As the niqab controversy shows, not all women are feminists

Cross-post from the National Secular Society 

By Anne-Marie Waters

The legend that is Julie Bindel (who, I must confess, I have a teeny bit of a crush on) has this morning produced another brilliant article on the silence of so-called "feminists" with regard to the misogynist monstrosity known as the niqab. I must however pick up on one point and, while I don't dispute it, I think it is in need of some addition — and that is of course the matter of "choice". This is all we ever hear: "but I wear it by choice". Julie has rightly pointed out the absurdity of the notion that this is a genuine choice given the pressure both from community and from religious doctrine itself. But I have a question — even if it is a choice, so what? I choose to round up every niqab and burka on the planet and bury them in the deepest pit under the deepest ocean in the world — will this choice be honoured? Of course not, so what makes these women's choices so much more important than mine?

Judge Murphy, who should be ashamed that he capitulated to the bullying of one woman and turned open justice (not to mention one law for all) on its head, said there is an elephant in the court-room and he's right. But here's another elephant — women can be misogynist woman-haters too and we must not forget this. In fact, women's misogyny is far more dangerous because it legitimises the virgin/whore dichotomy and gives it a credibility that it simply wouldn't have if it stemmed from the mind of a man. In short, just because a woman chooses the niqab does not make the niqab ok — it remains a tool of subjugation and suppression, and it would continue to be just that even if every woman in the world supported it.

On Monday, I appeared on Sky news to discuss the stupid and dangerous legal precedent that had just been set. My fellow guest was a fully veiled woman who confidently argued that if women can wear skimpy clothes, they too can wear the niqab. Though of course I couldn't see her face, she spat out her contempt for mini-skirts and those who wear them with a deafening ferocity. I can't help but think that if pushed even slightly further, she could well be found to hold the despicable view that any woman who isn't covered in a black cloak is a whore and a slut who deserves every bit of sexual harassment (or rape) that she's got coming to her. Is this view ok because it comes from a woman? No, if anything it's worse.

In 'The Handmaid's Tale' — which I read only recently and wondered whether Margaret Atwood realised she was describing a present-day Islamic state — the masterful author portrays the futuristic nightmare of a Christian fundamentalist-dominated USA where women enjoy one of two roles: you guessed it, a virgin or a whore. The virgins are shrouded from head to toe and made all but invisible, while the whores wear next-to-nothing and live in a brothel with the sole function of providing sexual pleasure to any man who seeks it. Atwood so brilliantly depicts the role of women themselves in helping to bring this situation about. A small group of select females are given a morsel of so-called power (attractive in a world where they are otherwise powerless) and in exchange, they collude in the vile suppression of their sisters; legitimising, sanitising, and empowering misogyny so that it looks slightly less misogynistic. If a woman says it's ok, then is must be ok. Right?

That is exactly what is happening here. The bullies who demanded that the security concerns of a Birmingham College be brushed aside, and centuries of British judicial common-sense dismissed, are colluding in the oppression of other women and deserve to be held to account for doing so. It's their choice after all, so they choose the condemnation that accompanies it.

Another couple of points that need to be made are these. This debate is not about clothing, but visibility and invisibility. The state has no right to tell people what to wear, but it does have a right to demand that all are held to equal standards of behaviour and if the rest of us are unable to cover our faces, why is one group so special? It's not.

Second is the most ridiculous argument that the burqa/niqab are somehow comparable to high heels or make-up! Oh please, they're getting desperate now. I don't believe that high heels deem a woman heinous and unseeable. And women in high heels are still visible to a jury as far as I'm aware.

Let me make this clear — I love women. The bravest, strongest, wisest, and most compassionate people in my life are women. It is precisely for this reason that I hold something close to contempt for those women who connive against the rest of us by empowering and elevating devices designed to control us, and our sexuality. Equally, some of the bravest and most noble fighters for women (and for human rights generally) are, and always have been, men.

Anyone who stands up for the right of women to be treated as autonomous human beings is my ally, and those who oppose it are my enemy — this is the case irrespective of what genitals they possess.

