 POLITICAL opportunist Nicolas Sarkozy forgot three fundamental lessons when he decided to denounce the burka.
The first one is that men should stay well clear of becoming embroiled
in expressing opinions on women’s clothes, unless of course you happen
to be called Lacroix, Gaultier, Lagerfeld or Ghesquiere.
This was a lesson learned the hard way by former British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw who was pilloried when he questioned the nikab
after asking a female constituent to lift her veil so he could see her
face. Could you imagine him making the same request of any female
members of the Saudi royal household during one of his galloping
missions to the Middle East? Foolishly Scotsmen Gordon Brown and John
Reid, hailing from a country where men wear pleated skirts and paint
their faces blue, then waded in with the grace of a couple of dancing
bears.
Even the Bishop of Rochester - a man who wears a pointy hat and a
purple dress - chipped in his dislike of the nikab, full face veil or
burka. Of course they were all despatched very quickly by Muslim women
in Britain who proved themselves to be anything but oppressed,
subjugated creatures. And just to show there's real solidarity across
women of faith and no faith, quite a few western feminists from the
Stop The War coalition expressed their disdain at Straw and co while
standing shoulder to shoulder with their Muslim sisters.
The second lesson is try and be sincere if you are taking up a cause.
Sarkozy feigned his utmost respect for women by saying he felt the
burka represented the unacceptable symbol of women's enslavement -
today I can unveil him to be a purveyor of weasel words If he really
cared about the subjugation of women he would seriously tackle the
appalling levels of domestic violence French women suffer at the hands
of French men - two million are victims of bullying, violent partners
... a staggering 400 are murdered by their spouse.
So how many women in France actually wear the burka? The answer is a
very tiny minority - so much so that when the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby
went to interview a burka-wearing woman in Paris she couldn’t find a
single one! The former BBC Europe correspondent went to the Muslim
quarter in the capital but all she could find were lots of women of
North African origin wearing hijabs. She was given blank expressions
and shrugs of the shoulder when she asked if any of them knew women who
wore burkas - and the local Islamic dress shops didn’t stock any.
So why would Sarkozy launch such an onslaught on the burka, describing
Muslim women who wear it as 'prisoners behind a grille, cut off from
social life, deprived of their identity'? As pointed out by one Islamic
observer: 'The irony is that many Muslim women would say the current
headscarf ban in France has created exactly this situation for them'.
Well the real reason had nothing to do with the burka and everything to
do with Sarkozy putting pressure on the Liberal Left, throwing a few
cheap shots at the expense of Muslim women while trying to pick up a
few votes at their expense as well.
Sarkozy, like many male politicians, is pretty gutless so in a pathetic
attempt to disguise his real motivations in wanting to pick up votes,
he invents a proposed ban of the burka as a defence of women's rights.
This, he knows will go down well with the French electorate who see
veiled women as a threat to their liberal self esteem.
Using women to win votes is a common political ploy - I remember when
Tony Blair and George W Bush claimed their invasion in Afghanistan was
in defence of women’s rights and designed to liberate Afghan women.
Those two even used and pushed their own doting wives to stand in front
of the world's media to justify their husband's invasion of the country
- on a recent visit I can tell you there are few career women emerging
from the rubble of Kabul. So next time a politician tries to drive
through any form of controversial measure or make a spectacular
announcement, please don’t fall for the mealy-mouthed excuse that
they're doing it for the liberation of women and/or ethnic minority
groups.
Reading the weekend newspaper opinion pages and columnists, I was
amazed at how many supposedly intelligent, feministas fell for the
Sarkozy bull. But they did - hook, line and sinker exhibiting an
astonishing shallowness in their writing. I genuinely have a feeling
Sarkozy is one of these weak-kneed, lily-livered men who trembles at
the thought of empowered women. And I think the sight of a woman in a
burka makes him feel inferior. Could it be that because his wife - as
beautiful as she is - has bared all for every man on the planet to
ogle, that the very sight of a burka-clad female makes him feel
insecure in his own relationship? As any European schoolboy can testify
from the pictures Blu-tacked to his ceiling, to the crumpled, sticky
torn out, somewhat crusty pages of last year's GQ hidden under their
bed, France's First Lady is the stuff of male fantasies.
I suppose there must be some men around who might get a kick out of the
thought of pre-pubescent boys fumbling over pictures of their wife in
the buff ... or even dirty old, syphilitic men playing with themselves,
but I wonder if the pocket-sized French Leader (a mere 5ft 5ins tall)
is secure and confident in his third marriage to a much, much younger
woman? Consider this, if a woman chooses to be veiled rather than show
her face to a man, is she doing so to protect her husband's feelings,
in which case she could be seen as being compliant and servile, or -
more importantly - is she doing so to protect her own face from the
violation of a man's eyes?
