I recently spoke to the Association of Jewish Librarians of the New York metropolitan area. I did so at the Park East Synagogue, on a gloriously sunny day in Manhattan. Surrounded by glass walls of books, and the occasional sounds of happy children, I knew that I would be with cultured, cultivated people and I therefore decided that I could not just present a standard lecture on The New Anti-Semitism, the title of my 2003 book.

Starving Jews in Nazi ghettoes kept their libraries open; they continued to check books out and bring books back. I decided that I had to talk about books. After a kind introduction by Roz Friedman, President, AJL-NYMA (Association of Jewish Libraries-New York Metropolitan Area), here’s a bit of what I said.

Roz Friedman introducing Phyllis

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak here.

Like you, I love books. I love our sacred Jewish texts and the many splendid commentaries that accompany them, but in truth: all leather-bound, gold-embossed books call out to me. Verily, I am a person of the Book. I read them, I write them, I consume them. I love libraries, their respect for work done in silence and solitude, the quiet solicitousness of librarians, their efficiency and kindness. I love fine writing, great writing, the kind that lasts.

A book lover lives an enchanted life. She is someone who can, in an instant, escape her ordinary life, travel to any country on earth, time-travel to any century; she can enter a peasant’s hut or a king’s bedroom, witness a childbirth, a love affair, a murder, a coronation. A book lover is someone who is never exactly lonely, someone who probably believes that fictional characters are more real, more alive, than “real” people are, and that their stories are as important as the stories of our “real” lives.

If I want to know something about someone, I’ll find out what books they’ve read or are reading. Then, I’ll inquire about their childhoods.

I admit it. I eat books. I possess them. I write in the margins and on the blank front and back pages. I plant my post-its everywhere. Unlike a librarian, I am no longer willing to lend my books out. They are part of my daily life. At any given moment, my writing might require just that book. Also: They are so…”used,” so lovingly battered. How can they unashamedly leave home? In my lifetime, whenever I’ve made a major geographical move, I have been forced to give away books—anywhere from 2,000-10,000 at a given time.

Once, 1000 books of mine were held up at the Khyber Pass—but that’s a story for another day. Actually, I have written about this adventure in one of my books and may expand it into a Memoir. You may find it in my book, The Death of Feminism. What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom.

I began reading when I was three years old and began writing when I was eight years old. My first poem was published when I was seventeen years old and my first article when I was twenty three years old. I decided to get a Ph.D and became a professor-psychotherapist (a “Viennese witch-doctor”) in order to support my writing habit.

I’ve been publishing for nearly fifty years now. I’ve published thirteen books and written fifteen. I’ve worked with many major publishing houses. As we all know, many things have really changed. There’s a lot less money lying about. Newspapers are shutting down. Small bookstores are shutting down. The chains rule. Buying online rules. Discounts rule. Even some library branches are shutting down.

But mainly, I fear that books, and the habits of thought that reading shapes, the time it takes to shape such habits of thoughtfulness, may rapidly be going out of style. Technology, youth, and marketplace demands have conspired in the minimization of books as we’ve known them. I fear that one day, our books may reside in museums, not in libraries.

Younger people prefer books on kindle and online. Even in an era of Book Clubs, people in general still prefer quick books, easy books, books with a “point,” especially books by celebrities which are often ghostwritten by ghosts who are not great writers. Books that can be listened to while driving, books that are easy to market, books that “sell,” bestsellers that can be turned into blockbuster movies, videos, small YOUTUBE sensations, maybe even into tee-shirt logos. Some people prefer blogs—some prefer twitter.

I fear that our traditional aesthetic and intellectual standards, both for fact checking and for the quality of writing, has plummeted. Short is now sweet, long is out. Anything goes on the internet. There’s no mediator, no editor, no expert, no grown-up in charge.

We are shortchanging the coming generations by accustoming them to books-as-information, books packaged as entertainment, preferably presented visually–easy for people with a culturally enforced attention deficit disorder, or who multi-task while they read (!)–this is the rapidly incoming fashion. Everyone’s articles can be published online whether or not they have been edited for grammar or accuracy. Is this democracy in action or the triumph of Big Lies and foolish vanity? Clearly, it’s both.

The truth is: I love blogging. I publish three articles a week, every week. Such deadlines demand enormous discipline. I read ten to twenty newspapers and an additional 40-50 articles every day in order to be “up on the news.” I do this because there are moments in history when writers, (who might rather be working on long books), must take a visible, immediate, and ongoing stand against evil and injustice. This is one of those moments. The internet allows me to do so.

What happens when a writer evolves, deepens, or changes her mind about certain things? What happens when a writer: This one, decides to stand up for the Jews, for Israel, for America, for the truth, for the virtues and traditions of Western civilization? What happens when a writer decides to oppose fascism and totalitarianism? And to criticize Islamic gender and religious apartheid and jihad—and will still not surrender her feminist ideals?

Why, all happy Hell breaks loose…

————————————————
And then I spoke freely about how ideas matter and about the consequences of sharing ideas with the world. I did a brief reading from The New Anti-Semitism.

Phyllis reading from The New Anti-Semitism.

It is unconscionable that such gentle, educated, Jewish people are still the targets of so much hate. Yes, Jews are also thieves and scoundrels but they are in the minority.

One woman, who turned out not to be a librarian, asked me to comment on the Golden Age in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lived together in harmony. I told her that many scholars now strongly dispute this. We had quite a spirited discussion.

The audience

One librarian said that she’d lived in Israel but, after fifteen years, had missed her family in New York and had returned. She admitted that once, she’d had dreams about peace that have been chipped away at, tarnished, even shattered. She asked me what I thought about this.

“Don’t give up your dreams or your ideals, simply allow reality a place at the table. Anyway, Jewish dreams, Jewish ideals belong to a Messianic Age. We’re not there yet. Our job is to take up our places in the great chain of Being, to “love or regard our neighbor as we love and regard ourselves,” to be kind to others, try to do no harm, to do some good on earth, and to walk humbly with God.”

All the rest is commentary.

Why does all this peace-and-calm remind me, ever so slightly, of Europe in early July of 1914 or July of 1939? Not everyone is touched by war, some smartly dressed people are always dancing or feasting as other people are being murdered (we have all seen the documentary footage of the really good time some people were having while others were going up in smoke at Auschwitz or Treblinka. I was not starving while Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in Rwanda — were you?).

We all seem to be moving in slow motion, serenely out of touch with the hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen, distracting ourselves from the dark, gravitational pull of war by spending two weeks publicly, collectively, obsessively, mourning a pop singer as if he was Jesus and about to rise. Has anyone else noticed how many African-American news anchors now sport haircuts just like President Obama’s? Why does this look remind me of of those fearfully polite Nation of Islam men?

Back on track: What are we avoiding? What makes us feel so helpless, so terrified that we prefer festive oblivion to cold, strategic clarity?

Well, for starters: We are arresting home-grown Islamist terrorists both in New York City and in Minnesota; we are releasing Iranian terrorists in complicated hostage exchanges; our president is kow-towing to the Islamic world even as they ratchet up their view of themselves as “victims” and continue to slaughter Christians, infidels — and mainly, other Muslims.

And then there are my small Jewish sorrows.

Last week, in a unanimous vote, the International Federation of Journalists ousted the National Federation of Israel Journalists from amongst their ranks. Politics were at the heart of the matter although non-payment of dues (due to politics) were also given as the excuse. The unjust boycotts against Israelis continue apace.

Meanwhile, President Obama has been reading the riot act only to Israel, not to any other country on earth.

Even now, he is meeting with the heads of American Jewry — but why is he not meeting to admonish and pressure the tyrants of the Islamic world? What Middle East “peace” is our president talking about?

The people are chanting: “Death to the turbans,” “Down with the dictator,” “We want democracy.” The demonstrators are risking their very lives in order to tell the world the truth about Iran: that it is one gigantic prison in which elections are rigged, children are sacrificed to clear landmines from the fields, and women, intellectuals, and homosexuals are routinely jailed and murdered by corrupt dictators who sponsor terrorism abroad.

We tell children that if they “tell the truth, they will be safe.” But this is a lie. Truth tellers invariably get into trouble. Even in the West, whistleblowers get harassed, maligned, isolated, fired. Those who expose family “secrets” are treated as evil or crazy and are often driven out of the family. The evil-doers are protected, those who expose them are punished. This seems to be a fairly universal phenomenon.

