French burqa ban leads to more racism

Is this what the current Dutch government wants for our country too?

In April, France introduced a law against covering your face in public. Muslim women in full-face veils, or niqab, are now banned from any public activity including walking down the street, taking a bus, going to the shops or collecting their children from school. French politicians in favour of the ban said they were acting to protect the “gender equality” and “dignity” of women. But five months after the law was introduced, the result is a mixture of confusion and apathy. Muslim groups report a worrying increase in discrimination and verbal and physical violence against women in veils. There have been instances of people in the street taking the law into their hands and trying to rip off full-face veils, of bus drivers refusing to carry women in niqab or of shop-owners trying to bar entry. A few women have taken to wearing bird-flu-style medical masks to keep their face covered; some describe a climate of divisiveness, mistrust and fear. One politician who backed the law said that women still going out in niqab were simply being “provocative”.

Ahmas, 32, French, a divorced single mother of a three-year-old daughter, puts her handbag on the table and takes out a pepper spray and attack alarm. She doesn’t live on the high-rise estates but on a quiet street of semi-detached houses. The last time she was attacked in the street a man and woman punched her in front of her daughter, called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. “My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban. In my head, I have to prepare for war every time I step outside, prepare to come up against people who want to put a bullet in my head. The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they’ve done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I’d be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were ‘walking prisons’. Well, that’s exactly where we’ve been stuck by this law.”

Very roughly estimated, there are probably some 100 to 200 women in the whole of the Netherlands who wear the full on face covering veil. In my own Amsterdam neighbourhood, which does have a high percentage of people with a Muslim background, with a mosque only a few blocks away, there are one or two, perhaps three women I’ve seen wearing this. Even if we accept the prejudices of those arguing for a ban, this is not a real problem. But then of course it’s meant as a distraction from the very real problems our country is facing,what with the economy and having a rightwing government with no ideas how to handle these problems other than by keep on cutting spending even when it’s clear this is counterproductive.

For the politicians pushing this, not just Geert Wilders, but supposedly respectable politicians like our prime minister Mark Rutte, this may not be an issue they take seriously other than to pull the whool over the electorate eyes, but for the women who’ll be caught in the backlash this will only make worse the racism and bigotry they’re already facing. After all, once the law has singled out a certain group of people as beyond the pale for how they look or act, it does encourage people to take justice in their own hands, as the French example shows, but we also know from closer to home. We have seen an increase in accepted casual racism and islamophobia once the politicians and opinion makers decided it was alright to break these taboos — and it’s not all stuff that has been bubbling under the surface before that. Having these sorts of negative examples and stereotypes of a certain population group fired at you day in day out matter. Having the law say that certain religious attributes are wrong matters even more.

Rerouting around censorship

Found in Yahoo Answers: a private school starts banning books. One student takes the law in her own hands and starts her own library:

I go to a private school that is rather strict. Recently, the principal and school teacher council released a (very long) list of books we’re not allowed to read. I was absolutely appalled, because a large number of the books were classics and others that are my favorites. One of my personal favorites, The Catcher in the Rye, was on the list, so I decided to bring it to school to see if I would really get in trouble. Well… I did but not too much. Then (surprise!) a boy in my English class asked if he could borrow the book, because he heard it was very good AND it was banned! This happened a lot and my locker got to overflowing with the banned books, so I decided to put the unoccupied locker next to me to a good use. I now have 62 books in that locker, about half of what was on the list. I took care only to bring the books with literary quality.

The story is three years old, but still inspiring to see somebody involved enough not to take censorship laying down. If the school library refuses to stock certain books because they’re anti-Christian, start your own library. Pretty cool.

Google: threat or menace

It’s a bit self serving, but this Torrentfreak article about Google censorship does raise a genuine concern about its power as the world’s number one search engine:

Apparently Google has decided that its users should not be searching for the keyword BitTorrent, so why list any results then? It’s the beginning of the end.

