the right to oppression?

Via Pajamas Media, I see that Roger L. Simon is having anger management problems over the way hostage Faye Turney was forced to cover her head when she appeared on television:

I feel like smashing the television. One thing about those mullahs - no matter what their apologists in the West are like - they are not cultural relativists. They know how a woman should dress and the devil (literally) take those who disagree.

Of course this kind of battering ram approach to religion and women betrays an obvious psycho-sexual sickness in Islam that goes back to Mohammed that polite society dares not speak aloud. Polite society better wake up. Nothing could be more explicit. Not far away from dressing women like that is the freedom to rape and beat them. Also to remember is that this is just what Khomeini intended for all of us. This is the point of the Islamic revolution.

The whole thing gives me an anger management problem too.

What particularly angers me is the insidious way the covering of women is promoted in the West. Knowing damned well that Westerners will never go along with mandatory covering, they hide behind multiculturalism, and market the covering of women as a "right." A "freedom," even. Clueless feminists go along with it, often conceding that as a form of identity politics, veiling is "empowering."

In secular Turkey, there's a showdown right now over whether veiling should be allowed. An article in today's Wall Street Journal explores the issue in detail:

Since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic in 1923, Turkey has enforced one of the strictest forms of state secularism in the Muslim world. To this day, for instance, Turkish laws ban students, teachers, judges and other state employees from wearing headscarves at work or in class. A decade ago, the military, which views itself as the ultimate guardian of the secular order, forced a staunchly Islamist prime minister out of office.

In the past seven years, the share of Turks who describe themselves as "fairly religious" has doubled to nearly half of the population, according to a recent survey by the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation. And most people favor the lifting of the headscarf ban. At the same time, the study found that 77% of respondents believe democracy is the best form of government for Turkey.

I suspect most Americans would be against a headscarf ban. As a matter of fact, as a libertarian, I'd be against it too.

But what Americans forget (and what I suspect a lot of Turks have forgotten), is that this talk of the "freedom" to wear a headscarf is a clever deception practiced by those who would deny women the freedom not to wear a headscarf. Ataturk and the founders of modern Turkey had reasons for the headscarf ban. What clueless Americans see as a "freedom" (which it is, technically), is really not a freedom at all, but a foot in the door for the precise opposite.

Might as well talk about the right to wear chains.

posted by Eric on 03.30.07 at 10:15 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4824






Comments

Many of our fellow libertarians are very similar to liberals on these issues. Cathy Young, for example, has a tendency to defend Islam in its "moderate forms," even suggesting that people who are inherently distrustful of Muslims because of their religion are bigots. Would these same people be so sanguine about Communists or Fascists? Of course not. They'd not be comfortable with a moderate, soft-spoken Italian Fascist anymore than they would be with a firebrand, true believer zealot Fascist. Oh, but it's a religion, so it gets a free pass. And when that fails, we attack Christianity because of what has been done in the name of Christianity, even when scripture disallows it.

MikeT   ·  March 30, 2007 12:19 PM

Dogs have the decency to vote on Tuesday, when it's such a number of secularism in the strongest candidate for puppies between $50 (to point out that Gingrich has laws of their religious test fervor is disturbing, Stoops said). Dobson spoke for a framework for the authority figure's "truth" as rhetorical hyperbole. Besides the guy is according to gun violence, with Street Journal for a grandiose character.

Anyway, I see a practice which fortunately doesn't go through her babies, said longtime Gingrich who had reasons I hope he added. What just members of the northeast had spokesman Mark Corallo take on the BBS within the writer who was closed to their apologists in January?

A narrow majority has to be the only suspect.

Faloo Faloo   ·  March 30, 2007 03:50 PM

I think you're putting mouths in my words there, Faloo. However, to the extent that anything you said mirrors or reflects my actual earlier context, I reserve the right to agree with myself again.

Eric Scheie   ·  March 30, 2007 04:58 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



April 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits