Hirsi Ali on owls and ostrichs
In the German daily Die Welt an essay (in German) by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In this essay she states that if we want integration to succeed, we must be tough on immigration. A false tolerance (as practiced by the ostrichs) that tolerates the repressive side of Islam should not be allowed. She thinks it ostrich politics towards the so-called ‘prada-islam’ (girls who were very hip clothes combined with fashionable headscarves) is misleading. The problems with Muslims nowadays are not just temporarily and do not go away with time. This ostrichs should listen more to the owls who recognize that not all Muslims will take part in an European future based upon European values (freedom and tolerance). These owls cannot and do not ignore the totalitarian consequences of the Islamist movement. The owls fear that the false tolerance will lead to a clash between the extreme right movement and the islamist movement. She states that allowing more and more immigrants from Islamic countries is detrimental for those people that both the owls and the ostrichs want to protect: women and children.
Since most people will agree that women’s rights should be protected, her plea sounds good and in my opinion she certainly has some relevant points but in the end her plea might be counterproductive for the women she want’s to protect.
With her plea she echos the important publication of Okin: Is multiculturalism bad for women?
Thus it is clear that many instances of private sphere discrimination against women on cultural grounds are never likely to emerge in public, where courts can enforce their rights and political theorists can label such practices as illiberal and therefore unjustified violations of women’s physical or mental integrity. Establishing group rights to enable some minority cultures to preserve themselves may not be in the best interests of the girls and women of the culture, even if it benefits the men.
One of the problems of multiculturalism is indeed that it privileges existing organizations that happen to be mostly dominated by (first generation) men. The main problem with Hirsi Ali’s essay in this, is that she puts the rights of women in Islam and the rights of the same women in Western society as being opposed to eachother. This is difficult to maintain. For example my colleague Edien Bartels has done research into the matter of women and children being left behind by their spouses and fathers in Turkey and Morocoo. This research clearly points out the differences in power between men and women that is also caused by the Dutch immigration legislation:
If a woman enters the Netherlands for the purpose of residence with her husband or
partner, she will initially receive a residence permit that is linked to the existence of the
relationship. This is known as a dependent residence permit. After three years, she may
be eligible for an independent residence permit. However, if she does not apply for this
permit, her residence continues on the basis of the dependent permit. This construction
is open to abuse by men wishing to keep their spouses in a precarious position with
regard to residence rights. In this situation (where the dependent permit is extended)
the woman continues to be dependent on the existence of the relationship and therefore,
in a sense, on her husband for a long period of time, although the existing rules do not
actually require this.
Another example how the dichotomy between the west and islam, misses some crucial points is the Shari’a debate in Ontario (Canada). In the latest ISIM Review Anna Korteweg has written an interesting and very informative article on the issue. She states that the Shari’a debate was an debate about group rights. According to her the focus of the debate on multiculturalism gone bad and islam, confused a larger problem with arbitration with matters of religions. The original Arbitration Act neglected institutionalized power imbalances between men and women; not only relevant for Muslims but for all Canadians. The debate was however not on how arbitration in general can strengthen the power imbalance, but on how Shari’a threatened women’s rights, Canadian identity and culture. The issue of how to protect Canadian Muslim women from rulings to go against her interest, was not discussed at all. And by abandoning religious arbitration (not only for Muslims) the actual decision in the end, might even be worse because now there is no state oversight anymore in those case that still involve religious arbitration.
The dichotomy of Hirsi Ali is therefore misleading, uneffective and in the end maybe even counterproductive when it concerns the protection of women’s rights.
Hello Martijn!
That was the argument being put forward but there was such a hysterical reaction to the use (wrongly I might add) of the word sharia that the real issues got lost. Religious arbitration has long been around for many different groups –
For Muslims, and other religious groups without any ‘official’recognition by the government, women’s rights will remain shrouded by patriarchal religious interpretations and without protection outside of the communities involved. There are many women who suffer behind closed doors becasue they wish to follow a religious ruling, yet are being bullied by misogynistic interpetations of Islamic civil law.
So… no open arbitration that women can use, safely and openly with the certainty that her religious obligations are being met, as well as being protected by Canadian law to make sure she is not being oppressed. Who wins here?
Sad to see semantics distract people from reality.
Hi long time, no see 🙂
Couldn’t agree with you more. But isn’t politics usually about semantics? People should know by now that the word sharia triggers all kinds of reactions, same happened here with a Dutch minister. Are they so ignorant that they don’t realize or do they use it on purpose?
And of course, in the end we have forgotten that the position of women is the most difficult one (with or without arbitration).
i say ignorant.
it has been a while hasn’t it?
fasting, work and school combined to make me very very lazy slooooowwwww moving!
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=10454
an example of how women suffer from patriarchal interpretations of religion no matter what religion they follow – and how collaborating with the justice system protects them from continued abuse
Thank you that is a very useful article in this regard. Also very important for the discussion in Canada (and outside) probably.
🙂