Body blow

Okay, once more into the burqa breech ...

Today's treeware column was basically a summary of my previously-blogged ideas about women's leadership in the Iranian uprising as well as some thoughts on hijab, especially in the wake of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's pronouncements on the burqa the other day.

You can read it here.

Note that NOWHERE do I endorse the wearing of a burqa. In fact, I say things like ''given my druthers, I'd rather not walk around with a black veil. But I'm a Godless feminist, with no time at all for patriarchal orders from male religious leaders.'' I call it ''a prison for women.''

But, judging from some of the comments and emails, you'd think I sold out my Muslim sisters to the regressive and controlling people -- yes, not always but usually men -- who treat them like chattel. That ''less than livestock'' theme is one that I have repeatedly explored on this blog.

The essential issue my column raises is CHOICE.

It asks this:

What gives anybody – the state, the mullahs, the media, husbands and/or fathers – the right to say what women can wear?

And further down, this:

Seriously: How can a state complain about women being forced to wear something – and then force the same women to take it off?

Why are there incredibly restricting rules for women, and not for men? Is this not sexist (a word I am denounced for using, by the way, by one commenter)?

And what good does such a law do? Will women who refuse to unveil in France be jailed like women who refuse to be veiled are in backward and repressive Islamic countries? Aren't they the victims? Why punish the victim?

Both the National Post and the Star ran editorials today essentially agreeing with my take. When these two political polar opposites concur, well, you have to know that an argument is pretty airtight.

But still.

One notable attack came in from a well-know Muslim Torontonian who claimed I was keeping Muslim women enslaved, that I was selling out his female relatives to the misogyny in the Islamic world. 

Me?

Where?

This was my response:

I advocate for women's complete dominion over their bodies.
Do you?
I believe that, if a woman wants to dress in a miniskirt, it is her right. She is not to be condemned for "asking for it."
Do you?
I think that the burqa - something I personally despise - should be a CHOICE.
Do you?
Why should the state go after women who have no choice?
I see that as sexist and counterproductive.
Do you?
I think that the state should be targeting those who abuse women - and I consider the burqa to be abuse - and not the victim.
Do you?

Now not all women agree, including devout Muslim women -- and, by the way, I know plenty, none of who veil themselves. Here is what a British Muslim woman had to say today:

Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department.

The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public.

Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.
In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.

Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.

Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.

And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.

The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom. 

Agreed on all points but one: the ban.

How many of us who advocate for a ban have actually approached a heavily veiled woman and talked to her? Asked her if she is happy under that black tent?

I haven't, even though I see such women almost every day when I walk my dog near a rapidly-expanding mosque near Donlands and Danforth. Some of them actually work as nannies for the yuppies in my hood. On summer evenings, in a local park, I see maybe a dozen women, completely veiled in black, sitting on the grass in a circle eating sweets and yakking away, their kids nearby on the playground. I have talked to the children, let them pat the dog, but I have NEVER spoken with the women. 

How sad is that?

I guess that's the point of the burqa.

Now obviously there's a big difference between the burqa and a scarf. As my friend and colleague Rosie Dimanno emailed this morning,

In a burqa, you can't see your feet. That's why women fall down.

(Well, I can think of other reasons but ... heh heh ... kidding Rosie.)

Point is, I have met very strong-minded women at U. of Toronto, who are in hijab. None of them seems to be under any duress.

Yesterday, while walking past a house where a Muslim family lives (and there are plenty near here), two little girls, maybe 5 or 6 years old, were playing Mommy with a doll and its stroller. One of the girls actually put a piece on of cloth on her head and tied it like a scarf so she could be ''grown-up.'' I stood there in astonishment.

Bottom line: choice.

Choice.

There should be no more rules for women than there are for men.

That's why it's legal for women to be topless in Ontario and some other jurisdictions.

That said, if a government were truly concerned about how women in burqas were being treated, it would set up mechanisms so that they could get help when they wanted to shed them, escape tyrannical family situations, and break the chains of "subservience.''

Otherwise, a ban will only cause more problems for these women.

Incidentally, I couldn't help but use one more image from the wonderful movie, Persepolis. (And yes, I know it doesn't depict a burqa ...)

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Almost forgot to link to this story from Cairo:

At the Embaba Youth Center in Cairo, teenage girls in headscarves that signify Islamic modesty whack at each other with deft karate moves.

It’s fun, they say, but also a defense against nasty boys and men on the Egyptian capital’s mean streets.

“No one is going to touch me when I can hit them real hard,” said Nada Gamal Saad, 16.

The training is a grassroots reaction to a problem Cairo women’s groups say is growing: public verbal insults, groping and even rape. Such harassment contrasts with emerging signs of female political advancement in Egypt and other countries across the Middle East.

“Changes for women are surface improvements,” said Madiha el-Safty, a sociology professor at the American University in Cairo. “There is a deeper cultural problem: male hostility toward women who want to do more than stay at home.”

I wonder how much freedom a woman will have once she can no longer wear a burqa -- but her family won't let her out of the house because she is ''exposing'' herself.

Surely there are better solutions than bans.

ONE UP ME DATE: Balbulican sure knows how to reduce a blog post to the very basics.

a) We find it appalling that your religion dictates what you may and may not wear.
b) We therefore propose to dictate what you may and may not wear.

Questions?

I am not worthy.

Comments

[stageleft]

People have consistently chosen to ignore the element of choice in this discussion in favour of Islam bashing.

Today while walking through the lobby of the building I work in after a smoke break I passed a woman wearing a burka, when the elevator doors closed a woman who had got on at the same time turned to me and said, "the only reason they wear that is to hide the bruises, there's no other reason is there?"

My response was, "sure there is, maybe she choose to" - a comment that earned me a the strangest look I've seen this month and the further parting question, "why would they" as she got off at her floor.

There are lots of answers to that, but I doubt this woman would have believed any of them. Her mind, like the mind of many, is already made up.

The whole discussion about banning the burka should be part of a Monty Python skit -- that's the only setting where people advocating for what they are complaining about would be funny instead of sad and pathetic.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"..... a problem Cairo women’s groups say is growing: public verbal insults, groping and even rape. Such harassment contrasts with emerging signs of female political advancement in Egypt and other countries across the Middle East."

so I hope these Cairo women's groups publicly and loudly slam the attitudes revealed in this Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDqWGtykYNE&feature=fvw

[Alison S]

This may not be politically correct, but frankly I don't mind if people wear religious gear, as it alerts me to the fact that they are in the grip of delusion and it would be best if I didn't open my atheistic mouth, unless the topic of religion is brought up by them. However, I draw the line at the burqa for a number of reasons. This is not a religious garment, but a cultural one of Persian origin. Thus using the religious argument is a crock. It is, plain and simple, meant to keep women invisible.

In my view, a law banning everyone from walking the streets with a mask on, with the exception of medical necessity, would take care of the issue. After all, masks in public are a security issue. I think, but I could be wrong, that one of the London tube bombers wore a burqa.

[Trixie Joy]

Yes! You are the voice of reason Antonia.

I would like to thank you graciously for your articles. They really inform the people of all these problems us women have to deal with in this man-driven world.

Keep doing what you're doing, and don't ever let anyone (especially a man) stop you!

[Kat]

"Choice" is a very pretty word, but as anyone who has had to go against the norm in their community will tell you, if one "choice" has been drilled into you from a very young age, or if the cost of making a "choice" is derision and alienation from your family, friends, and religious community, then there's not really a choice.

Therefore, in the summary at the bottom of your post, a) has to happen before b) can be considered. Until then, we have to work on a).

I would note also that there is a world of difference in communication levels between hijab and burquha. With a burqha, there's literally a wall between the woman and the rest of the world. That's why women wearing burquhas are hard to approach -- you don't know what the reaction on her face is as you walk up to her. Hijabs at least allow for non-verbal facial expressions.

I want to believe in a woman's choice to veil or not veil as she believes is right. But when I hear from Muslim women who belong to sects which do not believe in veiling that they are getting pressured to veil from other sects, when I know three Iranian women (not acquaintances of each other) who are proud Muslims but who took off their veils the second they got off the plane at Pearson and never put them back on again in their entire lives while living in Toronto, I have a hard time supporting the choice.

[mozo]

Antonia wrote: "Both the National Post and the Star ran editorials today essentially agreeing with my take. When these two political polar opposites concur, well, you have to know that an argument is pretty airtight."

Just like the unanimous US media approval for invading Iraq?

[Antonia]

Mozo,

With the exception of one staff columnist, the Star was, across the board, including the editorial board, against the invasion of Iraq. I was very much against it, as were all other columnists, except that one.

The Post was uniformly rah rah rah.

Again, if these two polar opposites agree -- and on the same grounds -- on something, it must be pretty airtight.

[impudent strumpet]

"The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public."

We do this all the time. We just call it lingerie.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Mozo de Beaux Yeux, Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator,

"political polar opposites", forsooth!

There's plenty of room to the right of the Post (it has gone downhill recently, why don't they bring back Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter, and give Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan regular spots too), and to the left of the Star (I leave it to others to suggest how the Star could be more leftist, but I'm sure it could be done - maybe a regular slot for Sooey?)

