Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

A Tale of Two Countries

Posted October 28th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Compare these two news reports from October 26.  The first, from France:

The lower house of the French parliament voted on Friday to fully reimburse all abortions and to make contraception free for minors from the age of 15 to 18.  France’s national medical insurance pays for abortions for minors and the poor, while other women are reimbursed for up to 80 percent of the procedure’s cost…  Contraception is partly reimbursed.  The bill now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to pass. [AP]

A safe bet:  with free and easily available contraception, there’ll be far fewer abortions in France.  And with free and safe abortions, there’ll be far fewer unwanted children born into poverty and negligence.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Republican party sees any form of national health insurance as some kind of dire Communist plot against America, and plans to scrap Medicare.  Its official platform calls for a ban on all abortion except in cases of incest and armed rape (and there are a ton of Republicans who want to ban it even then), and it is intent on shutting down the country’s largest provider of contraceptive advice and services:

Planned Parenthood filed a new lawsuit on Friday over a Texas rule that bars its clinics from a state health program for low-income women because the organization performs abortions…  In the past two years, conservative Republicans in more than a dozen states have taken steps to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. [UPI]

What puzzles me about the French bill:  why it seems to exclude girls under the age of 15.

What puzzles me about the American elections:  how any self-respecting woman could even conceive of voting Republican.  Or any man with a conscience.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: US politics, women | Tagged: Tags: abortion, contraception, France, health insurance, Medicare, Republican party, war on women | 10 Comments
  1. Sani says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Why should a woman go to seek for abortion?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 29, 2012 at 7:54 am

      Sani — maybe start by reading the other comments…

  2. Judith says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    It is a matter of control. They can’t let go of a woman’s womb and the power of dominance.

  3. Jude says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    I know a lot of devout Christian women who vote for Republicans because they are opposed to abortion. I don’t argue with them about religion, politics, or abortion because I hate arguing. But I know that if they knew what I am–an atheist liberal–they’d pray for me and consider me evil. Sometimes I think it’s like coming out as gay–if people in small towns realized that atheists are all around them, and that we’re okay human beings, maybe they’d get over the prejudice. For that reason, I bought an atheist bumper sticker for my pickup. Anyway, I can understand why they take abortion personally–they actually *like* babies (I gave birth to three of them, and they were okay, but other babies? Yuck). But their overriding need to stop others from getting abortions leads them to vote for idiots like Romney. It’s difficult to forgive them for that.

  4. paul skillman says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Yes, Yes. What is wrong with American. I am American but I do not understand.

  5. Chad says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    The poor cant catch a break. Here’s an example. A poor single woman works as a store cashier in the morning and a waitress in the evening. Her job barely covers her rent and her old mom’s medications.

    Insurance will not cover contraception, and if she gets pregnant, she cant get an abortion. So she is forced to keep an unwanted child who ends up raised by the streets.

    Same people who are against contraceptive coverage and abortions are the ones who oppose helping this family or this kid when he grows to become unemployed or homeless because any help to him is “entitlement”. They are all “good christians” when it comes to saying no to abortion and contraception, but when it comes to helping poor people or providing healthcare, food or shelter for the poor, they forget that Jesus was all for the poor and weak, they are suddenly greedy people. They use religion only for the ideas they like. Every “life” is important and from god, only till its an adult whose poor then racism takes over and its just hate.

    All very hypocritical if u ask me. They all talk about abstinence like its the solution to everything, but lets ask those same “god-fearing” people…how many of them were abstinent till they got married. Let alone what percentage were abstinent through college. Why do they try to force things down society’s throat when even they couldnt live by these ideals. I just dont get it. Sad.

  6. SusieOfArabia says:
    October 28, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    The religious right in the US have taken over the Republican Party – and it’s a dangerous situation for all women. We must vote these backward idiots out of office, for all our sakes.

  7. Jerry M says:
    January 15, 2013 at 11:43 am

    The people who run the US must be making a lot of profit from an inefficient health care system. Otherwise it makes no sense. It is uber expensive and wasteful.

  8. Fish Jones says:
    January 17, 2013 at 12:12 am

    I commented on your guns one too.

    While guns are a lifelong hobby of mine, they are about the only thing that makes Republicans… Less irritating?

    France is awesome for setting that up.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      January 17, 2013 at 10:58 am

      Huh?

