London Muslim Women Protest; Pakistan Crisis Betrayal of Zardari Government

Saturday
02nd of Oct 2010
[Women Only]

For more information; Click here 

Home         Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

UK Muslim Women Protest the Subjugation of Veiled Muslim Women Under French Secularism

Women from across London converged today at a protest outside the French embassy to voice their strong opposition to the divisive and discriminatory French law banning face veils from all public spaces in the country. Read more>>>

Protest Letter to the French Ambassador on the French vote to criminalise Muslim women wearing the veil in Public Places

25th September 2010
French Embassy

58, Knightsbridge
London, UK
SW1X 7JT

Re: French Ban of Islamic Face Veils from Public Spaces

Dear, Ambassador Maurice Gourdault-Montagne

We write in opposition to the recent vote by the French parliament and senate to ban Islamic face veils from all public places. The French political establishment may want Muslim women to expose their faces but through this divisive, discriminatory, and frankly xenophobic piece of legislation, the true face of French ‘laicité’ has been made clear. France has shown it has an intolerant ideology where women are secluded from society simply for expressing modesty; a hypocritical ideology where freedom and equality are exclusive to only those who tow the secular line; and a fragile ideology that feels threatened by a few centimetres of cloth and a handful of harmless women. The denial of medical treatment, access to education, limitation of freedom of movement, refusing child benefit payments, and consequently rendering to second class status women who hold an alternative view to secular philosophy, reflects the religious apartheid and fascist nature of this extremist ideology.

Many have questioned why in the midst of major economic, political and social crises, Western governments should choose to wage war on a piece of cloth worn by a few hundred women (if that) within their borders, other than to divert public anger away from political and economic incompetency. How convenient that at a time when the Sarkozy government is embroiled in corruption charges and pushing through unpopular pension reforms and economic cuts, national attention should be focussed on Muslim women and their clothing. Are secular liberal states so inept in solving their own major problems that they need to use Muslim women as human shields to hide their faults, inadequacies and failure in dealing with the real issues of the day?

Furthermore, it has not gone unnoticed that the ‘veil debate’ has simultaneously exploited and fuelled an increasingly hostile climate to Muslims in the West for cheap political ends. Many have commented that Western politicians have used attacks on the face veil to gain the oxygen of media publicity and curry favour amongst the rising xenophobic and anti-immigrant sectors of their electorate. They have unscrupulously exploited xenophobia to secure political ambitions. It demonstrates the cut-throat nature of secular politics where politicians have no qualms in whipping up hysteria about its religious minorities, competing in anti-Islamic rhetoric, and playing politics with their communities in order to bag a few racist votes.

Veiled Muslim women who may be forced to attend French citizenship lessons under the new law will therefore presumably be educated about a way of life that breeds contempt for religion, and where instigating prejudice against minorities and playing communities against one another is an acceptable electioneering tool. They would also seemingly be taught that the French view of the woman’s dignity is to criminalise her for her religious dress, and that freedom extends to the right to exploit women through pornography and prostitution but not to the right for a woman to follow her religious convictions free from harassment.

The ‘veil debate’ has exposed the failure of secular states to create harmonious cohesive societies where all feel equally respected. Secularism’s aversion to religious pluralism has nurtured an environment where racial hatred has thrived. Cheap attacks on the dress by opportunistic politicians have provided a veneer of acceptability for racist expression and anti-immigrant rants, fanning the flames of fascism and stoking tensions between communities. Xenophobic vitriol was given a platform, entertained, and tolerated under the umbrella of strengthening national identity. It has been the bigotry that has characterized this obsession with the veil, the antagonism of religious dress code bans, and the constant demonization of Islam that have fuelled prejudice and divided communities – not women’s clothing.

Via hijab, minaret, and now niqab bans, European states have exposed the failure of secular liberalism to accommodate the rights of its religious minorities. While secularism espouses freedom and claims to liberate Muslim women from lives of oppression, in reality it has treated them in true authoritarian fashion, forcing them to relinquish their religious convictions in exchange for access to basic human rights. It speaks volumes about any ideology that needs to subjugate the rights of its minorities and legalize religious discrimination in order to protect its values. No longer can it be acceptable for advocates of secular liberalism to lay claim to its universality and neutrality in securing rights for all.

Dress code bans have been sold as a measure to protect, liberate, and empower Muslim women. However, where is the justification in criminalising the Muslim woman to set her free; stripping her of her rights in order to guarantee her choice; expelling young girls from school and cutting women off from employment, in the path of liberation; dismissing a woman’s right to determine her own convictions in life, to safeguard equality; and increasing the prejudice, discrimination, and victimization she faces within society by stigmatizing her dress, to protect her? Advocates of outlawing the veil have argued that it cuts women off from public life – the irony is that it is prejudice and bans that have achieved just that. They have argued that it is a ‘symbol of oppression’ – is coercing women to leave their deeply held religious convictions through the arm of the law not a source of oppression itself? Furthermore it is not without irony that various ‘male dominated’ European parliaments, who have described the burqa as a symbol of the subjugation of women by men, see it fit to exert their male patriarchy to dictate to women how they should and should not dress.

If the French government wished to be a torch-bearer for women’s wellbeing, then why not appoint commissions tackling the causes of domestic violence, rape, and the sex industry in France – all of which affect the dignity of tens of thousands of women within the country rather than a few hundred? In addition, while accusing religious dress codes that reflect modes of modesty as outdated and oppressive, these same politicians ignore the objectification and sexualisation of women’s bodies in pornography, lap-dancing clubs, advertising, and the entertainment industry, all permitted under the premise of freedom of expression and driven by the pursuit of profit in Western societies. It is these actions resulting from capitalist liberal values that have dehumanized, devalued, and degraded women. Surely, for those who have a sincere concern for women’s rights, raising for debate, these forms of denigrating women should surely be more pressing than a handful of Muslim women covering their faces out of religious devotion within their societies.

In contrast, Islam views the woman’s dignity as sacrosanct and has prohibited exploitation of her looks and her objectification within society. The Islamic dress code is one means by which to ensure that society values women according to their thinking, abilities, and behaviour rather than their physical appearance. The Islamic belief that a woman’s body is her own private concern and not open for public display, discussion, scrutiny, or monitoring – is clearly not a mark of liberation according to the Western liberal narrative of women’s dignity.

Ultimately, the outlawing of religious dress codes by Western governments symbolizes a failure to convince Muslim women, many Western born, bred, and educated to embrace secular liberalism. It is a desperate attempt at ‘forced secular conversion’. It is reflection of a weak ideology that resorts to state force rather than force of argument to convince and that is unable to protect its own values other than by stripping women of basic rights. The idea of increasing numbers of women who having tasted the fruits of liberalism and lived the Western dream being unconvinced by its ideals, and now adopting Islam as an alternative social and political path, appears to be a concept too indigestible for Western politicians to accept.

While debate has focussed on Islamic dress and whether it is appropriate for Western secular societies, the real debate to be had is whether secularism that is failing on so many fronts is appropriate to be idealized as the best system by which to organize society. The capitalist secular liberal system has caused chaos in the economy, meltdown of family life, and disrespect for women in society. Islamic laws and values offer society dignity for the woman, strong family units, and ensure healthy cooperation of men and women in public life. So in the end, dress code bans simply illustrate that when it comes to a battle of ideas with Islam, secular liberalism is incapable of rising to the challenge.

Signature


Home             Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) 

By Sentencing Dr Aafia to 86 years the US has shown the Cruelty, Injustice and Inhumanity of its ‘Freedom and Democracy’

A US kangaroo court has sentenced Dr Aafia Siddiqui to 86 years in jail.
Dr Aafia, a neuroscientist who studied at MIT, was kidnapped from the streets of Karachi in 2003, along with her three children. The whereabouts of her baby are unknown but there are reports that one of her children was shot and killed. Dr Aafia herself was shot in the stomach by US troops, and held in the notorious US Bagram prison airbase.

She was charged in a US court for attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and three counts of assault on U.S. officers and employees.

Shockingly no one other than Dr Aafia – and most likely her child – was shot in the alleged incident upon which she was charged and convicted.

She has always denied the charges and said the interrogators fired on her when she understandably attempted to flee.

Her family has said she was tortured by U.S. intelligence.

The apparent injustice in this case is huge. Evidence points to Dr Aafia being kidnapped illegally, held without trial, assaulted, her children abused and quite probably one of them killed.
By contrast there is no evidence that she harmed anyone.

This daughter of the Ummah was sold to America by Musharraf, and abandoned by Zardari. Sadly, such injustices will continue until the Ummah has a Khaleefah who will be a shield for the Ummah, expel the invading occupier and ransom the prisoners. The Ummah needs a Mua’tasim Billah, for that is the most vital issue today. (HTB Women)




Read more>>>


Home             Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

French National Assembly vote to ban the burqa: An attack on people's rights

The 335-to-1 vote by the French National Assembly last month to ban full-face veils in all public places in France is a reactionary attack on democratic* rights and a conscious step away from the rule of law. The trampling of religious freedom is part of a broader law-and-order campaign aimed at preparing police-state measures against the population..                    
That the principle of banning the burqa found support across the entire political establishment testifies to the decay of democratic* consciousness in France and to the complicity of the so-called “left” parties. The ban must still be debated in the senate in September, but it is widely expected to pass.

Starting in the spring of 2011, women wearing a burqa or niqab in France will face a €150 fine and will be forced to take citizenship classes. This is proceeding under the hypocritical guise of protecting burqa-clad women from pressure from their relatives, who face draconian penalties. Anyone deemed guilty of forcing a woman to wear a full-face veil will face a €30,000 fine and one year in jail. At the suggestion of the opposition Parti Socialiste (PS)**, these penalties are to be doubled if the woman is a minor..

On June 23, several weeks prior to the National Assembly vote, European parliamentarians from 47 countries at the Council of Europe unanimously voted for a resolution condemning burqa bans as anti-democratic* and discriminatory. Those voting for the resolution included parliamentarians from the PS and the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire), France’s ruling conservative party.

The Council of Europe resolution states that it “deplores that a growing number of political parties in Europe are stirring up fear of Islam, leading political campaigns promoting a simplistic vision and negative clichés about European Muslims, equating Islam with extremism. Incitement of intolerance and even hatred of Muslims is inadmissible”..

In an unmistakable reference to burqa bans like that pushed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the resolution notes, “Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights gives each individual the right to wear religious garments, or not, in private and in public…a broad ban on wearing the burqa and the niqab would deny the right to cover their face to women who freely wish to do so”.

Despite this resolution, PS** and UMP** deputies overwhelmingly voted for (or failed to vote against) the burqa ban in the National Assembly. The French press had barely reported the Council of Europe vote—a cowardly act of self-censorship by the media.

The 335-to-1 vote in the 577-member Assembly was marked above all by the absence of the majority of “left”—that is, PS** and Parti Communiste Français (PCF)**—deputies, who did not appear for the vote. The UMP provided the vast majority of the votes for the ban, though a minority of PS** and PCF** deputies also voted for it. This included the PCF’s** André Gérin, who had a leading role in promoting the ban, chairing the anti-burqa commission set up last year by Sarkozy.

The lone opposing vote came from UMP** deputy Daniel Garrigue, a political associate of ex-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, Sarkozy’s main rival on the French right. Garrigue commented that “in order to combat extremist behavior, we run the risk of sliding towards a totalitarian society”.

Villepin’s objections are for factional purposes, however. He and his political mentor, ex-President Jacques Chirac, do not oppose anti-Muslim policies in principle. While Villepin was in government, Chirac passed the 2004 ban on Muslim headscarves in public schools. This measure was in part designed to promote right-wing sentiments among the teachers, who had just lost a bitter strike against pension cuts.

The fact that the only opposition in the burqa vote came from the UMP** testifies to the bourgeois “left’s” support for the ban, despite their cynical attempts to avoid political responsibility for the measure.

The PS justified its non-participation in the vote not on the grounds that it opposed banning the burqa, but by citing fears that Sarkozy’s ban might prove ineffective, as it might be ruled unconstitutional. In the run-up to the vote, the PS proposed to limit the ban to state facilities rather than all public places. Facilities that would be included in the PS proposal include mass transit, hospitals, schools and government buildings. It would effectively, if not formally, condemn any woman wearing the burqa to seclusion at home..

The burqa ban provoked condemnations in the Muslim world. The Khaleej Times of the United Arab Emirates carried a July 14 editorial entitled “The Veiled Threat in Europe”. It asked, “What is going on in the continent that gave the world the Magna Charta, the first charter of human rights in the world, and democracy*? Not long ago, Europe and the brilliant EU experiment were viewed as role models of progress, political freedom and civil liberties by the rest of the world…. All that appears to be a thing of the past now”..

