December 21st, 2021
The Neonate Niqab; the Bouncing Baby Burqa…

… covering your girl child – girl infant – from the moment she pops out, in all her blasphemous sexiness – is big business around the world. The burgeoning popularity of female-blanketing means more and more stores in virtually every location are getting in on the trend. UD’s post title anticipates some product line names…

… And children’s songs… If you’re happy and hijabi clap your hands! If you’re…

Now we all know (if we read UD) that Quebec is in all kinds of trouble in the larger, uh, Canadian entity, because that province passed a law restricting public employees from wearing hijabs while on the job. We also know that everyone dumped on the French when their Senate passed a law (it went no further than the Senate) banning hijabs in public settings on people younger than eighteen. Yet when one of Canada’s most prominent pediatric physicians – the director of pediatric surgery at McGill – writes a shocked and angry response to a recent cover image on the Canadian Medical Association Journal, UD thinks it might be worth your while to read what he says.

“As a pediatric surgeon, I admit I would not typically have gravitated toward the excellent article in CMAJ by Drs. Bloch and Rozmovits if it wasn’t for the image that accompanied it — a picture of 2 girls, probably about 3 or 4 years old, reading together. One of them is covered in a hijab.

The image shocked and infuriated many. Yasmine Mohammed, a Vancouver activist who has championed equality for Muslim women, tweeted, “The cover of @CMAJ features a little girl in hijab. How disheartening to see my so-called liberal society condone something that is only happening in the most extremist of religious homes.” Another Muslim woman, a surgical trainee who wishes to remain anonymous, messaged me to express her horror at seeing the image, which triggered painful childhood memories of growing up in a fundamentalist Islamic society, where she was forced to wear the hijab from early childhood and taught that her body was desired by the opposite sex and should be covered. She later shared her perspective in a private conversation with the CMAJ interim editor-in-chief and publisher.

It has become “liberal” to see the hijab as a symbol of equity, diversity and inclusion. Out of the best intentions, the CMAJ editors probably chose this picture to accompany an article on the application of such principles in medical care.

I work in an urban tertiary academic children’s hospital embedded in an extremely multicultural environment. Many of my trainees, colleagues and patients’ parents (and some adolescent patients) wear the hijab. I respect each woman I interact with, as well as any woman’s choice to express her identity as she desires. Some women face harassment and discrimination for their choice to wear the hijab. That is real, and it is also wrong.

But respect does not alter the fact that the hijab, the niqab and the burka are also instruments of oppression for millions of girls and women around the world who are not allowed to make a choice. We are currently being reminded of this daily, as we see the tragic return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its effect on the subjugation of women and girls. Girls as old as those in the picture are being sold into marriage to old men — institutionalized child rape. The mentality that allows this to happen shares much with the one that leads to covering up a toddler. But even in so-called moderate Islamic countries, such as the one I grew up in, societal pressures heavily marginalize women who choose not to wear the hijab. In addition, women in these countries who are not Muslim and do not wear the hijab are often subject to intense harassment and discrimination. I know that, because some of these women are in my family. I respect the women who see the hijab as liberating. But we must also remember the women and girls who find it oppressive and misogynistic.

Ironically, the article explores evaluating interventions to address social risks to health. A young girl such as the one depicted in the image is typically also banned from riding a bike, swimming or participating in other activities that characterize a healthy childhood. She is taught, directly or indirectly, from an early age that she is a sexual object, and it is her responsibility to hide her features from the opposite sex, lest she attract them. A heavy burden for modesty is placed squarely on her shoulders. So many women have been traumatized by such an upbringing, which, I believe, frankly borders on child abuse. Is that not a social risk to health? Are these children not a vulnerable population?”

********************

What will it take for you, and many other well-meaning people, acting “out of the best intentions,” to see what some subcultures are doing to their girls? Do you think that legitimizing bordering-on-child-abuse by featuring it on the covers of medical journals is a good idea?

******************

UPDATE: After complaints, the letter has been retracted, with cringing apologies from the editor, along with her pledge never again to trespass onto the truth. A commenter at Retraction Watch gets it said:

‘Could someone explain exactly what is so terrible about the author’s claim: “Some women face harassment and discrimination for their choice to wear the hijab. That is real, and it is also wrong. But respect does not alter the fact that the hijab, the niqab and the burka are also instruments of oppression for millions of girls and women around the world who are not allowed to make a choice.”

Is that such a fundamentally unreasonable statement? Is the author incorrect that the hijab, niqab, and burka have—for many girls and women—associations with oppression? I expect that for many people the hijab is a harmless symbol, or even a mere fashion statement—but can’t the same be said of the Confederate battle flag, which is certainly a symbol of oppression to many people?

To be clear, the author did not argue that women shouldn’t wear hijabs. In fact, he explicitly said women should be able to dress however they please without being subjected to discrimination or harassment. What the author argued is that showing a toddler in a hijab isn’t a good way to represent cultural diversity. Perhaps the author is wrong about that—but if he is, then isn’t the appropriate course of action to present a counterargument pointing out the flaws in the author’s statements? Instead we get a retraction and a generic, uninformative statement from the editor apologizing for hurt feelings.’

December 20th, 2021
A Fantastic Opinion Piece by a Political Science Doctoral Student at McGill…

… shushes the holier than thou hysteria in Canada by reminding the opponents of Quebec’s secularity bill that if they want to defend hijabis there are better and worse ways to do this.

Ben Woodfinden points out that the likeliest prospect for Bill 21’s demise lies in gradual changes in the government:

Bill 21 enjoys widespread support in Quebec, especially among francophones. But it is not universally supported in the province and there has been plenty of opposition to it since it was proposed. Both the Quebec Liberals and Québec solidaire oppose the law. Combined they got more votes than the governing Coalition Avenir Québec in the past provincial election.

Bill 21 passed in the National Assembly with a vote of 73-35, with the Parti Québécois joining the [Coalition Avenir Quebec] to support the legislation. If current polls are to be believed, the CAQ is on track to win a big majority next year, and the storied Parti Québécois is on the verge of electoral oblivion. This matters because the PQ doesn’t think Bill 21 goes far enough and wants to expand it further. The CAQ will likely win again, but it will not govern forever, and a successor government is the most likely way Bill 21 will ever be changed. Given that the law has to be renewed every five years because of the use of the notwithstanding clause, the debate over Bill 21 in Quebec is not a dead one regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge.

Woodfinden doubts any legal challenge will work; further, he points out that all the rageful disdain from non-Quebec Canada about that province’s passage of the bill

… play[s] right into the hands of those in Quebec who would seek to turn this into a debate not so much about Bill 21 but about a divide between English and French Canada. As André Pratte wrote in these pages , “All this noise now allows the distinct society’s nationalists to claim that the province is again subject to ‘Québec bashing’ … Bill 21 will become even more entrenched into Québécois identity.”

In short, if you want the (very limited) restrictions on the hijab in Quebec to disappear, cool it. Let the political process play out.

December 18th, 2021
‘[D]isparaging Quebec’s laïcité, the separation of church and state, is Canada’s new national sport.’

Lise Ravary, in the Montreal Gazette, weighing in on the hijab thing, reminds us that there are important differences between French and English Canada.

In 2016, a developer wanted to build up to 80 homes on the South Shore of Montreal intended specifically for Muslims. He had even specified that women should dress modestly when outside their home. Pressure from all sides, even the local imam, quickly put an end to that. A separate religious neighbourhood would be heretical to Quebecers.

But in English Canada, it seems, most people don’t … have a problem when public schools close their cafeterias for prayers, with the sexes segregated and girls relegated to the back of the room. I can’t understand why such nonsense is tolerated.

Recall what happened in a British university a few years ago when an Islamic student group set up separate seating areas (women in back, and keep quiet) at an on-campus event. People always seem shocked when it turns out that – as in this latest case in Quebec – the public realm of secular egalitarian cultures actually matters to secular egalitarian people.

December 18th, 2021
“Man, what’s WRONG with your country? Over here, women HAVE to wear it.”

Bastion of women’s rights, Iran, rushes to the defense of hijab-wearers in Quebec.

The optics really aren’t great when the first foreign power to come to the defense of protesters against Quebec’s secularity law are authoritarian mullahs.

Unfortunately, however, the rest of the world has so far responded to some public workplace restrictions on the hijab with a deafening silence.

December 17th, 2021
Now that representatives of federal Canada have begun to recover from the shock and awe of a school in Quebec obeying the law…

…it’s time to hear from the law-abiding citizens of Quebec. Here’s one.

It would be safe to conclude that a statement of identity for many Muslim women who promote the hijab is perhaps more important than following religious dicta. One can, for example, easily argue that many of these women don’t believe the hijab to be a religious requirement. They could easily remove the piece of cloth while at work but choose not to. One must ask why... Why the restrictive, chauvinistic, and patriarchal garb has assumed this much importance for these individuals is a puzzlement.

