http://bartlettsbizarrebazaar.blogspot.com/National FeministsThere is a movement to dress up modern racism in the clothes ofprogressivism. This is nothing new, in form. Racism, at least,successful racism, has rarely built its rationale on blatant hate.Rather, the demonisation of minorities and immigrants has beenconducted via what were, at the time, apparently reasonable, rationalgrounds; concerns with the intelligence of the nation, with thebiological health of the populace, with the maintenance of theindigenous culture, and so on. And why? Because in order tosuccessfully build a modern racist society the support ofmiddle-classes and the intelligentsia needs be won. We can see thishappening now, when attacks on Muslims are dressed up as assertionsof'Enlightenment values', as defences of 'free speech', asefforts to safeguard 'superior' European culture. I have written[here and here] about two of the recruiting pamphlets in thiscampaign.Despite knowing this, I rarely fail to be surprised by those whodresstheir attacks on Muslims up as blows for feminism. It is one thing topoint out that Islam can be practised in ways that repress women. Butwhen this is used to legitimate calls for restrictions on theimmigration of Muslims, the true face of those dancing in this'progressive masquerade' is revealed. If one is concerned for thewelfare of Muslim women, one would welcome their immigration to theWest, where, according to the unspoken contradictions in thenarrativeof these racists, these repressed women will find opportunities forliberation that they could not find in their homelands. So do thosewhomake calls for restricting the immigration of Muslims have thewelfareof women at heart? Some do, and have been recruited, in theirgood-natured but slapdash liberalism, by racists. Some are plainracists. And the rest? The rest we might describe as 'NationalFeminists' as, yes, they care about the welfare of women, just solong as these women are of their own kind. It is these NationalFeminists who, rather than demanding the establishment of women'srefuges and multi-lingual support services, call for restrictions onthe movement to women to the West and for the burkha to be banned.How would that be managed, anyhow? Would the police strip women inthestreet, or merely toss them in riot vans for the way in which theydress. Do either of those options sound like a liberal society toyou?And yes, I have some sympathy for the argument that the burkha is anobjective symbol of oppression. But to enact a repressive policy toliberate women that takes no notice of the subjective understandingsofwomen who wear the burkha will get you nowhere but oppressiveauthoritarianism. To adorn a law with the language of liberationwhen,in practise, it would lead to harassment, embarrassment, insult andarrest for those women whom lounge bar legislators feign concern foristo perform a grotesque act of doublespeak. Social analyses using thelanguage of false consciousness are all well and good; indeed, wemustall believe in the existence of false consciousnesses to some degreeifwe are to make sense of human beings with different value and beliefsystems to our own. But it does not a democracy make to legislate inall but the most egregious cases, which, for liberty's sake, ought belimited to those cases that psychologists, not rabid islamophobicracists, describe as mental illness.