It warned against the persecution of Muslims, who number over 5 million in France, stating, “Let’s not forget that not long ago Europe witnessed a similar campaign against the Jews that eventually resulted in thousands of them being sent to their deaths by the Nazis. European governments, lawmakers and the media must therefore desist from once again unleashing a monster that cannot be coaxed back into the bottle”..

The French measure is part of a reactionary campaign in several European countries to ban the burqa. In April, Belgium’s lower house approved a full nationwide ban on the burqa, under pain of a €25 fine and seven days’ imprisonment. Similar bans have been proposed in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. Already, Barcelona, Spain’s second largest city, has banned Islamic veils in municipal offices, public markets and libraries. Certain German regions ban teachers from wearing headscarves in public schools..

These bans seek to divide the working class, promote anti-Muslim racism, and intimidate popular opposition to the hated Afghan war.

As in the case of France’s 2004 headscarf law, the burqa ban was proposed to divide the working class and shift the political climate to the right. Sarkozy proposed the ban in June 2009, at the end of a series of union-led “days of action”, in which workers demonstrated their hostility to a €360 billion bank bailout. These days of action soon ground to a halt, however, because they were organized on the bankrupt perspective of supporting a modified bailout package put forth by PS First Secretary Martine Aubry.

The latest moves against the burqa are likewise a political diversion, but under the more explosive political conditions created by the Greek debt crisis. Already badly weakened by the UMP defeat in the March regional elections, Sarkozy’s standing has been shattered by revelations that his party took donations from billionaire Liliane Bettencourt while helping her evade taxes. At the same time, Sarkozy is trying to impose roughly €100 billion in anti-working-class budget cuts to satisfy the banks, notably through a massive pension cut..

After the regional elections, Sarkozy used the burqa issue to further poison the political climate. Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux witch-hunted Lies Hebbadj, the partner of a niqab-wearing woman pulled over by the police for wearing a niqab while driving, accusing him of benefit fraud and threatening to take away his French citizenship. This incitement of anti-Muslim racism led to several incidents where halal grocery shops and mosques were shot up by unidentified assailants.

The Sarkozy government has escalated its repressive measures over the summer. Riots provoked by the police killing of a young Muslim man in Grenoble and a Roma in Saint-Aignan became the pretext for the government to prepare legislation allowing mass deportation of Roma. The riots were repressed by police firing live ammunition..

Sarkozy’s use of anti-Muslim law-and-order demagogy to poison the political atmosphere is now widely acknowledged, even in the bourgeois press. Noting his recourse to anti-immigrant, law-and-order rhetoric amid the Bettencourt scandal, Le Monde commented, “The tactic is now honed to perfection: each time he has hit trouble since the beginning of his term, Nicolas Sarkozy has put forward his image as a law-and-order champion, most often in a polemical way”.

The burqa ban is also part of a sordid campaign to provide a “left” cover for the occupation of Afghanistan, by presenting it as part of a feminist struggle for women’s rights.

This was explicitly raised as one of the reasons for the burqa ban, as it was first proposed last year. At the time, UMP** deputy Pierre Lellouche, France’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said, “If I fight daily for the rights of women in Afghanistan, you will understand that I would wish that all women in France should have the right to their bodies and their persons”.

Polls last month found that 70 percent of the French population opposes the Afghanistan war. The response on the part of the press has been to endorse neo-colonial sentiment. In a July 20 editorial, Le Monde wrote, “What we are dealing with is building a state, if not a nation…. Some may call it the last incarnation of a dirty Western habit: neocolonialism. Whatever one says, this shows the magnitude of the task ahead”.

A naked appeal to neo-colonialism as the justification for the war would meet with overwhelming opposition from the population, however, so measures had to be found to fashion a more deceptive, “left”-sounding pretext. As leaked documents show, the ruling class sees initiatives like the burqa ban as critical to continuing European participation in the war.

In a March 11 report published by WikiLeaks, entitled “Sustaining Western European Support for the NATO-Led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough”, the CIA noted that “public apathy enables leaders to ignore voters”. However, it worried that the degree of opposition to the war might eventually overwhelm public apathy, itself the product of the absence of any political avenue through which people can express their hostility to the war.

The report stressed, in particular, the low level of support for the war among women: “French women are 8 percentage points less likely to support the mission than are men, and German women are 22 percentage points less likely to support the war than are men”. The CIA concluded that there had to be a campaign to highlight women’s “experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory”..

The anti-burqa campaign, presenting the state as the enlightened defender of women’s rights against sections of the Muslim population, is motivated by similar political aims. All of the parties that have participated in this campaign stand exposed as agents of political reaction and imperialist war.(WSWS)
(NB: Replaced *Democratic rights by people's rights     **ignore these terms and political parties. Please see for more information on 'Dangerous concepts and ideologies')

Home              Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

French National Assembly debates burqa ban

The debate on the bill banning the wearing of the burqa or niqab full-face garments began in the French National Assembly on July 6, in preparation for being voted on July 13. The political stakes of this debate for the French ruling class were underlined by the large attendance of deputies, media, and security forces.
The bill proposed by the ruling UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) would impose a total ban on the wearing of the burqa or the niqab in public, subject to a €150 fine and/or the obligation to attend “a course on citizenship” to inculcate “republican values”. Women who refuse to remove their veil in public can be arrested and held in custody for four hours, under the pretext that this is necessary to ascertain their identity..

In addition, a new offense of “enforced concealment of the face,” incurring a year’s imprisonment and a €30,000 fine is aimed at husbands, partners and the family of these women. The repressive character of the bill had been strengthened by amendments submitted by the opposition Parti Socialiste (PS). It insisted that the original fine of €15,000 proposed by the UMP be doubled, and that these penalties be doubled in the case of a woman who is a minor.
The law would come into effect in the spring of 2011 after six months of “pedagogy”—that is, a further political and press campaign of Islamophobic denunciations of the burqa and niqab.

In her presentation of the bill, Justice Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie insisted on the profoundly republican character of a law. She claimed it has nothing to do with “either security or religion” but rather “public order,” “dignity”, “equality” and “transparency”. She pompously added, “The Republic does not conceal its face.”

Here Alliot-Marie is being clumsily disingenuous. One of the main arguments for the ban has been security, which is fed by the prejudice that every Muslim is a potential terrorist and the state needs to be able to check their identity at all times.

The main arguments used by André Gerin, the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) deputy who chaired the parliamentary mission that prepared the burqa ban, have been based on religion. Nouvel Observateur writes that Gerin “passionately defended the principle of a total ban. ‘We must stop the drift of Islamic fundamentalism’, he said, ‘with one republican voice ... We are in line with the voices which are raised today against Islamic fundamentalism in the Arab and Muslim world.’”

The proposed burqa ban is a flagrant and unconstitutional attack on basic democratic rights, appealing to anti-Muslim sentiments to disorient and short-circuit public opposition. However, it is well known that such a bill would violate basic provisions of existing law. Thus, Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man states: “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”

This principle is reiterated in the European Convention of Human Rights, in Article 9, entitled “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. It says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”..

The ban also tramples the legal principle of laïcité, or state neutrality in matters of religion, by requiring the state to selectively punish followers of Islam as it is practiced in large sections of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. The fact that the wearing of the burqa was spread in large sections of Afghanistan by the Taliban during the 1990s—when they were supported by the US and other French allies—only underlines the hypocrisy of the ban..

The government’s decision to proceed with the ban is a clear sign of moves towards extra-legal and authoritarian rule. It is acting despite a consultative ruling by the State Council that a burqa ban could have “no firm juridical basis.”

In April Prime Minister François Fillon asserted that the government would fast track the anti-burqa legislation, even though such a law could be ruled unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights. “We are ready to take legal risks because we think that the stakes are worth it”, he said.

He chillingly implied that democratic rights as guaranteed by the Convention were obsolete: “We cannot encumber ourselves with prudence in relation to legislation that is unsuited to today’s society.... If we have to shift the jurisprudence of the [French] Constitutional Council and that of the European Court of Human Rights, we think that it is our public duty to do so”.

The French political elite is playing the racist card, as in many European countries, to whip up a right-wing atmosphere, divide the workers, and hide the implications of the economic collapse in Europe and the turn towards nationalism in its ruling classes. It will inflame sentiment in the Muslim world and in France’s 5-million-strong Muslim community, as they justifiably conclude that the French state is illegally targeting them for oppression..

