Without them veils I'd be a goner.
I must have taken too much bourbon ...
Quick! Lend me PDQ your turban!
Ah. Now I feel at peace, and calmer."
Without them veils I'd be a goner.
I must have taken too much bourbon ...
Quick! Lend me PDQ your turban!
Ah. Now I feel at peace, and calmer."
Shot secretly in Iran, ‘The Seed of the Sacred Fig’ has received international acclaim. It has won awards at Cannes and other major film festivals…
Here’s part of what you can’t see in India.
Navratilova nails it on the Sadeian sick boys of Iran, who elaborate upon their torture fantasies with each iteration of the beautifully named Chastity Bill.
And keep your eye on the Islamists who just took Syria. UD’s optimism about them is high; but they too may want to scrape clits off, force black robes on, forbid going outside, etc. etc.
Sure hope not! But wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in the cards.
The just-elected Iranian president seems to have a pretty good grasp of basic human decency, which certainly sets him apart from the ruling theoapparatchiks. We shall see whether he’s able to call off the mad dogs of the Morality Police.
[New French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal] started [as Education Minister] last summer by declaring that “the abaya can no longer be worn in schools.”
His order, which applies to public middle and high schools, banished the loosefitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim students and ignited another storm over French identity. In line with the French commitment to “laïcité,” or roughly secularism, “You should not be able to distinguish or identify the students’ religion by looking at them,” Mr. Attal said.
Rather unfair of the NYT to end its piece about the latest legal decision in favor of allowing employers, in very restricted circumstances, to ban the hijab in public work settings, with this dismissive statement from a lawyer for the hijabi who sued. And rather unwise tactically.
I mean, on the reasonable assumption that the NYT is appalled by burqa and hijab restrictions, it does its position no good by featuring the it’s all a tempest in an abaya line, which people are always doing. People are always telling us how risibly few female children and women wear the burqa, the abaya, the hijab, so why make a fuss?
Whereas numbers are actually going up in most places.
So to align yourself with people who dishonestly downplay a phenomenon which does in fact demoralize many citizens of secular countries (they tend to vote overwhelmingly in favor of restrictions) is to put yourself in a place which is itself subject to dismissal.
And as to the amusing pathetic crumbly fragility of a laicity which would fail to stand up to brave little Belgium’s little case — pshaw. Obviously it IS standing up to theocratic threats — by recognizing and managing them.
“You’re legitimizing one of the most barbaric laws” by agreeing to wear the hijab.
Bad enough that infidels with cameras keep filming our attacks on insufficiently swaddled girls; far, far worse that the Nobel committee has given the Peace Prize to one of the more prominent unswaddled, unchaste among us.
Yeah, yeah, the usual suspects are fussing up a storm, but France is adamant that its Olympics athletes will not wear that must-have Iranian fashion statement, the hijab.
Meanwhile, the world’s hardest working organization, CAIR, which must express outrage every day as hundreds of countries and regions all over the world (including, for instance, Egypt) outlaw public-sphere wearing of such things as burqas, hijabs, abayas, chadors, etcetcetc, is drawing itself up yet again this morning in high umbrage over a secular republic’s declaration that people representing that republic and its values to the world may not wear religious stuff while doing said representation.
France is not a theocracy, and women whose fanaticism burns so bright they refuse to take off a headscarf in public fit uneasily into seriously non-theocratic states. These women, like CAIR, are free to spend their lives in worldwide social and judicial combat over escalating and widening public-realm Islamic dress bans; or they can move to more blanketing-friendly places, like Malaysia (uh-oh). Hell, in England they’re erecting statues to the greatness of the hijab! (The monumentalized hijabi in question don’t look too happy, IMHO, but whatever.)
A week after the ban was implemented, the level of opposition has been low.
There have been some acts of defiance – 67 girls refused to change out of their abayas on the first day of the new term.
But of a mass movement of resistance there is no sign. No mass-donning of abayas, no sit-ins.
*********************
There never is. I mean, there never is a mass movement of resistance – to burqa bans, hijab bans, abaya bans – anywhere in the world. Wonder why not. Wonder where the masses of women who adore being fully, or mostly, covered are… Hmm… hmm…
Well let’s see. First of all, a lot of these girls and women come from subcultures where — I mean DUH. Why do you think they’ve been all covered up since they were five years old? The whole point is to make them invisible! So nu – you’re expecting them to mass on the Champs Elysees and get their picture in the paper? Not bloody likely.
As for secular, jeans-wearing Frenchwomen donning abayas for a day to express solidarity… I mean, look at the statistic in my headline, mes petites. I believe it’s finally gotten through to that demographic — along with virtually every other demographic — that abayas are an appalling constraint on young women, and no self-respecting liberal state should countenance them in its public secondary schools.
Okay, so then where’s the Muslim Brotherhood when you need them?
Er, not sure they’re too eager to be seen, en masse, in public either.
I think this only leaves that blithering idiot, Jean-Luc Melenchon.
A small handful of students at French public schools have refused to remove their full-body-swaddling abayas in response to a new government mandate. But even though it’s obvious that compliance is happening, people who think it’s fine to force veiling on children are squawking. Parents should be free to swaddle their ten-year-olds!
It’s such a grossly bad argument. Of course UD understands that some little girls who’ve been blanketed by their parents from birth because of their obscene female equipment must feel pretty shitty, pretty scared, at the prospect of anyone catching a glimpse of their ankle. I’m sure it makes them feel whorish and evil. But that feeling will pass; and after all they can still swaddle at will (at their parents’ will) outside of school hours.
No one ever said educating reactionaries in the principles of equality was easy. For some of them, you never will get there. But you can certainly educate their daughters.
And – go figure – France’s “socialists and communists have both welcomed [a new] ban” on the abaya in public schools. Throughout our long chronicle, on this blog, of some restrictions on girl-swaddling, we have needed again and again to correct the lazy claim that such restrictions are always about caving to conservative and reactionary pressures. While it’s true that those on the right in many countries tend to support such restrictions, it’s just as true that much of the left tends that way too.
You only have to look at the 77% figure up there to take on board the reality that some secular cultures really, really dislike overt religious constrictions on children and young women. Faith communities that believe conventionally clothed ten year old girls are seductresses whose sexual bodies must be severely hidden tend to offend modern, secular populations. Ol’ UD thinks they’re right to be offended: By definition, these girls and young women have no say as to whether they are swaddled; their invisibility cloaks are forced on them by their parents. Accessory to such dress is usually an insistence on gender segregation and the derogation of the female generally.
If you insist on swaddling your females from age 0 to 100, that’s your private business; but secular states like France are perfectly free to reject female-swaddling as a mode of self-display in various parts of the public realm.
Which France has now done: No student enrolled in a state school can hide her provocative eight year old curves under the copious folds of the modesty robe.
As with France’s burqa ban ten years ago, this one will generate a spot of outrage (and lots of support) and then disappear as an issue. You can’t fight city hall when city hall represents the will of a very strong secular majority (think also of Quebec).
One can only hope that, liberated to move through her school day without her male-inflaming face and body fully covered, this or that young girl will grow up with the conviction that she represents a free and equal member of a modern society.
An administrative court in Germany has ruled against her complaint about not being able to drive like this, but she’ll probably appeal to a higher court blah blah. ‘The judges do not think the ban violates the German Constitution, as it does not “severely restrict religious freedom.” Instead, the practice of religion is “only restricted in a narrowly limited life situation that is typically not essential for freedom of religion,” the verdict continues.’
Well but that assumes a woman not ruled by a man who will kill her if anyone gets a glimpse of her nose.
BTW: UD can’t help but notice that this woman’s hands are uncovered!