Indeed, nuns, priests and even monks are perfectly able to remove their religious garb; why not non-clerical women? What makes these women more rigid in their refusals (in Quebec, they are asked only to remove it while in the public-facing act of public positions) than clericals?

The hijab is undoubtedly a garb rooted in patriarchy. It should be discouraged rather than enabled, touted, and promoted wherever possible. Bill 21 seeks to do precisely that…

Touted reminds us of the recent hijab-promoting ad campaign in Europe that came to grief. Western democracies are willing to tolerate the hijab, but – in Quebec, and in Europe – not in all settings, and not in all forms of its presentation.

December 17th, 2021
Life is so much better when you understand/believe in science!

Just look at what happens when you don’t.

A family of four [ultra-orthodox Israelis] may have caused [Israel’s] largest Omicron outbreak to date because they chose not to quarantine after returning from a trip to South Africa… [W]hen they were supposed to be isolating at home, they were not. Instead, the parents went to work and the children to school and preschool…

The family went on to lie about another close, infected, relative having been in South Africa; they also refused to answer their phone and participate in epidemiological tracking.

Countries that allow large numbers of their citizens to remain ignorant and anti-social pay a very large price indeed.

December 16th, 2021
“Now is the moment to be very clear and say if this case gets to the federal level, then the federal government should support the three million Quebecers who are opposed to this law…”

The New Democratic Party leader in Canada is refreshingly honest about his view of federal/provincial powers. By an impressive 65% majority, Quebec’s citizens favor a recently enacted secularism bill which enforces religious neutrality on some categories of public employees for the daily duration of their public duties. As in: For the hours during which you are teaching, or presiding over a courtroom, you must remove your hijab or other form of religious garb.

As Boucar Diouf notes:

“How would an immigrant of Palestinian origin, contesting a conviction, feel in front of a judge wearing a kippah? Inversely, how would a young driver wearing a kippah feel faced with a policewoman wearing a hijab who just gave him a ticket?”

A minority of Quebecers disagree with this approach, and the NDP guy thinks federal Canada should just go ahead and align itself with them. Screw the strong majority of people in that province who think some secular workplace rules are reasonable.

What do you think are the chances federal Canada will prevail? For background, recall what’s going on elsewhere.

***********************

Justin Trudeau will not intervene; and asked whether “he thinks Bill 21 fosters ‘hatred’ and ‘discrimination’ against minorities, Mr. Trudeau answered straightforwardly: “No.”

December 14th, 2021
There are few Americans so deeply and widely awful as to merit the moniker “lying sack of shit.”

But Elizabeth Kimmel, whose endless criminal prevarication has ruined her life and the lives of her children, merits it. The latest Varsity Blues parent to go to jail, Kimmel knew no bounds when it came to rigging bogus admission to hot schools for her dumb rich kids.

Or are they dumb? Her insane machinations condemn them to this judgment; and yet in the case of her daughter at least, a letter has surfaced that suggests otherwise. Kimmel’s lawyers of course described her throughout as motivated by pure philanthropy as she handed hundreds of thousands of dollars to corrupt, now also imprisoned, college coaches; but prosecutors had other ideas about her character.

‘In their pre-sentence memo, federal prosecutors disputed the Kimmel camp’s sunny view of the wealthy La Jollan’s charitable disposition, citing an e-mail authored by an unnamed Bishop’s faculty member. [Bishop is the high school the daughter attended.]

Days after [Kimmel’s] arrest in this case, a teacher at her children’s high school, unprompted, sent [Kimmel] the following e-mail:

“Attached is the college letter of recommendation I wrote for [your daughter] six years ago.

“‘Without a single reservation, I believed in her qualifications— her powerful intellect, her uncompromising sportsmanship, her sterling character — when you did not.

“‘Many of the faculty at Bishop’s — I could list ten off the top of my head — remember you as boorish, your treatment of us demeaning, insulting, unprincipled.

“‘But we loved your children and, in spite of their parents, always had their best interests at heart.

“’To that end, please forward my letter to [your daughter].”‘

****************

And, sad as it is to say this, given that letter about her, UD will add that Georgetown should rescind her degree.

December 14th, 2021
On its ‘Bulldog Pride’ Page…

South Carolina State University continues to boast of its association with Phillip Adams, severe CTE-sufferer and mass murderer. The school wants everyone to know that he got his first pummelings on their campus – pummelings that would, in the fullness of time, turn Adams into a psychotic killer. Awwww.

But university football does so much more than shred young brains. It typically generates endless fulminating corruption/lawsuits, and just as typically eats up much of a university’s revenue. At the University of Miami, which, to be fair, is a sewer of both football and non-football corruption, they’ve just impoverished the faculty to give an eighty million dollar contract to a football coach.

December 10th, 2021
“You know that, in Quebec, Bill 21 is extremely popular. What do you make of that?”

If you’re going to be a professional specializing in inclusion, you need to know something about exclusion, yes?

Fatemeh Anvari, a third-grade teacher removed from the classroom for refusing to take off her hijab while teaching, was asked to respond (see my headline) to the fact that 65% of Quebecois support Bill 21 – which says that no religious symbols may be worn by people during the time in which they are engaged in high-profile public positions (teacher, judge).

Her answer? No answer. She totally whiffed it (“I can’t speak for those who agree with it.”). Her new job at the same school involves finding strategies of inclusion for students; yet she is not even able to take on her opponents. She says nothing about the very significant – overwhelming majority – challenge of her fellow citizens who clearly do not believe in all forms of inclusion.

******************************

Her interviewer might have mentioned that “In Quebec, among the most vocal supporters of Bill 21 are Muslim women.” Mixes it up a bit, doesn’t it?

Her interviewer might have quoted Boucar Diouf:

“How would an immigrant of Palestinian origin, contesting a conviction, feel in front of a judge wearing a kippah? Inversely, how would a young driver wearing a kippah feel faced with a policewoman wearing a hijab who just gave him a ticket?”

As with the mention of majority support, this is what’s known as a challenge – most appropriate, given the big ol’ controversy at play here.

As UD has so often pointed out, in a world of escalating niqab/burqa/hijab restrictions, your worst possible move is failing to engage, dismissing huge chunks of populations as bigoted, etc., etc. Engage. Try to figure out why reasonable people might want some restrictions on religious garb. If you’re not willing to go there, to try to change minds, you’re going to see more and more of these legal moves across the world.

December 9th, 2021
Now that he’s been found guilty…

here are UD‘s Jussie Smollett posts from 2019, when the story broke. A most contemptible man.

*********************

It was too hard to believe that any of this could be made up, because what kind of person would do something like this?

A former supporter of Smollett’s gets to the heart of so many hoaxes – from people (many of them academics) pretending to be minorities, to people pretending to have been physically attacked because of their minority status. You have to be one sick fuck to conceive of this behavior, let alone pull it off, and then sustain the hoax into the indefinite future. What kind of person…?

But our job is not to stand around being incredulous. After all of the destructive hoaxers we’ve encountered over the last few years, and in anticipation of others, we owe it to our social world to educate ourselves in the ways of our Smolletts and Bourassas. We have to try to see them coming. As UD has often said (having covered such hoaxers on this blog for a long time), one common tip-off is trying too hard. These people lay it on too thick: They claim large and proliferating minority memberships (tribal, ethnic, etc.); they claim the people who beat them up did this and did that and oh yeah I just remembered they did that too… Look into almost any recent high-profile hoax and you see this characteristic of overdoing, overkill, as if the hoaxer fears insufficient minoritization/torment will fail to convince. Or – just as likely – their motive isn’t really a motive at all, but rather an uncontrolled manifestation of their madness. Nuts don’t act in measured ways.

***************

Update: A Smollett juror illustrates the peril of overdoing.

December 9th, 2021
La Kid…
does get around.
December 9th, 2021
He graduated from a fly-by-night for-profit college so shitty it closed…

and he can’t remember when he puts a loaded gun in his work bag. But the US House of Representatives has been relying on Jeffrey Allsbrooks to be its Logistics Manager. Your tax dollars at work, mes petites.

December 7th, 2021
Burnt Church With Explanatory Comic Book.
December 7th, 2021
‘The court ordered Abraham to forfeit to the United States: a 2020 Acura NSX, a 2020 Porsche GT4, a 2021 Toyota Supra, a 2020 Chevrolet Corvette, a 2020 Aston Martin, a 2020 Nissan 370Z, a 2020 Chevrolet Camaro, two 2020 Ford Mustangs, $190,496.56 paid toward a 2021 Aston Martin, and $249,598.52 in cash.’

The tragic toll of a life of crime.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories