Author: Azam Kamguian

  • Why so much fuss about ‘a piece of clothing’?

    Why so much fuss about ‘a piece of clothing’? In France and elsewhere in the west, teachers have a hard time with girls who come to school wearing the veil, who refuse to attend gym or biology courses, and who won’t read Voltaire because he was a non-believer.

    In my speech, I will argue for banning the veil for young girls. I will refute views that promote and support veiling for young girls and try to demonstrate how banning the veil is vital for the advancement of children’s rights and the progress of our civil society.

    Some feminists oppose the law to ban the veil in state schools and institutions on the grounds that the ban will strengthen Islamism. But high-ranking Islamic clerics strongly dispute this assertion, and argue that banning the veil is a direct attack on Islam.

    Western leftist intellectual apologists for Islamism say that “whatever the rationale among progressives for supporting the ban, it cannot be judged apart from its role in the rising tide of racism against Muslim populations throughout the world.” They further argue that “In this context, France’s ban on the veil can only further inflame anti-Muslim racism and that no law reeking of such racist hypocrisy is intended to advance the cause of women’s equality.” They conclude that it is just a short leap from the assumption of Christian religious and European cultural superiority to outright hostility to Islam.

    Apologists claim that veil is worn voluntarily by millions of Muslim women around the world as a symbol of cultural pride and in opposition to western imperialism. Along with the Islamists who marched against the ban in the streets of Paris and London, these apologists call the ban a ‘racist law.’

    Apart from these bizarre apologies for the Islamic reaction by western ‘intellectuals’ and ‘feminists’, when one sees girls as young as four years old wearing the veil in the street of Paris and London, for example, can anyone seriously claim that they are doing this voluntarily, expressing their own religious beliefs? Is this heated debate surrounding the veil “a fuss about a piece of clothing”? Is banning the veil in schools and state institutions, as proclaimed by Islamists and apologists for Islam, a ‘restriction of religious freedom’? Is it a ‘restriction of freedom of expression’? Or is it ‘religious intolerance’? Or is it ‘a violation of Muslim women and girls’ rights’? Or is it ‘racist’?

    I start with the law banning the veil and other religious symbols in state schools and state institutions in France. In my the view veil must be banned for young girls not only in schools but altogether. Public institutions belong to all citizens: schools and universities, in particular, are open to all. They are places from which all external marks of denomination and distinctive signs should be excluded. I believe that secularism is essential for maintaining our civil society. It means that states are duty-bound to ensure that all state schools, state institutions and government offices work in a neutral and impartial manner. Government officers, teachers, legal authorities and people working in the education system must not use their position to impose their beliefs and values on other people. This would be against the essence of a civil society. For this reason, I believe that religion and religious symbols are private affairs of adult individuals, not the business of a state. One’s religious beliefs are a private affair and public employees shouldn’t promote or impose their beliefs in school, in state institutions and in public life.

    In my view, veiling in general, and veiling of young girls in particular, is not about a piece of clothing; and banning it, is defending the essence of the human rights of young girls and women in Islamic communities across the world. Banning the veil is essential and an important step forward in the defence of secularism and the rights of children and women.

    Of course, Islamists, ardent Muslims and apologists will tell us that the girls themselves ‘choose’ the veil: ’Freedom of the Veil’! This is absurd! How can one believe that a little child would don ”attire” that prevents her from playing freely and openly with her friends? Not to be able to adjust her dress to the changing weather, not to be able to swim, climb a tree or pat a cute animal or do what children always have done all over the world! I ask why subject any young girl to this ancient curse? But, sadly and unfortunately, it has become a standard in our society to force and coerce a young child under a veil. It really is inhumane and socially unacceptable. It is said that girls choose the veil willingly. How do we expect a girl child to resist the veil? Can anyone really expect a loyal and loving child stand up and rally against the strong will of her parents and thus be able to escape from being confined inside the veil?

    Up to the age of about sixteen, most children merely reflect the religious views of their parents. Most children do not have sufficient education and knowledge at early ages to make an informed belief choice. Their parents should be restricted from imposing religious attire on them. For children the veil is not a matter of choice. If they are veiled, it is their parent’s decision, not theirs. Banning the veil for children is similar to banning child labour, and protecting children from abuse and providing them with access to education. What seems often to be overlooked in discussion about the French ban is that dressing children in religious attire imposes a belief system upon them, and is therefore a form of indoctrination. Do we support the rights of parents and schools to indoctrinate children or do we uphold the rights of children to be free from indoctrination?

    It has been argued that “freedom of belief includes the right to manifest your faith in public and Muslim girls should be free to choose whether to wear the veil or not.” The key question however is this. Whose freedom is being exercised? For many girls and women living in Islamic communities, it is the Islamic regimes, sheiks and mullahs; the elders, or husbands, fathers and male relatives who decide for them; they have virtually no freedom of personal expression outside the home – and young girls none at all. For women from Muslim origin everywhere, the veil is a symbol of oppression and religious domination. Contrary to what apologists claim, their veil is anything but a choice. Veiling women and the Koran’s and Sharia’s edicts on women separate them from any right, and brutally violate their basic human liberties. Women have ‘accepted’ the veil under an enormous pressure, and often through acid-throwing, threats and intimidations. Few women have the real freedom not to wear the veil. The very same Islamists who brutally impose the veil on women and girls through acid-throwing, flogging, imprisonment and torture in Iran, Iraq, Algeria and Afghanistan, oppose the banning of veils for young girls in schools in the West, and call it a restriction of freedom of expression. This is utterly hypocritical.

    Contrary to what the opponents of banning the veil claim, maintaining secularism has nothing to do with racism. It is in fact racist to create different legal systems for different religious communities in the West. This would hinder women and girls’ access to the advances of civilized societies. Defending the ban on the veil is not defending the imperialist French government. It is about progressive human values, and it is about children’s rights.

    Here, I would like to briefly address one related issue which is that of Islamic schools. I believe that protecting minors, particularly young girls, from undue influence by bizarre metaphysical dogmas, at least in their formative years, will ultimately benefit society. Moreover, it may well stop certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation.

    The most fundamental freedom we should seek to protect is freedom of thought. To deprive children of this most basic human right is unethical. Children are not “born Muslim” or anything else. Rather, juvenile indoctrination is the primary mechanism of religious propagation.

    Religion is illogical, irrational and harmful – especially to young, impressionable minds. It has no place in the public school system, which remains the last, desperate hope to establish an open-minded quest for knowledge in our kids. Religious dogma should be strongly countered in schools. Funds should be allocated for this very purpose. The importance of rational thought, critical thinking, and the scientific method is enormous, and theocratic worldviews are harmful. Theocratic views do not deserve equivalency. Let’s not turn our schools into balkanised religious cliques. Children must be free from religious indoctrination. So, Islamic schools must be banned altogether.

    Looking closely at this business of veiling, we realise that it doesn’t simply violate secular and modern law and culture; it is above all, an insult to oneself; it is a violation of human liberties. In conclusion, let me say that religious beliefs that impose the veil on girls and women, reveal a mentality that is not content merely with veiling girls and women, but seeks to shroud men, society and life.

    Veiling must be banned for young girls. It is the duty of the state to safeguard children rights by banning the veil and enforcing the ban.

    Adapted from the speech delivered at the third international conference of Children First, on 11 & 12 February 2005, in Stockholm, Sweden.

    Azam Kamguian is the editor of the Bulletin of Committee to Defend Women’s Rights in the Middle East.

  • My Ancestor Was Not an Underwater Vent!

    It’s good to have idiots deciding what people get to see at the science museum, isn’t it. Well, that’s the market for you.

    Some IMAX theaters are refusing to carry movies that promote evolution, citing concerns that doing so offends their audience and creates controversy – a move that has some proponents of Darwinism alarmed over the influence of “fundamentalists.”…A dozen science centers rejected the 2003 release, “Volcanoes,” because of it speculation that life on Earth may have originated in undersea vents, says Dr. Richard Lusk, an oceanographer and chief scientist for the project. Because a only small number of IMAX theaters show science films, a boycott by a few can reduce the potential audience to the point that producers question whether projects are financially worthwhile…

    And that’s that. Whereas it probably doesn’t work the other way. A few intellectually curious people who want to see more movies with speculations about the origins of life on earth probably don’t inspire producers to make such movies. So the easily offended get to decide.

    When the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History played the movie for a test audience, the responses were sufficiently negative for the museum to drop it from its offerings. Responses like “I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact,” or “I don’t agree with their presentation of human existence” doomed the film’s chances. “Some people said it was blasphemous,” says Carol Murray, the museum’s director of marketing.

    And if some people say it was blasphemous, well, away with it then.

    The film’s distributor says other science museum officials turned him down “for religious reasons” and because “Volcanoes” had “evolutionary overtones” – a claim that makes Hyman Field, a former National Science Foundation official who played a role in its financing, “furious. It’s very alarming,” he says, “all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists.”

    Yup.

  • Egypt Arrests Muslim Brotherhood Members

    MB pledged to use peaceful democratic means to establish an Islamic state.

  • Muslim Brotherhood Demo Blocked in Cairo

    Police arrested some 50 members around the country on Saturday.

  • Genuine Trauma and Physiological Response

    But the stimulus was still fantasy.

  • Michael Shermer on the Fossil Fallacy

    Creationists’ demand for fossils of ‘missing links’ reveals deep misunderstanding of science.

  • Tom DeLay’s Flexible Standard

    No fiery rhetoric as congressman joined family consensus to let his father die.

  • Sanity Has Drama Enough

    Brenda Maddox reads Adam Phillips and considers Freud.

  • Academic Freedom? Wozzat?

    Graham Larkin of Stanford and Bill Morrow of California legislature debate.

  • Human Rights Advisor to Turkish PM Resigns

    Yavuz Onen has bitterly criticised attitude of Turkish government on human rights.

  • Malaysia to Curb ‘Moral Policing’

    Human rights, labour and women’s groups called on government to restrain state Islamic departments.

  • Most Tsunami Dead Were Women, Oxfam Says

    Reports of rapes, harassment and forced marriages from emergency camps.

  • Finding

    Wow. Cool. Look – Huxley.

    Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it. It may seem an audacious proposal thus to pit the microcosm against the macrocosm and to set man to subdue nature to his higher ends; but I venture to think that the great intellectual difference between the ancient times with which we have been occupied and our day, lies in the solid foundation we have acquired for the hope that such an enterprise may meet with a certain measure of success.

    The things one can find on the Internet. (Is it, or is it not, God’s will? If it is, why didn’t he give Voltaire and Hazlitt and Seneca and Protagoras the pleasure? Witholding bastard.)

  • Hazlitt

    Excellent. Hazlitt again. Say what you will about the Guardian – they do have a good books section, and they do keep having articles on Hazlitt. More than you can say for the New York Times!

    I’ve said it before so why not say it again (especially since the article is saying much the same thing). Hazlitt is the most inexplicable case of undeserved literary obscurity that I know of in the case of an Anglophone author. Absolutely the top one. To be sure, there are Elizabethans and 17th century people who are well worth reading, who don’t get read all that much any more – Sidney, Nashe, Browne, Burton. But the barriers to reading them are easily understandable. But Hazlitt? Hazlitt?? Hazlitt is so readable it’s absurd, and the genre he writes in, unlike the genres that Nashe, Browne and Burton wrote in, is still very much current. He wrote essays and reviews. Big leap, huh? Nobody reads essays and reviews any more!

    So why is Hazlitt so damn gone? Why was I made to read Lamb essays in school while I never so much as heard of Hazlitt? Why, why, why? I have no idea. I mean I really don’t – I don’t have a lurking suspicion of something or other; I have no clue; it makes no sense.

    Because here’s the thing. He’s a brilliant stylist. Brilliant. Not just pretty good, not just very good; brilliant. One of the very, very best. He makes Orwell look lame. And nobody reads him. It’s tragic! And in case being a brilliant stylist is not enough, he’s no slouch as a thinker. And he’s politically interesting, and he’s good on literature, and he has an interesting mind and personality and take on things. There’s just no downside to reading Hazlitt. But no one does.

    A reasonably well-educated friend noticed this book peeping out of my pocket one morning and remarked that it was rather heavy reading for such a time of day, or indeed for any time. I do wish people would stop doing this. Because Hazlitt died 170-odd years ago and is not as famous as Wordsworth or Coleridge, they assume that he cannot be an easy read, or even less of an easy read than W&C, or that to read him is more of a duty than a pleasure.
    If you want a depressing lesson in contemporary cultural memory, go to any average-sized branch of a chain bookstore and ask for anything by Hazlitt. You will notice that it will take the person at the counter four or five goes to get the spelling right…

    Terrible. Hazlitt rules. Down with archbishops and up with Hazlitt. Happy Easter.

  • The Archies

    Right. Let’s get down to it. With some help from Polly Toynbee.

    But here the usefulness of faith ends, for it is mainly the power of the religious lobby that forces people to die in pain and indignity due to beliefs on the nature of life and death shared by very few. For 20 years now, every poll on the subject shows that 80% of people want the right to be helped to die at a time and in a way of their own choosing. But that kind of “choice” is not on the agenda.

    And furthermore, even if the beliefs were shared by very many, even if they were indeed universal, they would still be both wrong (in the sense of inaccurate) and disgusting. (Which is the same problem that always comes up in discussions of for instance ‘honour’ killing and the like. I heard an example on the BBC World Service the other day, talking about the murder of Hatin Surucu in Berlin recently: the reporter said that clerics are telling the people in their mosques that ‘honour’ killing is not in the Koran. Well, clearly that’s one useful precaution under the circumstances, but the fact remains that even if it were in the Koran it would still be disgusting, contemptible, reprehensible. That the question to ask about a social practice that does obvious, radical, extreme harm to some people is not ‘Is it condoned or recommended or mandated in the Holy Book?’ but ‘Is it a good or acceptable or justifiable practice? Is it a cruel savage domineering controlling practice with no shred of justification?’) They would no doubt be much, much harder to get rid of; indeed they would probably be impossible to get rid of, if they were universal; but they would still be bad and wrong.

    What kills you in the end if you have cancer or other terminal diseases? Not often the cancer itself. Nor the morphine that people innocently imagine will one day waft them away on a cloudy pillow of dreams to some opium-fuelled nirvana. What people actually die of, like Terri Schiavo, is dehydration when they can no longer swallow enough water to live – and it takes time. Enough morphine to die quickly is very rarely administered these days. Instead, cautious doctors, extra wary after Harold Shipman, give just enough morphine to kill people by degrees. It is enough, in the very end, to render them unable to drink so they die, semi-conscious, of thirst. Hospices don’t put up drips to keep people alive, but they don’t give out death-dealing injections either. The legal compromise is death by dehydration or sometimes slowly and gasping for breath by morphine-induced chest infection – “old man’s friend”. That is the great unspoken truth.

    There. That’s nice, isn’t it. Something to look forward to. Read it all. Read about morphine-induced constipation and hallucinations.

    Good though palliative care can be – my mother had the NHS at its very best – its own practitioners admit they often watch people die in great mental and physical anguish. People clutch at doctors’ sleeves, begging for an injection: “Can’t you do something?” How easy it is to slip into death-like unconsciousness under an anaesthetic, gone into oblivion before you can count to five. That little death in the operating anteroom is a paradigm for how the good death could be for those who want it.

    Let’s hope the law is changed in the UK. And here – though it obviously won’t be any time soon, with these unspeakable bastards imposing their ‘culture of life’ on the rest of us even though we don’t want it. Because of their sick pathetic delusional beliefs.

    As the Pope rasps out his last breaths, his bishops are using his final suffering as a testament to the religious requirement to endure whatever quality of life God sends. Both C of E and Catholic archbishops here will fight any attempt to change the law. Politicians have taken their cue from the churches.

    The religious requirement to endure whatever quality of life God sends – what complete raving nonsense! If there is a requirement to ‘endure’ then doctors and medicine are illegitimate, right? Or, if the requirement to ‘endure’ somehow means the requirement to endure both illness and what medicine and doctors are able to do about it, then why does it rule out medical decisions that it’s time to put out the light? Because religion is a diseased imposition on human life, that’s why. What requirement? What kind of God is this that wants people to suffer as much as possible at the end of their lives? What is the matter with archbishops that they believe this kind of crap and impose it on everyone else? Serial killers and torturers go to prison (and in the US are executed) for causing that kind of suffering, but archbishops are respected for it.

    Do archbishops live outside? Do they shiver in the cold and get wet in the rain? Do they blunder about in the dark, bumping into things? Do they eat all their food raw? Do they abjure clothes, books, transportation, medicine? If they have a headache do they not take aspirin? If you prick them do they not apply a band-aid? What is this hypocritical incoherent inconsistent sadistic mindless drivel about ‘what God sends’?

    Go, archbishops, and sin no more.

  • Clifford Geertz on Very Bad News

    Jared Diamond and Richard Posner on collapse and catastrophe.

  • Polly Toynbee on the Elusive Easy Death

    Dying people beg for a quick injection, in vain.

  • Jesus Candle Burns Elderly Woman’s Apartment

    Pictures, heart medicine gone, but flag remains. A miracle.

  • Arson at Mosque ‘Was Meant to Be’

    Why were suspects arrested then?

  • Jeb Bush Adoption Hopes Dashed

    Florida judge rejects governor’s bid to become Schiavo’s legal guardian.