Government funded Muslim group: Women should not be allowed to

[LecternSpace]

Women should not be allowed to travel more than 48 miles without a male chaperone, says British Muslim group.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/women-should-not-travel-more-than-48-miles-without-a-male-escort/

I'm sure many Muslims find this ridiculous and outrageous but there are probably some families who buy into this controlling, sexist culture. I'd imagine being part of the local community, Muslim families have to play along with these fundamentalist views. These families also need protection from the fascist Sharia movement. How can a group like this get government funding? Is there no political will to tackle this growing stone-age Islamist thinking For heavens sake .

I'm quite happy to ignore a minority view that says women should not travel more than 48 miles unchaperoned, much as I'm happy to ignore the minority view that the world was created by God in seven days a few millennia ago and dinosaur skeletons are just there to fool us into thinking the world is older. Or indeed that humans are reincarnated aliens that used to live on other planets.

Should every bonkers belief be entertained with a straight face, just because someone believes it deeply?

Honestly, some people are so open minded their brains have fallen out

OThe and what about those poor souls who are not allowed to ignore such an edict? The ones whose 'choices' we should, apparently, celebrate.

Would you support legislation to outright ban such curtailments of genital-based freedom?

Those who are supportive of women's rights to choose to be controlled in this way, would you also support the idea that, say, black people must adhere to certain geographical areas unless they are escorted by a white personal?

I thought we were all past such unspeakably primitive bollocks in the UK?

If someone expresses the opinion that women should not travel more than 48 miles, they have, and should have, the right to express that opinion freely.
The right to refute that view must also be freely allowed.
If a woman chooses, because of her own chosen religious views, to stay within 48 miles, that is her right.
If any woman finds herself prevented from travelling by another person she should have her rights fully protected, by the police.

(I agree that they should not receive state funding)

The things about misogyny and Islam for me is, if following the (seemingly sexist) ideas were a good idea and freely chosen, why aren't non Muslim women also choosing them from time to time?

If it's nothing to do with brainwashing, cultural conditioning, fear of rejection or actually imposed then why is not a single non Muslim woman choosing to cover her hair/ entire body, not driving due to the pelvic damage it causes, asking for arranged marriage, seeking redress through sharia courts not UK legal system, etc etc etc?

Very good point Hermione

I despair of our seemingly unquestioning tolerance of this crazy misogynistic ideology, because it's labelled as a religion. If I ordered a woman to obey her husband because she was a Capricorn, I'd quite correctly be put right about that. But if this particular wife and husband belonged to a particular flavour of religion, we have to keep our mouths shut?

Modelling secular behaviour doesn't work either - religions love to be challenged, it helps justify their existence and to emphasise their differences.

Limer don't have to keep your mouth shut, you can say what you want. Imposing your view on these women is just as bad as the men who are doing it already.

You may see your views as enlightened and liberating but the Muslim women who agree with these views through a deeply held belief do not agree with you. Wanting to punish a group because they do not agree with you is only acceptable if they break the law.

How do you feel about Jews being told they cannot eat pork, or Catholics being told they can't use contraception, or everyone in Northern Ireland being refused abortion because the churches don't like it, or Christian B&B owners being told they must let gays share a room.

How do you feel about Jews being told they cannot eat pork, or Catholics being told they can't use contraception, or everyone in Northern Ireland being refused abortion because the churches don't like it, or Christian B&B owners being told they must let gays share a room.

I despair of all of that too. Especially the lack of contraception/abortion, a non-existent deity who condemns women to repeated unwanted pregnancies. Funny how it's always women who get the shitty end of the stick.

Goodness I can't see either of those things working in practical terms round our way. There would be some very irritated blokes having to take calls at work each time their wives had to ask 'permission' to leave the house and most of the muslim ladies round here would find it ridiculous to have to ask to go out shopping or to pick the kids up. I think these guys are bonkers even asking. Also most of the muslim ladies I see wear trousers of one form or another even under the full burkha. They are particulary fond of skinny jeans. These people should get a reality check. Most likely people will hopefully ignore them and do what they want anyway.

Limer. People aren't restricted by law from eating pork or using contraception. It comes down to their own choice on these matters.

However, the abortion situation in NI is different because there is legislation restricting abortion.

I am Muslim (non-practising) and I absolutely despair of groups and sentiments like this. It seems that women are an easier target than blacks or Jews, to the point where it's sort of okay-ish to make statements that blatantly oppress and discriminate against women and would have the liberalistas howling in any context other than an Islamic one...

I believe that the answer to the inheritance question above is correct based on a strict reading of Sharia. In some countries (notably my DH's country of birth) your will counts for nothing and your estate will be divided unequally between sons (2/3) and daughters (1/3). We suspect this is the reason my SIL has declined to ever work a day in her life, preferring instead to "enjoy her parents' wealth" - she has brains and an education, but since she will get "less" when my IL's pass away, we (cynically) suspect she wants to spend as much as she can now.... And it's hard to blame her when the medieval laws of that country tell her she is worth half of a man, no matter what she does.

FWIW I converted to Islam because my husband's country does not recognise non-Islamic marriage. If I didn't convert, neither me nor the DC would receive a penny of his assets in that country and they would pass to his closest male relative. I chose the lesser wrong of converting to Islam rather than allowing some barbaric medieval set of laws to decide my DC is illegitimate. Anyone who thinks Islam is compatible with women's equality must be blind or stupid (or both).

No-one need 'keep quiet' about midogynist restrictive practice, of course it is oppressive to women to attempt to restrict their freedom
In any way short of the freedoms enjoyed by men. That's why rightly, in this country, a woman has the law on her side if anyone forces restrictions on her,

That is a long way from making a law that says a woman may not cover her head should she wish to.

