|
|
Islam, Children's Rights,
and the
Hijab- gate of Rah-
e -Kargar
In defence of prohibition of Islamic veil for children
Two leaflets have recently been published in
Stockholm against the International Campaign for the Defence of
Women's Rights in Iran (ICDWRI), and the Swedish Committee of
the Worker-communist Party of Iran. The tone of both leaflets is
extremely hostile. They have the same content and the same
orientation, and are maybe even from the same pen. The first one
is signed by the editorial board of the "Swedish (?) journal of
Women and Fundamentalism", while the second one is signed
directly by Rah‑e‑ Kargar (Organisation of Revolutionary Worker
of Iran). The leaflets require a prompt and serious answer.
What has provoked the writers
of the two leaflets is apparently our support for the
prohibition of the Islamic veil for children. They protest that
this "goes against the freedom of choice of clothing" for
Muslims. It is a negation of the "democratic rights of
minorities". They say this demand is "racist" and "fascist" and
harks back to the methods of "Pol Pot" and "Reza Shah". They
expose us for bringing in the "state, the law, and the police."
They say we want to take the veil off women's heads by force;
They say we have divided the people into "the nation of Islam
and its enemies", and that we are starting a new "crusade". But
these are only some of their milder accusations. There are also
accusations that would, in any society in which the reputation
and dignity of the citizens are respected and the "minorities"
are not left at the mercy of "their own" Islamic and oriental
culture and traditions, result in a libel case and bring in "the
state, the law and the police".
Our differences over the inviolable rights of the
child and the question of oppression and contempt for women in
Islam-stricken families are certainly substantial and serious
and must be explained and emphasised in a clear and
well-reasoned manner. We shall come to this further down. The
hysteria in the leaflets, however, is not caused by theoretical
differences over these issues. It is, rather, because they
realise that once more they have put their foot in it in public.
Just like few years ago, when they supported the expulsion of
the Afghanis from Iran (before the fall of the Soviet Union and
the democratic baptism of our noble friends, when their beloved
camp was at war with the Afghani Muslims, and democracy was
considered as yet forbidden fruit for the Afghanis.) This time
the hullabaloo is caused by a meeting they called with the
intention of putting the communists in their place and
countering the massive public attention to the statements of
Asrin Muhammadi and ICDWRI on the issue of Islam and the rights
of children. But, as their own leaflets show, they did not
expect the meeting to be embraced so unanimously by the Muslims,
and, of course, the "fundamentalists", and the passionate cries
of Allaho Akbar and Islamic acclaim in the ranks of their
supporters. In time they have realised that, on balance they
have come out badly. They did not mean to appear so Islamic. It
was not meant that their "demarcation line" with the Islamicists
should be smudged so easily. Islamophilia might (though even
this is doubtful) prove useful for a "brother party" dealing
with an immigrant population among which Islam has an influence.
But it is a disgrace and a political scandal for an organisation
dealing primarily with more urban, deeply anti‑ religious, and,
as the leaflets put it, "dandy" Iranian immigrants. An
organisation that should, once again, try to divide Islam and
the Islamic movement into good and bad, moderate and
fundamentalist, poisonous and edible, folksy and non‑folksy, has
publicly declared its own political bankruptcy, in particular
since everybody knows that the organisation itself is just a
chip off the same old block of the social movement and political
tradition that presented Iranian society with the pro-Khomeini
Tudeh party and the Majority. This has turned out to be a huge
scandal for these friends. It is their "Islam‑gate" and "Hijab-gate".
Now they have realised this and are trying to whitewash it in a
medley of noise. They are trying to excuse the embarrassing
support of the Muslims for their positions and ideas by blaming
it on our "leftism" and anti‑Islamic "fundamentalism". If it
were not for the Workers' Communist Party's Pol-Potism and Reza‑khanism,
then the fundamentalist Muslims would not be able to assume a
righteous position and shield themselves behind democracy, and,
thus, fade their demarcation line with Rah‑e‑ Kargar and the
Swedish Women opposed to Fundamentalism! A cunning, but useless
excuse.
Let us deal with the key points in this argument one
by one.
Children's
Rights and
the Islamic
Hijab (veil)
We have never said anything about "pulling the veil
off women's heads," and by "the police" at that. The Programme
of the Worker-communist Party clearly defends the freedom of
clothing. But our programme also asks for the protection of
children against the transgressions of religion and religious
sects on their rights. Moreover, our programme considers it an
offence to prevent children from enjoying their social and civil
rights such as education, amusement, and participation in social
activities specific to children. The question of freedom of
clothing concerns adults, i.e. those who, at least formally and
legally, have the right to choose and can face the consequences
of their choice ‑‑ even though the‑right‑to‑choose of an adult
woman who is familiar with the threat the Islamic knife or the
Islamic jar of acid on her face is as formal as formal can be.
The argument for the freedom of clothing says nothing about the
rights of children or the little or adolescent girl who lives in
an Islamic family under the custody of her parents. Our dear
geniuses declare that the distinction between the child and the
adult "makes no difference in this matter"! Well, it does.
We say that putting a veil on the heads of children
and adolescents who have not come of legal age should be
prohibited in law, because it is the imposition of a certain
clothing on the child by the followers of a certain religious
sect. It so happens that the defence of the civil rights of the
child and the child's right to choose (not an absolute in itself)
require that this imposition be legally prevented. The child has
no religion, tradition and prejudices. She has not joined any
religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and
irrespective of her will has been born into a family with
specific religion, tradition, and prejudices. It is indeed the
task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind
lottery. Society is duty‑bound to provide fair and equal living
conditions for the children, their growth and development, and
their active participation in social life. Anybody who should
try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like
those who would want to physically violate a child according to
their own culture, religion, or personal or collective
complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law
and the serious reaction of society. No nine year old girl
chooses to be married, sexually mutilated, serve as house maid
and cook for the male members of the family, and be deprived of
exercise, education, and play. The child grows up in the family
and in society according to established customs, traditions, and
regulations, and automatically learns to accept these ideas and
customs as the norms of life. To speak of the choice of the
Islamic veil by the child herself is a ridiculous joke. Anyone
who presents the mechanism of the veiling of a kindergarten‑age
girl as her own "democratic choice" either comes from the outer
space, or is a hypocrite who does not deserve to participate in
the discussion about the children's rights and the fight against
discrimination. The condition for defending any form of the
freedom of the child to experience life, the condition for
defending the child's right to choose, is first and foremost, to
prevent these automatic and common impositions. Anyone who
thinks that in the matter of the veil there is "no difference"
between the child and the adult, should, before becoming a
member of any editorial board or any Scandinavian Committee of
any organisation, urgently do something about her own
backwardness and ignorance about the basics of the issue under
discussion.
When these people speak of the "infringement of
democratic rights," however, they do not mean those of the child,
but of the parents. Does the forbidding of the Islamic veil for
the child and adolescent girl infringe on the "democratic rights"
of the parents? That is what they claim. Luckily human society
is emerging from the time when the wife and the children were
considered the property of the patriarch who was eligible to put
them to death if he so wished. What these people speak of as the
democratic right of the parents in this context is the left‑
over of the tribal rights of the patriarch, which has
fortunately been curbed considerably in the course of social
progress, with the society turning more "dandy". Certainly, the
rights of parents in regard to the child is limited to, and
conditioned by, the universal and legal human rights of the
child. It is the task of the law (the very "state and the
police") to safeguard this. No one, neither the father, nor the
mother, nor anybody else, has the right to beat or intimidate
the child. No one has the right to take the child's freedom away
from her, to prevent her from getting an education or engaging
in sports, or having a social life. No one has the right to
abuse the child sexually. No one has the right to make the child
work or employ her. No one has the right to physically abuse the
child, even by sanction of the "holy Shari'a". No one has the
right to deprive the child from any of the possibilities that
the established norms of society grant her as her right. These
varieties of child abuse are nobody's "democratic rights."
Imposing bans and limitations on the traditional and tribal
almightiness of fathers and husbands is a sine qua non
for the child's enjoyment of her basic human rights. Our
part‑time democrats should simply take our word for it that
society has taken a step forward in arriving at this point. Is
this simple fact really so difficult to comprehend?
But maybe the Islamic veil does not qualify as a
form of child abuse. This is what they imply. After all, the
Islamic veil is "folksy"; it is "our own"; it belongs to the "deprived
immigrants"; it is part of the culture of "us orientals"; it is
garb of the "anti‑imperialists"; the racists don't like it
either, and the Swedish immigration minister herself, a symbol
of hostility to immigrants, walks around without a veil. Pure
garbage. Coming from a "non‑fundamentalist" muslim, or from
someone belonging to Mujahedin sect, such a nonsense would not
be surprising. But do people who make claims on being
progressive women, and keep reminding us of their cordial
relations with "veterans in the Swedish women's movement and
anti‑ racist movement" really fail to understand the
significance of the Islamic veil and its devastating impact on
the minds and lives of little and adolescent girls? should one
begin to preach to them about the misery of a child who is
isolated and singled out, does not know why she is not allowed
to swim, mix freely with her class mates, be active and playful,
and, meanwhile is completely powerless to get herself out of
this nightmare? The long‑term effects of the Tudeh party
political upbringing on this bunch is so profound that they
don't even accidentally stumble on a liberated position
vis-a-vis Islam.
Prohibition of "Compulsory" Veil for
the Children
This is the positive slogan of these people on the
question of Islamic veil and children. They imagine that they
have discovered a good, effective, and democratic formula. But
the slogan says nothing and does not have the slightest effect
on the fact of the oppression of children and specially girls in
Islamic environments. Why? Think how this is going to work in
practice. If this formula becomes the social norm, the only
children excused from wearing the veil would be those who can
prove in a court of law or a tribunal that the parents have put
the veil on them by force. As long as the use of force is not
proved no illegal act has been committed. What a miraculous
formula! Every bold nine year old girl with a post-graduate
degree in law, who is fully aware of her civil rights, and,
moreover, is prepared to be banished from her family, and
testify in court against her Muslim parents, and back it up with
sufficient evidence indicating the use of force in putting the
veil on her head, who can readily come up with the necessary
arguments against the parents' defence lawyers and eloquently
criticise and reject the issue of cultural relativism, might (provided,
of course, that the Swedish industry is not, at that point,
engaged in exporting something to the "Islamic world") be given
permission not to put the veil on. Where this child is going to
live after the trial and what would happen to her on the bus
line or on the way to school, is of course not a problem with
which our friends are bothered.
The entire usefulness of this formula appears to be
that it puts on display the naivety and ignorance of its
supporters in regard to the actual mechanisms of real life and
the problem of child abuse in the family and in society. One
can only point out to these great minds that the mechanism of
coercion and imposition in the family is quite deep rooted and
covert. No one draws a gun on the child to force the veil on her,
because the child does not question the will and the wish of the
parents. In her mind she considers them justified and herself
guilty even when she is beaten and physically abused. She
regards submission to their wishes as an obvious duty. It is a
nightmare to the child to annoy the parents and to lose their
love or approval. It is difficult to understand how these people
expect the courage that they collectively are not prepared to
show in confronting the Muslims, to be shown by a child in
confronting her parents and the authorities in a religious
family. We thought they mean to formulate a proposal or a policy
in the defence of the rights of the children. Now we realise,
with their slogan, that it is the children who should gallantly
rescue Rah‑e Kargar and the "Swedish journal of Women and
Fundamentalism" from a political dead end. Just think, with this
slogan how many children a year will actually be rid of the
Islamic veil? Three, four, seven, eleven? Is this the slogan
that is supposed to solve the problem of one generation of
oppressed children and adolescents in Sweden? Let us ask them,
why is the burden of the proof, or the duty to file a complaint,
not on the child in other similar cases? Are you prepared to
forbid only "compulsory" child labour, or the "forcible" sexual
abuse of the children? Or forbid the beating of a child only
when it is carried out against her wishes, or the marriage of an
under age girl only if it is "against her will"? Are you going
to forbid only the "forcible" sexual mutilation of the girl? Are
we not correct to assume that in any of these cases if the child
herself is indifferent or gives consent, or refrains from filing
a complaint, or withdraws her complaint, no crime has been
committed, your responsibility is over, your conscience is clear,
and you can go back to your Swedish editorial meeting and that
of the Scandinavian Committee of your organisation?
This slogan is empty and hypocritical. It is a
formula designed to avoid the issue and not to upset the
Muslims. Putting the veil on little girls is by definition a
religious and cultural imposition by a certain religious sect.
Just as the followers of the "Heaven's Gate" sect are not
allowed to put their children to death along with themselves
when they commit suicide to reach the "Mother Ship" the members
of the sect of Islam should not be permitted to simply impart to
the little girls who come to he world in their midst the
isolation and enslavement and disenfranchisement of women in
their cult. Society is entitled, indeed is duty‑bound, to defend
the rights of these children even if they themselves are unaware
of what is happening to them or have willingly accepted it.
Society has the right to demand that standards that have turned
into norms as a result of the enlightenment and just struggles
of numerous human beings to be observed in the case of these
children as well. They are not simply the property of their
parents. They are respectable members of society, entitled to
certain rights, and society is responsible for safeguard of
these rights. Whoever truly wants to prevent the imposition of
the Islamic veil on children, whoever really wants the thousands
of girls who are victims of the Islamic veil today to be
released from it, will also understand that the Islamic veil
must be forbidden for children. Only this demand provides real
support for girls in Islamic families. Only this demand allows
families who are reluctant to have the Islamic veil, but are
forced under pressure from Islamic groups and the atmosphere
dominating their environment to join in, to push back these
pressures and to act more humanely. Only this demand strengthens
the hands of mothers who have themselves once felt the injustice
and have sympathy with their daughters to protect their children
in the family and to have a voice. Only this demand would really
isolate the hardened, closed‑minded fanatics and racketeers in
religion in immigrant environments. Only this demand provides
the least painful and the most principled way for children to be
set free from the injustice they are made to suffer.
The Bogey: "the Law and the Police"
One of our serious crimes appears to be that we have
asked for the law to prevent this infringement of the
rights of little and adolescent girls in Islamic environments.
We have asked for a certain variety of child abuse and child
confinement to be legally forbidden. Their reaction is
unbelievable. This is "resorting to the law and force!", it
brings in "lock and key!" They cry "Pol Pot!", "Reza Shah!", "Le
Pen!". As if it is the first time they hear someone ask for a
change in the law and for legal guarantees in support of a right
and against infringements of it. It is not clear whether we
should account for their opposition to the interference of the
state in defense of children as a newly adopted anarchism and
super‑revolutionism, or as their having joined the movement for
de-governmentalisation and market‑worship which seems to be the
prerequisite for being considered a democrat in the post‑Soviet
world! Someone among these "Swedish feminist and anti‑racist
movements" should certainly take the trouble to explain to our
nouveau-democrats that the entire struggle for reforms
and eradication of discrimination is a struggle over the law,
changing and improving, and implementing the law. Someone should
explain to them that egalitarian workers and women have gone
through many struggles so that the principle of the equality of
men and women, maternity leave, and unemployment benefits have
been included in the labour legislation, for the benefit of,
among others, our own noble friends. Someone should tell them
that the women's movement, the civil rights movement in the US,
the anti‑apartheid movement, and the environmental movement have
all been movements for changing the law and putting the support
of the law behind their demands. The law is the main focus of
the struggle for reforms in society. Those who speak of the
women's rights and the defence of children but declare
beforehand that they would leave the laws of the land alone and
have no need for changing them cannot be taken seriously.
Granted, there is a New World Order and the Swedish sponsors of
our friends do not understand Persian. But this is a poor excuse
for talking gibberish. If they repeat these "brilliant" ideas in
Swedish, if they shout "Le Pen" and "Pol pot" at the feminist
movement that is asking for the ratification of laws in
favour of women, if they abuse the trade unions who are
demanding a legal ban on child labour, if they insult
retired people who insist on the control of the state and the
law and "the police" over their savings in pension funds to
stop their being squandered away, then the first people to show
them the door would be these very "Swedish feminist, and anti‑racist
movements."
It is not clear, moreover, why the passing of any
law should be interpreted as putting people "under lock and key."
