The Freedom to Symbolize My Own Oppression!

A couple of years back, when English Muslim teenager Shabina Begum won the legal right to wear a jiljab -- a gown that covers everything except part of the face -- to school, an almost mind-boggling irony reigned over the proceedings. Having lost her case at the High Court, Begum went to the Court of Appeal, where judges agreed that her school's prohibition of the jiljab was in contravention of the Human Rights Act, a piece of British legislation protecting citizens' rights as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. It didn't seem to cross her mind that the ECHR to which she took recourse enshrines many principles directly contrary both to the sharia law she was hell-bent (if you'll pardon the pun) on obeying, and to the tenets of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the pan-Islamist group -- banned in Germany, Russia and much of the Middle East -- that backed her case, and that claims her older brother as a member. The then-16-year-old, an orphan, said with an entirely straight face: "It is amazing that in the so-called free world I have to fight to wear this attire."

This strange logic (permit me the freedom to symbolize my own oppression!) has just been revisited in the south of England, where another schoolgirl was pushed into the spotlight in order to promote the religious chastity of women, again under dire threat from a pesky educational institution. And again, the High Court has sided with the school.

Sixteen-year-old Lydia Playfoot had been threatened with school expulsion unless she removed a silver "purity ring," worn in a show of commitment to celibacy outside of marriage. It's not quite clear how a piece of jewelry helps a young girl remain a virgin -- perhaps its biblical inscription, translated as "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin," serves as a reminder ("What's that Darren? You want to indulge in some sexual sinning? Sure! Oh, wait, no, my ring says God wants me to be holy, sorry!") -- but Playfoot asserted that the ring constitutes a fundamental expression of her religious beliefs. Judge Supperstone disagreed, ruling that a chastity ring was not an essential part of Christian faith. Playfoot, who said she was "disappointed," hasn't yet decided whether or not she'll appeal, but in a pleasing bit of synchronicity -- or perhaps it's an overt hint from the Almighty -- 14 U.S. states have recently dropped abstinence-only sex education.

Of course, Playfoot didn't come by her faith spontaneously: her father is a Christian minister and both her parents are financially involved in the UK arm of Silver Ring Thing. The movement, launched in America in 1995, preaches abstinence outside of marriage and is closely associated with Leslee Unruh, the maniacal pro-lifer whose organization Abstinence Clearinghouse organizes "purity balls" where girls -- often pre-teens and sometimes as young as four -- pledge their purity (hold on to your breakfast) to their fathers until (it gets worse): "the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband."

So, while Playfoot might believe in what she's doing -- and judging by her forthright and sincere speeches, she does -- she's just as much a pawn as Shabina Begum. The latter's high-profile cause publicized Hizb-ut-Tahrir and its aim of creating a one-nation Muslim state among Britons; Playfoot's case promoted Silver Ring Thing, whose UK branch is a for-profit company that sells to young people abstinence courses involving books, DVDs and, of course, silver rings.

A money-making campaign to deter horny adolescents from hooking up is not, on the face of it, as sinister as an anti-democratic, anti-Israel, pro-gender-segregation political party. But Silver Ring Thing and its ilk are far from harmless happy clappies: according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, teens who "pledge" under pressure from abstinence promoters have higher levels of STDs due to unsafe sex. A case in point is Texas, where state law requires that sex education emphasizes abstinence: as well as harboring a teenage chlamydia epidemic, the Lone Star state has just achieved the dubious honor of topping the nation's statistics for teen pregnancy. Perhaps the only way Lydia Playfoot's silver ring will save her from the same fate is if it's connected up to a sensor in her underwear that, Lindsay Lohan-alcohol-anklet-style, alerts a "purity sponsor" to any unchaste activity. Actually, that's probably not something to joke about.

Comments

[Matt2891]

To expand on my previous idea: How is it oppressive if the wearer of a jihab does it voluntarily as a tenet of her personal religious beliefs? What difference is there in a teenage Muslim being made to wear a jihab and a typical American more-or-less secular teenager made to wear clothes her parents consider to be 'modest' or 'not slutty'? Children by the very nature of kid/parent relationships are oppressed. This isn't about sharia, or theocracies. This is about the freedom to expression.

[Lon]

Shabina Begum would seem to have a better understanding of freedom than the author who thinks that freedom should not extend to other people doing what the author considers oppresive, even though the wearer apparently does not.

The issue with the ring seems similar. The decision seems to be that the wearing of the ring is a political rather than a religious statement. The ruling makes sense then only if one thinks that a schoolgirl should have religious freedom but not political freedom.

But perhaps the author is right that if we prevent religious people from living their chosen lifestyles, they will come to understand and love our sense of freedom.

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

Anyone who's ever read any of my posts won't be surprised to learn that I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, NRA and FORR. I believe the United States Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is the most important document ever produced. I realize the actions in the story took place in England but it is being blogged about here so I'm assuming a corollary.

Freedom is freedom! The disadvantage is that you will be offended at times. The wonder of it is that you are free yourself. Right now those ten remarkable amendments are being ignored, weakened and precedents are being created in conservative courts which will make their resurrection difficult. If you think you help liberty by denying rights to someone who doesn't respect liberty as well as you do yourself, you are a danger to the cause of freedom.

mike

[Qbear]

Let the Muslim girl wear her traditional jilab, let the Christian girl wear her chastity ring, but just to be EQUAL in wearing our oppression, gay and lesbian youths will be carrying pistols to school, since Hate Crimes Nationally won't protect them.

[ChicaOfLight78]

I'm convinced that the trend in Western Democracies (ever-since their foundings) is to go from free to less free. With experiences and new generalizations, people become more hostile to freedoms they once had!

[Ben Dixon]

WTF! One type of religous symbol is allowed the another isn't. Regardless of whether you beleive in what the symbols stand for, this sort of "logic" is more proof that Western civ is in decline.

[Aunt Shecky]

Does compulsory education mean that giving up one's personal freedom is also compulsory? Many American schools are run like medium security prisons. (Especially the ones which require uniforms. I mean PUBLIC schools, not private ones.) George Carlin once said, "Isn't it enough that the schools make the kids think alike, now they even have to LOOK alike?") There are some essential safety precautions, and some, such as banning the use of cellphones during class,are designed to cut down on distractions and cheating. Yet many of the rules seem whimsical and arbitrary -- no hooded sweatshirts, skirts no more than four inches above the knee. What do they do, hire nuns to come in and measure the girls' skirts with rulers? "Uh-oh,your hemline is three and three-quarter inches -- you'd better go home and change!" That's a good use of valuable instruction time! When educationists state that they want children to "feel good" about going to school, why do they go out of their way to give kids, especially teenagers, yet another reason to loathe the place?

[Matt2891]

To deny these girls thier right to express themselves religiously would only be substituting one kind of oppression for another. Governmental for religious. Yes, in a free society, people are free to make choices to limit themselves and thier freedom. That is thier right, even if it doesn't make alot of sense.