Visiting the Hijab… Again.

Farah

Last month a forum was held at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas focussing on Islam and feminism. Called “Beyond the Veil: Islam and Feminism”, it involved Dr Professor Gary Bouma, a sociology academic at Monash University, Zainah Anwar, founder of Malaysian group Sisters in Islam (SIS) and a founding director of Musawah and Dr Shakira Hussein, an academic at ANU.

So with big expectations about the forum and the issues that would (potentially) be discussed, the title irritates me. Articles with the title beyond/under/underneath/uncovering/taking off/doing something to the hijab/veil/burka and other similar metaphors fixate on items of clothing and taking them off. The moderator mentioned that the word “beyond” was chosen because they wanted a discussion on Islam and feminism which included the hijab in the discussion but wasn’t fixated on it. It’s a valid sentiments but it could’ve been done without the reference to it.

The forum goes over 1 hour long and some interesting points were made (you can download the podcast here). In this post I wanted to focus on a few points made in the debate. For me the most interesting aspect was hearing Zainah Anwar speak. The development of gender politics in South East Asia is a really interesting area and I’ve done some research focusing on the work Sisters in Islam do in Malaysia. Throughout the forum Anwar highlights the challenge she believes Muslim feminists pose by questioning the authority of male-dominated institutions – “who decides this is the verse that determines the relationship between men and women? Who decides which interpretation will be favoured over the other?” The question of ‘authority’ is a significant one. Women’s groups are operating within a traditionally male-dominated environment. Law and social reform by these groups is met with a constant stream of arguments against their struggle in order to silence these dissenting voices within society. The recent experience of SIS highlights this point. They spoke out against the caning of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, but have been accused of being agents for foreign anti-Islamic groups. On this issue I’d add to Anwar that (it’s clichéd but true) history is written by people with authority – people who shape our understanding of past events. For Islam this means that a rich history of women’s leadership and empowerment is denied to women. Like Anwar states, these are tactics used by men to maintain the status quo: to silence and delegitimize dissenting voices in society.

Early in the forum Hussein mentions an important point on discussions of Islam. Women are included in the discussion but are routinely sidelined to discuss only the hijab, whereas men are given the space and power to discuss everything else which affects Muslims. Krista at MMW made a similar point when reviewing a forum organised by ISNA. Another point which Hussein highlights is the obsession with the hijab. The hijab continues to be the focal point of the discussion on Islam and women’s rights especially among non-Muslims (Chesler v Wolf, anyone?) While discussion on Islamic feminism should go further than the hijab, Muslim women respond to those writers because our voices should be included within the debate. But the same issues get repeated again and again and it’s difficult to try and move beyond that discussion because so much of the focus is on the hijab. It’s something I’ve encountered here at Nuseiba – I’ve written a lot of non-hijab posts but there’s an equal amount of posts focussing on the hijab. I think I’ve discussed the hijab more on this blog than anywhere else which is a little odd for me sometimes because I don’t have that much experience with it. In the end, the constant focus on the hijab obscures the real issue: challenging the structures which perpetuate the disempowerment of women.

Another point which was mentioned in the forum and is often overlooked is the diversity among Muslim woman’s dress. For the majority of Muslim women the distinction isn’t as simple as being veiled/unveiled. Hussein discusses her experiences in Pakistan, and their quite similar to mine with the Kashmiris I know. I mentioned above that I don’t have much experience with the hijab and I don’t – in my family and wider community there’s only 3 women who wear the hijab. However, while women don’t wear the hijab, they do veil when the situation requires them to. Most of the women, including my mother, wear shalwar kameez and cover their hair with their dupattas when they need too. Veiling and unveiling is more a continuum of experience rather than a strict dichotomy. There are women who wear hijab and women who don’t, there are some women who fall in between those two positions, some women used to wear the hijab but decided to stop, some don’t wear the hijab but want to, some who don’t at all but wear modest clothes otherwise and not all women who wear hijab do so in the same way. These sound like simple enough points to be making but its a diversity which is often overlooked in debates on women’s dress in Islam. In the end, there are no easy cookie cutter categories to slot in Muslim women. The hijab represents just one aspect of that diversity.

One of the questions asked by the audience at the end of the forum was whether western feminists have a place commenting on Muslim women. It’s an issue that’s come up time and time again, on this blog and elsewhere. Both Anwar and Hussein stressed that in regards to gender politics within Islam Muslim women must lead the way to change. Feminists decrying the Taliban were criticised for taking up that struggle ahead of the women they were ‘liberating’. Afghan women were sidelined in the debate and denied the agency to fight their own struggle. Anwar also mentions an important point which Hussein has also mentioned elsewhere – imposed solutions do not work. You can’t force liberation on people. Anwar cites the example of Amina Lawal where Nigerian women’s groups criticised the action taken by international human rights groups. The Nigerian women wanted to challenge their own legal system. Muslim women need to win the battle domestically so that the change is rooted within social practice and is sustainable over the long term. However, whether this means that western non-Muslim feminists are completely precluded from commenting on issues effecting Muslim women wasn’t ruled out by Anwar or Hussein. My own position is to say leave it alone. But while would be great if non-Muslim feminists stopped talking endlessly about the hijab and burqa and polygamy etc I don’t think they ever will. One commentator on Sahar’s last post said that Sahar wasn’t leaving much room for Western non-Muslim feminists to enter into a conversation about ‘global feminist interests’. Ultimately, maybe that’s the problem – the assumption that they have an interest at stake in the discussion on women’s rights within Islam.

