Liberals may pride themselves in their ability to tolerate others but it is only after the other has been redescribed as oneself that the liberal is able to be “sensitive” to the question of cruelty and humiliation. This act of redescription is still an attempt to appropriate others, only here it is made to sound as if it were a generous act. It is ab attempt to make an act of consumption appear to be an act of acknowledgement.
Ron Scaap – “Rorty: Voice and the Politics of Empathy”
The UK’s Home secretary Theresa May banned all marches in 5 of London’s boroughs for a period of 30 days. This was carried out under the pretense of taking into consideration a petition signed by 25 000 persons asking for the EDL march through Tower Hamlets on the 3th of September 2011 to be banned. This kind of ban has little effect on the demonstration the EDL is still planning to have tomorrow. Instead of an out-and-about march they’ll have a static demonstration but still be allowed to parade through Tower Hamlets under police escort since they will have to move from their meeting place to their final destination where the static demo will take place. The fact remains that the EDL will have their demonstration and that there will be counter protests.
Since this specific ‘ban’ didn’t work it’s extremely unsettling that whilst they should be mobilising to stand with the local community against the racist and Islamophobic EDL, the left chooses to enter into a nonchalant and rather confusing ‘debate’ on ‘The Right To Protest’. All in an effort to scrutinise the government’s manipulation of a specific event, the EDL march, and a specific request by a minority, the petition to ban the EDL from marching, and to delegitimise protest as a whole. The Government should be attacked for reacting in such an over-the-top manner and trying to curb civil liberties in a covert manner. It’s still nonchalant to make a connection between the ban on marches by the government, the right to protest and the EDL march as has been the usual way of conducting the ‘debate’ by the left. Because by using this connection it is implied that the EDL has a right to protest. And this is where it gets confusing.
Confusing since linking the EDL with The Right To Protest does not make any sense at all. The framework within which Human Rights operates is one where rights are not absolute, but rather relative. This means that the Right To Protest is a right, as long as it does not infringe upon other rights. The EDL has shown in the past that it’s more than comfortable with its racist aim of marginalising and demonising the Muslim minority in the UK and elsewhere to fit their racist political agenda. Their previous marches have also made clear that the EDL’s invasion into majority Muslim boroughs have an objective of seeking violent confrontation with those hated ‘others’. This means that the EDL has no interest in local communities’ rights which their presence violates in the worst manner. The local communities’ rights that are infringed upon include The Right to Religious Freedom, The Right not to be Discriminated Against, The Right to Equality and The Right to Safety.
There’s no doubt that the debate’s topics must be separated and handled with care. Shouldn’t we be clearly stating that the EDL must be opposed and that this racist group has no right to protest nor the freedom of expression to spread hatred and disruption in local minority communities? Shouldn’t the government’s efforts to curb rights rather than to facilitate those rights, as is their role in the HR framework, be treated separately from the EDL ban, so as to not give the impression that a Conservative government has our best interest at heart?
And finally shouldn’t we mobilise to the fullest for the counter protests tomorrow in Tower Hamlets? The national demonstration against the English Defence League on 3 September will now assemble in Whitechapel. The new assembly point is 11am, corner of Vallance Road and Whitechapel Road, London E1.
1) This burka ban isn’t a debate on how France interprets their own brand of secularism. In any type of secularism the freedom of religion is set as a cornerstone. This ban goes against that freedom as Muslim women are prohibited to, whom the burka feels like an essential part of their practice, shape their faith the way they want.
2) This ban isn’t about liberating the oppressed Muslim women as it is claimed to be a feminist struggle. Reality is that those women who are forced to wear the burka will now be forced to stay hidden. Surely that can’t be the desired outcome?
3) This ban has nothing to do with public safety. Those who state the possibility of suicide bombers dressing in burka’s to go unnoticed take examples of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan to prove their point. But how many of those attacks have there been like that in the EU or USA. Correct me if I’m wrong but the persons who were responsible for the Madrid and London bombings wore the bombs under their clothes or in backpacks. Shall we just prohibit those as well?
4) We can’t just ignore the fact that 2012 is the year Sarkozy will be running for a second mandate as French president. we also can’t ignore that he is desperate to regain voters, who in polls have drifted away from Sarko’s UMP to Marine Le Pen’s extreme right FN, in a France where racist hate crimes are on the rise. With this ban Sarkozy has proven that he is as much capable of being a racist prick as his opponent Marine Le Pen.
5) The ban is thought to influence the lives of up to 2000 women. On a total population of over 63 million this ban is a clear example of facile gesture politics, where complexity of the issues is shunned and all is played on the perception of a problem.
If you think I missed some essential remarks, please do leave them a a comment.
Racism is a phenomenon commonly regarded as part of right-wing politics, when it’s not solemnly attributed to the Extreme Right. Usually the explanation is the poor ‘enlightenment’ about cultural differences or the negative experiences of an individual. Often racism is attributed as a lower class phenomenon. Instead of ‘racism’ the public generally still prefers to speak of ‘foreigners’ or ‘xenophobia’ and interprets this classification as a strictly individual choice. Structural implementations of racism are not considered or even denied. For years there has been a considerable percentage of the population, who have a condensed worldview and where a mixture of inequality ideologies is part of a recruitment repertoire. Feminists and LGBTTQI’s both belong to groups that are envisioned as a threat to the worldview of these people as, among other things, the equality between the different genders and sexual orientations is considered a risk.