While I am no fan of the Islamist Mir Hossein Moussavi or of his Islamist wife, at least Moussavi ran on a platform which promised to ban the stoning of Iranian women.

Last night I finally saw The Stoning of Soraya M. The film is both beautiful and terrible, painfully graphic, quite true to Sahebjam’s narrative, well worth seeing. I have been writing and speaking about this stoning for about five years now but I was still riveted to my seat. I had to cover my face several times as the actual stoning was re-enacted.This is ironic, given my stand against female cowering/”covering.” But this time, doing so allowed me to avoid the most unpleasant reality; perhaps this is a self-destructive act. We must face evil in order to stop it.

Some points about the story and the film which the reviewers may not have noticed:

First, Soraya Manoucheri could have lived–had she granted Ghorban Ali, her husband, an immediate divorce, given up her two sons whom Ali, a frequenter of brothels, had turned against her, and simply accepted her fate as a vulnerable, impoverished women with absolutely no way to support herself and her two daughters other than prostitution which is both shameful and illegal. This small amount of spirit, or outraged dignity that Soraya showed is precisely what doomed her. It makes no difference that the 40 year-old Ghorban Ali could have married the 14 year-old who had aroused his lust anyway, without having to divorce Soraya. He would still have had to pay some support and this he refused to do. He chose to falsely accuse her of improper behavior with her male employer and to have her stoned to death.

Second, although Soraya and her magnificent aunt Zahra were relatively “spirited” women, neither really believed that their lives were unbearably tragic and/or they were incapable of acting on that belief. To save her life, Soraya would have had to flee immediately, (yes, into the same dreadful poverty and prostitution); that, in the era of the mullahs, once targeted by an evil man, there would be no escape for her or for any woman. Failing that, Soraya would have had to wrestle the rifle out of the hands of the man guarding her, and turned it on him and then on herself in order to avoid the most torturous of deaths.

If they are lucky, Iranian prostitutes routinely spend many years in prison, as do rape victims. In 2001-2002, Iranian filmmaker Manijeh Hekmat released a film Women’s Prison which depicts the heartbreaking lives of women behind bars from 1979-1999.

Many prisoners have been accused falsely of being prostitutes, or have been forced into prostitution and then punished for it–or have killed their potential rapists or longtime rapists.

In 2007-2008, Mehmoushe Solouki, a Canadian-French-Iranian and a former inmate of Evin Prison, released yet another film, The Evil and the Good, about women in Iranian prisons. Solouki was–and still is haunted by the cries of other women prisoners, many of whom were women’s rights activists who had been arrested for marching for women’s rights.

“I heard the cries and yelling of other women prisoners,” she says. “I thought that they were terrorists, but when I asked about it, the answer was that they were women activists arrested during the ceremony of March 8 [International Women's Day]. I couldn’t tell whether this answer was tragic or comic…I have heard some things about Guantanamo Bay — that terrorists are kept there.” Solouki says. “But I can’t believe there could be a place in the world with so many students, intellectuals, writers, and women’s rights activists [as Evin prison].”

This is what happens when people tell the truth anywhere but especially in totalitarian, Islamist countries. To name only three Muslim countries: In Iran,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, women, especially dissidents, are not only forced to veil; they are also harassed and threatened, shot down, beaten up, and jailed, where they are raped, tortured in other ways, hung, stoned, and shot.

And all for telling the truth about their lives and the lives of others and for demanding a change: Less violence, more freedom, “democracy,” an end to stoning and to repressive female dress codes.

The stoning of Soraya M was a cultural honor killing. The people in her village, where she had been born and had lived all her life, were easily convinced that she had shamed and dishonored them and that only by shedding her blood could the villagers themselves be cleansed. (”Each stone will redeem you”–these are Ghorban Ali’s exact words, and they inspired the murderous-sexual rage of the all-male stoning mob. As did the fake mullah’s repeated cries of “Allahuakbar.” A traveling theatrical-musical company stays to watch the “entertainment” and also joins in by pounding their large drums in a way that excites and thrills the stoners.

This is precisely the kind of sexually-fueled Islamist rage that may account for family honor killings in which the poor female victim is stabbed 22 times or raped and then set on fire or slowly suffocated or stoned to death.

I am keeping the brave Iranian demonstrators close to my heart and I am always mindful of Soraya M, whose body was exposed to the dogs to eat and whose bones were then lovingly buried by her aunt Zahra near a stream that Soraya loved.

I want to thank Joy Rose of Mammapalooza for accompanying me down to see this film and for sighing right along with me. No woman should have to sigh alone.

Asma’a Al-Ghoul is a Palestinian secular feminist who has written poignant, heartbreaking pieces about honor killings and women’s rights in Gaza. Last month, Asma’a quit her job at Al Ayaam because her subject matter got her into “trouble” at work. She is also the journalist who was arrested over the weekend by Hamas’s “morality” police, ostensibly for “laughing immoderately” and for “immodest” clothing at the beach.

The beach!

Asma’a, the 27 year-old mother of a four year-old son, was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. She went into the water fully clothed. Apparently, that was not modest enough for them.

According to Asma’a, with whom I just spoke, the Palestinian police detained her and took her passport away. They also beat up four male friends: two right there on the beach, all four back in police custody. (One of these men was not sitting with them at the time but came to their aid when the police attacked them). Due to the intercession of a journalist-friend with whom the beach goers were visiting, the police let Asma’a go—but with a warning; they told her “they would be following her case.” The police also returned Asma’a’s passport to her. In addition, the police wanted to confiscate her laptop but luckily, they were unable to find it.

Since then, Asma’a received a written death threat. She has been staying home, and has, understandably, had trouble sleeping.

“But,” she tells me, “Both my friends and the media have been supporting me.” Indeed, Asma’a wrote to thank me for my recent piece which mentioned her plight.

“And” she points out, “yesterday at noon, the government, possibly for the first time ever, announced that they will be looking into this matter.”

Asma’a explained that many other such incidents have happened and been covered up. “People are afraid to speak out. But we must speak out in order to stop this. We fear that the government will banish those who speak.”

It has been said, that the Palestinian people once were the most educated people in the Arab world. Over the years, I have known and worked with both secular and religious Palestinian Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists who are in favor of modernity and women’s rights.

Nevertheless, increasingly, Hamas officials have been cracking down on women and on western ways. They have “urged shopkeepers to take down foreign advertisements which show the shape of women’s bodies and to hide lingerie which is currently displayed in windows. Officials search electronic shops to check if they are selling pornography on tiny flash drives.”

According to human rights activist, Isam Younis, “There’s an open, public program to preserve public morals in Gaza,..In reality that means trying to restrict freedoms. Hamas denies that any crackdown is under way. But they have failed to take any action against the groups that have been attacking hairdressers and internet cafes.

Under Hamas, women have been increasingly veiling: wearing hijab, wearing versions of the Iranian, Saudi, and Afghani abayas, chadors, burqas, etc.

Asma’a tells me: “Palestinian feminists have not called to support me. They are afraid. Some have told me that I am so ‘strong,’ (which means that they think) they are not.”

Asma’a has written a moving paper about honor killings and women’s rights in Gaza which she originally published in Arabic in Al-Ayaam. She has given me permission to edit and publish it here which I will do in two parts. In it, one of the things she describes is how Palestinian women themselves have internalized misogyny (something that is a global phenomenon and about which I’ve written in Women’s Inhumanity to Woman ). Women accept, even support, the punishment and murder of women.

According to Asma’a, at a recent workshop in Khan Yunis, many of the women gathered “were fully convinced that a woman who makes a mistake must be killed. A woman wearing a black folk dress consisting of two parts and only the forehead and one of the eyes can be seen through said: ‘She deserves to die…she should be a way to give a lesson to others.’ Neither she nor the other women believed that men should be punished for the same crime or for murdering a woman for the sake of ‘family honor.’”

“You know,” Asma’a said, “when my mother was my age she used to wear short skirts and no hijab. I do not wear hijab. But now, the women cover everything, even their faces. I am a secular Muslim. Theoretically, I believe that Islam and secular values can be compatible The government has attached themselves to the most extreme facets of Islam, not to Islam ( as it has been practiced in the past).” These morality police think they are god.”

As to the future—Asma’a tells me: “We don’t know. We are waiting.”

