After Rochdale

Asian women are suffering too.

There is a line in the film Four Lions where one of the terrorists suggests bombing Boots the Chemist because “they sell condoms and make you want to shag white girls". Everyone in my local cinema laughed, yet I know that abhorrent perception exists among some Asian men and women.  The furore over whether race, religion or culture played a part in targeting vulnerable white girls in the Rochdale "grooming" case, has failed to address a broader issue. The views of women who come from those northern towns has been absent in this debate. As a Bradford-born and raised Muslim woman from the Kashmiri/Mirpuri community, I understand the cultural complexities. Let’s be clear: it’s not just white women that are viewed as inferior: many from these Pakistani rural villages believe all women are second class citizens. The culture of the conservative Kashmiri/Mirpuri community has at its root a deep seated misogyny with the aim of controlling every aspect of a woman’s life and reducing her into subservience. 

 

This misogyny manifests itself in different ways. “They ripped away my dignity, my self-esteem,” said one of the victims of the grooming ring. Another stated that “she was persistently coerced or forced into submission by them”. Although the context is different, I have heard many Kashmiri/Mirpuri women in Bradford and other towns express similar sentiments about the men and families who control every aspect of their lives. White or Western women are viewed as promiscuous, are "up for it" and are objectified as sexual objects. A small minority can take this view alongside multiple factors such as criminality, to the ultimate extreme as in cases of grooming and sexual exploitation. 

 

There is a false and puritanical idea that all Pakistani women are "protected" at home and treated with respect. The reality is that many from this community also believe that their own women are inferior, their purpose in life is solely confined to the home serving their husbands and in-laws. Education and careers are unnecessary in a life of servitude as was the view before the early feminist movement and like white women, can also be objectified and viewed as sexual objects. 

 

There is a cultural attitude that women are singularly and disproportionately responsible for maintaining the honour of the family and that they carry the burden of preserving morality in society. They should therefore not do anything that would destroy this honour. Mirpuri women have endured abuse within families, yet because families want to be viewed as upstanding pillars of the community, many of these women are forced into silence. 

 

As a society we are losing out when bright girls from this community are denied the opportunity to pursue an education or career because of cultural restrictions. The psychological impact of being confined to the home for most of their lives is immense, as I was told by a woman who lived with her mother in-law and her husband, who would never let her out of the house. “I can’t even attend a women’s only sewing class,” she told me, crying. In many cases it is the older women in these communities who are perpetuating and maintaining these patriarchal attitudes. Some are still deciding third-generation first-cousin marriages and are prohibiting women from participating in public life.

 

In this debate, some commentators have not been able to differentiate between culture and religion. Women of my generation aspired to have an education and a career and saw Islam as an escape route. For some of these women, Islam offered freedoms to pursue an education, a career, the choice of choosing their own marriage partner, the opportunity to participate in British public life and, importantly, take control of their own lives. Moreover, the concept of rape in Islam should not be misunderstood: many of the early classical jurists, such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn ‘Arabi, viewed it as so abhorrent that it was defined as a form of terrorism. 

 

Misogyny exists within all communities and societies.  As Julie Bindel rightly says, there is no culture in the world where girls are valued on par with boys. Pakistani communities and Muslim leaders however can no longer deny the misogynistic attitudes that exist at the very heart of some of these communities. Young Pakistani boys and girls, and indeed all of our young people, need greater education about sex and women’s rights. Practical efforts that promote integration and social mobility will tackle attitudes and support women who want to play a positive contribution to our country. The enforced invisibility and subservience of women can be challenged through collective action to help dismantle the traditional and negative view that all women, whether white or Asian, are inferior.

Sara Khan is director of Inspire, a British Muslim women's human rights organisation

For many Asian women, Islam has been a path to freedom (Photo: Getty Images)
Getty
Show Hide image

How to build a moral resistance movement against Trumpism

As Donald Trump enters the White House, it’s time for the left to plan how it will deny his programme legitimacy.

Donald Trump’s election has precipitated an extraordinary crisis of identity among progressives in America. Can, or should, the left acknowledge his programme as legitimate? This is the programme of a man who ran the most bigoted and demagogic political campaign in US presidential history, who won the presidency not through securing more votes than his opponent but because of the quirks of the electoral college system, and whose early appointees suggest that he will govern according to an alt-right, white nationalist philosophy.

Reject his legitimacy, and those progressives are, inexorably, embracing a logic of revolt. Accept the legitimacy of this loutish hate-monger and the motley crew of sadists, sociopaths, Islamophobes, racists, sexists, and homophobes who support him, and we have to swallow not just our pride but our political and moral dignity.

This has always and everywhere been the challenge that confronts progressives when old orders disintegrate and are replaced by strongman, caudillo politics.

Most of us on the left have, these last few months, been in a state of shellshock. We knew the potential for such an electoral, and historical, calamity was on the cards. We knew that a derelict Democratic Party, which had failed to address the concerns of the working poor during an age of globalisation, was vulnerable to right-wing populism. We knew, too, that an utterly craven GOP elite had, in the main, chosen to ride the tiger unleashed by their destructive dogwhistle politics rather than confront the racist beast supported by much of the party’s base.

In that sense, Trump’s hostile takeover of the most powerful political apparatus on earth was anything but a surprise.

Yet, the visceral impact remains enormous. Seeing a country that, for more than 50 years, has moved toward a more multiracial, multireligious, multicultural vision of itself turn back toward naked tribal politics, marked by violence and corralled by a master of dishonesty produces a truly vertiginous sensation.

It is an Alice-down-the-rabbit-hole, nothing-is-as-it-should-be realisation. One day we were in the second decade of the twenty-first century – the next we had one foot in the 1870s, in an age of venomous white redemption politics, and the other foot in an isolationist, parochial, 1920s.

Reading the headlines produces a sensation of physical disarray, dizziness, nausea. But, now, as the dust settles, we look at the wreckage, and we must start planning resistance.

We can assume that over the coming months federal politics will take a sharp turn away from the idea, however nebulous, that government agencies are there to equally represent and protect all Americans, regardless of colour or creed. We can expect that the very definition of “American” will become more synonymous, once again, with whiteness.

Demagogue-Trump has promised the biggest round-up and deportation of undocumented immigrants – many of whom have lived almost their entire lives in the US – in history. He has talked about banning all Muslims from visiting or migrating to the country, and of registering all Muslims already living here. He is likely to appoint the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, who has a history of racist comments, to his cabinet. He has already announced that he will withdraw the country from the Paris climate accords and put a wrecking ball to Barack Obama’s domestic climate change and clean air initiatives. His vice president, Mike Pence, is one of the characters in American politics most opposed to gay rights. And some of his advisers, including Newt Gingrich, have expressed interest in resurrecting a version of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee, used to brutal effect in the late 1940s and 1950s to eliminate “subversive” voices from positions of influence in academia, diplomacy, politics, and in the culture industries.

Can this vile programme be opposed legislatively? To a point. Certainly the minority Democrats in the Senate will have some ability to filibuster and otherwise slow down parts of the Trumpian programme. But, federally, the GOP – Trump’s GOP – is in an extraordinarily strong position now, controlling both houses of Congress, the presidency, and, now, the Supreme Court.

Realistically, much of the resistance will have to come from the big cities – many of which are now “sanctuary cities”, meaning they already do not cooperate with federal agencies in an array of deportation activities – and from large, liberal states such as California and New York, as well as nearby states in the Pacific Northwest and up the Northeastern corridor to Boston. Those states, the embodiment of multi-cultural success stories, have no truck with Trump’s xenophobic, bullying agenda. Nor, on the ground, do their political leaders have much incentive to cooperate with policies that their populations abhor.

But if they refuse cooperation, they will, inevitably, face grave consequences, including the withholding of federal funds. It will take both stamina and courage to stand up to the thuggery of Trumpism over the coming years. And it will take the active, engaged, fully committed, involvement of a grassroots movement larger and more radicalised than any seen in this country since at least the 1960s.

Grassroots groups that, for decades, have been preoccupied with their particular, micro-focused issues and identity themes will now have to put aside their differences and campaign en masse, protest in vast and sustained numbers on the streets, and, if necessary, engage in ongoing civil disobedience, to counter the unleashed assault against the progressive values that we hold dear.

This resistance will have to emanate from universities, from faith communities, from networks of social justice campaigners, from environmentalists, and from anti-police brutality organisers. It will have to be so large, so loud, so uncompromising, that it will render impossible the implementation of Trumpism.

If Trump orders the creation of a registry of Muslims, that grassroots movement will have to organise millions of non-Muslim Americans to immediately register as well, thus rendering it useless. If Trump orders roving deportation squads into the big cities and campuses, men and women of good conscience will have to provide sanctuary spaces, protected by pickets of concerned citizens, for families at risk.

If Trump really does remove all climate change mandates from American industry, consumers who care about the environment will have to launch the biggest, most effective consumer boycotts in history against companies who abandon their cleaner, greener, technological commitments. If Trump’s team starts dismantling federal legal protections for the LGBT community, cities from coast to coast will have a moral imperative to recreate these protections at a local level.

We can’t stop all of the horrors of Trumpism. But we can work tirelessly to stymie as much as possible in as many creative ways as possible. The time for compromise is over. Now is the time for an outpouring of creative, marvelous, non-violent protest.

We will resist, because to be able to hold our heads high for the rest of our lives we have no choice but to resist. As the crusading Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano wrote, of the imperative for resisting Pinochet’s regime in Chile: “We Say No.”

We will say no to Trumpism, again and again and again over the coming years. And we will win. Because our vision is bigger than Trump’s, and because the world that we imagine is fairer, more just, and more humane than the vicious one he seeks to create.