So it is surprising when women rights – and LGBTTQI activists comment on and fulminate against ‘foreigners’ or ‘Muslims’ committing atrocities, seen as a result of ‘ethnicity’, ‘origin’ or ‘religion’.
read further on The Topsoil
“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
Apart from terrorism, the debates on ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslims’, have been mostly focused on gender roles and sexual orientations. The amount of public debate that issues like the headscarf, ‘honour’ killings, anti- gay, – lesbian and domestic violence, forced marriages, etc. are generating is simply astonishing. It is striking that these ‘public’ debates are often about ‘Muslims’, but mostly without ‘Muslims’ participating in them.
In this broad debate sexual self-determination seems to have become, almost overnight, one of the core values of Western society. Instead of talking about the actual differences in treatment that still continue to exist in 21st century Europe, emancipation is held up as a symbol of civilisation and a commitment to separate the good from the bad. This whilst women still earn less money than most men, even when they do the same work. Women from all social groups are affected by domestic violence, regardless of their race or religion. ‘Coming-out’ is still a problematic issue for many lesbian, gay and bisexual children, not something that depends on their parents being immigrants. Persons who do not fit in the unique ‘men’ or ‘women’ image, are still victims of discrimination and violence.
Contributions in mainstream media, online fora and public discussions focus on the creation of a division in society – as in ‘we’ and ‘the others’- based on religious and sectarian differences. When an offender is somehow identified as ‘Muslim’, the message deriving from it seems to be the serious implementation that people are worth dividing into religious groups. During the past few years there was an increase in coverage of -not only- homophobic violence that when it was attributed to ‘Muslims’ and ‘migrants’, even when it was a minority of the cases, has been represented disproportionately. It leaves one wondering why extreme right wing perpetrators are hardly mentioned in media, despite the over-representation in real incidents, and that whilst there is no mention at all for offenses caused by ‘the center of society’.
If one follows the debates on violence against gay men, positions are more hardened today than ever. Every addition to the debate in which young people from immigrant backgrounds happen to be the perpetrators seems to cause outrage. Every homophobic remark on websites or publications that can be attributed to ‘Muslims’ seems to feed the excited discussions on ‘Islam and homophobia’. Particularly young men, regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, language skills, social class or mention of the discrimination and violence they face, are collectively classified as ‘migrant’ or ‘Muslim’ and remain in the centre of attention. It seems of interest whether or not homophobia has religious or cultural reasons and motives.
Homosexual lifestyles are still no small matter. During the education process it is often not talked about, lest it be during biology lessons and teaching staff often do not know if to respond and how to react to homophobic insults that are thrown around between pupils. On the labor market most LGBT’s do not come out because of fear for harassment and/or loss of their job. In neighbourhoods, often perceived as a hostile environment, hiding appears to be a useful strategy. Never is there the perception that being gay or lesbian is ‘normal’. LGBT kids still have the impression of being ‘the only gay in the village’. Suicide rates are significantly higher among LGBT kids then it is with their heterosexual counterparts. Significantly higher are also the numbers of LGBT young people who are kicked out of the parental home, leading to high numbers amongst the homeless.
Politics and administration have done little to remove privileges of woman-man marriages. The model of a stable long-term, monogamous heterosexual relationship between two people is the ideal that is implemented in law, even if such situations occur less often. The advertising on television, talks between friends or the swear words used in a football stadium all point out that there are “normal” and “different” sexual orientations. It becomes even more complicated when persons are perceived as ‘foreign’ because of their name, appearance, language skills or other characteristics. Homophobia interferes in their life as worlds overlap with experiences of racism and discrimination reinforces the exclusion.
Just because public discourse tends to identify migrants as ‘Muslims’, such statements should not be understood that there’s such a thing a ‘the Muslim’. It can not be stressed enough that no one, comparable to Christianity with its Pope and bishops, can speak with authority. The lack of hierarchical organisation -and consequently the lack of registration of the faithful- is one reason why different forms of cultural, social and religious forms of being ‘Muslim’ is possible. The desire to have 1 Islam that can be held account for all the Muslims, based on the image of the Christian churches, has no outcome as questions of ethnic origins, cultural values and religious practices are of more importance for ‘Muslims’.The explanations of homophobia by various ‘Muslim’ outlets should imply the diversity of Islam. Against the background of a media debate which allegedly accepts ‘lesbians and gays’ as the embodiment of Western ‘enlightenment’ and ‘civilisation’ on the one hand and ‘migrants’ or ‘Muslims’ as personified symbols of a ‘pre-historic’ collective on the other hand, it seems to make sense that in every speech about Islam and homosexuality the following points should be taken into account; Neither are the basic rights and liberties of LGBTT’s a reality, nor are homogenised notions of ‘the lesbian’, ‘the migrant’ or ‘the Muslim’ helpful in a debate where it should be about social emancipation. Only then shall population groups (women, migrants, LGBTT’s, etc.) or problems (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) not be placed on hierarchical scales according to more or less value or urgency.
Violence is often developed by those who themselves have experienced violence. The same holds true for discrimination and other form of oppression. Factors such as gender, age, social class and own experience of discrimination are known to be substantial reasons why persons engage in homophobic acts. Strategies to reduces verbal and physical violence should take these factors as a starting point. Age-and gender-specific approaches dealing with homophobia must be used for this. Specific actions and practices for specific people are useful as neither the majority of the ‘ we’ nor the ‘others’ is homophobic.
When origin and religion are added to the analysis grid this reinforces blockades and polarities that, due to a media discourse, is fed by the largest majority population group who debate ‘about’ the minority group, but not ‘with’ them. Any kind of prevention or emancipation effort built on that is bound to fail as it has little to do with the real experiences of people.
Is hope really dead?