The government has been able to proceed above all due to the absence of any opposition from the bourgeois “left.” The fact that these parties support this legislation demonstrates that there exists no constituency within French official politics for a defense of democratic rights.

The burqa mission, led by Communist Party deputy, André Gerin, was set up with the support of all parliamentary parties, including the PS, the PCF, the Left Party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the Greens. As for the so-called “far left” parties, such as Olivier Besancenot’s Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste, none of them has led a campaign to oppose the ban—which has substantial support among all their memberships.

The anti-Muslim atmosphere promoted by this political campaign against the burqa has already led to altercations and attacks, including with firearms, on mosques and halal groceries.

Closely allied to this issue is the Hebbadj case, being used by the government to prepare a law enabling the state to strip a naturalised French citizen of his or her nationality, if they come into conflict with the authorities and so-called “republican values” (See French government witch-hunts partner of niqab-wearing woman ).

In another treacherous manoeuvre, the PS parliamentary group has decided not to participate this time in the vote on the bill, implicitly acknowledging the fundamental unpopularity and right-wing character of the law.

Jean Glavany, representing the PS in the debate, explained the difficulty of supporting the government, while posing as an anti-racist defender of democratic rights: “Many of us cannot vote against this text, because we too are against the wearing of the full-body veil. But we cannot vote for it because the debate on the burqa is part of government manoeuvres linked to the debate on national identity. As for abstention, it is difficult to explain to public opinion.”

This is, however, simply an attempt to hide the PS’ agreement with racist policies from the public—under conditions where the “national identity” campaign was massively unpopular. Jean-Marc Ayrault, head of the PS group in the Assembly, assured the government on July 1 that the PS would make “no obstacle to the vote for the law.”.

Already, on May 11 the PS had voted “without hesitation” with the UMP on a resolution calling for a total ban on the full-body veil, in the name of “republican values.”.

The burqa bill is due to be voted on Tuesday July 13 and seems set to pass. Only the three Green deputies, allied with the PS, have announced their intention to vote against—and on a right-wing basis. They assert that adequate laws already exist to deal with “the necessary identification of people by law-enforcement agencies” and “to forbid the wearing of clothes hiding the face if public order were threatened.”.

The PS will be joined by PCF deputies in not participating in the vote, though André Gerin will vote with the government, as will three PS deputies, Emmanuel Valls, Jean-Michel Boucheron and Aurélie Filipetti, and virtually all of the 10 deputies of the PRG (Left Republican Party) allied to the PS. (WSWS)

Home               Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

London Women Protest Against French Niqab Ban – Sat 25th Sept 2010 [Women Only]

PROTEST AGAINST FRENCH NIQAB BAN FRANCE SUBJUGATES MUSLIM WOMEN IN THE NAME OF ‘LIBERTY’
On September 14th, the French Senate ratified a bill to ban face veils in all public spaces across the country in the name of protecting ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’. Muslim women in France will no longer be allowed to wear the niqab in the streets, in parks, on public transport, and in all government buildings including benefit offices, hospitals and schools..
Alongside the hijab, madrassahs, Muslim schools, Shariah courts, marriage and mosque minaret bans, the face veil is simply the latest Islamic belief that has come under attack by Western governments. In this current attack on the niqab, it is not a piece of cloth on trial but ISLAM and its position in theWest and the world. Bans on the hijab and niqab are aimed at forcing Muslim women to leave their Islamic values in exchange for Western secular liberal ones.

For too long,Western politicians have labelled the Muslim woman’s dress a symbol of oppression, while ignoring the epidemic of violence, harassment, and sexual abuse that women suffer under liberal values.

As Muslim women we can no longer accept for such lies to be thrown at our deen.We need to turn the table on this debate and show that it is Islam alone that can secure the respect of women, protect families, and solve the plethora of social problems plaguing Western liberal societies.

SATURDAY 25th SEPT 2010 11:00am @ French Embassy, No. 58 KNIGHTSBRIDGE, London, UK, SW1X 7JT

Contact: Sri Lankan Sisters; +447591615103 (Women Only)

Home          Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Press TV-The Link-Hijab and The West-07-25-2010

Part 01



Part 02


Part 03


Part 04


Part 05


Part 06


Home         Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)