While the forum didn’t completely challenge my ideas on Islam and feminism, the speakers mentioned some very interesting points – things which tend to be overlooked. Overall, the forum is a good introduction to the diversity of opinion in Islam and gender politics.

The Permission to Narrate

Sahar

Feminists Naomi Wolf and Philis Chesler have recently been debating the topic of the ‘veil’ and Muslim women. It’s become somewhat of a heated debate with both sides claiming they have a better insight into the lives of Muslim women. This audacious insight of course does not actually rely on actual engagement with Muslim women, nor the participation of Muslim women in this debate– aside from brief references that are then interpreted and made to make sense through the position of both women.

Just a brief overview of the debate first:  Wolf’s experience in Morocco led her to make the following claim that Muslim women are not necessarily restricted by their religious attire (chador and headscarf) and in fact feel liberated, especially sexually. From these observations, Wolf calls for a more nuanced approach in understanding women’s freedom. Chesler has responded with the charge that Wolf is legitimizing oppressive practices and responds with outrageous statements that conclude with the following: Muslim women are oppressed in Islamic attire, they lack agency, and the Western approach to liberation is more fitting.

What interested me was the assumption of these women to debate the issue of the hijab (whatever forms of it) and the experiences of Muslim women without involving a practicing Muslim woman who observes the hijab or at least be a part of the community and faith that practices it,  and thus be more qualified on the subject.

Wolf attempts to recognise the opinions of Moroccan women and speaks on their experiences, but her own understanding of Islam, Muslim women or even the subject of Muslim dress seems to be too difficult for her when she confuses Pakistani dress (‘shalwar kameez’) with Moroccan Islamic dress which can come in the form of niqaab, abaya, jilbaba or just modestly dressed in loose pants/skirt/top and a headscarf.  So Wolf not only ignores the differences in cultural dress—for the Muslim world is just one monolithic entity anyway– these differences don’t really exist and can all fall under the category of ‘traditional dress’ conveniently juxtaposed against Western ‘modern dress’. By wearing any traditional Muslim dress (‘shalwar kazmeez’), Wolf thinks she has direct access to the experiences of Muslim women. Dress therefore becomes the embodiment of Muslim women’s lives, and a way to access their world.

As for Chesler, she too does not have much credibility (not that she does in the first place considering her inane islamophobic and racist views on Palestinians and Muslims as a whole) when she declares that ‘most’ Muslim girls and women are not given a choice in wearing any Islamic dress.  She supports her claims by shamelessly citing two women (Hirsi Ali and Nouri Darwish) who have publicly renounced Islam and have built their careers on feeding Islamophobic hysteria in the West.  So Muslim women are spoken for either through an Islamophobic feminist or apostates who work for right-wing American think tanks bent on demonizing Muslims and Islam.

Putting these absurdities aside, I also find it telling how the debate treats Muslim women as objects in an exhibition, as spectacles, who function as objects to be analysed, observed, dissected, commented and repackaged to be easily consumed by a Western audience. Muslim women’s voices are only heard through interpretation of two white women (the subject) who assume the permission to narrate what it is like to be a Muslim woman who chooses to cover her head, in whatever form.

The alienness of Muslim culture is retold in the language of universalism (western norms and feminist ideals) to ease the anxiety of the Western observer towards difference. We see this in how Wolf insists that there are similar sentiments behind Islamic dress that Western feminists can relate to “This may not be expressed in a traditional Western feminist set of images, but it is a recognisably Western feminist set of feelings”.  Or in the intimacy of Muslim homes, the presence of designer labels like Victoria Secret is comforting. Muslim mores are measured against white Western standards and only legitimised and accepted once shared values and practices are recognised. To send the reassuring message: “see, they are just like ‘us’”.

The notion of white being a signifier of objectivity is imperative here. Wolf, like the colonial traveler, is an objective observer who can participate in the local customs and wear the traditional dress– yet can remain ‘detached’ from her surrounding in order to make perceptive observations that can be taken away for examination.  Thus, both women’s subjectivities as white, upper-middle class Western women are not called into question when they speak on behalf of Muslim women in this debate. It is in fact this same subjectivity that permits them to narrate for Muslim women.  They speak with an unquestionable authority as whiteness has a moral-worth of its own masquerading as universal and never questioned.

