. . . and to prove that point, I'd like to present a witty and impassioned repudiation of France's ill-conceived "Burqa Ban" (which really isn't referring to a burqa for the most part anyway, but rather the niqab) The law was never about some vague notion of protecting women and French notions of equality, but rather about mandating conformity to social stereotypes and scoring points with a conservative base. The French and Belgian laws prohibiting such a manner of dress by women are the evil cousins of laws in Iran and Saudi Arabia mandating coverings for women. It's all about control.
That being said, check out Sheila Janmohamed's letter to President Sarkozy and enjoy a chuckle at politician being taken to task.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A Fanatic with 'good intentions'
The New York Times published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali former-Muslim-turned-crusader, and unfortunately, it was a huge disappointment.
"Questions for Ayaan Hirsi Ali" was anything but, as the writer was too busy prompting her subject to expound on her experience with genital mutilation and the murder of Theo Van Goh to actually speak about anything substantive. It was a major let-down from a paper that usually sets a high bar for quality, and generally attempts fairness.
Ali is nearly as bad as those she criticizes, but she disguises her contempt with a veil of moral improvement. She has suffered so much at the hands of those who use their religion to justify violence, that she can no longer conceive of Islam as anything but violent. More frustratingly, she is cast as a feminist, even as she demonizes the choices of millions of women, labeling their devotion to Islam as oppression and assuming they too must be beaten. Her attitude is paternalistic and offensive, and it's a travesty that her voice is given the microphone in public discourse. I'm ashamed of the New York Times for promoting this one-sided rant as a legitimate interview. It's pieces like this that are a barrier to understanding, especially when underwritten by credible institutions who should know better.
"Questions for Ayaan Hirsi Ali" was anything but, as the writer was too busy prompting her subject to expound on her experience with genital mutilation and the murder of Theo Van Goh to actually speak about anything substantive. It was a major let-down from a paper that usually sets a high bar for quality, and generally attempts fairness.
Ali is nearly as bad as those she criticizes, but she disguises her contempt with a veil of moral improvement. She has suffered so much at the hands of those who use their religion to justify violence, that she can no longer conceive of Islam as anything but violent. More frustratingly, she is cast as a feminist, even as she demonizes the choices of millions of women, labeling their devotion to Islam as oppression and assuming they too must be beaten. Her attitude is paternalistic and offensive, and it's a travesty that her voice is given the microphone in public discourse. I'm ashamed of the New York Times for promoting this one-sided rant as a legitimate interview. It's pieces like this that are a barrier to understanding, especially when underwritten by credible institutions who should know better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
