What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

AMaster, I suppose you are right about the slippery slope bit. It neednt lead to more... probably would not. Or would it? It is acknowledgement of a tradition that keeps women in a subservient postition. Doesnt that by itself prepare the road to abuse of women who rebell? Dont tell me these things dont happen! I know better. Although your opinion is clear...

... you come to a different assessment of the situation, obviously.

I maintain that muslima are pressured into wearing a scarf. Not for religious reasons, as Islam - correct me if I am wrong - does not require that of women, but to meet the expectations of a patriarchal-chauvinist family model, upheld in the backwater regions those people come from.

Seems like gender-related oppression. By my standards that's not worth any support.

 

Many muslim women elect to wear the scarf. This is why droves of muslim women protested when Turkey tried to ban their use.

 

Try to guess. Hehe, pitiful indeed, but that's how it is.

AMASTER,

I don't think modern democracies share much in common with it's Greek origins. They look more like the degenerated kind of tyrannies ruled by demagogues.

 

Ah, Svy, although that is a very conservative view, it is nevertheless, very democratic. Policy is shaped by the majority value in your scenario. It is not actually imposed by the state, nor by an official institution, but by local custom and cultural norms. What could be more "democratic" than that?

 

Just to clarify, France bans the wearing of scarfs by students, in school, right? Otherwise, people are free to wear what they want.

I don't see what's the big deal, in this case. When I went to elementary school, we had to wear school uniforms. Children typically are not given same freedoms as adults, on account of them being prone to abuse them. I would think that if anybody would have appeared with a unorthodox hair-cut in our class, he/she would have been in trouble anyhow.

 

Plenty of Turkish women fully support the headscarf ban (which in this case I think only applied to universities); Turkish prejudice against the hijab goes back to Atatürk, who saw the hijab as a sign of sexual repression and militant Islam.

 

Even the hijab, if a woman elects to wear it, should be permissable. Again, it doesn't hurt anyone. Even if the law banning headsarves only affected students, it is still serves as a form of religous discrimination.

In the United States, schools still have to respect items like head scarves. Disallowing it, even if wearing it breaks uniform policy, is considered discrimination, so private schools are required by law to make allowances.

 

Well, Dendri, I guess we can either agree to disagree or you can admit that I'm smarter than you are. Guess which option I support?

*ducks* I'm kidding, dammit!

 

@Tal - okay, but if you genuinely believe that the tyrant dictator is a good thing, don't you have the right to support him? Same with wearing the head scarves - if they genuinely believe them to be a good thing for them - why not?

Now, if the government is threatening to torture you if you don't say that they're great, they'd different. And if the woman is being pressured and forced into wearing them, it's different for them same reason - and there should be a way for them to deal with that (generally there's some kind of 'abused woman' thing). If they don't have the inclination or the courage to do that - there's nothing more that can be done for them.

Now, I do dislike the idea of these women being oppressed - but really, if they want to be 'oppressed' (because if it's like that, it's hard for me to call it oppression) or are disinclined to act when being oppressed - it's not my business, and nor is it any governments. (Unless it gets to the point of domestic violence - in which case it can just be handled like any other case of such).

I suspect there's a fundamental differing of opinion on what the government's role is here, and how much interference they should have into other's lives, so I don't see any resolution for this going to happen...

Dendri:

Why do you use 'relativism' as if it's some dirty word which no one should support. I happily label myself as a relativist. There is no absolute right and wrong, only things which I dislike and things I don't - others with different opinions are equally right to themselves. I dislike these practices in only the vaguest of ways (when they're not forced), and have a huge liking of personal freedom and lack of interference from government.

Realise that being likable and tolerant doesn't necessarily mean that we're full of **** just because we're being likable and tolerant. There are plenty of ways to attack our arguments, but saying that they're 'likable and tolerant' isn't a very good one.

Again - there are things I like and dislike - and that is how I judge things which you might look to some other moral or ethical point for. The various things you list I'm against because I dislike them for personal (and probably pretty obvious) reasons - not because I have some absolute way by which I must view the world.

I am something - myself, not a culture. I can judge things on my own, without need to refer to some culture, tradition, or whathaveyou. You don't need to be flakey to hold the tolerant and likable opinion.

 

Taluntain: I have worked with many American Muslim women who opt to wear a head scarf out of religious belief. I work with Arabs and muslims allmost exclusively for 4 and a half years. I'm not naive.

I have worked with many who have also elected not to wear it. They didn't feel it was necessary. I also met an African American Muslim women that has chosen to wear a hijab. She had just converted and isn't married, so no one is, uh, forcing her either. We aren't talking about the Arab world, right now. We are talking about the western world, where it is illegal to force a person (unless they are a minor) to wear something. You are judging someone elses values by the standard of your own without taking into account that our standards of modesty are just as arbitrary as theirs are. If you want to call something naive......

 

No, you cant. As I said there is no neutral point of view. Your opinion is always coloured by the traditions and culture surrounding you (or the ones you choose to adopt). You are one of it's voices. As a relativist you know that.

What you support nonwithstanding, first a display of your superiority, please. Or, henceforth, it will be AMaster no more. For me.

"Many" is as relative as "droves". I say many more are being oppressed.

Drew, I think it highly objectionable to counter oppression of women with the argument that there are those who embrace it. Strikes me as pretty selective where solidarity is concerned.

 

I'm not taking issue with the opposition of requiring the wearing of head scarves or hijabs, abayas, chidoors........or whatever else. I'm taking issue with forbidding it. If a person chooses to do such a thing (in most Muslim nations even the headscarf, let alone the chidoor or hijab, is a volountary clothing option....it seems to me that most people get their knowledge about the muslim world from Hollywood and maybe "Not Without My Daughter") than the argument of "oppression" simply does not apply. It's only oppression when you force someone to do something.

 

Nope, Hollywood isnt my sole connection to the world.

Though I see the news, and then there's real life.

If a ban is your problem you cant have issues with Europe. Save for the schools in France, headscarves arent forbidden. Wouldnt get us anywhere anyway. Except for more crazed mobs and the like.

Muslima disguised like that arent exactly a welcome sight for a number of reasons, but that's a different beast. I think.

 

You are probably referring to the Kurdish, rather than the majority of Turkish women. Surprising comments for someone that has been to Turkey.

Women can bathe topless and there are tons of lingerie shops that even the vailed Iranian women shop at, and thats just in Ankara! Doesn't sound like a country that represses its women.

 

Cúchulainn, no no. Perhaps I was misleading, but I wasnt referring to the women of Turkey, rather muslima in a general sense.

It's years ago since I (we) was in Turkey. I wasnt on a male feminist inspection tour and did not check for how it's going... can say nothing on that at all.
We got to know two girls. If they were a showcase for what's up in Turkey – well then, at least on that front there was sunshine.

Which isnt quite so.

Remember what happened when Turkish women demonstrated on... what was it again?... Women's Day or Women's Rights Day? Last year? They were crushed by police forces with stunning brutality. Lingerie shops in Ankara? Great, for all the good it did them.

Sorry, I dont mean to be sarcastic, but...

 

As Bion noted above, Turkey decided, or rather Atatürk, back in the 1920's to change from sickman of Europe to a state-of-the art modern democracy. There's been a whole wave of westernizsation going over the ME in the first half of the 20th. century. And Atatürk wanted Turkey to become one of the leading nations of Europe, the goal of his dictatorship. Therefore, they adapted the western alphabet (ü, ö and ä) and consciously decided to adopt Swiss and French law.

And Tukrey also implented laicism. The turksih state had to be purely enlighted, no religious indoctrination and no religious symbols, wearing scarves was outlawed. It's only in the 80s that the table turned and they allowed scarves again, step by step. The same time like every were muslim lived, because fundamentilsm was on the rise. So it's also in the 80's that the headscarve became a problem in France.

Note: There's a big difference between theoretical institutions in Turkey and äh... practical reality.

As I said before, this is complex and there are many layers involved. One layer is, the reappearence of the scarf is the defeat of westernisation. Modern thought imported from the west is the foundation of muslim fundamentalism, the political science of people trained in westernized schools or European and North-American universities themselves.

Further. The law that you call "ludicrious" is part of my cultural heritage. The right to have Religious neutral schools (and the duty to visit them)is one of the most important articles in the Swiss constitution. With roots back to 1798. The most important being "all Swiss are equal in front of the law", that dates also back to 1798 (recently amended with: And even if they are women).

With this deep imbeded equality in our society, do you know what kind of anathema segregation is? And as a result, one of the main functions of are schools is giving anyone fair and equal chances to make the best out of the talents their born with. As a result, schools have to be neutral in religious matters, because everyone has to be able to send his children to school without the fear of having them proselytised by some state religion.

Note the different history and traditions in anglo-saxon countries (oops, sorry, countries of the English speakers, I mean).

 

I was an Arabic Linguist for 5 years in the Navy. I was also considered a subject matter expert on the Middle East. Needless to say, I make a point to keep up my skills outside of the Navy, and so I am heavilly involved with the local Arabic-speaking community. When I speak about Muslims, I speak not only about folks I've worked with, but also of friends in my community (many of whom are new immigrants to the US).

Taluntain, I have never suggested that we shouldn't stop men from forcing their wives from dressing a certain way. What I said was that forcing women to dress in a manner that they consider indecent is every inch as bad, if not worse, than forcing them to dress in a manner more in step with our cultural sensibilities. It isn't right to judge another culture by the strictures of your own. No, I don't think people should be able to force a state of "house arrest" on their family, and I think the government should step in in such cases. There are ways to go about it successfully. Send in an interpreter along with the police, or (even better) send in a police interpreter who has sensitivity to her culture and traditions. (Not that I think that would ever happen. Good interpreters aren't cheap, and to put it bluntly, most Arabic linguists won't have enough command of dialect to be much use.)

[ February 24, 2006, 03:00: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

At the risk of going off-topic (but Tal started it so it must be OK), what on earth does an "Arab Linguist" in the Navy do?