Yes, it is about politics

So far I have kept out of the burkini row, considering it as a vast red herring, designed to take our attention away from more important matters, such as the spread of of Islamist ideology and also of unacceptable aspects of Islamic community behaviour such as the growth of Sharia courts. However, it has become such a big question that some comment needs to be made even though the Economist thinks that the row will now start dying down with the holiday season coming to an end. The Economist has been known to be wrong before in its predictions and, in any case, also thinks that this issue, which has now become linked to the whole subject of French identity in the light of terrorist attacks is likely to be important in the forthcoming presidential elections.

They are not wrong on the latter. Nicolas Sarkozy, who has announced his candidature, seems to be proposing a change in the French Constitution with an article that would ban burkinis. I cannot help feeling that is going a little over the top even by Sarkozy's standards.

First of all, I should like to get this out of the way: those burkinis are truly hideous and stupid garments. Why would you go to the beach or into the sea if practically every inch of you skin is covered? Possibly because you have been bullied by the men in your family and community (who, incidentally, do not cover themselves up but prefer to wear cool and open garments) or possibly because you have somehow accepted that this is of vital importance to the Muslim religion. Certainly, the link that has been displayed by protesters between a ban on burkini on beaches and Islamophobia would indicate that those people certainly believe that covering women from top to toe is central to their religion. A good many non-Muslims, either on the left or among supposed liberals and libertarians appear to support this point of view.

Apart from many articles on the subjects there were a few interesting developments. Hizonner the Mayor of London took it upon himself to lecture the Mayor of Paris (who, not having a beach handy, had not actually issued a ban) that women must not be told by anyone what they can and cannot wear. That is, of course, absolute piffle. Women and men are frequently told what they can and what they cannot wear in public places. I am sure Hizonner would not be too happy if any women decided to wander round in Nazi uniforms or KKK hoods (not that I am advocating that they should) though, I am equally sure, he would see nothing wrong in them wearing Maoist caps, Red Army insignia or t-shirts with pictures of that mass murderer Che Guevara.

In any case, is this the same Mayor of London whose first decision was to ban certain ads on the tube because he did not think women could be trusted to be able to deal with certain images of bodies without either getting impossibly depressed or rushing off to emulate the pictures? It would appear that Hizonner's thinking on the subject is somewhat erratic while his understanding of his own position and of the French constitutional structure non-existent.

So then we had the supreme French administrative court overturning the ban at Villeneuve-Loubet, which could have had implications for the other towns where it had been imposed except that those Mayors insisted on it continuing. Most people will leave those beaches this week-end at the latest with les vacances coming to an end, but not all. Will the row continue despite the Economist's prediction?

There is many an indignant comment from human rights organizations, Islamic groups and various so-called liberals and libertarians as well as those on the left who can be relied on to produce the usual waffle that these bans have nothing to do with security and everything to do with politics. Indeed so. But then the wearing of the burkini is a political decision. You may think that it is not worth getting excited about but let us not pretend: it is not a fashion or lifestyle choice, it is a political point made rather obviously and forcefully.

Consider some other garments whose use has grown in the last ten - fifteen years. It so happens that I have lived for years in areas where there have always been many Muslim families, shops and businesses. Most of them are either immigrants from the Indian sub-continent of their descendants. Until about fifteen years ago the women often wore traditional clothes that were light and comfortable and covered their heads, if at all, with a loose scarf. We did not even know the words hijab and niquab as they were of no importance in the societies we lived in. Any women in veils (niquab) or burquas (another word we have had to learn) were to be seen around Harrods or Harley Street. They were visitors.

All that has changed, partly because there are now more people here who have arrived from the Arab Middle East and North Africa but most importantly because clothing is being used to make political points. Far more women now wear tight scarves and even veils; even little girls are now covered up and wear those scarves. Those are not fashion choices. They may be lifestyle choices but, above all, they are political statements, as are the burkinis. They say something quite definite: we do not want to integrate, we insist on keeping in our separate communities and, most importantly, in those communities women are hidden away one way or another, unequal in their lives.

As it happens, there are certain complexities even in that. There are a good many young Muslim women of different backgrounds in Britain who do wear often highly colourful and excitingly patterned headscarves and wear what might be called "modest" clothing, i.e. trousers and long coats and jackets. They are also highly educated, in jobs and careers. It seems that hose headscarves are a matter of identity for them and the way they can reconcile their integration into British society with their background. This is a relatively new development and one cannot quite predict how it will work out. One knows young women who then marry equally advanced Muslim men or even men outside their religion and continue along the path of complete integration; one also hears stories of young women of that kind being put under pressure and worse by thir families and being forced to retreat into oppression and backwardness.

Should we fight the burkini? It's not precisely a problem in Britain but France is not that far away. On the whole, it is not quite as poisonous as the wearing of the niquab, that should be, at the very least, considered on the same level as any other clothing that hides the face. People are not allowed to wear motorcycle helmets? Then they should not be allowed to wear niquabs either. That seems fair enough. Of course, the veil is a symbol of the oppression of women and always has been. Should we legislate against it? That raises all sorts of other issues but the general move in opinion in a number of European countries is towards legislation, precisely because it is a political issue.

What of the burkini? My argument with people who are determined to get that hideous garment banned is that this is not a battle we could ever win. So, do not let us fight it. Beyond that, while I dislike the garment and really dislike the political point it makes I cannot help feeling that the women who go to the Riviera do have more privileges than most of their co-religionists. If they do not want to use those privileges to fight for their own and others' freedom and equality, as many very courageous women do in far worse circumstances and if they want to look like particularly inelegant versions of seals, maybe we should just leave them to it and concentrate on other battles.

Some thoughts on recent events

No, this is not about David Bowie about whom my feelings are lukewarm, at best. I refer to the events of New Year's Eve in Cologne and other Continental, particularly German cities as well as subsequent developments. My intention was not to write about it because there were so many people pontificating already but an exchange I had with a very well known journalist (no name, no pack drill, as they say) who thought that the official report, which confirmed that the Cologne attackers were "of migrant origin".When I asked why that is a surprise, given what we had heard from the women victims and why is it worse than if the attackers had lived in the country for a while, the reply was "because it plays into the hands of those wanting to sow division".

What can one make of that attitude? Can this journalist really think that the crimes are less important than the need to prevent "dissension", which cannot possibly be sown who think it is all right to attack women in the streets? Could this journalist have possibly preferred that the story of Cologne as many other similar but smaller stories had been buried by unsympathetic police officers and politicians? One cannot help suspecting that with this and many other journalists. After all, the media has been entirely complicit in the mess.

Other discussions I have had yielded some interesting moments as well. On a personal basis I can confirm that a good many people on the left are or are trying to be in denial about this. The number of assertions I have seen that this must have been a plot put together by the extreme right and other opponents of immigration is extraordinary. What that shows is the usual left-wing contempt for the people they allegedly support and a reluctance to understand that there are other cultures around and some of them are incompatible with ours. The notion that only Europeans or Americans are capable of deciding to do anything and everyone else simply follows instructions or gets caught up in a conspiracy is laughable but also dangerous. Yet there are many people around who do not even see anything wrong with that.

There have been the inevitable comments and articles about "feminists" being ready to sacrifice other women for their own rather skewed politically correct attitudes. That, I keep pointing out, is true only if we all accept that Guardian-type definition of a feminist being left-wing. Then it all becomes a general problem for the left. There are, however, many of us feminists, who believe in freedom and equality and who are not on the left. We have been discussing these issues for some time and intend to go on discussing them. Nobody, in my opinion, is more of a feminist than the Baroness Cox, who is fighting for the rights of women against Sharia law and who is much disliked by the left, including the so-called feminist left.

There are the inevitable arguments that we should look at male violence in general and not assume that some cultures encourage it more than others. Any discussion of that kind would take away attention from recent events and criminal activity and bog us down in pointless meanderings. Of course, there is something to be said for looking at the male violence angle but not quite what these people mean.

One of the big arguments against the decision to allow in refugees/migrants in large numbers (a decision that almost all European countries have been rejecting) was the fact that the majority of them were young men though enough women and children could be found for moving pictures in the media. Not only does that raise uncomfortable questions as to whether these are really refugees but should remind us that a sudden influx of tens of thousands young men is not that good a development and is unlikely to be conducive to keeping peace and law and order. When those young men come from societies, which have a very different attitude to women, then big trouble could be expected.

Unfortunately, having committed themselves to a certain series of actions, politicians together with the media that supported them and those entrusted with the preservation of law and order, preferred not to acknowledge that trouble was on its way. When it came (and that happened some time before this last New Year's Eve) official reaction was to dampen the fires, dismiss complaints, bury the news story and hope it will all go away. They may have feared a backlash, dissent, even violence aimed at the migrants but most of all it is their own position that was at risk and up with that they could not put.

As my friend and wise mentor John O'Sullivan put it on his Twitter feed:

Official silence, meant to prevent a backlash, fueled a backlash which, btw, is a racist term for critical opposition to foolish policies.

The story of violence against women at various occasions and in various parts of Europe (with Britain not exactly being exempt, what with our tales of gangs grooming young girls and years of official denial) has now become too big to suppress. The Police Chief of Cologne was thrown to the dogs and the Mayor of that city, having made some very stupid statements that basically blamed the victims, is whining that she has been attacked and criticized. The interview is well worth reading in full to see the political helplessness and need to blame everyone else. None of it is new but people have become less tolerant.

