What is it with the burqa that has the power to bring European government's to their knees shaking?
This form of Islamic garb that covers the face, ostensibly for modesty's sake, is looked upon with utter disdain and with so much contempt that some European governments are now passing laws that ban its use.
The French were the first, the Belgians followed. Face-covering is public is also banned in s city in Spain. Soon Italy expects to follow suit with an Italian parliamentary commission approving a draft law banning women from wearing veils that cover their face in public.
Do these parliaments not have enough legislation or other legitimate concerns on their plates?
It is the curse of the white man that he has so much to do before he eventually sleeps... whether it is civilising Africa, teaching human rights in Asia, or liberating women from the shackles of Islam... the white man believes that it is his responsibility to rid the world of such vice, as much as he believes that Jesus was actually white.
It is unfathomable this audacity that allows someone to believe that a person of middle eastern descent would have physical features of an European rather than an Arab or an African... but that is another story and not the purpose of this rant. I'm just saying.
Anyway, while it is true that some women are probably wearing the burqa on coercion – for fear of reprisal from over zealous bigots in the form of domineering fathers, uncles or brothers (and often times, mothers, aunts and sisters) – there are also others who find wearing the veil comfortable and feel safe.
Saying that all women wearing a veil that covers her face in public is not doing so with free will or is forced to do so is like saying that all men are actually gay but most marry women because coming 'out' would be frowned upon. So what is really happening is that men who 'out' themselves as gay are actually free and exercising their free will, just as women clad in revealing outfits are the only women who are truly 'free.'
Clearly a perception error because what is missing is that connection that some women could choose to cover themselves up and not wish show cleavage or thigh. Should it be assumed that women like Hilary Clinton or Angela Merkel are actually being oppressed and are 'forced' to wear those pant suits when they would rather some summer frocks?
I am not sure what the Quran prescribes exactly, but I am almost certain that it does not prescribe covering of the face so that only the eyes are visible. I know that Islam dictates covering of the arms, legs and the hair – more akin to a pant suit ensemble but maybe also with a head scarf.
Apparently the Italian law to ban the burqa was propelled by a Moroccan-born female member of Silvio Berlusconi's conservative Freedom People party. She proposed the law because she wanted to help Islamic women integrate more into Italian society. She says that there are more and more women in Italy seen wearing the burqa so “we need to help women get out of this segregation... to get out of this submission.”
What amazes me more than that this woman is Moroccan and should be more attuned to the Islamic way of life and ideals, is that Silvio Berlusconi is considered a conservative!
But I digress.
Personally I do not like the burqa on anyone – but do feel that it is a personal choice and definitely not to be coerced. In my opinion the only time a man would really object to a burqa is when it is on an Angela Jolie as opposed to an Angela Lansbury – but the motive of that objection would be more baser than any lofty ideals.
Personally I feel that the parliamentarians are so gung-ho to pass the legislation because, well, because of the burqa they can't differentiate between the Jolies from the Lansburys and are left second guessing. Trust me there is no lofty ideal at work here, just simple perversion or depravity and the power to do something about it.
Passing the burqa laws may actually liberate some women, but will also completely castigate others from public life. One should consider that just because there may be fewer burqas seen on the streets of France, Belgium, Spain or, soon, Italy, it could also mean that the women so 'liberated' are not parading around anymore; but are ironically shackled down.
This form of Islamic garb that covers the face, ostensibly for modesty's sake, is looked upon with utter disdain and with so much contempt that some European governments are now passing laws that ban its use.
The French were the first, the Belgians followed. Face-covering is public is also banned in s city in Spain. Soon Italy expects to follow suit with an Italian parliamentary commission approving a draft law banning women from wearing veils that cover their face in public.
Do these parliaments not have enough legislation or other legitimate concerns on their plates?
It is the curse of the white man that he has so much to do before he eventually sleeps... whether it is civilising Africa, teaching human rights in Asia, or liberating women from the shackles of Islam... the white man believes that it is his responsibility to rid the world of such vice, as much as he believes that Jesus was actually white.
It is unfathomable this audacity that allows someone to believe that a person of middle eastern descent would have physical features of an European rather than an Arab or an African... but that is another story and not the purpose of this rant. I'm just saying.
Anyway, while it is true that some women are probably wearing the burqa on coercion – for fear of reprisal from over zealous bigots in the form of domineering fathers, uncles or brothers (and often times, mothers, aunts and sisters) – there are also others who find wearing the veil comfortable and feel safe.
Saying that all women wearing a veil that covers her face in public is not doing so with free will or is forced to do so is like saying that all men are actually gay but most marry women because coming 'out' would be frowned upon. So what is really happening is that men who 'out' themselves as gay are actually free and exercising their free will, just as women clad in revealing outfits are the only women who are truly 'free.'
 |
| The Clinton/Merkel quagmire. Who's who? |
I am not sure what the Quran prescribes exactly, but I am almost certain that it does not prescribe covering of the face so that only the eyes are visible. I know that Islam dictates covering of the arms, legs and the hair – more akin to a pant suit ensemble but maybe also with a head scarf.
Apparently the Italian law to ban the burqa was propelled by a Moroccan-born female member of Silvio Berlusconi's conservative Freedom People party. She proposed the law because she wanted to help Islamic women integrate more into Italian society. She says that there are more and more women in Italy seen wearing the burqa so “we need to help women get out of this segregation... to get out of this submission.”
What amazes me more than that this woman is Moroccan and should be more attuned to the Islamic way of life and ideals, is that Silvio Berlusconi is considered a conservative!
But I digress.
Personally I feel that the parliamentarians are so gung-ho to pass the legislation because, well, because of the burqa they can't differentiate between the Jolies from the Lansburys and are left second guessing. Trust me there is no lofty ideal at work here, just simple perversion or depravity and the power to do something about it.
Passing the burqa laws may actually liberate some women, but will also completely castigate others from public life. One should consider that just because there may be fewer burqas seen on the streets of France, Belgium, Spain or, soon, Italy, it could also mean that the women so 'liberated' are not parading around anymore; but are ironically shackled down.
No comments:
Post a Comment