[Michael]

I agree that this is about choice. But how do you EVER know if anyone has made a choice of their own free will? How can you tell the oppressed from the devout? Asking them doesn't work because the costume itself is designed to make them unapproachable. And good manners prevent prying. I think we can never know whether a particular shrouded woman is a victim or not.

[CatBoreal]

My husband told me a story about a friend's mother years ago.

She was a devout Muslim who immigrated to Canada from Iran. She wore the chador whenever she went anywhere, but was terrified to ride public transit. Seems when she was living in Iran and rode the bus, she would be groped on a regular basis, even in the presence of a male family member. If godly Muslim men would do this to her, imagine what the infidels would do? So she *never* rode transit out of fear of what she would have to endure.

One day there was an emergency and for whatever reason, she had to ride the bus (no money, lack of language skills, I don't remember). Scared as she was, she made the trip. Imagine her surprise when nothing happened. She wasn't groped. No one copped a feel.

She threw her chador out that night.

[littlemisssunshine]

I am all for freedom of choice but the wearing of a burqa in our society is not something that I feel we should condone. The burqa's sole purpose is to oppress women. It is used as a tool of abuse by men who wish to control "their" women. It renders a woman completely invisible to the outside world and turns her into an object, not a human being. The woman under that burqa has no rights of any kind. Since we live in a society that recognizes women as human beings, not chattels, I agree with an outright ban.
When a woman is subject to abuse she often feels she has no choice. Or she is terrified of doing anything that will inflame her abuser. That is why the police are obligated to lay charges for acts of domestic abuse even when the victim refuses to. I'm sure if you went up to a woman on the street and asked her if it was solely her choice to wear the burqa the answer would be yes, even if it is not. The cycle of abuse is hard to break, but the first step is disallowing behaviour that tolerates it.

[PaulR]

"That is why the police are obligated to lay charges for acts of domestic abuse even when the victim refuses to" --littlemisssunshine
-----------
Actually, yes. There we have an example of a scenario where the state steps in, superceding the individual's choice to participate in the matter, if not for the victim's immediate benefit, then for society's benefit - establishing that such behaviour is not tolerated.

The state often has no problem stepping in on behalf of children because they lack the power to protect themselves from their parents behavior or customs. Blood transfusions, cigarettes in the car - both of these are reasonable examples of protecting kids from those who are in control of them. I don't see it as much of a stretch to endorse similar state involvement on adults who are kept as culturally powerless as children.

Perhaps this is why Western gender feminism, which practices victimhood as a fine art, so often clashes with Islamic feminists on this issue --the latter are still fighting the big fights to be treated as adult human beings, while the former no longer have much understanding about having such basic aspirational goals challenged to such a degree. For the generation who burned their bras, it's hard to imagine such a reversal here - without realizing that feminism has come to mean a very different thing than when it started.

[Louise Polland]

Antonia,

Please credit Marjane Satrapi and her graphic novel "Persepolis" when using her work.

jf

[Antonia]

I do!

''Incidentally, I couldn't help but use one more image from the wonderful movie, Persepolis. (And yes, I know it doesn't depict a burqa ...)''

And in each of the posts below, where i talk about her work!

[D Shapiro]

The cartoon refers to another culture's version of "she was asking for it" as a rape defence, whether by dressing in a certain way or behaving in a way peceived to be a come-on. We have agreed now, here at least, that it is not a defence, under the "No means no" principle. If the law defends a woman's right to be treated with respect as a thinking, decision-making human being, its insistence that we also share certain cultural norms, such as open communication and self-identification -- which a veil disrupts -- seems to me part and parcel of the same legal structure. I think Sarkozy has this right, as he has had very few other things right. His reaction to the riots a few years ago was insensitive and brutish, but were also based in law rather than on feelings. Though I disagree with one response and agree with the other, it's only because I'm a bit of a softie, who thinks that people seldom riot without cause, even if the demonstration of dissatisfaction is illegal.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"The cartoon refers to another culture's version of "she was asking for it" as a rape defence, whether by dressing in a certain way or behaving in a way perceived to be a come-on. We have agreed now, here at least, that it is not a defence, under the "No means no" principle."

I wish that were true, but all sorts of cracks are appearing in that principle in Western countries, with deference to multiculturalism apparently trumping women's rights.

This is the third time on this blog I will mention Professor Unni Wikan of Norway, who has stated (quoting from memory) that Norwegian girls must realise that they live in a multicultural society, and govern themselves accordingly in matters of dress, without her being hooted out of polite society. Oh well. Tri chynnig i Gymro, as they say (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Welsh_proverbs#T).

And Sarkozy's response to the riots was certainly too little, and (I really hope not, but I fear) too late.