inner core that is the subject of my book. Many works will now come out on the makeup of the list and why each individual was placed on it. The answers to these questions are in my book. Isn’t it a pity that the UK is a ‘no-fly’ zone for publishing the truth about this group? These Kremlin-connected oligarchs feel free to buy Belgravia, kill dissidents in Piccadilly with Polonium 210, fight each other in the High Court, and hide their children in British boarding schools. And as a result of their growing knowledge about and influence in the UK, even the most significant British institutions (and I think we can agree that CUP, with its royal charter, 500-year history and recent annual revenues in excess of $400m, is a veritable British institution) cower and engage in pre-emptive book-burnings as a result of fear of legal action…. [Perhaps some day we] can once again turn to CUP with the knowledge that it is indeed devoted to publishing “all manner of books” and not just those that won’t awaken the ire of corrupt Russian oligarchs out to make a further mockery of British institutions.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Latest UD posts at IHE