A ban on face-veil would violate individual privacy rights and alienate Muslim women, the European rights chief has warned, urging politicians to promote understanding of different cultures.

“A general ban on such attires would constitute an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy,” Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement.

Last January, a French parliamentary panel recommended slapping a partial ban on face-veils in public institutions.

Similar debates are also heating up in Italy, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany.

Hammarberg said a ban might breach the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows limitations on human rights only on the grounds of public health, safety or morals.

“Those who have argued for a general ban of the burqa and the niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals,” he insisted.

“The fact that a very small number of women wears such clothing has made proposals in such a direction even less convincing.”

The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to protect human rights and democracy in the continent.

It has 47 members who have signed the European Convention on Human Rights.

Counterproductive

The European rights chief said a ban would be counterproductive rather than helpful for Muslim women.

“Prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies,” he warned.

“The suggestion to ban the presence of women dressed in the burqa/niqab in public institutions like hospitals or government offices may only result in these women avoiding such places entirely.”

Hammarberg said media interviews have shown that the majority of the niqab-clad women have taken the decision by their own volition and would not welcome a ban.

“There may of course be cases where they are under undue pressure – but it is not shown that a ban would be welcomed by these women.”

While hijab is an obligatory code of dress for Muslim women, the majority of Muslim scholars agree that a woman is not obliged to wear the face-veil.

Scholars believe it is up to women to decide whether to take on the veil or burqa.

Hammarberg cautioned that subjecting Islam and Muslim-related issues to public debates in many European countries risks playing into the hands of extremists.

“Some of the arguments have been clearly Islamophobic and that has certainly not built bridges or encouraged dialogue.”

He insisted that instead of imposing new dress codes on their citizens, European states would be better advised to launch debates on understanding of different cultures.

“Attempts should be made to broaden the discourse to cover essential matters, including how to promote understanding of different religions, cultures and customs.”

Source: IslamOnline

MPAC.ie Comment: While we thank Mr Hammarberg for his comments, we would encourage Muslim women across Europe to defy any attempted ban by continuing to wear the niqab. Yielding to majority whims of the kuffar is not the Muslim way, and we need to unite on this issue so that any attempts to enforce a ban are met with stiff resistance.

A council of Muslim leaders in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod region released a statement Wednesday calling for a “ban” on celebrating Valentine’s Day, which is growing in popularity in Russia although it is not an official holiday.

“We call on all believers and sensible people to say no to celebrating this day, since it contradicts not only the norms of Islam, but also recognised human morality,” the statement said.

The Muslim leaders also appealed to head teachers at the region’s schools to cancel celebrations for “moral and ethical reasons.”

Little known a decade ago, Valentine’s Day is now big business in Russia, with stores selling heart-shaped trinkets and cards and restaurants laying on special menus.Source

MPAC.ie Comment: A commendable call by our Russian brethren – cut off the means to evil before the permissiveness that pervades Ireland takes over. In Saudi Arabia the government has approved measures to put a halt to creeping westernisms such as Valentine’s Day. No stores or shops are permitted to sell items traditionally associated with this pagan festival and risk confiscations and fines if they are caught. May Allah bless the Saudi rulers and grant them continued guidance upon the deen.

Absurdities come in many varieties. The latest example is the French ban on burqa. Worse, the French action is proving contagious.

In Denmark, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who heads a right-wing government, has hinted at a ban on burqa, even though no woman in Denmark wears it. The notorious rightwing Jyllands Posten newspaper had to retract a story that three or four women wear it in Denmark. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden is being quizzed by the press corps on the subject of burqa.

But the respective countries’ media have found merely 100 women in Sweden and 1,900 in France who wear burqa. A sizable minority among burqa-clad women consists of European converts. From France to Sweden, rightwing elements are up in arms against these roughly 2,000 burqas, supposedly for the rescue of European Enlightenment.

However, only three decades ago, rightwing governments in France encouraged Muslim immigrants to grow beards and wear burqas. Islamised immigrants were considered a safe bet against unionised immigrants.

The ultimate victim of the burqa ban is enlightenment itself, even though the effort to undermine enlightenment is sophisticated, with Europe’s culture being invoked. How absurd! Enlightenment does not need protection by governments headed by rightwing politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy. If Pakistan were to go Taliban tomorrow and the Taliban imposed burqa on Pakistani women, they would justify their action by invoking the French ban on burqa. No one banned burqa in Pakistan, but no woman in my family wears it anymore, although my mother used to.

By the way, long before Sarkozy’s France got alarmed at burqa, the founding fathers of Muslim countries like Turkey and Tunis, Mustafa Kemal Atarurk and Habib Bourguiba, had banned headscarves — for entirely different reasons though. In both these countries now, many young women wear headscarves, as a symbol of defiance. Last year in Istanbul, I saw a girl in a Che-shirt, with her head covered by a headscarf. Ironically, Islamists have thrice won general elections in Atarurk’s Turkey. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Islamist. Bans never work.

The burqa ban is a discriminatory measure directed not merely against French Muslims but ultimately against the democratic rights of the entire working class of France. Instead of leading to integration, the ban on burqa will contribute to anti-immigrant and communalist sentiments, thus fuelling divisions among French citizens. The Nazis targeted Jews before settling scores with broad layers of the working masses.

The ban negates the basic rights of religious freedom and a citizen’s control over his or her own body. It grants the French state new powers to intervene in matters of individual choice on what dress to wear. In essence, it is false to equate the progressive democratic principle of secularism (separation of church and state) with a government edict that abridges individuals’ right to dress the way they want.

In a grotesque way, the French ban is France’s “Talibanisation.” Many proponents of the ban claim that it is directed against the oppression of women, of which the burqa is a symbol. This argument is an example of sophistry. It is impossible to attribute a democratic and liberating character to a law that stigmatises an entire group of people, based on their dress choice.

The inevitable result of this discriminatory law will be to encourage the development of religious separatism and communalist thinking among Muslim immigrants who feel, justifiably, that they are being singled out for persecution. Religious prejudices can be fought back through the political development and education of the masses in the struggle for democratic rights, not through state decrees imposed from above, by governments that serve the interests of the elite.

Source: The News.com

Let me open this by saying quite candidly, that it is my belief that the proposed French ban on the Hijab (the burka is simply a version of the hijab) has little to do with so-called French values and everything to do with good ‘ole French imperialism.

Ever since the French revolution, there has been a strong antipathy toward perceived religious encroachments into French public life. During the French colonial enterprises, France brought this extremist interpretation of secularism to its colonies, which unfortunately included a number of Muslim lands and one of their favourite torturous acts against Muslim women was to strip them naked and cover their heads. In this way, what the women denied them by covering was now on display, and the tables turned – the women couldn’t see the men. It is against this perverse backdrop that the French ban must be questioned.

When a liberal democratic state legislates against women covering, but has little to say about how much is removed – then it’s fair to ask whose interests the state is working for. Where does it stop?

European Muslim women have demonstrated quite visibly that they have the ability to engage in everyday activities without adorning themselves or removing essential items of clothing. They are very clear about why they go into the public domain and make a conscious effort to not be alluring or light entertainment for the opposite sex. But this wouldn’t be enough for the French because of their view of the Muslim woman in general. They feel denied the freedom of lusting after the female form and like many of their European counterparts insist that they remove their covers so that they might view and enjoy what non-Muslim women contentedly show off freely.

Unfortunately European women have learned that in order to obtain the pick of the crop, be it the best housing, careers or men, that something has to be removed, shortened or decorated with rouge and lipstick. In a recent educational article one professional pointed out that she managed to obtain her position because of her ‘looks’, knowing all along that the other candidates were far more experienced and qualified than herself.

But back to France, who is to police the numerous women who choose not to comply, Les Francais Taliban, no doubt! Their menfolk shunted of to prisons for aiding and abetting women in burqas. Imagine that, it’ll be a criminal offence to overdress! It does sound utterly ridiculous that a group of grown men and women would give way to such rampant emotions surrounding their own insecurities and identity crises. And what of the increasing number of indigenous Muslims, are they not French anymore because of their choice of religion? My only advice at this point – get a grip! What is distinctly French today will almost certainly evolve over time, as it has done so already. From where I’m standing the future looks decidedly Muslim – Vive la France.

Umm Is’mael

MPAC.ie
An’Nisa (Women’s) Faction

Source: MetroEireann (Print Edition)

Watching Brenda Power’s performance on RTE’s Spirit Level was the best thing they’ve had on in terms of comedy in a long time. ‘How do we know they aren’t terrorists’, she retorted as she blubbered her way through a slurry of regurgitated quips that must have mortified her fan club of one.

Based on this we’d like to ask a few how do we know questions and who knows, maybe RTE will invite us on to practice our comedy routine:
1. How do we know that the person standing next to us in the bank in a wig and skirt isn’t actually a would-be robber?
2. How do we know that the woman in a short skirt and revealing top isn’t a prostitute selling her wares?
3. How do we know that the ordinary looking woman who just went into the airport bathroom hasn’t activated a bomb.
4. How do we know that that the innocuous, woman from the suburbs isn’t a terrorist.

We don’t, but we don’t actively ban such people from everyday activities or seek to publicly restrict them, do we? If Ms Power doesn’t like the hijab, that’s her prerogative, but she has no right to suggest that her ideas should inform wider public and political opinion. Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” It’s unfortunate that the likes of Power feel it’s enough to enforce more draconian restrictions.

As France moves to restrict the rights of Muslim women, we think it’s time Muslim countries looked at the law of reciprocation as a means of showing France and other states that each move they make can and will be matched.

For example, there are thousands of French nationals working in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, etc, so why not impose a ban on all French women who do not fully cover in public places. Similar to the proposed French ban, impose restrictions on public transport, public buildings, schools, etc. In other words make life extremely difficult for them unless they actually cover themselves, but like France – don’t impose a full ban, if they want to cavort in their own homes, they may do so!

Islamic culture is too important to allow the wanton display of flesh and the looseness of western morals to impinge on our culture and right to be free from such fitnah. We think this would be a good start, after all – if they can do it, why can’t we?

The George Bush mantra ‘they hate us for our freedoms’ took on a whole new meaning today as the UK government proscribed the Islam4UK group. Whether we agree or disagree with what they say is irrelevant at this point, what is important is the impact this may have on others.

Anjem Choudary, one of the group’s key spokespeople, lambasted the ruling as a failing of democracy and however hypocritical that may sound he has a point! Whether Islam4UK or MPAC.ie for that matter see democracy as being a system of kufr, the principles that the UK government claims to abide by still count – and they were quite clearly cast aside in favour of electoral votes today.

Inayat Bunglawala writing in the Guardian today said, ‘we should be very wary of giving our government the arbitrary power to ban entire organisations. It also sets a bad precedent.’ Indeed it does, and in the absence of evidence it makes a mockery of alleged freedoms.

For those Muslims who cheered this ruling, beware lest the same evil befall you for Allah has said, ‘they will not cease fighting you until you turn for your religion’.

First they came for the ‘terrorists’, and I did not speak out—because I was not a ‘terrorist’;
Then they came for the activists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a activist;
Then they came for the dissenters, and I did not speak out—because I was not a dissenter;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

Across Europe, racists have cheered the result of last Sunday’s referendum in Switzerland, which saw a vote to impose a ban on the building of minarets on mosques. “Switzerland forever white and Christian,” said Mario Borghezio, a member of the European Parliament for the anti-immigrant Northern League in Italy, as he hailed the result.

The League is now calling for the cross to be added to the Italian flag, to affirm the country’s “Christian identity”. And in Holland, anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders is demanding a similar ban. “What is possible in Switzerland should also be possible here,” he says. The result shows the growing climate of Islamophobia in Europe that is feeding fascists and other bigots.

This not just about words—it is leading to attacks on Muslims. Before the referendum the main mosque in Geneva was vandalised, and cobblestones were thrown at it, damaging a mosaic. Farhad Afshar of the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland warned that, “Muslims will not feel safe any more.”

The referendum over minarets was initiated by the far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which forced a vote after collecting 100,000 signatures from eligible citizens. The SVP is the largest party in parliament and part of the ruling Swiss coalition government. It gained its biggest vote in the 2007 federal election where it ran an anti-immigrant campaign, saying “criminal foreigners” needed to be kicked out of the country. It used the referendum as a way to further this racist agenda.

Posters

The SVP was allowed to turn the referendum into a vote on the very presence of Muslims within the country. It focused on claims that Switzerland would be put under Sharia law. SVP posters urging a vote in support of the ban showed a menacing-looking woman in a black burqa posing next to missile-like minarets standing on top of the Swiss flag—a Switzerland which had been “taken over” by Islam.

The anti-Muslim arguments found support beyond the far right. Prominent Swiss feminist Julia Onken backed the ban, claiming that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who “condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women”.

Many of those Muslims facing discrimination in Switzerland fled former Yugoslavia in search of a haven. Now they are again targets.

Switzerland has traditionally relied on migrant labour, but also has a long history of racism. After the Second World War, Italian “guest workers” were subject to racist discrimination, including being banned from public parks. The police were handed control over immigration policy, with a duty to prevent the “over-foreignisation” of the country.

The SVP has now collected enough signatures for another referendum, which will allow foreigners convicted of a crime or falsely claiming welfare to be expelled from the country. It has also said it will move to ban the burqa. The referendum result will boost racist and fascist parties across Europe, with their claims that Islam wants to take over Europe.

Yet Islam is an integral part of European civilisation. In the Middle Ages both Muslim Andalucía in Spain and Sicily in Italy were centres of learning and scholarship. Today, the Islamophobia which accompanied the US-led assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan has become intertwined with the anti-migrant racism that has grown with the economic crisis, creating a poisonous brew.

Source: SWE.ie

MPAC.ie comment: If European governments are unwilling or unable to protect the rights of Muslim minorities, then it behooves those minorities to band together and protect themselves and their rights. The burka and minerats are simply pretexts for a deeper insidious evil and hate, this is not the time for passivity or as our mosque leaders would say ‘rocking the boat’. We cannot wait 30yrs to see if a Muslim is treated as an equal, we will not wait nor will we be silent in the face of such injustice. Now is the time for equal rights, NOT tomorrow, Now is the time to end discrimination, NOT tomorrow and now is the time for Muslims to take their G-d given place in society – Now is the time!

An Imam in Geneva, Youssef Ibram, has called upon the Muslim world to ‘respect a decision to ban minerats’, adding, “The message is one of calm. It will not help to abandon trade or ties with Switzerland,” “The Muslim world must respect … the Swiss decision. Otherwise, we would be the first victims.”

While we understand his fears, the mosque where he is currently Imam was the subject of a number of vandalism attacks in the run up to the vote; Mr Ibram must also appreciate the bigger picture. Inaction in this regard will simply embolden the far right and unless they learn that there are consequences where will it stop – today the minerats, tomorrow the Muslims.

While Swiss leaders have expressed regret at the outcome and expressed fears of economic repercussions, they had the means of preventing the vote as it clearly violated constitutional provisions – they chose not to. It is now upon the Muslim world to demonstrate with resolve that an attack on the liberties of a Muslim in Switzerland is an attack on the liberties of all Muslims.

Visitors from the Gulf region generate an estimated $250 million in revenue for Geneva alone, about one tenth of the city’s annual tourism revenue – in these recessionary times what stronger message could we send the enemies of freedom than a complete tourism boycott. Hit ‘em where it hurts we say and more!

Dotted throughout the Middle East are some of the oldest churches in Christendom. In the old city of Damascus in Syria some spectacular examples of ancient Christian architecture rise into the night time sky, the question we might be asking now is should they?

Today the Swiss appeared to have backed a ban on minerats, and coupled with France’s proposed ban on Muslim dress and Germany’s ban on Mosque construction perhaps now is time for a discussion on how Muslims might repay this injustice.

Clearly we should not go beyond the bounds, but we should also keep in mind the order of Allah to ‘fight them in the way they fight you’. If they wish to impose their bans, then there really is no good reason why the Muslim world should not counter their evil with similar bans.

To begin the Muslim world might consider an immediate leveling of all church spires, the imposition of strict Muslim dress on all non-Muslims, the immediate closure of all decadent hangouts and the expulsion of all deviants who simply refuse to act normally. In this way the Muslim world would simply be implementing the Shariah principle of an eye for an eye.

So, what do you think? Should we start to implement bans or not?