Jamie King, the founder of Vodo – a platform where artists can share their work with million of people at no cost – agrees with this assessment. Searching for one of their perfectly legal releases on Google used to suggest the word “torrent” with a link to the download page, but not anymore.

“Google already showed it will censor for the highest bidder — China Inc. springs to mind. Now it’s doing it for MPAA & Co.,” King told TorrentFreak.

“I guess it’s simple: our favorite search monopoly cares less about helping the thousands of independent creators who use BitTorrent to distribute legal, free-to-share content than they do about protecting the interests of Big Media in its death throes.”

If you’re not on Google, you’re effectively invisible on the internet. Google therefore has an inordinate amount of power, yet barely any accountability. As a commercial organisation, their only responsibility is to their bottom line, fluff about “not being evil” notwithstanding, Yet having say a nationalised version of Google would not fill me with confidence either. Google is one of the ‘net’s natural chokepoints and what we need to get if we want to keep the internet free is a decentralised Google. Think what might have happened had Google censored the news of the Egyptian revolution.

A tale of two kinds of victims

Charles and Camilla shocked at public anger aimed at them

A report about the attack by rioters on the car carrying Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall will be completed by Friday, the home secretary has said.

A victim of police brutality carried away by two London cops

No report on the attack by police on peaceful protesters will be completed by Friday, nor is any promised by the home secretary. The home secretary is however of the opinion that organised thugs infiltrated the protests.

In either case the violence perpetruated by the ruling classes on students and young people — ending of EMA grants, the raise in tuition fees — remains invisible, part of the “peaceful democratic process”.

Fear the demon teenager

Imagine if newspapers consistently stereotyped any other group this way:

The portrayal of teenage boys as “yobs” in the media has made the boys wary of other teenagers, according to new research.

Figures show more than half of the stories about teenage boys in national and regional newspapers in the past year (4,374 out of 8,629) were about crime. The word most commonly used to describe them was “yobs” (591 times), followed by “thugs” (254 times), “sick” (119 times) and “feral” (96 times).

Other terms often used included “hoodie”, “louts”, “heartless”, “evil” “frightening”, “scum”, “monsters”, “inhuman” and “threatening”.

The research – commissioned by Women in Journalism – showed the best chance a teenager had of receiving sympathetic coverage was if they died.

“We found some news coverage where teen boys were described in glowing terms – ‘model student’, ‘angel’, ‘altar boy’ or ‘every mother’s perfect son’,” the research concluded, “but sadly these were reserved for teenage boys who met a violent and untimely death.”

At the same time a survey of nearly 1,000 teenage boys found 85 per cent believed newspapers portray them in a bad light.

Media demonisation of youths is not new of course; it’s an old and venerable tradition with British tabloids. Mods/rockers, punks, hip-hop gangstas: every new subculture has been demonised in turn. But there’s also our media created obsession with safety: we cocoon our kids until they hit puberyt and then suddenly they’re all purse snatching knife criming yobbos: two sides of the same coin. Fear the other kids, keep our own safe at home. I’d hate to be a teenager right now, to be harassed and hassled everywhere I went just for being a teenager, having to be controlled all the time.

And teenagers are nearly powerless in our society as well. There is no Teenage Defense League after all, no real political consciousness of teenagers as an interest group. Most of them can’t even vote, so there’s nothing in it for politicians to cater for them. As the article goes on to mention:

The research found that – for all the coverage of teenage issues – the boys’ voices themselves were rarely heard in newspapers. Fewer than one in 10 articles about young people actually quoted young people or included their perspectives in the debate.

Fiona Bawden, the WiJ committee member who presented the research at the British Library, said: “When a photo of a group of perfectly ordinary lads standing around wearing hooded tops has become visual shorthand for urban menace, or even the breakdown of society, it’s clear teenage boys have a serious image problem.

It’s not surprising that teenagers have no voice in the newspapers: they don’t buy the papers, the papers’ advertisers are not interested in their business and therefore they are safe to be demonised. The market in action.