The uses of leisure
As Lauryn Oates points out, it’s good that Afghanistan is so happy and prosperous that its President can afford to pay attention to the elegant details of life.
The deputy governor of Helmand province has been sacked for organising a concert that featured female performers without headscarves.
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai took the action against Abdul Satar Mirzakwal after tribal elders complained that it was inappropriate.
Karzai himself was sufficiently at leisure to fire a deputy governor for allowing two women to sing at a concert without bags over their heads.
And while we’re on the subject, notice the typical craven way the BBC puts it – “without headscarves.” Notice what an official says a few paragraphs down –
“Women do not appear in public without wearing a burka and niqab in an Islamic country like Afghanistan,” one official, who wished to remain unnamed, said.
Burka and niqab is not the same as a headscarf! Burka and niqab is a full-body fabric sack with a thick lattice in front of the eyes. A scarf covers the hair; hijab covers the hair and neck; burka and niqab covers everything. Let’s not be euphemistic.
It’s the BBC. They make the CofE look like Brights.
I wish they didn’t.
Fuck Islamic traditions. I refuse to respect anything that dehumanizes or degrades people. And since when is it the responsibility of any elected official to enforce this or that culture? That ‘elected official’ is probably one of the people throwing roadblock after roadblock in securing Helmand.
Happy to hear the concert went off without incident. Know a few guys who were hit by IEDs in that region. Every baby step counts. Let’s hope Karzai doesn’t take two grown up steps back.
Isn’t it nice to see such conviction from an unnamed official. No sure, stamp your name all over a policy you’re so clearly proud of.
He just did.
As in nobody came in to the concert to blow up themselves and nearby personnel and property? OK, that counts as “without incident”, in the damning with faint praise sense.
But let’s not minimize the incident of the tribal elders complaining about the horrific impropriety of seeing WOMEN’S FACES!!!! that were not literally sacked, and the corresponding incident of Karzai figuratively sacking the official deemed responsible for the lack of literal sacking.
Quite right. I call that an incident.
Yeah… sorry. Wasn’t thinking again.
The President of Afghanistan involved in enforcing legal female clothing? Too absurd, and only one of many absurdities. The sooner we’re out of there, the better. We haven’t, and can’t, change things there. Let’s get our people home.
The President of Afghanistan involved in enforcing legal female clothing?
Don’t forget the US Congress getting into a major snit over a nipple slip (which, probably would have merely evoked a yawn in much of Europe).
Not to equate this to the brutal subjection of women in Afghanistan, but the concept of legal sanctions against women for exposure that would not be illegal for men exists here too.
@Jay
I’m with you on the nipple slip but I don’t see what’s wrong with (for example) laws against flashing. It’s not far removed, and can easily be, sexual harrassment.
re flashing:
In Montreal a few years ago, a (Chassidic) Jewish school complained to the YMCA next door because their young men (when outside in the yard) could see women who were scantily clad (by their standards) exercising at the Y. I agreed with those who objected when the Y capitulated and tinted their windows. On the other hand, if a woman went to the schoolyard and disrobed, I would consider that to be harassment. Similarly, if there were nude male models in an art studio, I see no reason to force them to be obscured from view of passers-by (regardless of the passers-by’s gender), but that’s not the same as someone dropping his pants on the subway.
My personal view is that everyone should be able to decide how much or how little clothing to wear in public, barring physical health and safety concerns. For example, though I myself rarely even expose my legs by replace my jeans with shorts (or a skirt), I see no good reason why a man or woman should not go out for a stroll completely naked if they so choose.
Yes I remember that school v gym fuss. I discussed it here. Ok I didn’t discuss it, I made fun of it.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2007/cover-yourself/
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2007/ill-decide-how-much-light-you-need/
Since my wife and I are fortunate to summer at a place where covering is not required, all these artificial constraints: breast covered, legs covered, arms covered, head covered; seem to be varying degrees of the same mindset.
[Humorous aside: Some friends of ours went a a cruise chartered by a nudist group. Since the crew (other than the officers) were largely Muslims from Indonesia, part of the contract required them to provide land hotel accommodations for the crew members who might be deeply offended and wait it out. Out of several hundred crew staff, something like less than a dozen chose to opt out. So much for being deeply shocked.]