Could it be that some of these women, when peering out of their burkas
at the French leader, feel so special that they do not want the likes
of him staring back at all of their features? And this, I believe, is
what disturbs Sarkozy because if burka-clad women don't want to be
peered or leered at by men like him then this would be seen not as a
show of subjugation but a sense of female superiority.
Could it be that because every bloke on the planet who wants to, can
study in detail every curve and crevice of his naked young wife, that
the very sight of a burka-clad female makes him feel uncomfortable in
his own relationship? After all Mrs Sarkozy can be viewed in all her
naked glory by anyone who can access the internet or a copy of last
year's GQ. And then someone paid $91,000 for a naked portrait at a
Christies auction in New York. On top of that it appears someone stole
hundreds of highly intimate images of France's First Lady and an
ex-lover a couple of months ago.
Fascinating stuff, but let's not dwell too long on this subject, I've
yet to raise the third lesson Sarkozy needs to learn and that is:
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. A quick scratch beneath
the thin veneer of public office reveals the French leader to be a
sauteur.* And the source of this information is non other than the
long-suffering Cecilia Sarkozy, who had to put up with 18 years of
being married to a man with behavioural problems including being mean,
cold and a serial womaniser.
In the book Cecilia, published by Flammarion in January 2008, she said
of her husband: "He has a ridiculous side. He is undignified. Nicolas
doesn't come over like a president. He has a real behaviour problem ...
He needs someone to point it out to him. I did it for 18 years and I
can't do it anymore. I am the last person who can do it."
These, and other, extracts incensed Sarkozy and his estranged wife's
lawyers sought an injunction to prevent publication on the grounds that
the book had invaded the former first lady's privacy not that it was
inaccurate. The former French first lady Cécilia Sarkozy, divorced in
October 2007, is quoted as criticising her ex-husband's morals, his
parenting skills and his fitness to be president.
That must have been extremely crushing and hurtful for France's 'ittle
emperor'. But no more hurtful than attacking and scapegoating harmless
Muslim women. I wonder if he feels as though they are judging him from
behind their veils? Well we're all judging France's Little Emperor now
and the verdict isn't a good one.
*Sauteur: A vulgar term for a serial womaniser
* Yvonne Ridley is a broadcast journalist and author who presents a
weekly political show called The Agenda for Press TV. Her website is
www.yvonneridley.org
Readers have left 25 comments.
Dr Veil:
Doctor Veil Say 'Zulfi at the helm, no wonder we get crappy article like this' You need to refocus MPACUK because you are way off the mark with your articles.
Pierre Cardigan:
" The first one is that men should stay well clear of becoming embroiled in expressing opinions on women’s clothes, unless of course you happen to be called Lacroix, Gaultier, Lagerfeld or Ghesquiere. "
Does MPAC do irony ?
Virtually 95 % of the comments on this site raging about women wearing burkas and niquabs is, always is, written by MEN !
The people demanding women wear burkas and niquabs in Afghanistan, Swat, Saudi et al, and using violence and in intimidation to achieve that aim, are MEN !
Ski mask:
Why shouldn't men comment on women's clothes? And why shouldn't Sarkozy comment on the nature of the country which he was elected to govern? Whether or not the full face veil is common in France is irrelevant. He's saying it isn't welcome.
Mind you, the insane Ridley is right about the hypocrisy of a Jack Straw cosying up to the savage and brutal Saudis whilst being courageous with people of no consequence, i.e. his constituents.
We should have no dealings with the Saudis or any other country where women are beaten for dressing 'immodestly'.
And if western feminists had any integrity they would be campaigning for equal treatment of Muslim women, not keeping quiet.
Akh The Angry Academic Actavist:
The article is written by Yvonne Ridley. Yvonne is a women's name. Yvonne is a women. Yvonne is NOT a man Glad to clear the confusion up for you. MPAC spot on once again! Does MPAC do irony ?
Virtually 95 % of the comments on this site raging about women wearing burkas and niquabs is, always is, written by MEN !
— Pierre Cardigan
icbm:
Oh French muslims...wake up and smell the cafe! Sarkozy is targeting you because he knows you don't wield any political will or power - apathy on your part breeds your own persecution. Stand up and be counted
Sista:
Love love love this article!
rom:
Muslims always have the alternative to migrate to a muslim country, if they can't stomach the principles of a modern, democratic and secular society. In european countries, there is indeed a societal dislike for hijabs, chadors, niqabs, burqas, and the like. Hence muslims should show a little more respect and deference to western values and not affront the very people that gave them shelter and a living with aggressive, imposing muslim outfit!It is absolutely obvious that a women who chooses to wear the burqa has not the slightest intention at all to adapt to the requirements of a secular and modern society.In this case she should migrate back to the country she came from or to any other muslim country of her choice, because then she is nothing but a burden and threat to the adopting society!The burqa should be banned Europe-wide! rom
Moo:
More inconsequential drivel from Ridley... no wonder al-Jazeera sacked the silly cow.