OldFarticus? So will your DH's assets in his country of birth be split unequally between your children! Will he accept a greater share of his parents' estate or will he even up in gift form with his sister?

This was English inheritance law until 1925

In the absence of a will or specification of land distribution, the rules of primogeniture were invoked, giving the oldest son the rights to all real property. Erickson explains that "primogeniture was applied more harshly in England" than elsewhere in Europe and was "objected to more frequently by younger sons rather than daughters" (71). Daughters inherited real property only in the absence of a son, and it was held jointly between sisters. In the absence of a son, "the law preferred a daughter to a collateral male"

So perhaps we shouldn't mock other countries just for being 90 years behind us in this particular.

cdtaylor I think the difference is that families could decide to do something else with their assets - I imagine that primogeniture was mainly a tool of the aristocracy. My main beef with sharia in this context is that it applies in favour of makes irrespective of the benefactor's wishes. And yes I am calling that out for being medieval and barbaric, because it is.

Married women could not be raped by their husbands until the 1990's IIRC. Does that mean we shouldn't criticism countries or regimes where it still happens?

And yes blu there is a plan to make sure the inheritance is fair as between DH and SIL irrespective of the bizarre misogynistic Islamic inheritance laws. Same with our DC if DH wants to keep his balls

It's not about mocking. It's about a sense that actually women's gains in the last century are potentially quite fragile and we really shouldn't rest on our laurels in the name of being 'tolerant' of ideologies that are very unlikely to return the favour.

It's not mocking, it's a critical perspective.
And 'in the absence of a will' is a rather crucial difference.

And 90 years behind - well, that's 3 generations and we all live in the C21 now. The difference is that some societies are progressive, 15 years ago we were introducing civil partnerships, now gender neutral toilets are all the rage.... And some societies pro-actively believe that social change is bad.

I think there is also guidance that women should not wear trousers or leave the house without letting their husband know.

I assume this is coming from their equivalent of the Amish

Limer. People aren't restricted by law from eating pork or using contraception. It comes down to their own choice on these matters.

Except where a religion steps in and tells them what to do. Is that their choice? Sadly so many adherents don't question their faith - therefore there is no choice for them.

I know an elderly Catholic woman who was desperate for contraception when she was young, but her church would not allow it. She had to pray for forgiveness for even wanting it! She had 5 stillbirths and 4 live births between the ages of 20-40. She only wanted two children. No choice there for her, other than leave her church - but as she'd been indoctrinated from birth, she simply couldn't find the strength to do that.

'Because God says so'. Can't really argue with that can you? Especially if there are those nosey buggers in your family or community who would take a very dim view of you doing whatever thing they think you shouldn't be doing.

OldFarticus It is not the first time I hear this type of inheritance under sharia. I now came to the thread to tell a story I read in the Guardian because I read your post. There is a prefecture in north Greece with a minority islamic community which has Sharia laws due to an historic treaty between Greece and Turkey on that region. A Greek citizen and muslim woman was denied rights to her inheritance. She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights which is supposed to decide later this year. I accidentally discovered the case. She is lucky she lives in an EU State. The link is below:

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/10/sharia-greece-human-rights-inheritance-law

When her husband died in March 2008, he left her all his possessions in a will certified by a Greek solicitor. His family promptly disputed the legacy, complaining to the local mufti that under sharia Muslims are not allowed to make a will.
“I was overwhelmed,” Sali admits. “But I decided to fight and take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.
“This case is a historic opportunity to put an end … to this discriminatory situation,” says a solicitor

Have a good reading.

Thank you Marsicall - that is a very interesting read. I do feel that we take our hard-won rights for granted and assume they will always be unassailable when even recent history suggests this is not the case. The ECHR is possibly the strongest reason for staying in the EU IMO.

I have lived in an Islamic country and it's the petty, insiduous means of oppression of women that are the most effective. Even in the more "enlightened" Islamic societies where women work, it's typical to only get a few weeks maternity leave so the assumption is that mothers give up work. Breastfeeding is also mandatory by law and those who don't do it are punished.

It makes me laugh (hollowly!) to see some of the most vociferous feminists defending these stone age people in the interests of "free speech" and "equality", Sorry but some things should be unassailable and the free movement of women in a western pluralist democracy is one of them.

Of course the free movement of women should be unassailable.

Where on this thread have you seen anyone defend the practice of keeping women cooped up / imprisoned in their homes?

Blu I think there is a disparity between the way sexism is treated by western societies compared to other discrimination. A group who believed that every Jew should be forcibly deported to Israel would be rightly accused of hate speech. Same for a Trump-esque type who wanted to (say) place a curfew on Muslims as an anti-terror measure.

Tell women they should remain within 48 miles of their husbands though and we squirm a bit and shrug, talk about free speech and then the cultural relativism blinkers come down. It's depressing.

And the barriers to the freedom of women whose lives are determined by men who believe this bollocks will need much more than police protection before they come down. It's very naive to think that the law is enough (and I say that as a lawyer).

What about the young women and girls, British citizens, who have to grow up within this sort of discriminating culture, indoctrinated and denied opportunities? Why should they be refused the rights the rest of society take for granted?

I feel very angry about young women having their freedoms curtailed, arranged marriages etc. It should all be completely unacceptable in this country. I don't care if it's your religion/culture. We have laws and a culture of our own. Every British citizen has a right to be equality under our laws.

The ECHR is possibly the strongest reason for staying in the EU IMO.

Slightly off topic but leaving the EU does not take us out of the ECHR. Lots of non-EU countries are members of the ECHR (e.g. Turkey and Russia).