What’s Right About the DSK Rape Case

Posted July 5th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Since Joe Nocera in today’s NYT puts it better than I can right now, I’m running (below) part of his response to the egregious Bernard Henri-Levy‘s hysterical crowing about l’affaire DSK (Strauss-Kahn was dragged “lower than the gutter,” his treatment was “pornographic,” perfidious America etc).   Ironically, BHL’s screed was published the same day his dear, maligned, noble friend DSK was charged with another count of attempted rape in France, where his accuser, indisputably white and part of the same privileged upper-class elite, described his behavior as that of “a chimpanzee in rut.”

BHL is outraged — outraged! — that New York District Attorney Vance took the word of a mere hotel maid over that of an esteemed member of the French establishment.  He also blithely ignores the DNA evidence and the maid’s injuries, assuming that if she had lied in the past, on her asylum application, she must of necessity be lying now.

(Word of warning to all women:  never tell a lie in case you get raped, because we all know that it’s impossible for women who lie to be raped.)

Nocera rightly calls out BHL on his elitism.  And takes pride in the fact that the case is in jeopardy not because of DSK’s multi-millionaire lawyers, but because of  the hard work of DA Vance’s horribly underpaid team.

It’s just a pity Nocera’s piece didn’t run yesterday, Independence Day:

I can’t see what Vance did wrong. Quite the contrary. The woman alleged rape, for crying out loud, which was backed up by physical (and other) evidence. She had no criminal record. Her employer vouched for her. The quick decision to indict made a lot of sense, both for legal and practical reasons. Then, as the victim’s credibility crumbled, Vance didn’t try to pretend that he still had a slam dunk, something far too many prosecutors do. He acknowledged the problems.

Lévy, himself a member of the French elite, seems particularly incensed that Vance wouldn’t automatically give Strauss-Kahn a pass, given his extraordinary social status. Especially since his accuser had no status at all.

But that is exactly why Vance should be applauded: a woman with no power made a credible accusation against a man with enormous power. He acted without fear or favor. To have done otherwise would have been to violate everything we believe in this country about no one being above the law.

As for Strauss-Kahn’s humiliation, clearly something very bad happened in that hotel room. Quite possibly a crime was committed. Strauss-Kahn’s sordid sexual history makes it likely that he was the instigator. If the worst he suffers is a perp walk, a few days in Rikers Island and some nasty headlines, one’s heart ought not bleed. Ah, yes, and he had to resign as the chief of an institution where sexual harassment was allegedly rampant, thanks, in part, to a culture he helped perpetuate. Gee, isn’t that awful?

The point is this: We live in a country that professes to treat everyone equally under the law. So often we fall short. The poor may go unheard; the rich walk. Yet here is a case that actually lives up to our ideal of who we like to think we are. Even the way the case appears to be ending speaks to our more noble impulses. Vance didn’t dissemble or delay or hide the truth about the victim’s past. He did the right thing, painful though it surely must have been.

To judge by his recent writings, Bernard-Henri Lévy prefers to live in a country where the elites are rarely held to account, where crimes against women are routinely excused with a wink and a nod and where people without money or status are treated like the nonentities that the French moneyed class believe they are.

I’d rather live here.

————————

Making the same point:  Peter Beinart in today’s Daily Beast.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, sanity, US politics | Tagged: Tags: "chimpanzee in rut", Bernard Henri-Levy, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, elitism, France, Joe Nocera, rape, Vance | 7 Comments
  1. Kitty says:
    July 5, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Exactly. I liked this so much I posted it on my FB wall.

  2. Bruno HANQUIER says:
    July 6, 2011 at 2:37 am

    BHL as we like to call him is a shame to our country, a man whose position as an elite intellectual I have never been able to understand. Maybe his clownesque figure is entertaining enough that media attention is drawn to him… For me his only worthy performance was when he was “entarté” by Noël Godin.
    I totally back Nocera’s analysis and your reaction. Shame on us indeed.

  3. Anonymous says:
    July 7, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    Apologies if this is off-topic, but a certain youngster called Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi- an Iraqi, Islamophobic bigot- has written a piece critical of you and your work at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/lesley-hazleton-karen-armstrong-ii.html.

    Could you please write a response to this boy?

    Regards,
    Anonymous.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      I must be doing something right: Now I can say I’ve been called an apologist for Islam as well as a Zionist spy. I reckon these two idiocies cancel each other out. On the other hand, a second Karen Armstrong? Those Jihadwatchis really know how to insult a girl…
      Meanwhile over at richarddawkins.net, I’m apparently a wishy-washy spiritual seeker (those orthodox atheists can turn an insulting phrase too), unable to appreciate the literary brilliance of Christopher Hitchens.
      Am so glad I’m agnostic.

      • AJ says:
        August 25, 2011 at 6:45 am

        I hardly know who is Tamimi and what this blog jihadis watch stands for.
        After reading the blog and comments there I learn this is Islamophobic blog and Tamimi with Muslim name is another sneaky Muslim haters.

        Theres something very immoral about this blog.
        If Tamimi has to write about Lesley then he must write here, where she can respond.
        He is sneaky and sneakiest are the commenters there.
        Most of the comments were not focused on what Tamimi wrote instead they were focused on Lesley bashing and her other work which was not discussed.

        At some time after Ramadhan I will try to respond to his exploitation of 72 virgin and other Quranic interpretations.

  4. Anonymous says:
    July 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    ‘On the other hand, a second Karen Armstrong? Those Jihadwatchis really know how to insult a girl’

    Forgive the fact that typing on a computer often obscures nuances in tone, but what is your opinion of Ms. Armstrong and her work?

    ‘Meanwhile over at richarddawkins.net, I’m apparently a wishy-washy spiritual seeker’

    Tamimi refers to you in the same terms, does he not?

    I appreciate your response, but what would be really nice is a separate post to answer the specific arguments he makes in his claim that you are misleading the audience concerning interpretations of the Qur’an. Ammunition is needed when it comes to debating Islamophobic bigots.

    Regards,
    Anonymous.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 8, 2011 at 11:21 am

      Obscured nuance deliberate. I appreciate what KA is doing, but can’t help getting this tone of pious diligence, so that her biography of Muhammad, for example, adds nothing to my understanding of the man himself. If it had, I wouldn’t be writing a new biography of him right now. Which brings me to your second point: debating closed minds is time-consuming and frustrating, since the response will always be to simply shift the focus rather than respond to what you are actually saying. Imagine trying to debate with Sarah Palin, and you’ll see what I mean. If I weren’t in the middle of writing this book, I’d probably take them on with gusto nevertheless, and with a certain delight in the fray. But at least for me, a book demands sustained focus, which I’ve been grappling for. This is why though I’ll be honoring prior commitments, I’ve been refusing all new invitations to speak until I finish it, and why I’m considering taking a break from blogging, which is huge fun but not good for sustained concentration. I’ll decide in the next few days (and post on the decision, of course…). If I do take a break, there’ll be lots of pent-up blogging energy when I start up again.

Could You Pass the Slut Test?

Posted May 19th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

What happens now that IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (as of today, make that former director) has posted $1,000,000 bail while hiring the world’s most expensive defense lawyers for his rape trial?

Now the victim gets pilloried.

Her name has been published in France and on the web, where fantasies of her being a whore are rampant (apparently it’s okay to rape a prostitute).  The French gang of good ole boys (and, doubly shamefully, gals) have proclaimed themselves in shock — shock! — that a pillar of society like DSK could be treated by the NYPD like a common criminal.  So what if rape is criminal assault?   Handcuffs are fine for the lower classes, but for the privileged few?  How dare those Americans!  Can’t they see she’s just a maid?

Once again, as DSK’s lawyers dig up every detail of the victim’s life and twist it to make it appear slutty, it’ll be clear why rape is so drastically under-reported.  This woman has real courage.  Most victims simply can’t face the idea of being picked apart and violated again and again in the press and by the defense, who will do everything they can to “prove” that she is a lying, vengeful, publicity-seeking slut.  Like the mob that raped CBS reporter Lara Logan in Tahrir Square, they will do their best to pull her apart.

Could you pass the slut test?

Imagine it:  every detail of your personal and work life put on public view and twisted into leering ‘significance.’  Every date, every drink, every tittle and every tattle of gossip or innuendo, every misstep you ever made will be paraded as “proof.”  Only a hermit could pass this test.

You’ve had sex before — guilty.

You are poor — guilty.

You are black — guilty.

You are a single mother — guilty.

You have breasts and a vagina — guilty.

You are human — guilty.

How did you even dream of daring to bring such a charge against a wealthy, powerful, white man?  Who do you think you are?  You’re just a cleaning woman.  Just a nobody.  Just another lying slut.

This sentence really struck me in President Obama’s Middle East speech this morning:

We have a chance to show that the US values a street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of a dictator.

And now we have a chance to show that we value the dignity of an immigrant maid more than the assumed privilege and entitlement of wealth and power.  How dare they treat him like a common criminal?  Because if he is indeed found guilty — and for the NYPD to act with such alacrity in a rape case, you can be sure the evidence is very solid — then that is exactly what he is.  A criminal.  And all too common.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, DSK, France, Lara Logan, NYPD, President Obama, rape | 7 Comments
  1. Jason says:
    May 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Let’s wait and see what the courts say…. innocent until proven guilty I say.

  2. Homayun Zahidi says:
    May 20, 2011 at 1:38 am

    And this sentence of yours struck me:

    “we have a chance to show that we value the dignity of an immigrant maid more than the assumed privilege and entitlement of wealth and power.”

    Thank you Lesley for putting things in perspective.

  3. Moes says:
    May 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    I’m french and I can tell you that not all french are “shocked” about DSK’s treatment.
    Some very few so-called and arrogant “intellectuals” have say so. Instinct of defense of people from the same social class… Majority of our people are not shocked.
    It’s just that in our country you can’t publish an image of someone with handcuff until proven guilty. That’s the law. And the justice system is different. The Grand Jury doesn’t exist and accusation and defense have both the same power, from the very beginning of an investigation. And that is the same person, a judge, that lead the investigation and that has the duty to be impartial and investigate for accusation as well as for defense. In the US, the attorney has all the financial and technical support of the public authority, but only if you have money you can afford a good lawyer to be defended. How is that justice ? Poor people are always guilty. This is why most of people in France were surprised. But not shocked. Just because we have a complete other system (i’m not saying it’s better, even though it’s more respectful of the presumption of innocence). And not for the reason you evoke.

    But it’s true though that for example Bernard Henry Levy, a self proclaimed “philosopher”, said that DSK deserves a better treatment than a dealer. And to hear that was more shocking for french people than DSK’s treatment. But that’s not “all the french”, thank goodness. Just a few oligarchs who think they’re above the crowd and the laws.
    If DSK is proven guilty, we will be the first to think he deserves the maximum sentence.
    But you look so sure. How do you know he is guilty ?
    I won’t be surprised if he was, but I have no idea if he is. I wasn’t there and haven’t seen anything from he’s file. Did you ?

  4. Moes says:
    May 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Me again, sorry. Please read “his file” in last sentence.

    Also just to say that the day the US will “value the dignity of an immigrant maid more than the assumed privilege and entitlement of wealth and power” is yet to come. But I don’t see it happening in the next few decades. It’s just a beautiful sentence, but it’s complete nonsens. The US is the country that values the most money and wealth in the whole world. The US is build on business and the power of money. Money IS the state and has the power in your country. All the power. You still consider socialism as evil and think you live in a democracy but it’s an oligarchy. The country is run by banks, weapon industry, health insurance companies, drug companies and oil companies. They make the laws and the system. Would the 2008’s crash have happen if not ? How can you value the dignity of an immigrant maid more than the assumed privilege and entitlement of wealth and power in these conditions?
    If only it was true…
    Imagine she was accused of something. Could she have the same lawyer than DSK ? No, she would be immediately declared guilty and sentenced. No money ? No justice. Your prisons are full of innocent but poor people. You kill people by injecting them veterinarian products, frying them or hanging them and a good proportion of them are innocent. They were just not rich enough to have a good lawyer. With all due respect, we don’t have lessons to receive from the USA (where money rules everything) in terms of justice or social equity or solidarity.

    • mary fracentese says:
      May 22, 2011 at 9:22 am

      Moes- Just like in France, not all are shocked at DSK’s treatment, NOT all AMERICANS are ruled by money.
      I might be one of those who would end up getting wrongly convicted (a.k.a. – not rich) …I see what is wrong in the US. While I can agree with many of your statements, remember, it is not the whole country and not the majority of the people……

  5. Kathy Kerr says:
    May 24, 2011 at 12:39 am

    now that parti quebequios is out of the picture we can get straight answers on these topics. men aren’t the only rapists and wome can beat men up the same as the other way around. Also,,it is way past time for us natural born CANADIANS to break free of the mold that UNITED STATES corruption has so earnestly tried to place on us. For the love of God can’t you sexually deviated freaks keep your own root chakras in your own diapers. Personally I am sick and tired of hearing about your disgusting sexual exploits and being forced to re-live my own horrors of sexual abuse. Why can’t you put it back in the closet where it belongs. I hope ALL sexual deviants get chemically sterilized so that the rest of us can live peacefully.

