-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Reckon at its worst political correctness is very destructive. And it's main stream now. Like that which we have here. Very regressive in that it oppresses serious social discourse. Kills critical thinking and creates a climate of fear and mistrust.
Last week I reckon everyone would have taken much joy in seeing Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun escape from Saudi Arabia to Canada. Why?... because in Saudi Arabia women have next to no human rights. They are owned by fathers and husbands and brothers and in some cases (when widowed) by their sons. Men decide how women dress – always covered from head to toe in a niqab when outside and how they act, where they can and can not go and who they can and can not talk to, when and where to have sex and how they should experience sex (without a clitoris). For a Saudi woman to bring rape charges against a man – in or outside of marriage - she needs 4 males witnesses or 8 female witnesses, to accuse a man of sexual assault without said witnesses she risks whipping and jail, to be a lesbian is punishable by death, as is apostasy. She doesn’t have the same inheritance rights as any male sibling, Men decide if she can divorce, get an operation…etc etc
This is the disgusting and vile version of Islam that all Saudi women must adhere to and it is so repugnant that Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun risked her very life to flee from it. Try saying that on tv.
Here, in secular Melbourne the niqab is just cultural diversity. ‘It’s what they wear. That's how they do things’. None of the above seems to register thanks to political correctness. No-one dare participate in critical debate about Islam for fear of being labelled a racist - even though Islam is not a race. It’s just an idea like Christianity and nothing more. Imagine not being able to freely talk about an idea! We dissected the living *smile* out of christianity which was very productive and life changing and we should be able to do that to Islam or any other idea without fear of violence, loss of career opportunities, accusations of being a racist (meaning bigot), etc etc
A quote from Alishba Zarmeen, Pakistani feminist and secular activist
‘what I feel about the hijab-is-identity-and liberation’ apologists is the same thing I feel about Confederate flag supporters:
Yes free speech supports your right to sport one - but do not forget the *smile* history and traditional use of that symbol’
Last week I reckon everyone would have taken much joy in seeing Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun escape from Saudi Arabia to Canada. Why?... because in Saudi Arabia women have next to no human rights. They are owned by fathers and husbands and brothers and in some cases (when widowed) by their sons. Men decide how women dress – always covered from head to toe in a niqab when outside and how they act, where they can and can not go and who they can and can not talk to, when and where to have sex and how they should experience sex (without a clitoris). For a Saudi woman to bring rape charges against a man – in or outside of marriage - she needs 4 males witnesses or 8 female witnesses, to accuse a man of sexual assault without said witnesses she risks whipping and jail, to be a lesbian is punishable by death, as is apostasy. She doesn’t have the same inheritance rights as any male sibling, Men decide if she can divorce, get an operation…etc etc
This is the disgusting and vile version of Islam that all Saudi women must adhere to and it is so repugnant that Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun risked her very life to flee from it. Try saying that on tv.
Here, in secular Melbourne the niqab is just cultural diversity. ‘It’s what they wear. That's how they do things’. None of the above seems to register thanks to political correctness. No-one dare participate in critical debate about Islam for fear of being labelled a racist - even though Islam is not a race. It’s just an idea like Christianity and nothing more. Imagine not being able to freely talk about an idea! We dissected the living *smile* out of christianity which was very productive and life changing and we should be able to do that to Islam or any other idea without fear of violence, loss of career opportunities, accusations of being a racist (meaning bigot), etc etc
A quote from Alishba Zarmeen, Pakistani feminist and secular activist
‘what I feel about the hijab-is-identity-and liberation’ apologists is the same thing I feel about Confederate flag supporters:
Yes free speech supports your right to sport one - but do not forget the *smile* history and traditional use of that symbol’
The notion that there is no debate about the veil amongst "left wing" folk is just utter bull%$#@ and a total straw person.
The difference is that you don't get a knee jerk reaction. The reaction is observations such as that the veil was less common in countries such as Malaysia 40 years ago, that there is a change. There is also discussion about why this is happening, and the fact that those who wear the veil hold the opinion that it is a protection. If you view the veil as a form of oppression but also as an aspect of particular cultures, you need to find a way to reconcile these aspects. Forcing people to not wear the veil serves little purpose, prohibition doesn't tend to work unless there is very high community consensus, the point is to change minds.
As for the crap above about chairman/chairwoman/chairperson, it is the usual comment ignoring context. You may have a point if "chairman" was not used as a generic term, but it was used to refer to women as well as men. It is this context which led to the need to challenge the language used. Nothing extreme about it.
DS
The difference is that you don't get a knee jerk reaction. The reaction is observations such as that the veil was less common in countries such as Malaysia 40 years ago, that there is a change. There is also discussion about why this is happening, and the fact that those who wear the veil hold the opinion that it is a protection. If you view the veil as a form of oppression but also as an aspect of particular cultures, you need to find a way to reconcile these aspects. Forcing people to not wear the veil serves little purpose, prohibition doesn't tend to work unless there is very high community consensus, the point is to change minds.
As for the crap above about chairman/chairwoman/chairperson, it is the usual comment ignoring context. You may have a point if "chairman" was not used as a generic term, but it was used to refer to women as well as men. It is this context which led to the need to challenge the language used. Nothing extreme about it.
DS
glantone said:
Refraining from bigotry, prejudice, abuse and violence due to someone's religious beliefs is not the same as encouraging persecution through religion.
I personally think all religions are dumb. I also think being libertarian is dumb, supporting trump is dumb, thinking we never landed on the moon is dumb, being overly patriotic is dumb, and supporting Essendon is dumb. But there are a lot of good people who I love who believe dumb things. That doesn't mean that they should be vilified or abused because of their beliefs. Unless they support Essendon.
Thing is, the religion based law and restrictions of freedom you've described are not the extremes of 'political correctness' (I.e. Respect and tolerance of beliefs, races, sexes, orientations etc.), it's the extreme of right wing religious conservatism. It's just a different religion to what's normally associated with the right.
MD Jazz said:
Unfortunately your post loses much with rubbish like this. Haven't read anyone claim the veil is a symbol of feminism.
Islam has historically been quite tolerant, compare Spain under the Moors to the Inquisition. Unfortunately, extremists of any type are universally intolerant.
DS
A Nun's habit is no different to a Hijab.
As for Islam being tolerant, it is, or it can be. A bit like Christians. You can be a casual believer who celebrates Christmas and prays when Richmond are only 3pts up with 5 mins to go in the last, or you can be a looney Jehovah's Witness who would rather their child die than receive a blood transfusion.
Having lived in SE Asia, right between Indonesia and Malaysia, I can tell you the vast majority of muslims I know are tolerant.
As for Islam being tolerant, it is, or it can be. A bit like Christians. You can be a casual believer who celebrates Christmas and prays when Richmond are only 3pts up with 5 mins to go in the last, or you can be a looney Jehovah's Witness who would rather their child die than receive a blood transfusion.
Having lived in SE Asia, right between Indonesia and Malaysia, I can tell you the vast majority of muslims I know are tolerant.
Baloo said:
Living in Jakarta again, the amount of Christmas paraphernalia and music pumped out in shopping malls over the months of November and December was unbelievable. (by that I mean there was a lot of it)
Bizarrely all my Muslim (and Hindu - I work with many Indians here too) - had no problems wishing me Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. No doubt L2R2R is right and this is all an Islamic ruse and they were just saying that until they have an opportunity to cut my head off or drop me off a tall building.
antman said:
That's not bizarre at all, Thais are the same. They can do that because they're not politically correct. They're just being naturally nice. Unpoliticized. Why wouldn't anyone of any religion wish another person of whatever religion well on their special day? Cost nothing.
Geez, Coburg, think we have crossed wires here. I’m not calling for anything other than good old fashioned honest critical thinking. Freedom to think, publicly discuss and speak without being howled down by vested interests or pc fascists as racists and haters.
