RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.firstpost.com/india/new-zealands-hijab-gesture-is-deeply-flawed-6351781.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

(Ruchika Sharma is a doctoral scholar in history at the Jawaharlal Nehru University)

Last week, New Zealand’s women, including prime minister Jacinda Ardern, wore headscarves to show solidarity with the Muslim community in the wake of terrorist attacks that targeted mosques. The act drew mixed reactions: while some praised New Zealand for the show of support, others questioned whether donning the hijab, a symbol of oppression in several Muslim majority countries, was necessary to express togetherness.

It is seminal here to consider the repercussions of Scarves in Solidarity—not only because the hijab has oppressive origins, but it is still used in several Muslim majority countries to control women’s bodies. Furthermore, the idea that hijab signifies the Muslim community stereotypes Muslim women in particular and the community in general.Yet, the biggest flaw of the Scarves in Solidarity movement is regarding women as active identity bearers of a community. The idea that women must bear the burden of a community’s identity, which is at the core of so much religious practice and belief, is one of the core dictates of patriarchy.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2019/04/hijab-hypocrisy-not-just-piece-of-cloth.html

In the wake of the Christchurch atrocity, New Zealand’s female (and feminist!) prime minister, along with the female mayor of Christchurch, covered their heads with hijabs out of “respect” for their Muslim fellow-citizens, and numerous of their non-Muslim countrywomen followed their example, including a policewoman and several news anchors.

Aussie columnist and Sky News host Rita Panahi, American-born of Iranian parentage, knows a thing or two about the oppression of women that the hijab represents,

Women celebrating World Hijab Day is like a slave celebrating their chains: PanahiSky News host Rita Panahi says World Hijab Day, celebrated on February 1, is a betrayal of the most oppressed women in the world. Ms Panahi says a woman celebrating modesty culture like the hijab, ‘is like a slave celebrating their chains’ and it shows how regressive modern feminism has become. She says celebrating the hijab and burqa ‘is utterly perverse and has no place in a civilised society that values equality’.

Women donning the hijab after Christchurch attack were ‘well-intended, but ignorant’Sky News host Rita Panahi says New Zealand women who donned the hijab following the Christchurch massacre were ‘well-intended, but ill-considered and ignorant’. Fifty people were killed when an Australian-born gunman opened fire at two Christchurch mosques on March 15, prompting a slew of high-profile women to veil themselves in the hijab in solidarity with Muslim victims and their families. Ms Panahi says women in some Muslim nations are being beaten and locked up for fighting against the hijab.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-truth-about-chinas-persecution-of-falun-gong/

Over a million Uyghurs were incarcerated over the last year, blood-and-DNA-tested, ready for organ-tissue matching.

There is a certain transgressive thrill in pulling the tail of a sacred cow. In that sense, Ms. Tolentino’s piece “Stepping Into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun” (March 19, 2019) is a compliment, a flare in the New York sky that Falun Gong, as a victim group, has finally achieved sacred-cow status. But even tail-pulling has an unwritten etiquette: If I wanted to write a critique of, say, traditional Jewish Passover food, I would stick to things such as the texture of gefilte fish rather than condemning the Seder or questioning the existence of the Holocaust. And I suspect Ms. Tolentino would agree with me.

Ms. Tolentino was essentially writing a critical dance review of Shen Yun Performing Arts while sprinkling a little snark on — in her view — the cornball conventions of Chinese theater and Falun Gong’s suspicious refusal to adopt Western, politically correct norms. Yet her argument suddenly took a weird detour, delivering a skeptical judgement on the charges of Chinese State organ harvesting of Falun Gong (“many experts dispute this”).

Why did she do this? Two reasons: A moment of transgressive pleasure is followed by guilt, and guilt must be answered by justification — perhaps the victim group is not really a sacred cow after all? Or they have brought their suffering upon themselves? (You know, through hypocrisy or not answering her emails or something). The second reason is that even a cursory glance at the credible claims surrounding Chinese organ harvesting will establish that this is not the Holocaust.