It is worth remembering also that there were many women who opposed universal suffrage — where would we be if we honoured the choice of those women? Please, you so-called feminists, please keep this in mind the next time your politically correct cowardice prompts you to betray everything you claim to believe in.

Anne Marie Waters is the spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign and council member of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.

A Tuesday Miscellany

Andy Newman update

Nick Cohen has taken up the story about Andy Newman of the far-left Socialist Unity blog being selected as candidate for Chippenham at the Spectator blog. He writes:

All that is left of the far left after the collapse of Marxist-Leninism is the desire to follow anti-western feeling wherever it may lead. If it means supporting atheist commissars one minute and inquisitorial mullahs the next, so be it. The incoherence behind the posturing explains why those trying to set up a new version of the Socialist Workers or Communist Party to the left of Labour are going to face huge political problems. Beyond anti-Americanism, what do they have? Are they going to argue for a central committee that demands absolute obedience all over again, or state control of the whole of society? You only have to ask the questions to know there is no articulate political position to the left of Labour, indeed Labour itself is struggling to define what it means to be left wing in the 21st century. The confusion of our day explains why Andy Newman and his kind can embrace wildly different tyrannies with such promiscuity and without a hint of self-awareness.

The more interesting question is why decent Labour Party members in the Cotswolds selected him as a candidate. Or, to put it more broadly, why does a vast section of opinion from the extreme left well into the liberal mainstream, regard universal human rights and support for the oppressed as distractions from the true political business of condemning the West? Just as you should start to worry about the influence of the far right when apparently sane Tories ape it and send out propaganda vans telling illegal immigrants to go home, so you should worry about the far left when Labour politicians ally with tryannophiles who want to keep Assad in power, as they did during the Syria debate.

Meanwhile over at Tendance Coatsey Andrew Coates picks up on the reasons why Socialist Unity was voted the worst polical blog over at at A very public sociologist by examining the thoughts of John Wight who writing about womens rights in Iran says:

Following the Revolution the status of women changed. The main social group to inherit political power– the traditional middle class – valued most highly the traditional role of women in a segregated society. Accordingly, laws were enacted to restrict the role of women in public life; these laws affected primarily women of the secularized middle and upper classes. The attire of women became a major issue. Although it was not mandated that women who had never worn a chador would have to wear this garment, it was required that whenever women appeared in public they had to have their hair and skin covered, except for the face and hands. The law has been controversial among secularised women, although for the majority of women, who had worn the chador even before the Revolution, the law had only a negligible impact.

No democracy is without its imperfections. Under the Islamic Republic, Iranians, no matter where they happen to live throughout the world, have the right to vote in elections. Women are debarred from standing for office, which is certainly regressive in itself. However, this differs from democratic elections in the West only in the sense that debarment here is based on economic status rather than gender. In effect this ensures that only the wealthy within western societies have any meaningful chance of holding high office.

No wonder Socialist Unity doesn't seem to have any women readers!

Femen party!

Meanwhile the real fighters for women's rights at Femen are celebrating their international expansion. The song is not that bad I have to say!

FEMEN PARTY ALERT!

Join the event : https://www.facebook.com/events/549793191736147/

FEMEN is here! And we are celebrating our 1birthday as an international movement! 

18th of Septemeber 2012 we make our new big step, FEMEN appear in France, after in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Nederland, Canada, Tunisia, Brasil, USA, Mexico...

We are in many places already and we will be everywhere! 

Celebrate with us one year of International fight with patriarchy! Support the movement, be part of it. 

We are here for one year and we will be there for centuries! Viva FEMEN!

Finally Just for fun on a Tuesday night!

Spot the celebrity in this short video compared by the much missed Viv Stanfield of  Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band fame!

Growing divisions in the Socialist Party?

A few weeks back I pondered on the question of whether there would be a split in the Socialist Party, which following the collapse of it's rival, the Socialist Workers Party is the "largest" far-left political party on the far-left. Of course this position could change in November if the Left Unity project actually manages to turn itself into a fully fledged political party as the amount of disputatious factionalism currently taking place may tear it apart very quickly, but for the minute the Socialist Party takes the "crown".

However there appears to be a continuing dispute over the analysis of the crisis between the current leadership and an openly dissident member who runs a blog called Marx returns from the grave a rather interesting, if somewhat tedious at times place to visit. The author is locked in an academic debate with what he refers to as simply "the CWI leadership".



For the uninitiated the CWI stands for Committee for a Workers International and is the Socialist Party's equivalent of the various "Fourth Internationals" (and there are many) that most rival trotskyist organisations have established.

In true democratic centralist tradition the existence of an opposition website operating in public has not gone down well with the Socialist Party leadership. Bruce tells us that:

I have been asked to cease this blog and it’s ‘’attacks’’ on the CWI. I must reiterate, yet again, that this blog is not attacking the CWI but the flawed position held by the leadership and I’m doing so openly. The point is that the content of this blog makes a powerful political argument and that is why people are drawn to it. 

Bruce also reports that the party leadership have prepared a document 10,000 words long as a reply to his blog. If they are going to that kind of trouble then his efforts must be having some effect on the internal affairs of the Socialist Party and if it ever sees the light of day will be of some interest to inveterate "trot-spotters".

What caught my attention though was an argument over the involvement of Socialist Party members in my union the PCS involving the alternative to austerity programme produced by the unions current (SP dominated) leadership.



Certainly not a choice for my reading list, but not for the same reasons Bruce chooses. He is highly critical of Janice Godrich, Socialist Party member and President of PCS. He says:

We do not, for one moment,  dip our banner and we do not agree under any pretext to accept a reformist program with minimum demands although we will participate in struggles around specific demands e.g. a 24 hour general strike. That was the issue of the pamphlet endorsed by Janice Godrich in that it proposes a complete reformist program to end austerity.

...the point is that the pamphlet Austerity isn’t working isn’t a real program for fighting austerity and is a reformist hodgepodge. However Neil then goes on to really show his lack of understanding of how revolutionaries should view successful struggles of the class.

‘’Let’s be clear. If the PCS was to achieve the demands outlined in its pamphlet that would be a victory for the working class.  A limited victory?  Yes. A temporary victory? Yes. Would it go far enough to secure the ultimate interests of the working class, a socialist society? No, but it would be a victory nonetheless’’.

Let’s reverse the question. What would be the gains of the class if the SP was to pull the rug on Left Unity in order to pursue an isolationist policy within the union. It would be a gift to the right wing bureaucracy and the government. PCS would be weaker when the public sector is under intense assault. I repeat this would be nothing short of boneheaded sectarianism of the worst sort. It would destroy the credibility of our trade union cadres that has been built up over decades. Sometimes it is necessary to break with others on the left in the unions when no other course is available to us. This is not one of those times. We must use our freedom to put forward our ideas to pursue a policy of patient explanation, not sectarian division’’.

This did not go down well with Janice's mates at the Party centre who replied with zest that:

Janice Godrich is the highest elected lay official of the PCS, a union of roughly 250,000 people. I think you’ll agree that 250,000 organised workers will have a broad range of ideas about how to combat the crisis? The document produced by the PCS is the broad consensus of a mass organisation of the class which is not a revolutionary organisation. It is in effect, a united front of workers organised in the civil service towards achieving certain limited reforms within capitalism.

The question for our comrades in the PCS then becomes, are we willing to break this united front (for that is what Janice’s refusal to sign the document and then undertake public criticism of it would mean), are we prepared to show serious division in our own ranks against a government that is looking to destroy PCS for fear (in my view unfounded) of sowing illusions in Keynsianism? Are we prepared to break apart PCS Left Unity, one of the key factors behind making the PCS one of the most combative organisations within the trade union movement because other workers within this united front do not share the same outlook as us.

It is unlikely that many (if any) of the Socialist Party supporters on the gravy train that is the bureaucracy of PCS would want to undermine their positions and lose control of their flagship project in the trade unions. With the PCS General Secretary currently unwell, the Assistant General Secretary Chris Baugh another member of the Socialist Party is fulfilling his stated life-long ambition of being the "big cheese" in PCS. He thinks its' his birthright according to some internal Left Unity e-mails I saw some time ago.

How far this dispute will go is as yet still unknown and although Bruce tells us he has some 600 subscribers, I suspect much interest is from outsiders who are not used to seeing the comrades of the Socialist Party doing their dirty laundry in public.

NSS considers complaint against judge’s ruling that woman need only remove niqab to give evidence

Cross-posted from the National Secular Society

The National Secular Society is considering making a complaint to the Office of Judicial Complaints about a court's decision that a Muslim woman will be allowed to stand trial wearing a full-face veil, but must remove it while giving evidence.

The case involves a 21 year old woman accused of allegedly intimidating a witness, involved in a separate case, in June this year. The woman had previously been allowed to enter her plea after she agreed to lift her veil in front of a female police officer, in a room next to the court

Ruling at Blackfriars Crown Court on how the case should proceed, Judge Peter Murphy said: "In general, the defendant is free to wear the niqab during trial. If the defendant gives evidence she must remove the niqab throughout her evidence. The court may use its inherent powers to do what it can to alleviate any discomfort, for example by allowing the use of screens or allowing her to give evidence by live link.

Responding to the ruling, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "In the interests of justice, we consider it vital that defendants' faces are visible at all times, including while others are giving evidence, so we regret the judge's decision not to require this. We will now consider a complaint to the Office of Judicial Complaints and will be calling for visibility of defendants throughout court hearings to be made mandatory, and not subject to judges' discretion."

Judge Murphy said that when the woman is asked to take off the niqab ahead of giving evidence, she should be given some time to reflect beforehand. "If she refuses, the judge should not allow her to give evidence and must give the jury a clear direction", he said. She must also remove it in front of a female police officer or other witness for the purposes of identification, as she has done so in previous hearings. Although a screen will be offered to shield her from public view, she must still be seen by the judge, jury and legal counsel, although she also has the option to give evidence over a live TV link.

The judge said it was necessary for a democratic society to restrict the rights of a defendant to wear a niqab during court proceedings. He said: "Balancing the right of religious manifestation against the rights and freedoms of the public, the press and other interested parties such as the complainant in the proper administration of justice, the latter must prevail over D's right to manifest her religion or belief during the proceedings against her to the extent necessary in the interests of justice. No tradition or practice, whether religious or otherwise, can claim to occupy such a privileged position that the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial trial process are sacrificed to accommodate it. That is not a discrimination against religion, it is a matter of upholding the rule of law in a democratic society."

Act Now! Stop the death threats against trade unionists in Columbia

Death threats against trade unionists and opposition politicians in Colombia: Act Now!

Trade union leaders and opposition politicians in Colombia have been the target of death threats in recent days. The Colombian national trade union centre CUT has denounced these threats against their leaders and leaders of the political party Polo Democrático and asks that messages be sent as a matter of urgency to the Colombian government, demanding that immediate action be taken to ensure their safety! Click here to send a message IUF - Uniting Food, Farm and Hotel Workers World-Wide Go to: http://cms.iuf.org/

Andy Newman, the worst possible Labour candidate, ever!

I was horrified to discover that the apologist for Stalinism and Islamism, Andy Newman is to be the Labour Party candidate for the Chippenham constituency at the next General Election. Newman has a bigoted pro-religious view of the world and because he is an active trade union member some people on the left and in the trade union movement may be lulled into a false view of this man and his reactionary politics.

Not so long ago Newman was running a witch-hunt against Anne Marie Waters of the One Law for All campaign which seeks to act against the imposition of  Sharia law in the UK, which particularly discriminates against women. Ms Waters was running for the winnable seat of Brighton (see here) in which he quoted the misogynist and holocaust denier Yusuf Quaradawi in order to justify his actions.

The issue Newman was writing about was female circumcision. Despite his nonsensical claims that Quardawi is fighting for women's rights, the reactionary cleric has this to say:

"whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. (Modern Fatwas) 

And despite Newman claiming to be against anti-Semitism, his "hero" Quardawi also says:

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption...The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them...Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.