  6. Eddie says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Years ago the New York City Police Department decided that the Sex Crimes Unit needed to change its name. The name itself had a bad connotation and showed its lack of sensitivity towards those who had been victims of sexual assaults. As a result the Sex Crimes Unit transformed itself into the Special Victims Unit. Not only was the name changed but manner in which these crimes were investigated also changed. There was an emphasis on additional training for Detectives especially in regards towards sensitivity for the victims of these crimes. Now it’s time for our Courts to under go the same transformation. Victims need not have to pass the “Slut Test,” as you so eloquently describe in your piece, in order to receive justice. If the recent trial of the two NYPD officers acquitted of raping a young woman is any indication of the status quo in our Courts, let’s hope that this victim passes the test with flying colors. Unless of course there’s DNA evidence.

Why Ban Just the Burqa?

Posted July 14th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Today, Bastille Day, France’s new idea of freedom is banning the burqa.   “Allons enfants de la patrie” — for this you had a revolution?

Yesterday’s vote in the French National Assembly was practically unanimous (one sole nay),  and of course, per the French, has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of anti-Muslim sentiment.    A Dieu ne plaise! It was solely and absolutely for security reasons. So I’m celebrating the French contribution to freedom with a re-run of Let’s Ban Sunglasses.  After all, if the full Islamic veil is now to be  legally defined in France as  a form of criminal concealment, foiling identification by security personnel, why stop there?   Let’s follow the logic and make it easier for everyone to be identified:

Let’s ban sunglasses

and big floppy sunhats

and tinted contact lenses.

Let’s ban wigs

and hair extensions

and make-up.

Let’s ban beards

and clowns’ faces.

Let’s ban cosmetic surgery

and mustaches

and baseball caps

and hair dye

and skin lighteners

and spray-on tans.

Let’s ban and ban and ban

until there’s nothing left to ban any more

and then we’ll be….

safe?

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: existence, feminism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: ban, Bastille Day, burqa, France, French National Assembly, Marseillaise, niqab, security, veil | 1 Comment
  1. Anosh says:
    May 6, 2012 at 12:57 am

    I couldn’t have said it better myself! 🙂

Why Go Full Tilt at the Full Veil?

Posted April 22nd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Sex and religion are at it again.  French president Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing to ban women from wearing the full Islamic veil because it “hurts the dignity of women and is unacceptable in French society.”

But this is no more about women’s dignity than the invasion of Iraq was about liberating Iraqi women (though the Bush administration didn’t hesitate to use that as one of their many false rationales for war).

Sarkozy’s logic is so badly skewed that it looks like yet another fit of Islamophobia, cynically using women’s rights as the excuse.

Any woman who’s ever tried on a vintage hat with a veil falling from the brim knows the sexy feeling that comes from being half hidden.  But that’s a far lipstick-feminist cry from the full ultra-orthodox Islamic veil — the niqab, which leaves only the eyes uncovered, or the burqa, which has a mesh screen over the eye slit.  These literally make women invisible.  Or in France, it seems, all too visible.

Yet why exactly is such veiling so abhorrent it requires a law to ban it?

Veiling has been used throughout the centuries as a means of keeping women second-class citizens, and not solely in Islam.  It was only narrowly avoided in Christianity — Saint Paul wanted it adopted for all early Christian women.  And women hiding their hair with variants on headscarves is a sign of piety in orthodox Judaism and Christianity (think nuns) as well as in Islam.

Yet the Bible doesn’t call for veiling.   And neither does the Quran.  What it actually says, in Sura 24, verses 30-31, is as follows: “Tell believing men to lower their glances and guard their private parts… And tell believing women to lower their glances and guard their private parts… and let their headscarves fall to cover their necklines.”  Basically, if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it.

It takes centuries of ultra-conservative clerics to turn a call for bisexual modesty into a sexist straitjacket.

But does that mean a western government should punish women for refusing to conform to social norms?  How is that different from punishing women for refusing to wear the veil in authoritarian Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Does this mean France might consider banning other items of women’s clothing?   Ban women from wearing pants, for instance?  Where exactly do “dignity” and “acceptability” start and end, and in whose eyes?  If a woman chooses to cover her face, that’s her decision to make, just as it is if she chooses to bare her midriff.   Either way, government intrusion is objectionable.

