…the increasing severity and reach of Islamic terror would make the people, politicians, and public figures of Europe see the true nature of Islamism…
The continent that gave the world Plato and Aristotle, the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, Voltaire and Sartre, liberty and fairness—that continent is debating the validity of such instruments of women’s subjugation as burqas and burqinis. The veiling of women was once regarded axiomatically evil in a not-too-distant past but now the settled question is being discussed in earnest—and that too for the sake of women’s rights! It is like India starting to debate the soundness of sutee.
The pro-burqa lobby is disingenuously claiming that no government has a right to tell women what to wear and what not to; and, therefore, the ban on burqas and burqinis is wrong. It is correct that the authorities—whether of the state or educational institutions—have no right to prescribe or proscribe any attire for women; this is the reason that the several colleges prohibiting jeans and skirts are (rightly) slammed by the Indian media and opinion makers. Prudish principals and wardens are criticized because they tend to curtail women’s rights to choose their dress.
However, while supporting the supposed right of women to wear burqas and burqinis, the mainstream media and liberals go hideously wrong; for the very existence of these dresses is predicated upon the despicable Islamist views that women need to cover their bodies, lest it should arouse ‘impure’ desires among menfolk, that women ought to be told what to do and how to do, that they are little better than cattle.
ow, these notions are the result of, what feminists call, a patriarchal mindset. But it is interesting to note that many feminists favor burqa—and those among them who are against the Muslim dress are castigated by the fellow sistren. In an article with the self-evident title, ‘Feminists are failing Muslim women by supporting racist French laws,’ in The Guardian in July 2015, Christine Delphy wrote: “In these conditions, wearing an ostensible religious sign has one of many possible meanings, or all of them: it may mean Muslim women expressing solidarity with people of the same racial group; it may mean an attempt to escape that condition by taking refuge in the spirituality that religion offers them; it may be an unspoken way of showing defiance towards the establishment. Scarf-wearing women share patriarchal oppression, with the added handicap of racial discrimination.”
Well, Ms Delphy, one expresses solidarity with somebody out of one’s free will; to expect the burqa-clad women expressing solidarity with any group is absurd, for she herself is under the control of those who have imposed the burqa on her. The person who has been doctrinally, socially, and culturally subjugated (as women in Islam are; wearing burqa being the surest sign of the slavery) is incapable of supporting anybody else. Similarly, taking refuge in the spirituality of religion, one may wear anything—or nothing in some cases. Communion with God doesn’t have a dress code.
In the worst traditions of postmodern pedantry, Delphy sees in the burqa the possibility of “an unspoken way of showing defiance towards the establishment.” This is preposterously illogical: somebody who is enslaved by her own religion’s misogyny—and doesn’t have the power or courage to resist it—is lauded as being defiant towards the Western laws, which ensure freedom and fairness.
Unfortunately, it is people like Delphy who views are in the ascendant, as evident from the top French court’s validation of the burqini. One would have thought that the increasing severity and reach of Islamic terror would make the people, politicians, and public figures of Europe see the true nature of Islamism, that they would beware of jihadist threat in all its manifestations, including burqas and burqinis, that they would give up idiotic policies like easy immigration and the mollycoddling of Muslims. However, thought leaders seem to have internalized the most toxic elements of political correctness and multiculturalism, thus resulting in a capitulation mindset and death wish.
Islamic attacks on Europe have failed many times in the past. This time, however, the assault is insidious, almost like that of the HIV-AIDS virus, gradually killing the body. Actually, the virus doesn’t kill, but it makes the body so weak that death eventually arrives.
Eurobia may become a reality sooner than it was projected.
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.