And that's only the start.

Andy Newman runs the laughably named Socialist Unity website, renowned for promoting Iran, Hamas, Assad and the Chinese Communist Party amongst other reactionary causes laced with a thin covering veneer of trade union causes and support for the Labour Party.

Trade unionists, particularly those in the GMB (where Newman is an active Rep) will be interested to know that he considers trade unions an obstacle to socialism:

It is not unusual for socialist governments to have a tension with trade unions, and to expect the trade unions to prioritise increasing production for the common good, trade unions who impede the advance towards greater equality may clash with the government.

So now you know. When the time comes brothers and sisters we will all be in the way of Newman's vainglorious "socialist" project.

Further examples of his contempt for people fighting for their rights are clear in his views about Tibet:

...the historical defacing of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries during the Cultural Revolution was mirrored by the same defacing of Zen monasteries, mosques, churches and synagogues – it was not an aspect of national oppression, but of the China wide campaign of secularisation.

Newman concludes:

Breaking the unity of the historical Chinese state and nation will not strengthen the Chinese people in their struggle for economic and democratic progress, but only carve China up at the mercy of the imperialists.

Interesting that he sees secularism as a defensible position in China, but not in the Muslim world or in the UK. His political background in the Socialist Workers Party and more recently Respect still continue to influence his thinking though he has come to deny Marxism as an influence. The Swindon Advertiser reported his comments when he invited George Galloway to a meeting in his home town in May 2008:

Andy Newman, the Swindon spokesman for the Respect Party, said: "The achievement of Swindon Stop the War Coalition has been to keep together people with a wide range of opinions, united on the single issue of opposition to the war."

Following the split in Respect and Newman realising he had no future with Galloway (and apparently fell out big time with the "gorgeous one" over an article on Socialist Unity) it was time for Newman to join the Labour Party.

His flagship project Socialist Unity has been almost (but not quite) alone on the British left in backing the Assad regime through articles written by John Wight, a seasoned malcontent who appears to wake up every morning with a "hate-on" for all things Israeli and will seemingly defend any regime or group no matter how unpleasant providing it seeks to be part of what he calls the "rejectionist front". Whilst Newman has taken a "back step" on these issues his ambivalence over the solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict is worrying.

No doubt he'll be taking a further "back step" now that he's been selected as the Labour candidate for the fortunately unwinnable Chippenham seat, but it occurs to me that the Labour Party leadership have been watching the wrong people in Falkirk. Instead they should be concerned about Newman's entry onto their slates for Parliament.

Perhaps an investigation by Ed Milibands team is in order. Newman is one of the most unsuitable candidates ever selected by a Labour Constituency Party. Newman is a "cuckoo in the nest" as his mate Nick Wright  says in a note of congratulation on SU yesterday illustrates:

Congratulations. I like the idea of a Socialist Unity Party in parliament

Time for Newman to go. We don't want another Militant Tendency wrecking Labours chances at the next election. The press will have a field day when they look into his background, which I hope is sooner rather than later.

Act Now! Stop child marraige in the Yemen

action alert! An 8-year-old girl in Yemen reportedly died from "vaginal tearing" after being raped by her 40-year-old husband. When will this beastly practice finally stop? This week, an 8-year-old Yemeni girl allegedly died from internal injuries and "vaginal tearing" after being raped by her 40-year-old husband. This is a horrific example of why child marriage must be stopped immediately. The girl, identified only as Rawan, was reportedly forced to marry a man more than five times her age and then bled to death on her wedding night. In February 2009, a law was passed to set the minimum marrying age at 17, but it was repealed after some lawmakers voiced opposition on religious grounds. Just a year later, a 13-year-old girl died from internal injuries three days after having sex with her new husband. After Rawan's story went viral, Yemeni authorities leapt to deny it. But the U.N. estimates that one in three women in Yemen is forced to marry an older man before they turn eighteen. Enough is enough. Tell Yemen to outlaw child marriage today. Thank you for taking action, Kathleen Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team