So it is not that Muslim women are silenced by her hijab, as many white  feminists like to claim, but because they are made to be silent by those who wish to speak for them.

Princess Hijab

Farah

I was going to write a response to this article by Phyllis Chesler. Her article contains gems of wisdom like “most Muslim girls and women are impoverished and wear rags” and “I am told that the Saudis fly in fresh planeloads of Parisian prostitutes every week.” But I’m getting a little tired of repeating the same arguments over and over. Instead, I want to write about Princess Hijab, the creation of a Parisian guerrilla street artist. Princess Hijab uses the imagery of the niqab to subvert commercial imagery by drawing then onto billboards and posters, and also tags with her ‘Hijab-ad’ prints.

In an interview at Menassat Princess Hijab cites a number of different influences on her work, including “the Woman. No logo from Naomi Klein, The anti-advertising movement… the gender movements… the straight edge, the nerd-centrism, atheism symbolism, urban legends, the allegories and the new myths.” I remember reading No Logo eight years ago; I think it was probably the first (proper) non-fiction book I had read (well, it was either that or Merinissi’s The Veil and the Male Elite – I can’t really remember that far back anymore). I’m not sure if I understood it all back at 15 (so, so long ago) but it was a big wake up. Later at uni I would re-visit and (badly) write about one of the central topics of Klein’s book: what she refers to as “semiotic Robin Hoodism”: culture jamming.

Culture jamming seeks to hijack and politicise the message of mass culture’s main language: advertisements. Adbusters is probably the most well-known organisation (whether or not they continue to uphold their same principles is debatable) and like the stuff Adbusters do Princess Hijab’s art does share a critique of mass culture and consumerism. But, Princess Hijab “does not subvert images in an American way.” Which I can understand – culture jamming I’ve seen is largely ignorant of non-Western experiences. Her approach is unique because she infuses her art with an identity politics; she appropriates an image used by mass culture to symbolise oppression and subjugation and subverts it to challenge dominant constructs of women, Islam and femininity.

In her own words, “Princess Hijab knows that L’Oréal and Dark & Lovely have been killing her little by little. She feels that the veil is no longer that white. She feels contaminated … By day, she wears a white veil, symbol of purity. By night, her black veil is the expression of her vengeful fight for a cause.” She states she isn’t linked to any political ideology or group, but it’s hard to deny the relationship between art, culture and power evident through her work. Through her art she creates sites of resistance both disruptive and creative: sites where opposition can be mounted but also where the viewer can meaningfully engage with the content.

One of the criticisms of her art is that it is too simplistic to offer an alternative to the ideology of mass culture. But I think the criticism is unwarranted –We all use discursive techniques in which we’re fluent; for me its writing. For Princess Hijab it’s taking an image used to symbolize oppression, appropriating it and using it to represent something entirely different – a meaning we have to construct for ourselves. And culture jamming relies on the immediacy of the image and the interaction between viewer and viewed.

Advertising renders nearly anything a brand; it mines culture for its ideas, representations and forms. And in this era of visual marketing, Princess Hijab explores notions of public space and representation, challenging ideological constructs and representations with her distinctive imagery. Her work is an example of how semiotic guerrilla warfare can be used to counter the symbolist imagery adopted by mass culture.

Whether you realise it or not, you are in the midst of a culture war. The key element in the forthcoming struggle will be a battle for domination of key concept areas. It is necessary for us to predict future developments and invest our energies in ‘fringe’ activities where we judge that the issues will become key ones at a later date. Not only issues but the very language is used to formulate the debate must reflect our thinking. If we cannot yet produce our own culture (which we shall strive towards), we should seek to act as a perceptual filter for the mass culture which surrounds us.

Counter Culture helps you win.

Excerpt from An Anthology of Counter Culture edited by Peter Harrington, Tim Bragg and Terry Burgoyne.

An Unwanted Spokeswoman

Sahar

I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I read Mark Landler of The New York Times’ interview with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Reminiscent of a colonial-style arrogance, the brazen title of the interview, ‘Saving the World’s Woman—A New Gender Agenda’ set the mood of the interview.

In the interview, Clinton is asked a series of questions in which she highlights political, economic and social problems facing women  today, and what she considers  ‘solutions’.  We are given the impression that she wants to be remembered for her contribution in alleviating the problems women are facing.

I find it remarkable that Clinton– who assumes the role of spokeswoman for all women in the world—is talking about global women’s rights, while concurrently a part of a government that has wrought so much havoc on many in the developing countries specifically mentioned in the interview (India, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq).

I wasn’t surprised by her attempt to present herself as a representative of women, considering she ran in the Presidential elections under such a rubric.  However, her policy stance on women seems disjointed and incongruous when you consider she is known for her hawkish stance on numerous issues like nuclear weapons and Iran, national security and the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to academic Stephen Zunes, she has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that have horrendous human rights violations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.  She has insisted upon unconditional funding for the disastrous and illegal war in Iraq and further increase in military spending.