Asif:
Yvonne was a bad journalist before she converted to Islam and guess what, still is! I don't know why Muslim's love her as a journalist or commend her articles.
Taz:
Great article and it's making the Islamophobes so upset!
More from Yvonne please.
Icbm:
@Asif : many Ppl appreciate Ms Ridleys ability to shed light on the underlying reasons, to undertake accurate research and speak her mind using eloquent English. Maybe you should go back to reading your spiderman comics
Imran Zain:
Muslims always have the alternative to migrate to a muslim country, if they can't stomach the principles of a modern, democratic and secular society. In european countries, there is indeed a societal dislike for hijabs, chadors, niqabs, burqas, and the like. Hence muslims should show a little more respect and deference to western values and not affront the very people that gave them shelter and a living with aggressive, imposing muslim outfit!It is absolutely obvious that a women who chooses to wear the burqa has not the slightest intention at all to adapt to the requirements of a secular and modern society.In this case she should migrate back to the country she came from or to any other muslim country of her choice, because then she is nothing but a burden and threat to the adopting society!The burqa should be banned Europe-wide! rom — romI always thought we live in a democracy, NOT under a communist regime. What baffles me is that no-one bats an eye-lid at people who are transvestites... Maybe one day European countries will accept "modesty as the best policy".
A girl (I know I checked):
Muslims always have the alternative to migrate to a muslim country, if they can't stomach the principles of a modern, democratic and secular society. In european countries, there is indeed a societal dislike for hijabs, chadors, niqabs, burqas, and the like. Hence muslims should show a little more respect and deference to western values and not affront the very people that gave them shelter and a living with aggressive, imposing muslim outfit!It is absolutely obvious that a women who chooses to wear the burqa has not the slightest intention at all to adapt to the requirements of a secular and modern society.In this case she should migrate back to the country she came from or to any other muslim country of her choice, because then she is nothing but a burden and threat to the adopting society!The burqa should be banned Europe-wide! rom — romYou know what, I have so much to say to answer that comment. However, I have better things to do like washing my hair than to reply to someone who has no idea of what his backside is puking out. What a load of rubbish.
Mazin:
The people demanding women wear burkas and niquabs in Afghanistan, Swat, Saudi et al, and using violence and in intimidation to achieve that aim, are MEN ! — Pierre CardiganWhat the hell do you mean "et al". As a Saudi, yes I admit that women are socially and privately intimidated into covering their faces when they don't want to. And yes it also happens in Afghanistan and Swat. But how dare you say "et al", suggesting that this also happens to the rest of the muslim world. The majority of women in Saudi, Afghanistan and Swat do cover their faces, but lets look at the countries were the majority muslim population do not have a mass of women being intimidated into covering their faces. Southwest Asia: Iraq, Oman,United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran. Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt; Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Sudan. (I'm not so sure about the last 5, but I think the majority of women don't cover their hair) Southern Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Turkey. Eastern Europe: Azerbaijan, parts of Russia (North Caucasus and Idel-Ural) and Ukraine Central Asia: Former Soviet states like Uzbekistan et al (that is a proper use of "et al") South Asia: Bangladesh, the Maldives and most of Pakistan Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia Other areas of the world, but not states: Xinjiang, Ningxia and Qinghai in China. Chechnya, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Ingushetia, Tatarstan, Bashkiria in Russia. Jammu and Kashmir in India. Get your facts straight and don't try to mislead. MOST of the Islamic world do not force their women to cover their faces. Neither have there been any terrosist attacks or crimes been committed lately by women who do so, therefore, I don't see why it has suddenly become an issue for western governments to talk about freeing the women from covering their faces. IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT. All this is politically motivated. In Saudi, were Western governments can force Saudi Arabia to modernise they don't. And in Afghanistan, were they supposedly went in to "liberate" the women from the oppressive Taliban, they did nothing. Instead, they were too concerned about appointing a government and key ministers (as well as a president) that will make sure that their objectives for going into Afghanistan are met. To ban something that is done by a very small minority of people, who have to date committed no crimes is just as useful as banning men and women from co-habiting or getting married, as a small minority of them abuse their partners. Anyone who supports Sarkozy's views on this is an idiot. There are more important things to worry about and legistlate and try to change to make this world a better place.
