|
Islam, Children's
Rights,
and the Hijab gate of Rah e Kargar In defence of prohibition of Islamic veil for children Mansoor Hekmat
This article was first published 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. 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 defence 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. 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. 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. * * * * * |