I’m trying to imagine if the inhuman crimes against women in theocratic societies like that of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Taliban Afghanistan and other places from childhood to their grave would draw as little interest from the left wing fundamentalists – the politically correct - if the men committing these crimes against little girls and women were Christian men or white men. How about conservative English speaking white men? Would that awaken the pc brigade from their slumber?
I’m trying to imagine if their white women forever shackled in a niqab would be viewed as victims of an outrageously ugly and vile misogynistic regime or as cultural exhibits expressing free choice, culture and religious pride.
I’m trying to imagine from what magical source would any woman who grew up in such a controlling and vengeful and closed society draw the power to overrule her master and choose not to wear the niqab, even here on Brunswick st.
On what grounds can the barbarism I mentioned in my post above be permitted a golden pass from public debate? Seriously, why can’t we publicly deconstruct all of Islam as we would any other idea?
The left traditionally defends the under dog. You can’t get more under dog than a niqab or burqa wearing brown or black woman. Yet pc demands that we miraculously turn a blind eye to all those crimes and instead celebrate the niqab as an expression of religious freedom and cultural identity. What am I missing here?
I’m trying to imagine if the inhuman crimes against women in theocratic societies like that of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Taliban Afghanistan and other places from childhood to their grave would draw as little interest from the left wing fundamentalists – the politically correct - if the men committing these crimes against little girls and women were Christian men or white men. How about conservative English speaking white men? Would that awaken the pc brigade from their slumber?
I’m trying to imagine if their white women forever shackled in a niqab would be viewed as victims of an outrageously ugly and vile misogynistic regime or as cultural exhibits expressing free choice, culture and religious pride.
I’m trying to imagine from what magical source would any woman who grew up in such a controlling and vengeful and closed society draw the power to overrule her master and choose not to wear the niqab, even here on Brunswick st.
On what grounds can the barbarism I mentioned in my post above be permitted a golden pass from public debate? Seriously, why can’t we publicly deconstruct all of Islam as we would any other idea?
The left traditionally defends the under dog. You can’t get more under dog than a niqab or burqa wearing brown or black woman. Yet pc demands that we miraculously turn a blind eye to all those crimes and instead celebrate the niqab as an expression of religious freedom and cultural identity. What am I missing here?
glantone said:
That is a rubbish post Glantone. Straw men and women all over the place.
The "left" as you label it has been critical of the veil, niqab etc for decades and feminists have been criticising oppression of women in Islamic countries for well over 50 years, and this includes Islamic feminists such as Nawal Al-Sadawi (might need to check this spelling) and Fatima Mernisi who are a couple who come to mind without having to look anything up.
But, again, I need to point out that a knee jerk reaction of just labeling it barbarism or whatever will get you nowhere. We need to engage with the culture of Islam, even question the interpretation of the relevant passages of the Quran (hint: like just about every religious text it is very open to interpretation) which from my limited knowledge does not mention the veil or niqab directly. Some of the practices pre-date Islam too, a good example is genital mutilation which existed prior to Islam. This does not let Islam off the hook as the religion supports and encourages this practice.
I didn't see the right or conservatives being vocal about this until it became a trendy cause for them (just look at Hanson as an example - back when she was first in parliament it was the Asians who were the problem, now she sees Islam as the latest right wing/conservative bandwagon to jump on). I also notice the continued support by right wing governments of regimes like that in Saudi Arabia. I expect nothing else, bunch of hypocrites.
DS
I think people get confused between what is "Islamic culture" and what is the ancient tribal culture within given regions of the Middle East. The confusion not only comes from outsiders, but from people in the Middle East itself. Although no doubt, the two have become intermingled over the years as did Christianity with western European culture.DavidSSS said:
Certainly this is a point my mate, who is a Bangladeshi Muslim, made when we were discussing this. He feels absolutely no kinship with Saudi Muslims for example. Finds them as foreign and their ritualised practices as backward and strange as a born and bred Anglo-Aussie would. And I tend to think he makes a strong case. Many of these practices stem from various Arabic tribal cultures, not "Islamic culture" as such. That said, if we were to criticise Arabic tribal cultures, probably brings the unimaginative howls of "RACIST' to the fore even more so than criticising a religion.
