How political correctness is complicit in enslaving women

A young British woman, raised in the North of England, escaped her abusive Muslim father and converted to Christianity, a fact that saw her father lead an axe wielding mob clamoring for her death.  She wrote a book about her experience.  When the Times interviewer asked why she didn’t seek help from the authorities, the woman explains how political correctness creates a straight jacket as tight as fundamentalist Islam itself:

When, at school, she had finally summoned the courage to tell a teacher that her father had been beating her (she couldn’t bring herself to reveal the sexual abuse), the social services sent out a social worker from her own community. He chose not to believe Hannah and, in effect, shopped her to her father, who gave her the most brutal beating of her life. When she later confronted the social worker, he said: “It’s not right to betray your community.”

Hannah blames what is sometimes called political correctness for this debacle: “My teachers had thought they were doing the right thing, they thought it showed ‘cultural sensitivity’ by bringing in someone from my own community to ‘help’, but it was the worst thing they could have done to me. This happens a lot.

“When I’ve been working with girls who were trying to get out of an arranged marriage, or want to convert to Christianity, and they have contacted social services as they need to get out of their homes, the reaction has been ‘we’ll send someone from your community to talk to your parents’. I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”

This is the sort of cultural sensitivity displayed by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year when he suggested that problems within the British Muslim community such as financial or marital disputes could be dealt with under sharia, Islamic law, rather than British civil law. What did Hannah, now an Anglican, think on hearing these remarks?

“I was horrified.” If you could speak to him now, what would you say to the archbishop? “I would say: have you actually spoken to any ordinary Muslim women about the situation that they live in, in their communities? By putting in place these Muslim arbitration tribunals, where a woman’s witness is half that of a man, you are silencing women even more.”

She believes the British government is making exactly the same mistake as Rowan Williams: “It says it talks to the Muslim community, but it’s not speaking to the women. I mean, you are always hearing Muslim men speaking out, the representatives of the big federations, but the government is not listening to Muslim women. With the sharia law situation and the Muslim arbitration tribunals, have they thought about what effect these tribunals have on Muslim women? I don’t think so.”

Hat tip: Hot Air

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    And where are the American feminists, who claim to care oh so VERY much, about the rights of women?

    crickets chirping… crickets chirping…

    It is also true, as has been reported elsewhere, that moderate Muslims are being utterly ignored by the government in Great Britain. They are angry and upset; it’s hard enough to fight the massive tide of money rolling in from Saudi Arabia to finance the radical jidahists. Perhaps some more of that tidal wave of Saudi Arabian money is also lining the pockets of the government personnel in Britain? You know what the cynics say: Always follow the money.

    The government in Great Britain is solely interested in speaking to the radical jihadist males in their midst. Whether the reason is that they’ve been bought (and therefore utterly corrupted), or they’ve decided that liberal power is to be married to radical jihadism as a means of solidifying two pillars of a power base that is hostile to conservatism… is hard to say.

    But in the case of feminists in our own USA, they clearly haven’t been bought off with money. But radical Islamic jihadists are so horrifyingly against everything that American feminists are supposed to stand for! Could it be possible that the feminists have sacrificed all of their own principles, solely to solidify two pillars of a power base here in the USA that is hostile to conservatism?

    How could that be possible? But is there any other possible answer?

  2. says

    We have a lot to learn about the British experience.

    The UK has been slowly strangled by the ethos of multi-culturalism and the denial of free speech via oppressive so-called “anti-racist” legislation.

    Now that the world is looking at the bastion of democracy with horror, and the ruling socialists are contemplating electoral oblivion some within their own ranks are speaking out, see http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

    Feminism has shown its true colours over the last decade, as have human rights and civil liberties groups…the call for a form of sharia law in the UK was met with little if no protest…contrast that with riots fomented by the left during Thatcher’s prime ministership.