T.E.SAMAD:
I agree with everything said by icbm. The French Muslim community is even more weaker than the British Muslim community and is therefore an easier target for opportunists like Sarkozy. As long as apathy remains the strongest emotion in the ummah, Muslims will continue to be easy targets.
LOL:
Is Imran Zain on drugs?
ROFL:
Wow!~ No one has called anyone else a Zionazi or BNP supporter for a while on this site...
Surely it cannot be as a result of that internal MPAC memo we keep hearing about calling attention to the fact that the demented name-calling was bringing MPAC into (even further) disrepute?
Everyone is being so well behaved! Could this be because almost all the MPAC cheerleaders posting on this site are in fact about three people all of whom happen to be staffers at... cough... MPAC?
Surely not! That would mean, in effect, MPAC was supported by nearly no one at all. How's that for INFLUENCE!
Long Live Israel! We will defeat MPAC!
Ninja Man:
OOOH, you forgot WESTERN EUROPE, but maybe you meant to.
maybe you can explain TOWER HAMLETS, BRADFORD, ILFORD, WEST HAM, LUTON and so on.
unknown:
Yvonne was a bad journalist before she converted to Islam and guess what, still is! I don't know why Muslim's love her as a journalist or commend her articles. — Asif Too many people sit around on their backsides doing nothing but critize those that are trying to make a change. If you thnk you can do a better job then why dont you? Put your money where your mouth is!
Mazin:
OOOH, you forgot WESTERN EUROPE, but maybe you meant to.
maybe you can explain TOWER HAMLETS, BRADFORD, ILFORD, WEST HAM, LUTON and so on.
— Ninja ManI was trying to make the point about the "et al" comment being misleading. I was originally going to keep my list to a list of countries to counter his Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. But when he decided to mention an area of Pakistan, I also decided to mention areas. I did keep western europe out, as well as south and north america and australasia. As I said, I was commenting on countries with large muslim populations. Please don't tell me you want a break down of the worlds muslim populations city by city, or even borough by borough.
Taz:
Yvonne was a bad journalist before she converted to Islam and guess what, still is! I don't know why Muslim's love her as a journalist or commend her articles. — AsifWrote the moron who can't spell properly. The irony.
ICBM:
Wow!~ No one has called anyone else a Zionazi or BNP supporter for a while on this site...
Surely it cannot be as a result of that internal MPAC memo we keep hearing about calling attention to the fact that the demented name-calling was bringing MPAC into (even further) disrepute?
Everyone is being so well behaved! Could this be because almost all the MPAC cheerleaders posting on this site are in fact about three people all of whom happen to be staffers at... cough... MPAC?
Surely not! That would mean, in effect, MPAC was supported by nearly no one at all. How's that for INFLUENCE!
Long Live Israel! We will defeat MPAC! — ROFLTrue, Israel has a track record of violently attacking civillian establishments, as they did in Gaza destroying schools, colleges and hospitals mercilessly. So i'm not surprised if Israel comes after MPACUK - but they can never defeat them. Israel may have the 4th largest army in the World but it was defeated in the 2006 Lebanon war by Hezbollah - a small, disciplined group protecting their community. MPACUK too are a small, disciplined group protecting their community. so stick that up your pipe and smoke it
JC:
Well, it is a pity that everyone can't just choose what they want to wear, just to put the article in its full light, if i want to wear a cross out or a skull cap in school or in the public sector then i couldn't. This is a disgrace to everyone, not just the Muslims. I think this is important so people don't think it is purely victimisation against Muslims. And just before anyone wants to get upset by what i've written, obviously Muslim women were the ones who suffered the most and as i said, we should all have the choice.
Re. Ridley's words: "is she doing so to protect her own face from the violation of a man's eyes?"
How strong and threatening does she make my look!?! I hope that when I 'look' at people as I walk down the street I am not VIOLATING them. If only there were more calm, rational responses and fairness, we wouldn't have the Sarkozy rules or the fear-mongering of a man's eyes.
P.S. To Mazin who quoted Iran as a place where people aren't forced or intimidated, you're not allowed to show your hair in the streets, and i know several Iranian ladies that would love not to have to wear a head scarf... BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE CHOICE and YES THEY DO FEEL INTIMIDATED!
Mazin:
Yvonne was a bad journalist before she converted to Islam and guess what, still is! I don't know why Muslim's love her as a journalist or commend her articles. — TazWrote the moron who can't spell properly. The irony. — AsifWhat's wrong with his spelling? Maybe I can't see it, but it looks ok to me. His grammer is a bit off, if that's what you meant, but his spelling seems fine to me.
|