|
|
The hijab: "preventing common impositions"
Namazie, Maryam
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2019-11-27/hijab-preventing-common-impositionsDate Written: 2019-11-27 Year Published: 2019 Resource Type: Article Cx Number: CX23989 Children are not the property of their parents. They are individuals with rights and bodily integrity. And just because their parents believe in child veiling or FGM and male circumcision doesn't mean they should be automatically entitled to impose their views on their children, especially when these views are harmful. Abstract: - Excerpt: There are bans on domestic violence, FGM, child labour… because of social and political movements demanding an end to such violations culminating with changes in the law. Therefore, the banning of child veiling and conspicuous religious symbols should be seen within this move to prioritise children's rights over the rights of their parents, religious dogma or religious "leaders" and to codify it in the law. Much of the discussion around the banning of child veiling centres around legitimate concerns for bigotry against Muslims, rising xenophobia and the exploitation of any ban by the far-Right. I would challenge the view that sees girls and women as extensions of their communities and expendable for societal "cohesion." Yes, of course, there is a context of racism but there is also a context of the rise of the religious-Right (including white nationalism) with women and girls as their first targets. Increased child veiling is the result of this rising fundamentalism since the veil and control of "its women" is the most public manifestation of Islamist control. In Britain, today, even some toddlers can be seen wearing the veil. A more ethical position would be to oppose both racism and fundamentalism. Excusing fundamentalism because of racism or vice versa addresses neither and leaves women and girls at the mercy of religious and patriarchal restrictions. Subject Headings |