Ah, but there’s also a security reason for the proposed new ban, adds Sarkozy’s spokesman.  We need to be able to see people’s faces at airport security checkpoints. But then why not simply require that people uncover their faces for security screening? Why go full tilt at the full veil?

By adopting such legislation, France will only move itself toward a mirror image of Saudi Arabia.  Bare midriffs banned here, full veils banned there.   And women, once again, just pawns in the game.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: burqa, France, Islam, Islamophobia, niqab, Quran, Sarkozy, veil, women | 5 Comments
  1. Olivier D'hose says:
    April 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Looks like Belgium has passed a law to that effect. See http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2010/04/29/les-deputes-belges-s-appretent-a-voter-l-interdiction-du-voile-integral_1344971_3214.html (in French) for some details.

    It is interesting that the law was voted today (April 29) considering that Belgium doesn’t have a government anymore…

  2. Msinfomaven says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:32 am

    France is not the only country making laws against the niqab. Belgium, parts of Germany and parts of Canada are making laws against it too. Interestingly one of the main groups leading the Niqab ban in Canada is the Canadian Muslim Congress (Sunni Muslims). . . and it’s not just Western Countries . . .

    Al Azhar University in Cairo has banned women from wearing niqab to the famous University and many other Muslim countries such as Iraq heavily frown on this practice.

    Why?

    For policy makers this is not a question of a woman choosing to observe niqab, it has deeper religious and political motivations. Most countries, Western and Eastern, do not want the Saudi brand of Islam (Wahhabi or Salafi movements) to feel welcome or acceptable in their countries which is associated with the ultra-conservative practice of full-veiling. For them, this is not a matter of a “woman’s choice” but discouraging extremist Islamic groups who are hateful and disruptive in society to flourish.

    However, not ALL niqab wearing ladies are extremists. As a peace-loving Muslim woman who wears hijab I would be horrified if the hijab was banned. Where’s the balance between a woman’s right to choose, religious freedom and a countries right to protect itself from importing religious extremism? Personally I’m stuck on that one.

    Lesley, thank you for starting a blog site. I always enjoy your style and appreciate your perspective.

    Further reading, a discussion with Dr. Bernard Lewis:
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/30/islam-and-the-west

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      J’Amy, yes, the Belgian law just passed — even without a government. What got to me in today’s HuffPo piece on it was the citation of “Belgian anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity.” I wonder what “a Belgian” looks like. A British writer’s stereotype like Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot? National stereotypes are insidious and absurd, all the more so when national legislatures themselves adopt them. And religious stereotypes are just as dangerous.

  3. Cathleen says:
    August 4, 2014 at 9:40 am

    I simply feel uncomfortable around those who try to hide in front of me and anyone would whatever reasons lie behind it. I simply feel that all this attempted to be intellectual debate is rather simple. It is not the covered women who talk to native wester ones that feel uncomfortable but the other side. They come to a foreign country and impose their own religious norms, and they do IMPOSE them as when it comes to speaking you just give an addressee an option of not listening but if you simply wear a cloth on your face, that restrain the hearing by the way, you impose it. Its like testing the boundaries of how tolerant the other side is, but what about your tolerance and respect of the western country. So expect to be respected but you don’t consider giving it back. Quite fair indeed…
    If you want to practice the weird way of being do it where everyone is like that but reflect twice before you make everyone like it too. Its just simple manners, sorry.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 25, 2014 at 10:26 am

      Thank you for your honesty. I gather your discomfort comes from the sense that “they” are hiding, though even with niqab, the eyes are visible, and the hijab covers only hair, not the face. The issue here seems to be that you feel something is being imposed on you. But what exactly?
      A few further questions occur to me:
      Do nuns wearing coifs also make you uncomfortable? Or orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs? Or African American women in big go-to-church hats? Is the discomfort only with women, or are you also uncomfortable with Sikhs wearing turbans?
      And when does a country stop being “foreign”? When you are born there? When you have lived there for half your life, as I have in the US? When you speak the language as well as or better than native-born citizens? When you are second-generation, or third-generation, or fourth or fifth or sixth or more?
      I hope you’ll agree with me that these are at least questions worth pondering. — L.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback