Error
The waiters are at it again – they seem to be obsessed. I want to say just a couple of things, as briefly as possible, by way of setting the record straight. There are other people out there criticising B&W and also me, that I’m ignoring. But the waiters fight dirty, and I want to make that clear. 1. They accuse me of prevarication – of, in fact, lying, though they avoid that actual word, perhaps because it’s actionable. But prevarication and concealment is the charge.
Among these other commenters is Ophelia Benson of Butterflies and Wheels. Two days ago she came clean at last on her own blog…Pot and kettle indeed – assuming, as we must, that Ophelia herself has given up pretending to be one of those “who think there are good reasons and arguments on both sides”, and is still, as she always in fact was, one of those who favour the ban. It would have saved us, at least, some time if she had said as much months ago.
I did not come clean, because I was not hiding anything. I did not give up pretending, because I was not pretending. The waiters don’t know and have no possible way of knowing what I always was. Ad hominem attacks are always deplorable, and accusations of lying are beyond the pale. 2. The waiters are anonymous. In their latest attack I count ten mentions of my name. I am not anonymous; they are. So there they are, making sustained ad hominem attacks and accusations of concealment and prevarication, by name, while they themselves are nameless. I should think they would be embarrassed at themselves.
Yeah, I figure a lot of our readers are going to disagree with my (and our) position on the French ban. But I also figure they’re going to maage to do it without calling me a liar.
Yeah, you could say that about the sexism. I didn’t because of determination to be brief but still set the record straight.
You may be right about the not worth responding to thing. But I wanted to st rcrd strt. I also, frankly, kind of wanted to shame them – if such a thing is possible.
My initial reaction to the news of the French headscarf ban a few weeks ago was mostly one of disapproval. After reading an article somewhere in support of it and the comments here I’ve mostly changed my mind.
I guess in this case freedom of religion really should become freedom from religion. And it seems more and more like a good idea… at least in this particular instance. But then, could we succesfully apply that here in the US? How about banning all those annoying high school evangelists that favor an extremist version of Christianity? How would that be qualitatively different from the French situation? Arguably the less refined versions of Christianity stress the notion of leadership as a male prerrogative. How about that?
In this case all that comes to mind is that quote by Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend
to the death your right to say it”…dunno why but, as much as I oppose Evangelical Christians, applying something like that here in the US seems a little extremist to me. Any thoughts?
Yes, many thoughts. Some of which I plan to Comment about, and eventually do an In Focus on. This is a big subject, with a lot of aspects.
I think the evangelical Christians are different. For a lot of reasons – one of which is that it’s not actually a capital offense to leave Christianity. But also there is just no equivalent of the hijab in modern Christianity – well except a conservative nun’s habit. But no one wears those in school.
There is also not the same kind of baggage. The conspicuous recent history of violence, torture and murder of women who don’t conceal themselves thoroughly enough to appease religious enforcers. That history makes the meaning and significance of the hijab a massively different thing from, say, wearing a yarmulke. That’s one reason I think the rights of non-wearers matter more than the rights of wearers in this particular case. I do not think anyone should have to sit in a secular classroom with that history being shoved in her face every minute.
I guess the problem here is that we are talking about children, it’s like that Dawkins article about them being children of muslims not muslim children because they are too young to decide for themselves.
I still think it’s a very difficult one to call – I personally think you can just about make the case for banning the hijab, and only in schools not government buildings, as it is a symbol of the oppression of women (you’ve persuaded me on that one), but not for other religious paraphernalia (like the skullcap or turban). The problem is that then you’re singling out Islam.
Incidentally, anyone know if caste marks are banned too cos they really piss me off.
Oh, back on topic I guess, Ophelia, you seem to have forgotten, probably due to your immersion in the online world, that discussion boards are not the be-all and end-all of political debate, they’re only read by other bloggers. Don’t take them so seriously, and take name calling by marxists even less seriously, good politics bad manners the lot of them…
I don’t think I’ve changed my view that the ban is likely to be counter-productibe (running the risk of cutting young muslim women off from secular society) but I think the French nonetheless have good grounds for doing this and I welcome the fact that they have decided to address this issue rather than adopt the British ‘out of sight, out of mind’ policy.
Having followed the argument on BW since it started I was always well aware that you supported the ban – I’ve not seen this waiting site but they don’t sound very observant.
If I recall when the issue was first raised way back when OB seemed a little undecided but this argument has resurfaced and now been running for a long time and I think she’s hardened her position a fair bit…
I have. But then again, I can also be reminded that the consequences may well be bad – indeed terrible for some. So I do feel qualms. It is, as Phil says, a thorny issue. But the consequences are bad now, too. Teachers and heads in French schools say so – that is part of the equation. I plan to post some material about that.
True, PM, I know bloggers aren’t all that important in the scheme of things. (Although on the other hand if things work out we may have found a highly valuable and illuminating contributor on a blog comment thread, so they’re not a dead loss, either.) But – well, but nothing, really.
What about the very unlikely hypothetical case (or maybe not so unlikely) that something looking like a hijab may be donned on a woman’s head as a “fashion statement”? Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Dior’s house or whatever might come up with their own version of a hijab and all sort of fashion-minded schoolgirls start wearing it. With no apparent religious significance. I can’t help but think that the basis for the ban would be less valid. Unless we wanted to equate it with incendiary symbols like a swastika…I guess a case could be made that there are similarities between them.
Or does this sound too exaggerated?
Of course they can be fashion statements – but within the context of being a woman-concealer first. The hijab or burqa or whatever it is is the given, and then some people wear elaborate, embroidered etc. ones.
But a better comparison than a swastika is a yellow star. It’s a victim’s garment, not a victimizer’s.
For what it’s worth, Ophelia, you’ve convinced me on this issue.
Worth a good deal, Marijo. You’re not exactly a pushover!
Sharp eyes, Jocelin. I did choose the word ‘conspicuous’ deliberately, so it’s interesting that you pick it out as telling. (Of course I choose all words somewhat deliberately, they’re not random I hope, but I had a particular thought in mind with that word.) I chose it in order to convey briefly the thought that that history is widely known. It’s not a secret that men have used violence on women in many countries to force them to dress according to whatever the local religious requirements are. The connotations of the hijab are there, and they do matter. Just as one can’t really wear either a swastika or a yellow star as it were innocently, as a mere pretty decoration, a bit of abstract ornament, so with the hijab.
And as for whitewashing Christians – ! I can’t begin to tell you what a total lack of desire I have to do that. I was simply trying to make a distinction. It’s a real distinction. I detest fundamentalism of all kinds, very much including Christian, and I’m not crazy about non-fundamentalist religion either. But the fact remains that there is no real equivalent of the hijab in Christianity – at least not that I know of.
I’m sure the French state has some terrible motivations. But I think the ban is worth supporting (despite dangers and problems) anyway. I also would point out that there are some utterly disgusting motivations on the other side too, so that argument cuts both ways.
Once again I cross-posted with José – I didn’t echo him on purpose!