Benjamin Sire is a composer and journalist.
To discover
Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"
For a very long time,
Paris Match
magazine
was associated with its slogan, "
The weight of words, the shock of photos
". We must believe that the Council of Europe, through its program to combat discrimination, inequalities and exclusion and to strengthen inclusion, has decided to appropriate these words, without seeking to measure the consequences. Thus, commendably wanting to celebrate diversity and religious freedom, the program in question has launched a major campaign on social networks, starting with TikTok, which teenagers are most fond of, aimed at promoting ... the Islamic veil with great visuals showing women without, then, with the veil, or wearing it directly, all sometimes accompanied by the famous slogan "
My veil, my choice
”, sometimes from the sentence“
Beauty is in diversity, as freedom is in the Hijab
”...
This campaign is all the more surprising since with the exception of a visual, at no other time does it lift the corner of the veil on what diversity is, nor does it explain the means of fight against discrimination.
Benjamin Sire
Not being one of those who fight everywhere and all the time the wearing of the veil, considering that it is sometimes a real personal and spiritual choice, just as often, alas, a patriarchal imposition, a house arrest of identity or even a separatist political assertion claiming the superiority of the supposed laws of God over those of men, yet I fell from my chair while browsing these visuals and videos.
Between accepting, in the name of freedom of conscience, the wearing, in public space, of a religious symbol not very inclined to celebrate the freedom of women, and making a real promotion of it as envisaged by the Council of the Europe, slapping the thousands of women who, in countries struggling with an Islamist regime like Iran (Shiite), or Saudi Arabia (Sunni), are fighting to be able to remove the imposed fabric, there is more than a ditch. And all the more so, a few weeks after the total takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, who did not wait long before proving to the good souls who wondered about this subject that the word "inclusive" does not is not part of their vocabulary, no offense to Jean-Yves Le Drian who had naively considered the thing.
This campaign is all the more surprising given that with the exception of a visual, at no other time does it lift the corner of the veil (if I may), on what diversity is, no more than it does not explain the way to fight against discrimination, especially since the hijab in itself can be a form of discrimination and is in no way a pure Koranic prescription, but a political marker of rigorous Islam . As the philosopher and Islamologist Razika Adnani reminds us in an article by Ouest France dating from February 2021: “
Thus, they are Muslims
[and not the Koran, Editor's note]
who decided which part of the woman's body should be hidden and how the veil should be worn, but also which rules to follow and which to abandon.
[...]
If the Islamists give so much importance to the veil, it is because it represents an important index, because visible, of the success of their movement.
Their strategy is to get women used to wearing it.
That is why they want to impose it also on little girls
”.
To read also "The political discourse of the Islamists incites certain young Muslim women to veil themselves"
By this simple statement, based on the study made by Madame Adnani (and others) of the Koranic suras devoted to this question of textiles, the supposed free choice is made of wearing the Hijab takes a slight hit. “
My veil, my choice
” they say. On this subject, the feminist philosopher Élisabeth Badinter has expressed herself on several occasions, driving the nail in the patriarchal and political domination underpinned by this garment, while considering, like me, that it should not be prohibited in public space, but in all places requiring neutrality, in accordance with the law of 1905.
Thus in Raphaël Enthoven's program,
Philosophie, paroles aux thinkeurs de nos temps
, broadcast on the ARTE channel last month, she explains: “
I can completely understand that women find their happiness in servitude. It is a human phenomenon.
[...]
But when
[this veil]
is dominant in a neighborhood, it is quite difficult for those who do not want to wear it to face that ”
. This implies that the veil then becomes a form of mandatory standard for women who want to free themselves from the moral, religious and political pressure that reigns in these neighborhoods.
The shameless promotion of the veil by the Council of Europe is completely incomprehensible, unless we consider that it, more and more subject to the diktat of the identity era and to various pressures which, under the guise of progressivism, bring obscurantism to the fore.
Benjamin Sire
In this light, the shameless promotion of the veil by the Council of Europe is completely incomprehensible, unless one considers that this one, more and more subjected to the diktat of the identity era and to various pressures which, under covered with progressivism, bring obscurantism to the fore, has decided to add fuel to the fire in a period when Europe is under pressure from populisms which, more than fighting against Islamism deadly fight against the very existence of Islam, however respectful it may be for community rules and the laws in force in each country.
This approach can also be considered as a real provocation in the French context, even as the presidential campaign begins under the hegemonic sign of Z, and sees, again, the confusion being maintained by his camp, between Islamism (political and conqueror in essence) and all of our Muslim compatriots who have spent decades perfectly agreeing to the laws of the Republic.
Because this is exactly what these visuals do, which want to impose an Islamist vision of the Muslim religion as a standard and can only encourage those who, little inclined to nuance, are sensitive to the speeches of Eric Zemmour. ..
To read also Benjamin Sire: "Christine, Rahim, and the identity trap"
The same is true of a recent UN campaign which, reversing all values, illustrated a visual supposed to promote gender equality in the field of technology by a veiled woman, while, again, this fabric condemns such equality. Another graphic design of the European campaign never ceases to question and maintain this provocation, making the veil an ordinary garment, as if it were free from any political and religious baggage, again drawing an indecent parallel between its port and, for example, that of the miniskirt, as if the latter were imposed on anyone.
To understand the difference, even if those who pretend to question him have placed duplicity and hypocrisy on their political agenda, I will recall the words of the courageous secular activist and Belgian feminist Nadia Geerts published 5 years ago on his blog: "
The dress codes of seduction leave women infinitely more freedom than those of Islamic modesty, version ayatollahs, mullahs and other Islamofascists. I think I can say that I do not know any woman sacrificing every day, at each of her outings, to these codes. [...] Certainly, many women have in their wardrobe one or the other piece of clothing evoking more the bimbo than the modern woman concerned about comfort above all. But we all play with these codes, alternating jeans and a mini-skirt, stiletto heels and old sneakers. Without this game ever making us run the slightest physical risk: no virtue police to remind us that we are not sexy enough, no law to impose any dress code on us
”.
And as Nadia Geerts underlines again with regard to the motive for imposing the veil, but also other women's clothing subject to religious prescription: “
Yes, for Islamists - as for the first Christians, as for Orthodox Jews - women are evil creature.
She is the temptress, the sinner, the one through whom evil comes.
It is therefore necessary at all costs to conceal, domesticate, tame this body object of desire
”.
It becomes tiresome to repeat
these evidences
ad nauseam
, although they, in the age of relativism, no longer seem to be.
But more than boring, it is downright disturbing to see that even in the highest community bodies, this relativism and the confusion it conveys are becoming the norm.