Hirsi Ali: champion of women's rights?
In all the turmoil over the resignation of Mrs. Hirsi Ali from the NL parliament and the subsequent announcement by the minister of immigration and integration that she is not Dutch after all since she lied about her family name during the first intake interview when seeking asylum in NL, many from the left have expressed their outrage and concern.
Unfortunately, it seems that it is not done to express support for her, without in some way trying to find some merits in her person or her cause. I am sure she is a nice person and that she means well. (For all I know, Mr. Ahmadimejad is also a nice person and he might mean well). I have some reservations about her merits for her cause.
Her cause, as is well known, is the plight of migrant women high on the political agenda. In a tv show in 2004 (Zomergasten), she explained her concerns. After she got political asylum in the Netherlands, she worked as an interpreter in a halfway house for women who were victims of domestic violence, forced marriages, honor killings, etc. There she saw the misery of the women who tried to flee arranged marriages, female circumcision, etc. This motivated her to try and do something about it. In the meantime she studied political science in Leiden. It must have been during her studies that she read Herman Philipse's Atheist Manifesto. (Philipse was professor in philosophy in Leiden -- he is probably responsible for me getting my current job). It is clear that this book has had a profound influence on her. (Or should I say that Herman Philipse has had a profound influence on her as it seems to be public knowledge that he and she were lovers at one time. Also, she wrote the preface for the second edition of the book). For now, she could give an analysis of the underlying cause of all the suffering of these women. Islam and its rich tradition were the obvious cause.
So her story boiled down to the following. The relative high frequency of violence against women in migrant circles has a cultural cause. It is islam which is the common factor in a lot of these cases. Hence, the state ought to be vigilant and try as hard as it can to keep out islamists or put them under such scrutiny that they reform. In a book that she is working on right now, she calls the project 'A shortcut to enlightenment' (the premisse being that since the islamic countries never had anything like the enlightenment, islamic culture is backward and violent against women).
Has this analysis proven to be helpful in the cause of migrant women? I doubt it. It has certainly earned her a lot of enemies. The murderer of Theo van Gogh placed a not on Van Gogh's body in which he announced she'd be next. She has been under constant protection from the state for more than two years already. But back to the women: by spreading the word that Islam is to blame, she has gained notoriety and sympathy from all kinds of politicians and "intellectuals" who before could not be accused of any sympathy with the plight of migrant women. Hirsi Ali's own experiences and her new allies resulted in nothing short of a public orgy of migrant bashing. Any problem with migrants immediately could be explained with a cultural explanation: "Muslims are like that...."
As an analysis it is hopeless. It is like blaming the old testament for the rural poverty of the Southern US bible belt. It is absolutely insensitive to the fact that there are as many interpretations of Islam as there are scholars and imams. It ignores other factors, such as the tricky economic situation and the low status of migrants in Europe. There is much more, but you get the point.
It is also counterproductive. What are you going to tell a muslim woman who flees an abusive husband and family? "Give up your religion and your veil and things will improve"? How is that going to address the issue of family pressure and low social and economic status?
Furthermore, all grassroots organisations in various areas in Holland have no contact with her. She has not visited the women that she says she is fighting for. She has decried various self-help groups as attempting to ensnare women in their terrible fates. Her interventions in parliament often failed or were taken up by populist politicians (like Mr. Wilders) to stir up xenofobic and racist sentiments. In short, her actual merits as a spokesperson for women's rights are minimal at best.
How come none of those of the left who tried to defend her right to remain Dutch national or questioned some of the motives felt the need to praise Hirsi Ali for 'all that she has meant for Holland'?
I would defend her right to NL citizenship and would support any (political) measure to get rid of minister Verdonk (who took her citizenship). I think the dutch government is stingy and not very apt in its attempts to provide her with adequate protection both here and in the US. But I also think that she is wrong, profoundly wrong in her analysis of what is the cause of violence against women and that she has done nothing to help the situation. Now how come none of the Left could bring this message with Voltairian aplomb: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (link).
Unfortunately, it seems that it is not done to express support for her, without in some way trying to find some merits in her person or her cause. I am sure she is a nice person and that she means well. (For all I know, Mr. Ahmadimejad is also a nice person and he might mean well). I have some reservations about her merits for her cause.
Her cause, as is well known, is the plight of migrant women high on the political agenda. In a tv show in 2004 (Zomergasten), she explained her concerns. After she got political asylum in the Netherlands, she worked as an interpreter in a halfway house for women who were victims of domestic violence, forced marriages, honor killings, etc. There she saw the misery of the women who tried to flee arranged marriages, female circumcision, etc. This motivated her to try and do something about it. In the meantime she studied political science in Leiden. It must have been during her studies that she read Herman Philipse's Atheist Manifesto. (Philipse was professor in philosophy in Leiden -- he is probably responsible for me getting my current job). It is clear that this book has had a profound influence on her. (Or should I say that Herman Philipse has had a profound influence on her as it seems to be public knowledge that he and she were lovers at one time. Also, she wrote the preface for the second edition of the book). For now, she could give an analysis of the underlying cause of all the suffering of these women. Islam and its rich tradition were the obvious cause.
So her story boiled down to the following. The relative high frequency of violence against women in migrant circles has a cultural cause. It is islam which is the common factor in a lot of these cases. Hence, the state ought to be vigilant and try as hard as it can to keep out islamists or put them under such scrutiny that they reform. In a book that she is working on right now, she calls the project 'A shortcut to enlightenment' (the premisse being that since the islamic countries never had anything like the enlightenment, islamic culture is backward and violent against women).
Has this analysis proven to be helpful in the cause of migrant women? I doubt it. It has certainly earned her a lot of enemies. The murderer of Theo van Gogh placed a not on Van Gogh's body in which he announced she'd be next. She has been under constant protection from the state for more than two years already. But back to the women: by spreading the word that Islam is to blame, she has gained notoriety and sympathy from all kinds of politicians and "intellectuals" who before could not be accused of any sympathy with the plight of migrant women. Hirsi Ali's own experiences and her new allies resulted in nothing short of a public orgy of migrant bashing. Any problem with migrants immediately could be explained with a cultural explanation: "Muslims are like that...."
As an analysis it is hopeless. It is like blaming the old testament for the rural poverty of the Southern US bible belt. It is absolutely insensitive to the fact that there are as many interpretations of Islam as there are scholars and imams. It ignores other factors, such as the tricky economic situation and the low status of migrants in Europe. There is much more, but you get the point.
It is also counterproductive. What are you going to tell a muslim woman who flees an abusive husband and family? "Give up your religion and your veil and things will improve"? How is that going to address the issue of family pressure and low social and economic status?
Furthermore, all grassroots organisations in various areas in Holland have no contact with her. She has not visited the women that she says she is fighting for. She has decried various self-help groups as attempting to ensnare women in their terrible fates. Her interventions in parliament often failed or were taken up by populist politicians (like Mr. Wilders) to stir up xenofobic and racist sentiments. In short, her actual merits as a spokesperson for women's rights are minimal at best.
How come none of those of the left who tried to defend her right to remain Dutch national or questioned some of the motives felt the need to praise Hirsi Ali for 'all that she has meant for Holland'?
I would defend her right to NL citizenship and would support any (political) measure to get rid of minister Verdonk (who took her citizenship). I think the dutch government is stingy and not very apt in its attempts to provide her with adequate protection both here and in the US. But I also think that she is wrong, profoundly wrong in her analysis of what is the cause of violence against women and that she has done nothing to help the situation. Now how come none of the Left could bring this message with Voltairian aplomb: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (link).
posted by Bruno at Friday, May 26, 2006
0 comments
