Saving children from the chador
Unveiling the debate on secularism and rights
July 12, 2004
iranian.com
A ban on conspicuous religious symbols in state schools
and state institutions has caused heated debate regarding secularism
vs.
religious freedoms giving us the opportunity to reiterate our
defence of secularism and women's and children's rights. While
Islamists
and their supporters have proclaimed that banning religious symbols
in schools and state institutions is a 'restriction of' 'religious
freedoms' or 'freedom of belief', 'religious intolerance', 'a
violation of women's and girls' rights', 'racist', 'discriminatory',
and
so on, we believe the truth is simple and quite contrary to what
they claim. In brief:
The ban is pro-secularism not a restriction
of religious freedoms and beliefs: A ban on conspicuous religious
symbols in state
schools and institutions is but one step toward secularism
or the separation
of state and religion. Secularism is an advance of civilised
humanity. In the nineteenth century, this was a demand targeted
against the
Church resulting in for example France's 1905 law; today, it
is first and foremost a demand against political Islam, particularly
since that movement has wreaked havoc in the Middle East and
the
world.
At a minimum, secularism ensures that government
offices and officials from judges, to clerks to teachers are not
promoting
their religious beliefs and are instead doing their jobs
in a neutral and impartial manner. In the same way that banning
a
teacher from
instructing creationism instead of science in the classroom
isn't a restriction of his or her religious beliefs or freedoms
and
is not considered religious intolerance, so too is the banning
of
religious symbols not to be considered so. One's religious
beliefs are a private affair; public officials cannot use their
positions
to impose or promote their beliefs on others.
The ban is pro-children's rights: When it comes to the veiling
of girls in schools, though, children's veiling must not
only be banned in public institutions and schools but also
in private
schools
and everywhere. Religious schools must also be banned. Here
the issue extends beyond the principle of secularism and
goes straight
to the heart of children's rights. While adults may 'choose'
veiling, children by their very nature cannot make such choices;
what they
do is really what their parents tell them to do.
Even if
there are children who say they like or choose to be veiled
(as some
media have reported), child veiling must still be banned
- just as a child must be protected even if she 'chooses'
to
stay with
her abusive parents rather than in state care, even if
she 'chooses' to work to support her family in violation of child
labour laws
or even if she 'chooses' to stop attending school. States
must intervene to protect children no matter what.
Also,
states
must level the playing field for children and ensure
that nothing segregates them or restricts them from accessing
information,
advances in
society and rights, playing, swimming and in general
doing things
children must do. Whatever their beliefs, parents do
not have the right to impose their beliefs, including veiling
on children
just
because they are their own children, just as they can't
deny
their children medical assistance or beat and neglect
them or marry them
off because it's part of their beliefs or religion.
The
ban is pro-women's and girls' rights not vice versa: In addition
to being pro-children's rights, a ban on
conspicuous religious
symbols is pro-women's rights not vice versa. It protects
women
(albeit minimally) from being harassed and intimidated
into veiling. Those of us who have fled political Islam
know full
well the
levels of threats and intimidation women have faced
both in the Middle
East and here in Europe and the West to wear the veil
or else. The political Islamic movement behind veiling
is
the same movement
that is waiting to execute Kobra Rahmanpour in Iran,
impose Sharia law in Iraq and enshrine Islamic inequalities
in
the Afghan constitution.
It is the same movement that has blown up innocent
people on buses, cafes and in office buildings across the globe.
Everywhere
it has
had power, it has murdered and brutalised. Women and
girls have been its first victims.
Now it is this very
movement
that is
demanding the institutionalisation of its repressive
measures against women
in the heart of Europe, framed in terms of 'women's
rights'
and 'religious freedoms'! What cheek! It is this
very movement that
have become accomplished and renowned in and symbolic
of the assault on women's right and freedoms. The
debate on
veiling
must be seen
within this wider context.
