Feminists storm 'Should Wife-beating be Allowed?' debate in France and get attacked!

[Sunsoo]

And the response is sickening:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/femens-topless-condescension-towards-muslim-women-only-helps-sexism

I cannot believe people think that these women are just as bad as the men whom attacked them!

Also, why the fudge was this debate even allowed to happen? Violence is illegal in France. End of discussion!

I actually might stop reading the Gruan since they've published this article.

fitfatty - hair covering is required all over the country, but the law is enforced less strictly in Jeddah (a generally more relaxed city than places like Riyadh). In theory, foreign women don't have to cover their hair but in practice they do.

The Saudi interpretation of Shari'ah law is pretty extreme.

Would people be as offended if a bunch of Priests and Christian scholars got together to discuss aspects of the Bible? Or is it just because it's Islam?

FYI, it is not LEGAL to beat your wife in many Muslim countries (or your kids for that matter) including Qatar and the UAE. However, what the authorities face is a cultural problem wherein people take the quotes Janet so politely shared out of context and say it gives them the right. It doesn't. It can be What the Quran does implicitly state though is that the laws of the land must be followed.

We do have laws here to protect beaten women and womens/children's shelters/hotlines etc. The issue is not with the religion, it's with the culture.

Discussions like this one are important, because in many ways these imam's and scholars have more say in these more "backwards" community's then the law does, and if they can all come to the agreement that the Quran doesn't permit violence against women, then that's a long way towards stopping it. But the conversations must be had.

My bad lush I thought Jeddah was the strict place and Riyadh the more liberal. I mixed them up. I've quite a few friends (Western women) who are living or have lived in Saudi and generally they don't cover their hair but leave the scarf around their neck in case someone makes a fuss. Saudi is extreme though and I hate using it as an example of the "Muslim" world. Because it's so far different from everywhere else.

So many defenders of Islam and other religions spectacularly miss the point when they use comments such "context", or say followers don't actually beat their wives etc. They are merely trying to put glitter on a turd when they do that.

It is the whole concept within these religions that men are the ones who dictate women's roles and have control over them that is the point - it is the whole concept that is wrong and inherently evil.

"Its indicative of a vast problem with religious based legal Sharia legal codes that they are still in the year 2015 at the stage of "discussing" such very basic concepts and cannot recognise even the very basic moral imperative that assaulting people is wrong or that women are equal in status to males. Until that is resolved, it will not progress, but Sharia legal codes cannot cope well with modernisation and change. So its a circular argument. The solution is of course to adopt "foreign" legal systems, but since the "discussion" took place in France, that is a moot point."

I agree, it should be as simple as everyone realising that assault etc is just wrong and following the law of the land. But the reality is that many don't follow the law and ( just as many non Muslims don't). It offends people that this debate was even taking place in a western country in this day and age but it could be that such debate might actually help change the mindset of those who think it is ok or are not sure (as unpleasant a view as it is).

I think it would actually be interesting and useful to hear the debate. The protestors might have done better to film it and then protest at the end. Surely a film of debate on women being beaten or not could have then been discussed, ridiculed and held up to public scrutiny.

Well grimbletart what can I say, as an atheist and a feminist I agree with your point. However, as someone who lives in the Middle East and realizes that not everyone is an atheist or willing to be, and who will never accept that their book isn't the direct word of God, I realize that just saying "Your book is crap you should burn it and not listen to anything" doesn't go over well.

There are plenty of Muslim feminists, and they are doing things there way in accordance with what they believe are the words of their God and I have respect for that.

i just do not accept that Islam is any more inherently violent and women-hating than any other religion

Well that's kind of the entire point isn't it? theyre all pretty bad

When the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, things might pick up a bit for humanity.

Until then, we need strong secular laws. And the bloke who stuck the boot into the protestor as she was on the floor needs a visit from the police. Because assault is illegal.

Seriously, women are fifty ish percent of humanity (in the parts of the world we aren't aborted in favour of sons..) the other fifty percent needs to start treating us like equal human beings. It's not rocket science.

Thefitfatty yeah Jeddah seems to be a bit more liberal for some reason, perhaps it's the fresh sea air...!