Clinton asserts “ I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential”.

Putting aside the contention of a normative discourse on universal human rights, theoretically, Clinton, like any Western leader, adheres to this liberal notion and stresses the importance of universal human rights, yet, she has questioned the credibility of known human rights organisations like Amnesty International when they’ve criticised the policies of the U.S. and its allies.  Moreover, she has also been an outspoken critic of the UN, opting for a unilateral stance in international politics.

She further states “Women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy”—yet her historical record suggests either she is being disingenuous or is oblivious to the implications of her policies on women in particular.

Knowing the implications of war with Iran because of the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has eagerly continued with a hawkish stance on confronting Iran where in which she has described the Iranian ‘threat’ as unacceptable and suggesting a military strategy is possible. Early this year she vehemently defended the abhorrent Israeli invasion of Gaza which killed over 1000 civilians.  Just this month she has finalised a defense agreement with India to ensure US companies sell sophisticated arms to New Delhi.  Clinton states that she travels and talks about women’s rights and raises women’s concerns with leaders while simultaneously ensuring the imperial praxis remains.  It’s difficult to imagine how women’s lives are improved when she encourages and in fact openly endorses increasing militarism in countries like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan—rather than on development to ensure political, economic and social stability. There is no mention of the structural mechanisms in place which generate North-South inequalities and maintain them via neo-liberal policies. These global economic policies create an unsafe environment for women and children who are vulnerable to war and poverty. Clinton would much rather blame women’s oppression on religious fundamentalism and global terrorism.

 “If you look at where we are fighting terrorism, there is a connection to groups that are making a stand against modernity, and that is most evident in their treatment of women”. What Clinton fails to understand, or purposely ignores is that the Islamic movements she is alluding  to are modernist movements which are resisting U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. They are not simply resisting because of their hate of freedom, so the Bush administration mantra went—rather, they are modern in their own right and challenging a Western hegemony and a colonial modernity that is being imposed on them in the guise of economic exploitation and Western consumer culture.

With glaring audacity she continues,

“What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally?”

Clearly it’s in Clinton’s best interest as a representative of a government responsible for so many of the conflicts raging in many Muslim countries, to ignore the historical and political context in which women’s issues can be better understood.  The cultural violence that has ensued by Western countries in the ‘developing’ world harks back to colonialism and perpetuated today in similar policies of exploitation and domination.  The throwing of acid can only be understood within such a context in order to read it accurately as a response to the encroachment on national sovereignty and the cultural life of these people—where women often are seen as the cultural/national symbol. Thus, instability ensures women become a prime target of preserving what is perceived to be cultural losses.

If Clinton was genuine about wanting to help women (which I certainly doubt she is) she should– along with her ‘white sisters’– stop basking in the colonial glory of ‘saving’ women in developing countries.  Instead, she should acknowledge her complicity in ensuring that current oppressive political and economic structures remain, which reinforces a dichotomy of power and powerless that has had disastrous effects on global politics, particularly on the lives of women. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, Angela Merkel and “well built” female lawyers

Farah

One of the commenters on my burka ban post a couple of weeks ago led me to the story of Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein – a Sudanese journalist who was arrested along with 11 other women in a Khartoum café for breaking Sudanese indecency laws by wearing trousers. While 10 of her companions have pleaded guilty to the offence, al-Hussein has decided to challenge the law. She has come out quite strongly against the indecency laws, and has declared that she is willing to take her case to the highest court in Sudan and, if they do not rule in her favour, she is willing to be lashed “not 40, but 40,000 times”.

She was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “Islam does not say whether a woman can wear trousers or not … It is not about religion, it is about men treating women badly.” Similarly, in her article “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body” published in Al-Horreya newspaper shortly after al-Hussein’s arrest Sudanese journalist Amal Habbani also highlights that this law and the treatment of al-Hussein was “not about fashion but a political tactic to intimidate and terrorize opponents.” Habbani has since been charged and fined by the government after the article was published.

Sudan has a long history of women’s activism, and the strong support Sudanese women and men have given Al-Hussein has been highlighted over the past weeks. This activism stretches back to the 1989 coup that put the NIF in power. In “Gender Politics and Islamization in Sudan” Sondra Hale highlights that women were at the forefront of the 1989 coup. She notes that women were far more than “the ‘Greek chorus’ of the Islamic revolution. They [were] the central organizers and socializers … these women were not only learning and interpreting Islam for themselves and other women, but were also militant, independent in spirit, and effective organizers in the movement.” Leaders like Hasan al-Turabi came out in strong support of the role of women in the new Sudan, including in his pamphlet “On the Position of Women in Islam and in Islamic Society” published in 1973. But Hale questions whether or not women can sustain such an activist role now that the NIF is consolidating their control. Take for example the indecency laws. They are a part of a broader campaign in which women are re-socialized and religious ideas and institutions manipulated to form new power relationships. But the campaign verges on essentializing Islam; women’s behavior in the name of the ‘ideal woman’ is being ideologically manipulated by male-controlled religio-political institutions.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein. Image via Sudan Tribune