If Hamas has its way, the women of Gaza will soon be wearing burqas or the Iranian version of them. My question: If Asma immigrates to America, will she be free of such policing? Who will best safeguard her personal rights in America?

Some of my best friends are, or certainly were, liberals. As long as they are not still afflicted with Bush Derangement or Let’s-All-Pile-On Palin Syndrome, we have certain memories, friends, interests, and values in common.

Well, maybe we don’t anymore.

For example: On the matter of America, Israel, the Jews, and Islam we seem to have parted company. Still, I am willing to entertain certain liberal views; I respect and wrestle with valid points no matter what flag their bearers fly. The same is not true in reverse. Whenever I even hint at a view that does not match theirs exactly, there is tension, yelling, hyperventilating, shaming, a harangue.

This is the behavior of a cult member, not that of a free human being.

Why do I even mention this? Because I have been polling various liberals of all faiths and of no faith at all about whether America should restrict or ban the burqa and niqab in America.

A Muslim friend made an interesting point. She said that “if you ban something the hotheads will protest it, you will give them a raison d’être, a symbol. If you just leave it alone, it is bound to die on its own.”

A Jewish friend immediately yelled at me. He insisted that if I applied the same ban to hasidic and ultra-Orthodox dress that I would consider myself an anti-Semite. “You don’t want the government coming in and telling people how to practice their religion.”

I pointed out that hasidic and ultra-orthodox attire does not block the five senses, communication and identification are possible, there is no sensory deprivation involved—although, I conceded, wearing heavy, long, dark clothing works better in nineteenth century Poland on a cold winter day than in The New World (or in Israel) on a hot summer afternoon. I also
pointed out that there are only a small number of Jews (14 million) compared to Muslims (1.3 billion), and that hasidic and ultra-orthodox Jews have set a high educational standard for themselves and others and do not share a religious ideology which has vowed a jihadic war against the West.

I spoke to no avail. Interestingly, this particular Jewish man does not usually defend the rights of hasidic or ultra-orthodox Jews. On the contrary. He continuously attacks them. His brotherly concern seems to emerge only when Muslim dress codes are at issue.

I do agree that the subordination, marginalization, disenfranchisement of women may be an issue in all religions. However, there is a difference between an evolved, diversified, and pro-modern Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism as compared to a medieval and barbaric version of Islam.

Clearly, this is a major issue in Europe where anywhere from 30-50 million Muslims live. Paradoxically, various European countries have banned or restricted the far less restrictive headscarf (hijab) in schools, universities, and courtrooms–but have not yet restricted the far more smothering burqa. Perhaps hijab is seen as the “nose of the camel,” a garment which, if allowed, will lead Europe right down the slippery slope to more oppressively restricted clothing for Muslim-European women.

Could this issue arise in America with its much smaller Muslim population? Is this an issue we must address?

America is a nation of immigrants, one that is dedicated to freedom of religion and to the separation of religion and state. Thus, most Americans are probably inclined to accept that wearing the Islamic burqa (full-face-and-body shroud), niqab (Islamic face mask), and hijab (Islamic headscarf) is a religious choice and should therefore be protected as a religious right. If not, it is feared, other religious symbols and practices might also be banned; and America would be indulging in religious persecution.

For the moment, I do not want to discuss the politicization of Islamic female attire as a visual statement on behalf of Islamist supremacism and jihad, nor do I want to focus on the headscarf (hijab). In fact, I do not yet want to address whether such Islamic female attire ( burqa, niqab, hijab) is a free or a forced choice and whether or not it is mandated by the Qu’ran.

Religious Muslim scholars and other experts disagree profoundly about this. Some say that such attire is merely a pre-Islamic, desert-based custom that has nothing to do with Islam. For example, in 2009, the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) urged Canada’s government to ban the burka. Mafooz Kanwar, a professor and an MCC director stated: “The burka is not mandated by Islam or the Qur’an and is therefore not religious and protected under the Charter. In Canada, gender equality is one of our core values and faces are important identifying tools and should not be covered. Period.”

Other Muslim scholars insist that such attire is an Islamic custom (if not an actual law) which women must follow in order to be “modest.”

World-wide, many Muslim women do not mask their faces, shroud their bodies, or cover their hair–but many do, especially if they have been threatened with beatings or death if they are not sufficiently “covered.” An increasing number of Muslim women in the West, including educated women, claim that they are freely choosing to wear hijab, the headscarf.

In 2007, Middle East scholar, Daniel Pipes called for a ban on burqas and niqab –not on headscarves. Pipes views the burqa as a security risk and cites literally hundreds of cases in which both common criminals and Islamist terrorists were able to commit robberies, make their escapes or blow themselves and others up, both in the West and in the Muslim world, by wearing a burqa. Male criminals and terrorists did this far more often than their female counterparts. Pipes concludes:

“Nothing in Islam requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies; good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive, terrorist-enabling, and criminal-friendly garments.”

The burqa, niqab — even hijab — are being used as pawns in the power struggle between jihadic Islam and the West. These dress codes are primarily political in nature.

For those people who really and truly believe that the burqa is a religious and not a political/jihadic issue — consider this:

According to the United States monitoring service SITE Intelligence, al-Qaeda has just announced that it plans to “take revenge on France for its opposition to the burka, calling on Muslims to retaliate against the country.” Abu Musab Abdul Wadud, head of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb said:

“Yesterday was the hijab (the Islamic headscarf long banned in French schools) and today, it is the niqab (the full veil). We will take revenge for the honour of our daughters and sisters against France and against its interests by every means at our disposal … for us, the mujahedeen … we will not remain silent to such provocations and injustices. We call upon all Muslims to confront this hostility with greater hostility.”

Does anyone really believe that al-Qaeda is a religious group? Or that their religious pronouncements are holy and should be protected by American or European laws?

In a many months-old video, al-Qaeda number two, al-Zawahiri, also condemned the French law (which banned hijab) saying “the decision showed the grudge the Western crusaders have against Islam.” Zawahiri claimed to be speaking in Bin Laden’s name.

Al-Qaeda now has an Algerian-based Salafist-oriented group which is being encouraged to attack either pro-French Algerians or Frenchmen. Or both.

Le Pauvre Algerienne. For nearly twenty years, Algerian women have been pawns in the power struggle between Islamists and the Algerian government.

According to attorney Karima Bennoune, from 1992 on, Algerian Islamist men committed a series of “terrorist atrocities” against Algerian women. Bennoune describes the “kidnapping and repeated raping of young girls as sex slaves for armed fundamentalists. The girls were also forced to cook and clean for God’s warriors. … [O]ne 17-year-old girl was repeatedly raped until pregnant. She was kidnapped off the street and held with other young girls, one of whom was shot in the head and killed when she tried to escape.” As in Iran, “unveiled,” educated, independent Algerian women were seen as “military targets” and were increasingly shot on sight. According to Bennoune, “the men of Algeria (were) arming, the women of Algeria (were) veiling themselves. As one woman said: ‘Fear is stronger than our will to be free.’”

“The Michigan Supreme Court should not slam the door of justice on a category of women just because of their religious belief…Under the proposed rule, women who are sexually assaulted do not have their day in court if they wear a veil mandated by their religion.”

Sexual assault was not at issue nor was the victim afraid that testifying might lead to her death. Leave it to the ACLU to always get it wrong.

Finally, earlier this month, on June 17, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 vote, ruled that a Judge had the power to “require witnesses to remove head or facial covering as (the witness) was testifying.” A Judge has the right to see a witness’s “facial expressions” to determine her “truthfulness” while she testifies.

Expect many more such cases. Indeed, expect Ginnah Muhammed to appeal this right up to the Supreme Court.

Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have gone to court in Florida (2002), California (2005) , Michigan (2008), and Oklahoma (2008) to fight for a Muslim woman’s right to cover her hair or face—whether it is while being photographed for a driver’s license or for a police mug shot; or while working at McDonald’s or Abercrombie Kids. In 2007, CAIR wrote a letter on behalf of a Muslim woman in Georgia who refused to remove her headscarf in order to enter a courtroom to plead “not guilty” to a traffic ticket. In 2004, the Justice Department supported a lawsuit brought on behalf of a sixth grade student in Oklahoma who wanted to wear hijab in her public school. That same year, the school reviewed their policy, amended their dress code, paid the student an undisclosed sum, and allowed her to attend classes wearing hijab.

Religious Muslims are outraged that Christians can wear crucifixes, nuns and priests can wear habits, Jews can wear skullcaps or wigs and head coverings, Sikhs can wear turbans, Hindus can wear veils and saris–but that Muslims cannot wear burqas or niqab.

Of course, only the Islamic female religious attire masks all five senses and makes human interaction almost impossible. Hijab (a headcovering) is another matter entirely and is not under discussion here.

Many conservatives and religious people do not want the government telling them how to dress or limiting their private religious practices. Most progressives, including feminists, view the burqa, (full face and body shroud), niqab, (face mask plus head and body covering), and hijab (headcovering so that no hair shows), as either a Muslim woman’s religious right or as her culturally sanctioned expression of modesty. In addition, they may see the ban on the burqa as a form of “racial profiling,” or as “Islamophobic.”

I appreciate but respectfully disagree with both views. I believe that we must ban the burqa and niqab not only for reasons of national security, (something that Daniel Pipes has already argued), but also for health-related reasons–and on the grounds of women’s rights and human rights.

I will develop this argument at length in the future.

The blood of real (not just reel) Muslim women, murdered either by the state or by their families, continues to cry out—not only in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa but also in the West.

Two days ago, on June 24, 2009, in Germany, a Turkish father, Mehmet O, a kebab shop owner, repeatedly knifed his fifteen-year-old daughter, Bursa, while she was sleeping. Despite the fact that Bursa, her mother, and her sister all wore hijab, Mehmet O. still felt Bursa was too “westernized,” and that she did not want her “strict Muslim father to control her life.” Bursa’s friends described her as a “fun-loving girl, (who) loved hip hop music….But that is no reason to kill someone.”

This is certainly not the first honor killing in Germany or in Europe by a Muslim father or brother.

Earlier this year, on March 4, 2009, a Turkish brother strangled his 20-year-old twin-sister, Gulsum Semin, because she allegedly had an abortion. Her father has been arrested as an accessory to this murder.

On July 3, 2008, in Norway, an Iraqi woman, Vian Bakir Fatah, who had divorced her violent husband, converted to Christianity, and was dating a Norwegian man, was stabbed to death by her ex-husband and by her violent 16-year-old son.

On May 15, 2008, Ahmad-Sobair Obeidi, a twenty-four-year old Afghan, brutalized his 16-year-old sister, Morsal for months—then stabbed her twenty three times in a parking lot. He was ashamed of his sister for wearing “inappropriate clothing” and felt that she had “disconnected from her family.” Ahmad himself had a long history of criminal behavior. Obeidi was sentenced to life in prison.

In June, of 2005, a Turkish 25-year-old brother, Ali Karabey, repeatedly shot his 20-year-old sister, Gonul Karabey, in a garden shed to prevent her from marrying her German boyfriend. In 2006, this brother received a life sentence. As in so many other honor killings, Ali promised his sister that he would help with the marriage if they met.

Deceit, trickery, and false promises sometimes play a role in honor killing. In 2007, in Toronto, Aqsa Parvez was lured from a shelter for battered women by her family who told her that they missed her so much they couldn’t sleep. In 2008, in Dallas, the Said sisters were lured to their deaths by their mother Tissie who told them that their father really wanted to work things out.

Please contrast the following two speeches.

On June 22th, 2009, President Nicholas Sarkozy stated that he viewed the full-body burqa and niquab as a sign of the “debasement” of women and that it won’t be welcome in France. According to the glorious Sarkozy:

“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity … The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”

France has Europe’s largest Muslim population, an estimated 5 million people. Many are hostile to the western enterprise, but some are in the vocal forefront of the fight for women’s and human rights. In 2004, France passed a law “banning the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, sparking fierce debate at home and abroad.”

Now, contrast Sarkozy’s words with what President Obama said in Cairo on June 4th, 2009.

“Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.”

This is why I described Obama’s Cairo speech as “throwing Muslim women under the bus.” Obama is literally signaling to the Muslim world that they will be able to create a parallel universe in the land of the free and the home of the brave — and will be able to continue to use our laws to do so.

(I know, I know, Obama also threw Israel under the bus — and yet, some say that his speech was also calculated, careful, respectful — a give-peace-a-chance kind of speech to an audience that has continually called for “death to America.” )

Now, contrast how the two Presidents recently discussed the police riots in the streets of Iran.