I totally agree that it's about culture and not religion. And grimbletart I agree with what you say as long as your comment is applied to 'these religions' and not one religion in particular.

And yes, the debate needs to be had - among the Muslim community as well as everyone else. How can we expect people to change their antiquated views if all discussions about them are invaded by tit swinging feminazis? Bambini I would also like to hear what was actually said in the debate. Presumably they were discussing the application of the various relevant Hadiths and the interpretation of the Quran, and presumably, if it was a debate, then there would have been people there on the 'it's not OK' side. Even those who interpret the scriptures as allowing and even encouraging wife beating may not do it themselves.

I agree, it should be as simple as everyone realising that assault etc is just wrong and following the law of the land. But the reality is that many don't follow the law and ( just as many non Muslims don't). It offends people that this debate was even taking place in a western country in this day and age but it could be that such debate might actually help change the mindset of those who think it is ok or are not sure (as unpleasant a view as it is).

I think it would actually be interesting and useful to hear the debate. The protestors might have done better to film it and then protest at the end. Surely a film of debate on women being beaten or not could have then been discussed, ridiculed and held up to public scrutiny.

I don't agree Bambanini. For two reasons:

Firstly, certain matters are too repulsive to be the subject of affording them the respect of being listened to in debate. In fact, the permission of debate over matters generally considered abhorrent and prohibited by the majority of moral (not even legal) codes is in itself abhorrent, as it affords them more respect than they deserve.

There is of course a perfectly sensible way of resolving this, and if the debate were at all over doing so then it would have a point. The sensible way of reacting would of course be to update the legal and religious code that permits the abhorrent practice so as to render it illegal. We do this in every European country - whats the problem?

Secondly, indulging a group of society ie men by permitting them to debate a subject generally considered repulsive can have unpleasant fallout - it can encourage them to think that they have more power than they actually have, it can encourage them to think that the abhorrent practice isn't actually prohibited strictly at all, despite what the law says, because the law tolerates the debate of it, it can give such men some form of gratification, and so on.

Its very harmful. I do think that in the year 2015, we should have moved on from debating whether wife beating and more generally the oppression of one half of the population should be permitted. Its simply prevaricating. The solution is to amend the legal and moral code which permits it.

I really have to laugh. When I talk on forums here in the Middle East, I'm the atheist, feminist who gets at the men for their antiquated beliefs. On UK forums I'm the Islam apologist!

I don't disagree with you at Thefitfatty. I just struggle to see how any feminist can not start from the point that the whole idea of women being inferior is wrong. I'm not putting this very well but as a little girl who attended a Catholic school (so the brainwashing was pretty full on) I managed to grasp the concept in primary school that it was illogical that one half of the human race by virtue of their genitalia should be considered superior to the other. It just didn't make any sense.

I'm sure that religious women are working in their own way to better things for their sex but if you start from a concept that your position in life is pre-ordained by God and that position is inferior, how far will you get in throwing off the shackles? Just asking?

Sorry, I realise that I am derailing. Feel free to ignore (smile)

So, Scremers, you're saying that we shouldn't tolerate peaceful debate about a problem that is so bad precisely BECAUSE it is so taboo, so often hidden and not talked about?

And your statement Its very harmful. I do think that in the year 2015, we should have moved on from debating whether wife beating and more generally the oppression of one half of the population should be permitted. Its simply prevaricating. The solution is to amend the legal and moral code which permits it. is just ludicrous. Obviously in the 2015 we have not been able to move away from whether wife beating is OK or not, and the legal and moral code have been altered but that's not helping all the women who are beaten by their husbands or partners.

You can't stop people talking about things just because you don't like the topic of conversation.

even those who interpret the scriptures as allowing and even encouraging wife beating may not do it themselves

Oh, so that's OK then.

Actually, from what I've gathered from Muslim feminists is that they don't believe that their religion automatically makes them inferior to men. I really don't want to speak on their behalf, but the Quran was HUGELY revolutionary at the time for giving rights to women that were absolutely unheard of, such as the right to an education, the right to own their own properties and businesses, the right to their children, the right to choose who they marry, etc etc. These were unheard of at the time for women anywhere.

Now those rights seem archaic, but most Muslim women still believe Allah is watching out for them, so they are pushing for new or rethought interpretations, hence the discussions.

There's also a strong culture of debate in the Middle East (surprisingly given there's no real freedom of the press). Things we would consider taboo or not up for discussion or totally fair game for debate. Imam's are constantly battling out verbally about what this and that means. And there is a reason Twitter is so popular here, Arab's have opinions and they like to share them.

hackmum "I absolutely despise this idea that religions should get a free pass"

where's the "like" button?

Cheezy - yes it is OK. You are allowed to think what you like, not do what you like.

And for what it's worth, that's how I would interpret some of the Hadiths Janet posted above. But I don't think they should be followed.

lushilaoshi So, Scremers, you're saying that we shouldn't tolerate peaceful debate about a problem that is so bad precisely BECAUSE it is so taboo, so often hidden and not talked about?

I'm saying that we have to police the subject of debates. If debates are an excuse for a group of misogynists to excite themselves by discussing the morally abhorrent, then yes it should be banned. We would do it with other morally abhorrent subjects, such as peadophilia, or ethnic cleansing, where the "debate" was not a debate at all, but simply a gathering of those who advocated such an abhorrent practice, who will benefit from the "debate" by making contacts with others with the same beliefs.

This was not, I believe, an open forum for discussion with legal experts. For instance, I don't know any female lawyers that were invited, and such a debate would really benefit from their input, as a couple of the leading academics on Shaira law and its problems for women are female.

Obviously in the 2015 we have not been able to move away from whether wife beating is OK or not

Well, actually we have. Simply because people break laws doesn't mean that law is defunct. People still commit murder and culpable homicide, and we don't have discussions on whether they should be legally prohibited or not. We have had several legal changes in the UK and in Europe in the 20th Century which quite clearly make wife beating illegal, as well as clarifying the law on women owning property.

You can't stop people talking about things just because you don't like the topic of conversation.

Well, actually, yes you can. If it is a service which is being offered, ie a commercial activity, then the existing anti-discrimination legislation will apply to it. For instance, if a woman wished to take part in such a debate in the UK and was barred entry because she was female, then she could take legal action for sex discrimination under the Equality Act. And that's been the case since the early 1970s.

Thefitfatty out of interest where do you live?

lush your description of the protestors as "tit swinging feminazis" tells us a lot. Anyone who likens feminists to the Nazis has lost all credibility in my eyes.

lush I'm in the UAE. But I lived in Qatar for 5 years before this (It'll be a decade in the ME in Jan 2016 for me).

Scremers you are not making any sense. I haven't heard anything to say that these people (many of whom were women) were in any way 'promoting' wife beating - as far as I can tell they were discussing the treatment of the subject within their religion. What's wrong with that?

And your comment on anti-discrimination law - what do you mean? I'm talking about debate/thought policing, not barring entry to a premises or service...

Screamers I'm afraid I can't agree with you. As the saying goes, I may not like what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I don't think anyone has ever benefited by shutting down discussion.

Yes, sometimes you will get gatherings of like minded, horrible people, but other times you'll start real cultural debate that can have major changes.

I have no respect for Femen, Hermione. They do not do the feminist cause any good whatsoever. Their behaviour in this video is just awful - they are indeed behaving like tit-swinging feminazis and I stand by my comment.

Thefitfatty Imam's are constantly battling out verbally about what this and that means. And there is a reason Twitter is so popular here, Arab's have opinions and they like to share them.

That is true. The problem is that Imam are male, and are not necessarily very competent or well educated. We are not generally talking about great minds that would succeed on an open, competitive worldwide platform here. We are not seeing Muslim legal clerics for instance writing peer reviewed legal articles on their own legal system. It is in many ways a very infantile debate. The problem is too that the debate is heirachical and too often based on leading questions, ie ones that suggest the answer sought before the debate even has a chance to proceed.

Lack of ability to modernise is a real problem for Sharia-based legal systems. I cannot overstate this enough. It requires some real brilliant minds to resolve these problems, people who are not afraid of change and who have vision and foresight, and that is simply not happening. The process of debate in this respect is simply not very productive - it does not do the job well, based on measureable results. Unstructured debate on its own is not the answer, and its telling that the answer given so many times when you raise questions about the problems with Sharia is that debate exists, and that there will be more debate.