The focus is solely been on her right to wear trousers, while ignoring the broader issue. This approach is adopted by the articles I found trawling through my Google search. People say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but honestly I think that award should go to the pun. Some of the more (lamer) article titles I came across were:

• “al-Hussein wears the pants”
• “Lubna Hussein, standing up to Sudanese law on who wears the pants”
and other predictable variations on “Guess who wear’s the pants”, “blah blah pants wearing”. Alternatively, there was
• “Fashion statement: A Sudanese woman risks a flogging over pants” (fashion statement? Really?)
• “Lubna Hussein makes an ass of the law”
• “Trouser martyr”
• “Martyr to her trousers”
which is probably a bit much – she’s not dead so can we lay off the martyr talk?

Discussions of appropriate clothing are certainly not restricted to Muslim women. In 2006 Australian judge Peter Young said that some ‘well built’ female lawyers wore inappropriately revealing clothing. In an opinion piece, he stated “It is clear that some female solicitors have no idea of appropriate court dress. The worst offenders are usually well-built women who expose at least the upper halves of their breasts, and as they lean forward to make a point to a judge sitting at a high level they present a most unwelcome display of bare flesh.” The opinion of a respected member of society in a country where supposedly ‘democratic’ values prevail – and that was only a couple of years ago. More recently (and when I say recent I mean yesterday) German Chancellor Angela Merkel and politician Vera Lengsfeld (both members of the conservative party) have come under fire for publishing an election ad campaign where both wore low-cut dresses which showed ample amounts of cleavage – apparently the ad lowered the tone of the election and was ‘inappropriate’.

While Merkel, Lengsfeld and all those well-built female lawyers aren’t breaking laws, people’s attitudes remain the same. I’m not downplaying the significance of al-Hussein’s situation; there is a concern she could be flogged and I don’t agree with laws that prosecute against ‘indecent’ clothing, whether that clothing is trousers or burqas. But the issue here is a lot bigger than just a right to wear pants and focussing on that right alone obscures the broader issue. In a second article called “Alienation and Belonging—Women’s Citizenship and Emanciation: Visions for Sudan’s Post-Islamist Future”, Hale notes that “one of the unanswered questions … is why women are … superficially on the agenda … and, yet, a vision for what a gender egalitarian society would look like is glossed over or ignored.” The right of a woman to control her own body emerges in a number of contexts in all countries in a number of areas, including right to wear clothing free from legal constraints. These issues relate to broader questions about the role of women. What is deemed appropriate/inappropriate in certain contexts? Do we have a right to dictate by law the choices women make? And what type of national identity is being dictated to women, and being constructed over our bodies?

While we wait for an answer to those questions, I want to start a campaign. Not about al-Hussein – she already has ample support both in Sudan and across the world (Sarkozy has even jumped on the bandwagon). My campaign? Free Merkel and Lengsfeld’s cleavage from our traditional and backward attitudes. Do you want a society in which your daughter can’t show off her cleavage (if she has any, and if she doesn’t she can always get implants – not that I’m suggesting your daughter conform to a particular standard of beauty)? Come on people, do it for the kids.

Mistranslations and Finger-Pointing – Revisiting Stolen

Farah

A couple of weeks ago my post on the documentary Stolen generated a whole discussion about whether or not slavery exists in the Tindouf refugee camps in Western Sahara. Is there, isn’t there, it went on and on (even though I distinctly remember saying the post wasn’t discussing whether or there was slavery, but rather about the abuse of Fetim’s story for the uses of others.) But never mind. I decided to reserve my opinion on the existence of slavery in the region until after I watched the film. On Friday I had that opportunity (it was screened as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival) but unfortunately for Fallshaw and Ayala I’m still undecided about the whole issue, and that’s even looking past the fact that it was badly directed.

Fetim (right), with two of her children. Courtesy MIFF.

First, let’s get my major criticism of the film’s structure out of the way. The bulk of the film is shot in the refugee camps, but there are also scenes in Europe, the US and other parts of Africa. One of the biggest problems with the way they’ve structured the movie is that the setting shifts and changes without so much as signposts for the audience. They jump around from France to Geneva to Mauritania to Morocco to New York to Casablanca. Other scenes are thrown in of sitting in airplanes and collecting luggage at airports – but hardly any clarification is given as to where they actually are. Admittedly this isn’t an issue which deters from their central message (of slavery in the refugee camps) but it makes me think the documentary was hastily finished and just really slapped together – and it’s not a great first impression to make.

There are two main problems I have with the film itself. Halfway through the documentary they realise the PLF is out to get them; they bury their tapes in the desert, get detained by the PLF, and after a few hours of negotiation are released on the proviso that they cannot re-enter the camps. The problem is how they get the tapes out of the camps and eventually, out of the region. Assistance is provided by a mysterious Moroccan government official named Mohammed Reda. He tells them the tapes can be smuggled out in a Moroccan diplomatic bag, as long as Ayala and Fallshaw go to an UN-sponsored talk to be held in New York and raise the issue of slavery with the Polisario representative, and also hold a press conference highlighting slavery in the camps. They then proceed to do so. Later the tapes and the directors are reunited in a dingy hotel room – Fallshaw ripping open the plastic bag they were buried in and shaking the sand out of the cases. It’s all very emotional – I was so moved I nearly cried. Tears aside, do the words selling out come to anyone’s mind? In the Q and A session after the film, Fallshaw says doing what Reda wanted was the only option open to them to get their tapes out of the country. Yes they got the story of ‘slavery’ out, but at what cost? By becoming puppets for Moroccan government?

Later they travel to Geneva to question Ursula Aboubacar (the Deputy Director of the UNHCR Bureau for Middle East & North Africa) regarding slavery in the camps. Aboubacar has since denounced the film and questioned her representation; accusing the directors of manipulating what was supposedly a 1hr long interview into a 2 minute sound bite (a transcript of the part of the interview shown in the documentary can be accessed here). Aboubacar says in her email to the directors:

“While you continued to focus on slavery practices in the camps only, I explained that slavery is an issue to be seen in a regional, traditional and cultural practice which will take a long time to completely eradicate. This was the only moment I mentioned the camps as, per se, they are part of the sub-region. Again you manipulated these statements in the most abusive way and took them out of their context for your own purposes.”

Aboubacar highlights the biggest issue I have of the film – the film focuses solely on the practices within the camps. We are given no context, no dynamics, no nothing – the filmmakers don’t tell us the history of the Sahrawi people or from whence they came or anything at all. While it is a complex history and would be difficult to condense, the documentary isn’t overly long – at 1hr 20mins surely they could’ve provided some context – something at least better than what was shown. David Dorward (former head of African Studies at La Trobe University) states, the film “doesn’t adequately deal with ingrained cultural complexities… Legally, the descendants of slaves have [equal rights], but in reality they are second class citizens right across Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania… What they are talking about is racial prejudice. The film takes the notion of slavery and imposes a Western view of a much more complex caste system.”

Like my sister said afterward, the whole film was an exercise in selective finger pointing.

Burqas, Bans and Feeble Women

Farah

I was a bit reluctant to add my voice to the “Do we ban the burqa?” debate considering the excellent stuff that’s been written, including Sahar’s response and Shakira Hussein’s post at new site South Asian Masala. I’m also aware of the dangers of endless debate on the burqa – Islam and Muslims are lot more diverse than a single item of clothing. But the debate took on a distinct Australian tone when a number of Australian journalists voiced their opinions. Jill Singer (journalist at Herald Sun) put in her 2 cents – falling in favour of a ban. She writes that the burqa is “all such a load of male supremacist tosh… the burka sends all sorts of messages that are anathema to ideals of freedom and gender equality.” I then found this op-ed by Australian journalist Virginia Haussegger “Ban the unAustralian burka” she writes. The Australian National University then hosted a public debate featuring Haussegger, Julie Posetti, and Shakira Hussein – the latter two arguing against a ban.

A lot of writers (including Posetti and Hussein) against a ban point out that a number of women actively choose to wear the burqa or niqab. While the burqa has been used by groups to subjugate women, these writers highlight the need to identify the agency of these Muslim women, rather than denying them that agency which a ban would do. But Haussegger quickly dismisses this argument. She writes:

“I abhor the burka, and the niqab. I hate what it does to women … I am furious that some women will continue to choose to wear it. But then, throughout history, feeble women who are afraid of modernity, have always been complicit in their own oppression.”

Feeble women complicit in their own oppression? Gee Haussegger the respect you have for your fellow women really shines through your writing. She disregards the experience of the individual woman wearing the burqa; it is less important than what the burqa symbolises. She continues:

“The burka … and the niqab … [are] … tool[s] of patriarchy used to subjugate women. This shroud of cloth thrown over women defies freedom. It is a symbol of control. Wearing it signifies an acceptance of segregation of the sexes.”

My problem is that her argument it’s too simplistic; burqa = subjection and oppression, no burqa = freedom. And I don’t remember when stark dichotomies that replicated Orientalist assumptions actually helped anyone. When analysing a burqa it’s important to keep in mind that it’s a powerful, loaded symbol and operates within a broader discourse. In Mythologies Roland Barthes’s suggested that signs could be used as signifiers for other concepts; those concepts he identified as mythologies formed to perpetuate an idea of society. The myths are artificial constructions, adding a new layer of meaning over text and speech. He highlights that what we accept as being a natural, inductive relationship between the text and the myth is in fact an illusory reality constructed in order to mask the real structure of power.

In her approach Haussegger uses the burka as a loaded symbolic text for an idea – the oppression and subjugation of women. And like Barthes notes, to symbolize is to be. So, even if a garment does not literally restrict, if it signifies restriction then the garment restricts all those who wear it, freely chosen or not. But the myth of oppression constructed around the burqa deprives the burqa of substance; the burqa is distorted to suit the needs of the myth. Though it remains within the concept, it is “half-amputated … deprived of memory … [it is] speech wholly at the service of the concept. The concept, literally, deforms, but does not abolish the meaning … it alienates it.”

Another important point to acknowledge is that Haussegger assumes that all those oppressed Muslim will tear of their burqa’s and proclaim liberation were a ban in place. Unfortunately not many pro-ban writers acknowledge that forced removal of a vital part of a woman’s identity will see those women further retreat from the public into the home. We are all too aware of the “women need to be liberated” rhetoric adopted by the Bush regime in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Well the Taliban are gone and the Afghan women are liberated – they no longer need to wear their burqas! And yet, Taliban or not the situation of women has barely improved – the majority of women (including Malalai Joya whom Hausseggar loves to cite as supporting her argument) continue to wear the burqa for security reasons. Similarly, at crikey Durkhanai Ayubi writes, “If a ban on the “unAustralian” burqah were to be accepted, women who choose to wear one will be further alienated from society.” It also reminds me of a post Faith wrote over at MMW regarding a Dutch anti-discrimination ad campaign. And as Hussein points out in the ANU public debate, you can’t force liberation onto women.

I’m not denying the use of the burqa to oppress and subjugate women. But to then deny that the burqa inhabits a number of uses and roles along with oppression is to deny the inherent dynamism of the burqa. Linking it to one myth and generalising that experience to the whole of Muslim women is patronising and smacks of neo-colonialism. As Nazish Brohi argues in her article “At the Altar of Subalternity: The Quest for Muslim Women in the War on Terror Pakistan after 9/11″, “this selective invocation is reducing spaces for women’s personal identity formation and its political articulation, and by coopting the very language of women’s rights and empowerment and investing in it political strategies, has rendered it ineffective.” And the lingering question remains: banning a garment, a single piece of clothing, doesn’t necessarily combat the ideology that is used when the burqa is forced onto women. A ban would be an empty, symbolic gesture perpetuating another myth and another power structure: Australia’s control over the Others in our midst, dictating that “we” know about democracy, Australian-ness and compassion while “they” do not.

During the debate Haussegger referred to French minister Fadela Amara and her organisation Ni putes ni soumises, “Neither Whores Nor Submissives”, arguing that Amara is a Muslim feminist who also supports the ban on the burqa. In a second post written after the public debate Haussegger also highlights Mona Eltahawy’s anti-burqa stance published at the New York Times. Sahar’s already responded to Eltahawy a couple of weeks ago, and it’s enough to note here that Amara’s organisation and her views have come under fire for supporting a racist, essentialised construction of women and Islam. What I wanted to highlight is the way in which Haussegger is using Amara and Eltahawy opinions as native informers. In her article “Should I Go and Pull Her Burqa Off? Feminist Compulsions, Insider Consent, and a Return to Kandahar” Usamah Ansari analyses the role of the native informer within the context of the documentary “Return to Kandahar”. She argues that women like Eltahawy and Amara are “Orientalized insider subject[s] who mediate the audience’s encounter with the Other… [they are] positioned within a supposedly traditional society and yet also exposed enough to modernity to speak to the audience.” Their voices are legitimised by Haussegger more so than Rabiah Hutchinson, an Australian Muslim convert who freely choses to wear the burqa but whose choice is dismissed by Haussegger because “not all choices are good choices.” Haussegger also states that Hutchinson has also made several bad choices in the past, so we can’t really rely on her as providing an alternative approach to the burqa. The inherent danger with relying on the views of Eltahawy and Amara is that it obscures the multitude of Muslim women who speak out in favour of a more dynamic construct of the burqa. Instead of relying on Eltahawy and Amara’s voices as being an ‘authentic’ view of how things should change ‘over there’, we must interrogate how their views relate to and contribute to the reductive approach to Islam and women’s experiences. And as Ansari concludes, “this interrogation helps challenge the essentialist notion that, by virtue of her insider status [their] testimony ‘‘rightly’’ provides a picture of how [the] community should be. Thus, by questioning the authentic insider we challenge the very foundations of consents to imperialism.”

The last op-ed I’d like to point you to is one by Australia’s biggest neo-con journalist – Andrew Bolt. I stopped reading the pseudo-journalism he churns out a long time ago but I find myself in the uneasy position of for once not thinking he’s a complete tosser. In his op-ed he notes, “I’d say I agreed the burqa was offensive, oppressive and divisive. I’d be very glad if it were removed from Australia, but I’d rather wage that battle with opinions than bans.” Andrew Bold not arguing in favour of a ban?? Admittedly, there are still shades of idiocy but for once he’s not acting like a COMPLETE tool. Maybe Haussegger (and the rest of the pro-ban writers) should take note of two things, firstly, read up on how to deconstruct semiological systems which perpetuate the creation of modern myths (rather than contribute to such systems) and secondly, if ANDREW BOLT doesn’t argue for a ban then maybe a ban is a lost cause.

Europe, Islamophobia and Lone Wolves

Farah

Marwa al-Sherbini was a 31-year old Egyptian wife, mother, daughter and sister. She was stabbed in court by a German man identified as Axel W. They were in court at Alex W’s appeal against a fine for insulting her in 2008. He called her a terrorist and Islamist while she was playing with her three-year-old son in a park. The prosecutor of Alex W’s impending murder charge, Christian Avenarius, said: “It was very clearly a xenophobic attack of a fanatical lone wolf.” But as Sobia over at MMW points out in her response, “[Alex W’s] hate of Muslims and derogatory views of Muslims were not his own creation, but rather a creation of the world he lives in. His actions were not that of a lone wolf, but rather of one living in a society full of Islamophobia.”

While running the risk of my voice drowning in a sea of other blog posts, an interesting discussion has developed in response to Sobia’s post. Is the “lone wolf argument” valid, or is his attack symptomatic of a wider, deeper racist Islam and Muslims gripping Europe and America? More importantly, is it valid to analyse Alex W’s actions within a broader context (systematic Islamophobia) while denying context to violence that occurs within Muslim communities and/or by Muslims?

Nesrine Malik at the Guardian also asks the same question. “Muslims … constantly protest that the actions of a few extremists should not be allowed to denigrate Islam and its adherents as a whole – but this is exactly what they are doing themselves in connection with Europeans and the actions of Axel W.” The problem I have with this argument is that it’s simplistic. Manifestations of racism within Europe and America must be understood within a history of institutionalised racism not only against Muslims but other minority groups like gypsies and slaves. You can’t then flip the position and argue to understand extremism in the same way. Attributing acts of violence committed by Muslims to a broader context of “Islam” to me suggests that such acts are justified by Islam. It also ignores other potent issues which must also be looked at when analysing such acts. The other problem I have is that when acts of extremism or domestic violence occur by Muslims or within Muslim communities, the default reaction everyone has is to firstly, blame the whole of Islam and then secondly ask every Muslim to explain what happened. Every single time! It’s like a never ending car trip, you know, “are we there yet are we there yet?”

Take Aasiya Hassan’s murder. Some of the first headlines that started emerging involved some form of the words honour killing, Islam and wife-bashing Muslim husband, and included with immediate comparisons to the usual three countries (Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) and the oppression of women there. Never mind the fact that there was a history of domestic violence in the marriage or that both weren’t actually from Afghanistan, Iran OR Saudi Arabia. And don’t even mention the fact that both actually grew up in the US, because that would suggest that something other than Islam (say, something like diaspora or alienation in a foreign land) actually contributed to the husband’s mental instability ( but note I say “contribute” not “justify”.) This isn’t to undermine the oppression of women in those countries, but the misogyny in say Saudi Arabia isn’t really comparable to case of domestic violence in the USA – different analyses are required.*

So racism in Europe and America must be understood within a historical context. The ideological justification for racism has been maintained for centuries. The Enlightenment provided the colonial powers with an explicitly racist justification for the colonial project. The period allowed the colonial powers to justify the dehumanization of colonial subjects. And that they did extremely well. Racism today might not be so strictly ‘race-based’ anymore, but like John Solomos and Les Beck point out race today is “coded as culture.” This is the new racism – defined by George Fredrickson as “a way of thinking about difference that reifies and essentializes culture rather than genetic endowment, or in other words, makes culture do the work of race.” The institutionalized structures of racist ideology remain operative, but they now stigmatize cultural or religious groups as dangerous and foreign. And the fact remains: hostility and discrimination against Muslims “represent a reversion to the way that the differences between ethnoracial groups could be made to seem indelible and unbridgeable.”

While writing this post, I found this article courtesy of the BBC. Neo-Nazi convicted of terror plan?? The poor misunderstood neo-Nazis! Seriously though guys, we should consider his acts to be of a lone-wolf style, his opinions not attributable to other neo-Nazis, and not an extension of Nazism in the 1930s. Otherwise, we could erroneously blame the neo-Nazi community and contribute to a culture of fear and hate towards … neo-Nazis… wait, what’s my argument again? I think I’m confused.

Yes, all violence must be understood contextually. So too must the rise of anti-Muslim sentiment and Islamophobia around Europe and America be understood. But that context is born out of the Enlightenment, has a history of colonialism and the subjugation and domination over the subaltern Other.

*The idea of a ‘global sisterhood’ of women and the so-called ‘universal’ female experience won’t be discussed here, mostly because I think such claims are a load of bull used to justify the ability of Western feminists to talk about issues affecting subaltern women in a way totally divorced from any real context.