What we see here is quite normal for the political establishment. They make a colossal mistake or two, refuse to look at valid criticisms and discard any opposing ideas. When those criticisms turn out to be correct they find it impossible either to acknowledge it (with some exceptions) or to admit that the mess is now too big for them to deal with and they have no idea how to get out of it.

This has happened over and over again, the whole appalling mess of the eurozone being just one example. In the case of this particular mess there were two catastrophic decisions: one is to take in very large numbers of migrants/refugees from societies that are run on different principles without even a perfunctory check beyond the odd newspaper story; the other, older decision (and really it is hard to tell whether it was a decision or something that just happened) was not to insist that those who come to our countries and societies abide by our laws and our own cultural norms. That does not mean people cannot worship in their own way, wear clothes they prefer (though I have a rooted objection to the veil) or eat the food they like (that, above all). But there are more important issues such as the position of women in society. The decisions were challenged and criticized all along and these criticisms were dismissed as emanations of racism or xenophobia. Well, now the whirlwind is upon us.

Each to their own

Phyllis Chesler describes an encounter:

I recently spoke at length about Islamic gender and religious apartheid in the Arab and non-Arab Muslim world. This was, perhaps, the first time that anyone had ever focused on this subject at this distinguished Ivy League university.

I described both the level of poverty and illiteracy in the Arab and Muslim world and the absence of a free press, independent judiciary, human rights, and of the increasingly savage persecution of women, infidels, dissidents and homosexuals; about the prisons teeming with thousands of Muslim political prisoners who had been kidnapped and were now being tortured for “thought crimes.”

I described a culture in which women were arrested, whipped, gang-raped, and then either hung or stoned to death for alleging rape or for daring to leave dangerously abusive husbands; a culture that has spawned death-eating terrorists who have exposed Muslim and Arab civilians to permanent, bloody danger; and about how these cunning, brazen jihadists have now expanded their global reach and unleashed their bombs and suicide killers against the entire world.

I argued that, in effect, the demonization of Israel by the media, by governments, international bodies, human rights organizations, and university professors allowed the world to self-righteously bypass, minimize, avoid, utterly disappear Muslim-on-Muslim and Muslim-on-infidel tyranny and torture. Scapegoating Israel is what focuses attention away from the larger suffering in the Middle East and in the Muslim world in general.

And then a young, well-spoken, earnest, curly-headed college student asked this question: “You are talking about diverting attention away from the real issues, right? But, if we focus on the absence of freedom or the absence of women’s rights in the Middle East won’t that divert our attention away from the Settlement issue?”

One can, of course, argue about those Settlements but it is perplexing that a reasonably intelligent (one assumes) and well-meaning young man should consider the issue to be more important that the absence of freedom and the absence of women's rights in the Middle East. Yet he is not alone either in not ever bothering to hear that side of the story or in dismissing it as soon as he has heard it. I can only suppose that deep in his heart this young man (and many others like him) do not think such matters are of any importance when it applies to Arabs or Iranians (who, as it happens, do not mind being called Persians). Because they are not like us, see?

Business as usual at the UN

Tom Gross reports on National Review Online that the UN has elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women. Yes, that Iran. The one where stoning is enshrined in law and women are lashed if they are "dressed immodestly".

The official press release from the UN buries the news a long way down but the relevant paragraph says:

Next, the Council elected 11 new members to fill an equal number of vacancies on the Commission on the Status of Women for four-year terms beginning at the first meeting of the Commission’s fifty-sixth session in 2011 and expiring at the close of its fifty-ninth session in 2015. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Zimbabwe were elected from the Group of African States; Iran and Thailand were elected from the Group of Asian States; Estonia and Georgia were elected from the Group of Eastern European States; Jamaica was elected from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Netherlands and Spain were elected from the Group of Western European and Other States.

Not onlhy Iran but DR Congo as well, where women are systematically raped by various militias in ways that I cannot bring myself to write about on this blog and are then hounded from their communities for being "spoilt". Remind me, what is the point of the United Nations?

The women of Gaza

The most extraordinary aspect of modern feminism is their insane support for all sorts of anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israeli countries and organizations. Why should anyone who cares about women's rights and liberties be on the side of Israel, for instance? Because it is the only country in the Middle East where those rights and liberties are taken for granted. What of Gaza, the non-functioning Palestinian state that so many people spend their time supporting?

Here is Phyllis Chessler on the story of the journalist and writer Asma'a Al-Ghoul, who has written very movingly at the rapid enslavement of the Palestinian women, who had been among the best educated, most advanced of the female Arab population.

Ms Chessler tells of what happened when Asma'a was on the beach and wore nothing but jeans and a t-shirt. Immodesty, followed by arrest and the beating up of her male companions, as well as threats of further action. She also publishes the first part of Asma'a Al-Ghoul's own essay. It is one of the most depressing documents I have seen for a long time but, I suspect, that American and British feminist writers and organizations will continue to lambast Israel and, probably, President Sarkozy for starting a movement to ban the burqua.