the sound of the people gives me hope

There has not been enough of this in my lifetime.

It’s almost 4am, I should be going to sleep but all I want to do is …

Hosni Mubarak resigns as Egypt prez: Video of Tahrir square first reaction

The Egyptian people have toppled Mubarak, an extraordinary moment, but the regime has not been toppled, not yet.
‘This Is Who Egyptians Are’
Iran: Hope, Joy, Envy as Egypt Breaks Free
Egypt: The Vlog before the Revolution
Egypt: The World Rejoices as Mubarak Resigns
Mubarak steps down. Egypt Uprising wins the first round…
Triumph as Mubarak quits
What next for Egypt?
Where does Mubarak go now? [Updated]
Timeline: Egypt unrest
Egypt: The Moment of Triumph
Twitter: #egypt, #jan25

Burka Bondage

The past couple of months Dasniya has been rehearsing with Helena Waldmann, in a piece she helped with last year in Shibari instruction. She left for India and Sri Lanka with them yesterday, for a three-week tour. Originally the tour was to go to Iran and Afghanistan, but political issues made that impossible. For those of you in the region, here are the dates:

‘BURKABONDAGE’ VON HELENA WALDMANN

mit Vania Rovisco, Dasniya Sommer, Acci Baba und Mohammad Reza Mortazavi

Infos unter: www.burkabondage.de

Indientournee Dezember 2010
06.12. – Chennai
10.12. – Colombo
12.12. – Bangalore
16.12. – Mumbai
19.12. – Delhi

— Burka Bondage

germany is (slightly) embarrassing itself

Reading signandsight’s From the Feuilletons this week… it’s been dead in my feed for some time, but returned with excellent coverage of the storm Thilo Sarrazin — now former SPD and former Bundesbank board member — caused with his book, “Deutschland schafft sich ab”, “Germany is abolishing itself”. It goes a small way to being gratifying that Chancellor Merkel called his book nonsense, and he was roundly chastised and hounded out for this.

There is though a problem across europe with nationalism and racism, which manifests in anti-immigration, anti-Roma, stigmatising of Muslims that collectively needs to be addressed. My personal preference of course is for more immigration, especially now that Australia has shown itself over fifteen years to be unapologetically right wing, and someone like Tony Abbott could end up Prime Minister.

Thilo Sarrazin, SPD politician, former finance senator in Berlin and board member of the German central bank, the Bundesbank, has published a book that has scandalised Germany. “Deutschland schafft sich ab” or Germany is abolishing itself, looks at the effects of immigration, the shrinking birthrate and a growing social “underclass”. Above all, Sarrazin, who is famous for his tactless and abrasive comments, accuses the Muslims in particular of being unwilling to integrate. And German integration authorities, academics and politicians of refusing to discuss the problem.

Two of his statements in particular have driven politicians and press to the barricades:

From his book: “We have to assume that for demographic reasons the underclass section of the population is growing steadily. Among migrants we have seen that the birthrate is highest among those groups of migrants with the lowest levels of education, in other words those from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. Studies on the workforce have come to similar conclusions. These show that women who are poorly or not integrated into the labour market at all are more likely to have children or increase the size of their flock. But intelligence is 50 to 80 percent hereditary and thanks to the class-related reproductive rate, this unfortunately means that the hereditary intellectual potential of the population is continually shrinking.”

And when asked in an interview with Die Welt on 29.08, whether such thing as a “genetic identity” existed, Sarrazin replied: “All Jews have a certain gene in common.Basques have a certain gene which differentiates them from others.”

(Sarrazin later apologised for this remark. He said he had read an article in theTagesspiegel about two studies – carried out by Harry Ostrer of New York University (more in English) and Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa (more in English) that suggest that many Jews today have shared genetic roots.)

That effectively sealed the fate of the book. Journalists, politicians and academics united in a choir of disapproval for his ideas. Even Chancellor Angela Merkeldescribed them as “nonsense”. Sarrazin’s statements were “marginalising” and “contemptuous of entire groups of society… His language is socially divisive,” shesaid on 28th August on TV. She also outlined the consequences the book’s publication would have for the Bundesbank. This institution, she said is “an advertisement for our entire country.” Yesterday the chairman of the Bundesbankasked the German President Christian Wulff for permission to remove Sarazzin from the board. Only a few hours later the SPD filed for his expulsion from the party.

In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Christian Geyer is despairing: “‘Deutschland schafft sich ab’ tells the tale of a nation’s decline. And the Muslims who make up a mere six percent of the population are being held responsible. It begs the question as to what the remaining 94 percent have spent the past decades doing to secure the future of their country. Sarrazin’s book is the attempt of a disoriented elite to exonerate itself. No wonder it is such a success.”

With reluctance and a mix of pathological fascination and disgust Arno Widmann read the book for the Frankfurter Rundschau. It is the work of the madman, he concludes: “This is Sarrazin’s second book which attempts to connect his statistically-grounded contempt for the overweight, welfare-grabbing underclass couch potato with his racist theories on cultural mentalities. His conclusion is unequivocal: The underclass – even the Germans among its ranks are not real Germans. What is unclear though is where he intends to go with this theory. And explains why he is calling for end to immigration from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East. Indian engineers don’t bother him as long as the Germans are more likely to become social workers than technicians.”

For Frank Schirrmacher in the Frankfurter Allgemeine on Sunday, this is a clear attempt “to establish a very different understanding of culture. One that links genetics with culture, and on the basis of a word that Sarrazin (citing Darwin) drops as casually as Gottfried Benn once did: ‘selective breeding‘. Sarrazin is not talking about Goethe and Schiller, though his book does mention poetry. For him, culture is the reflex of a biological process. The fact that in Germany ever more children are being born to families from the underclass milieu, automatically results in the dumbing down of society, and those who succeed in making career for themselves in spite of their background do nothing to influence his findings. There is nothing new about this theory. On the contrary, it is based on the Enlightenment idea of education, school and upbringing. But Sarrazin’s message is another one: education, which he refers to contemptuously as a ‘mantra’, is powerless as a vehicle for intellectual advancement. Individuals and entire nations are limited by their genetic and ethnic dispositions.”

In the Tagesspiegel, writers, Islam scholars, education and immigration expertsspoke out more or less in unison. The writer Feridun Zaimoglu explained: “People like him are fire starters. He is handing over the Muslim as the boogie man to a frightened middle class, with the implication that the Muslim is also responsible for the bank crisis and for the collapse of the welfare system.” The publicist Hilal Sezginwrites: “From the USA we have started to hear discussions about whether black people are less intelligent than whites. This is very obviously racism talking. In Germany too we need to develop a sensibility for the kind of debates which upset the underlying moral consensus. It is pure negligence to define groups and stir up bad blood between them.” The publicist Mark Terkessidis explains: “It might be an insult to the intelligence that Sarrazin so swears by, to have to dwell for any length of time on the long passages of utter nonsense in his book, but the debate it has triggered has clearly demonstrated that certain opinions are no longer tolerated in the political spectrum of the German republic.”

These are just a very few of the voices who spoke out almost in unison against Sarrazin. There were however one or two individuals who said that this criticism was missing the point:

Sociologist Necla Kelek asks in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung why Sarrazin has simply been demonised when a proper discussion about his book was what was needed. “All this fuss strikes me as somewhat staged and the racism argument smacks of red herring. So he doesn’t want to live in a Muslim Germany because he is suspicious of that sort of society. What’s wrong with this? The economist in Sarrazin has calculated that the 750,000 Turkish immigrant workers now number almost 3 million and of the able bodied among them, 40 percent live off the state instead of working. This makes no economic sense for him and leads him to ask whether immigration, in its current form, is not a mistake. This is no reason to get upset at Sarrazin. Instead we should be asking the politicians who are responsible for this state for affairs whether or not they have really served the interests of the country.”

For the writer Monika Maron in an interview in Die Welt, the public debate has missed the point: “Why can’t we leave aside Sarrazin”s obviously potty ideas about genetic theory and start talking about something much more worrying: the growing confessionalisation of our society, the millions of euros we are shelling out in welfare cheques, the deficits in education and the criminality of Muslim youth? Government schemes and vast sums of money have done little or nothing to change a situation that has been well-known for many years. What has to happen?”

In the Frankfurter Rundschau, Markus Tiedemann, a professor of educational philosophy, dismisses Thilo Sarrazin’s nonsensical hereditary theories in two paragraphs before turning on some of Sarrazin’s critics who, he says, are no better. “In 2007 Pascal Bruckner, a representative of the French nouvelle philosophie, tried to rock the self-satisfied boat of political correctness. His concept of the ‘racism of the anti-racists‘ exposes the negative dialectic of multicultural tolerance. … Anyone today who claims that it is too much to expect ‘the Muslims’ to embrace the achievements of the modern age such as emancipation and freedom of opinion, are no better that the voices who used to say that the blacks lacked the maturity to vote.”

— signandsight

I am a Muslim

Coming to Berlin caused my attention to drift to a small part of my life I know little about, and fills me at times with a sense I am an interloper. Through Neukölln and Wedding I see old Turkish women, in their long coats and scarves, short and slightly rotund. I fly to Brussels just as the government, itself in tatters and unable to decide on any issue of serious importance decide to ban the burqa and niqab.

I am a feminist too. I Spend time in my two favourite ‘B’ cities, and come from a country, no, three countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, where multiculturalism, immigration, assimilation and other such words denote the irruption of the Other into colonial, European culture. Coming to New Zealand from Canada I felt I’d left civilisation to arrive where white was normal, Maori were just going to end up in jail and the Asians received grudging though suspicious respect for being over-achievers. Over time, the Antipodean pair – perhaps Australia more so – thanks to successive waves of immigrants and refugees became a place for me where sitting on a full tram meant everyone was a minority.

This is both the naïve face of multiculturalism and its point. I come to Berlin. Multiculturalism and tolerance are evinced by the populations of old west and east European countries. And then there are the Muslims. I don’t understand so well here the history that bought small pockets of Asian and African migrants to the city, but those from Turkey by comparison have much in common with Greeks and Italians in Australia, post-war looking for a better life.

In one country – and I generalise atrociously here, I am neither historian nor anthropologist – to be a migrant is to be a citizen, it is a normal state, albeit a complex and unresolved one, as illustrated by the question, ‘So, where do you come from?’ aimed not infrequently at those not sufficiently white, even if they happen to be descendants on Cantonese miners from the mid-1800s. In another, only in last decade have laws changed significantly to grant such nationality to those (and their children) not of the blood of the land.

I am expected to regard Islam and Purdah as fraught spaces where identity and ideology is fought. I am expected to do this from certain positions which afford me the place of not-Other. As one who is a descendant of Europeans and coming from a string of colonial outposts, I am granted a certain status as within. This status implicitly includes a codex I might loosely describe as the european project, a very modernist, enlightenment one of hope, progress, and emancipation. As a woman, likewise. As one whose lovers tend to be queer in a fashion that even unsettles those with whom I nominally share this inner space, likewise again.

And what if I were to be an interloper? What if my very pale skin, pristine heritage – both by blood and nationality, perfect english mixed to the point of beguiling post-nation-state internationalism, what if all this hid something revolting? What if it turns out I am the Other, and in this conversation of Islam in Europe, I, who by virtue of my identity and politics should be a natural conspirator in defining Them in opposition to Us, usurp the debate like a terrorist on a plane by saying…

“My grandmother was Turkish Muslim.”

“Oh, that’s why she couldn’t stay with you, because the kitchen wasn’t Halal.” A conversation in Melbourne at a café in Burke St Mall, the alley beside the former Post Office, perhaps early 2006, I suppose I was in Melbourne making hell. We are talking about where I grew up in Toronto, Eaton Ave. I had proved to myself when in Toronto a couple of years earlier that I had lived there and it wasn’t some invented memory by walking from home to school, remembering the route through parks, down streets, around corners. Now sitting at this table I am perhaps inventing a new memory of two dark shapes, my father’s parents, visiting when I was a child.

I shall assume this memory is false, that I don’t remember her. Though I do remember well having a middle name which I discarded as soon as I was able to, and that throughout, while branded with it had no idea why my father would have chosen such a name. Knowing myself somewhat, and my tendency for honesty despite the consequences, I would have said, when various teachers laughingly asked in front of the class how I came to be blessed with such a concoction, “My father gave it to me, it’s Turkish” and suffered yet more.

So I discover myself to be an interloper. Certainly the grandchild of a muslim woman, certainly named because of her and this fact, fairly certain she was from Turkey, but whether Turkish in fact or just passing through, perhaps Kurdish, or even Central Asian, I have no idea. Her name also, a blank.

I see these old women in Neukölln and Wedding and am reminded of her. I wonder if she would be like them. I wonder how it would have been growing up if not separated by hemispheres, I wonder more flightingly if by some small shift of chance I would nonetheless be in Berlin, but as the daughter of Gästarbeiterin, and perhaps wear a hijab as the girls of these Kieze sometimes do.

The conversations I’ve had in Berlin and Brussels about muslims, immigration have often left me troubled. Hearing tropes that sound suspiciously unfriendly yet unable to grasp the argument or conditions that led to such views even among artists. Unable to provide a convincing riposte outside of my experiences in Australia, and knowing also the pressing need to be able to argue forcefully against the easy racisim that pervades the public discussion reduced to ‘Islam in Europe’. Of course I began reading. I found Katherine Pratt Ewing’s Stolen Honor – Stigmatizing Muslim Men in Berlin in St George’s, an impulse purchase. Butler, Said, anthropology, and naturally I am drawn in, though equally in other respects problematic. But there is no one single answer.

It is perhaps that it is a question in the first place that it is a problem. The Muslim question. The Turkish question. Here in Brussels now – and across Europe even in Turkey – the hijab, niqab, burqa question.

I shall not be morally relativist here. It is the fundamental point of human rights to not be relativist; it is to be absolutist, to say, “Here is the minimum acceptable”, to say these things are not open to negotiation.

It is not the role of the government to decide how a woman might dress. It is not the role of a government to place itself in the position of proxy for a woman’s voice, therein stating whether such dress is choice or not. It is not the role of a government to use a woman’s body as the site on an ideological battle. It is not the role of the government to use the instrument of law in the name of women’s rights to impose a diminishment of those rights upon the very subject of their supposed emancipation.

I say this as a feminist. I say this as a woman, as a granddaughter of a Muslim woman, as an atheist, as a queer.