'My Hijab, My Right' - I don't think so: Of course
an adult woman has the right to practice her religion,
customs
and
beliefs in
realms other than those where she is representing
the state or the educational system. Of course it
is her
'personal
choice' to be veiled. But if you remove all forms
of intimidation and
threats
by Islamists, Islamic laws, racism, cultural relativism
and ghetto-isation
by Western governments, norms that consider women
half that of men, and so on I assure you that there
will
be very few
women
wearing the veil. Even if there are still those who
do so, one must remember
that it is not a positive right. 'My Hijab, My
Right' is like saying 'My Female Genital Mutilation (FMG),
My Right'!!!
The
veil is an
instrument to control a woman's sexuality, like
FGM. It is meant to segregate women. It is in no way like
a nose
ring
as one writer
has claimed! Have innumerable women been killed,
tortured and flogged for transgressing the nose
ring in Europe?
I don't
think so.
Today,
more than ever before, the veil is political Islam's
symbol and women and girls are its first victims.
The veil is
not just another
piece of clothing - just as FGM is not just another
custom. I suppose if it were to be compared with
anyone's clothing
it would
be comparable
to the Star of David pinned on Jews by the Nazis
to segregate, control, repress and to commit genocide.
There is much
that will come to light about this Islamic holocaust
when the
Islamic regime
in Iran - a pillar of political Islam - is overthrown.
The ban is
not racist or discriminatory: Some say that banning religious
symbols is racist or discriminatory;
in fact, it
is discriminatory and racist to create separate
laws and policies for different people,
including immigrants and women living in Islamist
communities
in the West. Such 'differences' have been so
hammered in by cultural
relativism and multi-culturalism that a ban
of religious symbols immediately causes some to
cry racism and
demand 'the right
to wear the veil'! In fact, crying racism is
the new catch phrase
of Islamists and the political Islamic movement
along with their supporters in order to shut
people up
and hinder
opposition, as
they know full well that no one wants to be
called a racist even
if the matter has nothing to do with racism.
And this labelling as 'racist' anyone who criticises
Islam or the political Islamic movement has reached
preposterous heights.
As
an example, one woman wrote to me saying she
smelt 'Islamophobia' (whatever that means) in our call
for secularism because
'Christmas, Easter and many other religious events
are celebrated in Britain'
and she could not 'demonstrate in favour of secularism
when [she] knew this [was a] double standard'!
She therefore joined
the
Islamists' demonstration in defence of the Hejab
and against
secularism instead
of our counter demonstration!
Why not join secularist
forces and call for further demands such as
the banning of religious
schools
and all religious holidays (as we have)? Suffice
it to say that multi-culturalism has made irrationality
into
an art
form. True,
racism is part and parcel of the system, but
defending secularism has nothing to do with racism. Was the
battle
for secularism
in Europe in the nineteenth century racism
against the Church or Christians?
This has nothing to do with supporting 'imperialist'
France: And of course I mustn't forget our
dear anti-imperialists, which say
defending secularism equates supporting the
'imperialist French state and its education
system'. The struggle
for
secularism
and women's rights has nothing to do with supporting
the French government
and everything to do with defending progressive
human values. These are values that people
and the working
class have
fought and died
for. Also, if you continue their bogus rationale
then for example no one in France should have
opposed the
war on
Iraq since
it would have been siding with the 'imperialist
French state'. These
anti-imperialists
are so staunchly anti-imperialist that they
can be nothing else.
Interestingly though they are
only
anti-imperialist if they can
remain reactionary at the same time. When
Western governments promoted the Taliban and promote
the Islamic regime
of
Iran, they seem to
have amnesia. When women are stoned to death
in Iran, when the Afghan Constitution asserts
that
no human
right can
contradict Islam, or Sharia law is imposed
on Iraq, they are unable
to even
mutter syllables to show us they are at least
alive and breathing. And finally, for now, for those who keep on about
how many more pressing
issues
there
are than
a 'piece of clothing'; yes, we know the
drill - when it comes to women's and girls' rights,
there
are
always far
more pressing
issues.
It's one way of ignoring critical issues
and hoping they will go away. But they won't. At
least not
while we're
around.
Maryam Namazie is the host of TV
International English, Executive Director of the International
Federation of Iranian Refugees and Director of the International
Relations Committee of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.
This article was first published in English in WPI
Briefing #129.
*
*
|