Scaring people in the manner of the mullahs and repeating,
parrot‑like, the thread bare cold war abuses and lies of the
Western governments against communists, even though despicable,
does not surprise us coming from these people. The truth of the
matter is that ratification of the law to forbid the Islamic
veil for children, would, like all other civil regulations,
result in the majority of the people following them without much
ado. The outcome of such a situation is that many girls in
Islamic families would be free from this entanglement without
daily conflicts. As to what steps should be taken in those cases
where the law is not followed; there can be further discussion
separately. Parking a car in front of the Fire Departments taps
on the street is also forbidden and so far no one has been
arrested for this offence even in Iran or Indonesia. Riding a
motor cycle without a safety helmet is also forbidden and this
law is in conflict with the turban of the Sikhs. But this fact
has not prevented the passing of the law and no Sikh has called
it the legacy of Pol Pot and Reza Shah, or a plot designed to
put the Sikhs under lock and key. The point is that with the
passing of the law the principle of the rights of the child and
the fact that religion is the private affair of the parents and
should not be imposed on the child and infringe on the child's
civil rights is confirmed and established as a social norm. And,
finally, maybe it should be pointed out that it is the parents
who are answerable for the violations of this law, and not the
child. The child who is wearing a veil has herself committed no
offence.
But what is the alternative for these people? If the
law is not to interfere, then how can an end be put to the
nightmare of the daily life of girls in Islamic families? Their
answer is "critical dialogue",
guidance, "increasing the support for girls in Islamic families"
and "increasing the power of independent popular organisations
and institutions". In other words, the issue should be left to
the private sector and the market mechanism of ideas. More
assets and "power" should be allocated to organisations such as
"the Swedish journal of Women and Fundamentalism" and "Well
known television personalities" who know how to "chair a
meeting" to work against the growth of fundamentalism among the
immigrants, in the manner we have witnessed, by mobilising
moderate Muslims and promoting tolerant Islam. Meanwhile, girls
in Islamic families should be patient, respect the democratic
rights of their believing parents. They shall be informed in due
course of the liberating outcome of these exertions through the
wonderful TV programme Mosaic.
We shall see below the "material" basis for this
position. But for those whose real concern is the deprivation of
a group of the present generation of children in this society of
their human rights these views are empty and worthless. The
rights of the child should be guaranteed through the same
mechanisms as all other rights in society. The law should change
in favour of eliminating discrimination against girls in Islamic
families. The law should secure the girls from the infringement
of their rights by religious sects. The law should grant the
right to these forgotten members of Swedish society to freely
decide about religion when they come of legal age, and that
meanwhile no religious belief or ritual, particularly those with
such devastating effects, should be imposed on them. Whoever is
not prepared to bring the support of the law and the state
behind these obvious victims of child abuse and hatred for women,
if not a demagogue, is certainly unable to grasp the basics of
the problem.
Minoritism and cultural relativism
The core of the rightist, Islamic position of these
people is the concept of cultural relativism and the issue of "minorities".
This should be dealt with in detail elsewhere. Suffice it to say
that the thesis of cultural relativism and the combination of
policies and governmental and non‑governmental measures and
provisions based on it in the West is a profoundly racist
phenomenon. Cultural relativism is a cover to create a
comprehensive social, legal, intellectual, emotional,
geographical and civil apartheid among the inhabitants of a
country based on distinctions of race, ethnicity and religion.
Its outcome is creating small, enclosed, and regressive
communities of non‑European "minorities" in the heart of a white,
European "majority".
This tendency should be prevented. All Swedish
people are citizens with equal rights, and should live according
to same social laws and norms. Unlike these others, we do not
divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial
majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws
and freedoms for all humanity which should embrace all,
irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. We do not consider
ourselves as part of any minority. The children who are at the
centre of the present controversy do not belong to any minority.
These are Swedish inhabitants who should be able to enjoy all
the rights, freedoms and possibilities provided for children as
a result of the efforts of successive generations of
progressive, enlightened, egalitarian people in this society.
The controversy over the Islamic veil in itself also
reflects what type of people the supporters of cultural
relativism and minoritism are: the Swedish bourgeoisie which
considers the immigrants and foreigners as forever alien to
Swedish society, and sets itself the task of controlling them
and keeping them away from the social metabolism in Sweden as
cheaply as possible. Intellectually and socially, cultural
relativism follows the same goals as gettoisation does in regard
to housing and settlement. On this side of the equation, the
false minority thus created requires headmen, sheikhs, monitors
and supervisors ‑‑ people of "their own" kind and race who
should assist the majority society in running the minority
community, who should prevent tension and upheaval in the
minority camp, and prevent, from within the minority community,
the endeavour toward an integrated, unified society, keep
expectations down, and justify the apartheid ideology through
the language and culture of the minority community.
And this is the esteemed post for which these people
are bracing themselves. They asking the state for "power and
authority". They are mindful that the religion and the rituals
of the minority community and the "democratic rights of the
Islamic parents" should go unscathed. They create noise and bad
blood against the ratification of unanimous laws that aim at
limiting the powers of the traditional authorities in the
minority environment. They promise the minority little girls
"more support." To the minority, they boast of connections with
and support from the authorities, well‑ known personalities, and
sympathetic figures among the majority, while they show the
majority authorities the fervent hosanna and approval of the
religious section in the minority camp. They hope to become the
internal managers of the world of the minority. They are people
who have one foot in each of the two worlds; in the centre they
wear jeans, become feminists, and claim to defend civil liberty
in Swedish, while in the locality they put on loincloth, head
scarf, and ABA, and, using the lingo of the village clergy and
the youngsters of the bazaar, they call people who speak of
modernity "dandy". They have fully understood the order of the
day, and are doing their utmost to carry it out. The goal is to
keep the minority community from the majority society and to
keep it in a cultural, political and intellectual quarantine.
The goal is to avoid a polarised, restless atmosphere. The goal
is to prevent "the growth of fundamentalism among the second
generation immigrants". The goal is safeguard Sweden against
Islamic terrorism.
This recipe, unfortunately, is not only detrimental
to the girls in Islamic families; it also paves the way for
Islamic reaction and terrorism. It has been proved time and time
again that pushing back religiosity and religious reaction is
not possible except through unequivocal defence of human values
against religion. It has been proved time and time again that
preventing religious barbarism does not come about through
bribing it and trying to give it a human face, but through the
fight against reactionary religious beliefs and practices. What
price should be paid for these people to realise that Islam and
religion do not have a progressive, supportable faction. How
many times should it be proven that only the existence of a
truly radical liberating alternative can pull the rug from under
the feet of political Islam? Is it so difficult to grasp that
hindering Islamic reaction and terrorism is not possible through
justifying this ossified terror within the framework of the
family, or to understand that minoritism and the policy of
cultural relativism is thankless service to the Islamic reaction
by providing the social and cultural milieu for its recruitment.
Nonetheless, these people do not have much of a
chance to play the part of a broker, since they are dealing with
a range of immigrants who not only are not religious, but
are profoundly anti-religious. The Islamic veil is not an
issue affecting immigrants from Iran. This is a immigrant
community which has great sympathy for the European way of life,
and has come here precisely with an abhorrence for Islam.
Islamophelia might prove gainful political business among
immigrants from some other countries, but it is not in demand
among this particular group. Meanwhile, this fact highlights the
important role that Iranian immigrants can play in the future of
Swedish society by forging the destiny of Islamic reaction in
this country. This group can, on the one hand serve as a model
for modernity among immigrants from the other so called Islamic
countries, while, on the other hand they have a free hand in
fighting against Islamic reaction, since they comprehend, more
than the others, the nature of religion and the religious state.
They can thus be the voice of truth against the propaganda of
the Islamicists and the chorus of the likes of Rah‑e Kargar and
the supporters of cultural relativism. The Workers' Communist
Party in Sweden does its best to engage these immigrants in the
support for children's rights, and in preventing the expansion
of Islamic reaction, as well as the racist policy of cultural
gettoisation.
* * * * *
The issue at stake is of the greatest importance.
The polarisation which has come about is deep and real. To what
extent can the noise and the demagogy of these groups patch up
their recent political scandal is beside the point. What is
important is that the advocates of freedom and egalitarianism
and secularism should come forward in full force against state
racism in these societies and its theses and policies in forming
a cultural and social apartheid, and against reactionary,
regressive, and opportunistic trends among the immigrants
themselves. The Workers Communist Party is committed to this
struggle. Defending the rights of girls in Islam-stricken
milieus and Islamic families is an inseparable part of this
struggle.
The
Worker-communist Party of Iran- Swedish Committee
June
1997
|