    We now have to re-think the meaning of the catchcries of the left, particularly the word progressive. Look where it’s taken us…

  3. suek says

    >>Could it be possible that the feminists have sacrificed all of their own principles, solely to solidify two pillars of a power base here in the USA that is hostile to conservatism?>>

    Mike…the communists/leftists – whatever you want to call them – move into _any_ political activist movement and subvert them to their purpose. They’re like cowbirds that lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. They know that their ideas are basically unacceptable to the American public in their raw form, so they take things that _are_ acceptable and then use that cover to push their own agenda.

    Originally feminists were “equality” feminists – “Equal pay for equal work”. They were taken over by the “gender” feminists…the “feminazis”, as Rush calls them. If you look at their agenda, though, their goal is the destruction of the nulclear family unit. Until you destroy the family, you can’t control the mindset of children, which is necessary to produce the ideal populace they want.

  4. says

    Could it be possible that the feminists have sacrificed all of their own principles

    They never had them to begin with. Can’t sacrifice what they never had, after all.

    I know why they are doing this, they are trying to be understanding, but it’s the last thing that the authorities should do in such situations.”

    That isn’t what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do is to leave the killing and murdering to the dirty hands of the barbarians, while keeping their own lily white hands clean. Dealing with internal cultural dissociations is 1. disagreeable 2. hard work and 3. requiring of sacrifice. They just aren’t going to break a sweat helping you out. So they outsource it. Just like they outsourced the security of South Vietnam to the Communists. It was all for a Greater Good, you see. Their greater good, that is. And it matters not what you call them or where their specific geographic locale is: Britain or America or Antarctica, it matters not in the least for their rot is the same rot.

    In the end, this isn’t so much about keeping things straight as people needing a certain comfort zone, and it doesn’t particularly matter who needs to get sacrificed for them to acquire that zone.

    We have seen it before during Obama’s campaign. When the Left has to navigate the gale of cognitive dissonance in deciding which has higher priority, women’s rights or the right of blacks to perpetuate racism, they chose the inherently more destructive and venomous of the two. That was their higher priority and even now we see what it has resulted in, what little we have seen that is.

    As a factual statement, the identity group calling itself “Muslim” and the cultural group calling itself “Islam” have more political benefits to the ruling elite than what could be mined and exploited from women. Women are already free in the West. You aren’t going to be able to lock up a huge percentage of votes by catering to women’s rights cause what more you can do is simply a luxury. Not something fervently believed in because it is not necessary; the work has been already done. They don’t need you, and thus they can drop you. The politicians prefer a more stable and reliable source of power.

    But Muslims have not been reformed by leaders and movements that sacrificed blood, toil, and sweat. Muslims still need help. This offers a political gold mine. But creating the mine and paying the workers, well that is just too much work. You need courage, for one thing, an ability to take risks, and an ability to find talented leaders to maintain the movement and to do the grassroots support. That’s too much for American Democrats and British MPs. Far easier to outsource such things to the truly admirable “community leaders“. I am sure they know best. Who are we to judge, after all?

    Kennedy outsourced the invasion of Cuba to the Cubans and then said “well, I have second thoughts and it’s just too hard to keep my promises to those dying in the Bay of Pigs”. Other Democrats have said, often in private though sometimes in public, that it is up to the Iraqis and the Vietnamese and the whatacallits to “prove” themselves “capable”. That doesn’t mean a partnership, like many people were fooled into believing. That doesn’t mean self-determination, as many people were mislead and deceived into believing. No, it means outsourcing the security and future fate of the Iraqi, Vietnamese, etc people to the blood buddies and murderous psychopaths of the Left wing. They, the murderous psychopaths, know what is best for Iraq and for Vietnam. After all, aren’t they the freedom fighters trying valiantly to kick out the baby killing rapists of the AmeriKKKan occupation?

    The Left trusts Pol Pot more than they trusted Nixon or Reagan. They thought better of Stalin, Saddam, and Mao than they do of Bush.

    Their “principle” is very simple. Crush all opposition and enforce the cruelest standards and fate possible for generations untold, so long as it is done by their outsourced buddies in arms.

    The Left has never abandoned their principles. People have just never realized what they truly were.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply