MULTICULTURALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS & GENDER EQUALITY

Anna Karamanou
Mr. President of the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee of the European Parliament

(Article in the book, Interculturality and Religion in Europe, after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,, Publisher: Delegation of the Church of Greece to the EU, Indiktos Editions, 2011, pages 209-238.

INTRODUCTION

Multiculturalism entered our vocabulary relatively recently but also into the heart of public discourse on identity, culture, diversity, citizenship, social cohesion, the new knowledge society, and international peace and security. The UNESCO Universal Declaration of November 2, 2001, states that multiculturalism is the common heritage of humanity and as essential to the human species as biodiversity is to nature (Article 1)¹

In Europe, the sudden transition from societies with relative linguistic, ethnological, and religious homogeneity to multilingual, multinational, and multicultural societies has created tremors and reactions. Those who feel threatened by these changes face the new reality with distrust and fear. The modern environment of multiculturalism generates tensions, while in many countries an ethnocentric and xenophobic political discourse finds fertile ground. Mainly Christian Democratic parties, as well as intellectuals like historian Bernard Lewis, argue that the European Union is at risk of Islamization, particularly if Turkey joins the EU, due to demographic trends – a rapid shrinkage of the EU population and a swift expansion of the Islamic world. Professor P. Ioakeimidis (Ta Nea, 15.10.2004) in response to the danger of Islamization suggests the “Europeanization” of Islam “as far as this is possible,” adding that ” The concept of Europeanization, of course, does not mean the imposition of a foreign cultural form from Europe onto the Islamic world. Such a thing would be completely undesirable, but also unfeasible. It means the enrichment of Islam with the fundamental democratic values. It means the democratization of Islam.” The question that concerns many, in the context of the dialogue of cultures, is to what extent Islam and other cultural traditions are susceptible to Europeanization and democratization, but also to what extent a process of Westernization from above is desired by them.

The struggle against racism and xenophobia, gender equality, peaceful coexistence, and respect for diversity is very important for the European Union because there can be no society with cohesion and pluralism without a commitment to respect individual and human rights. The European Union, from its early steps, prioritized the protection of human rights and the fight against discrimination of all forms (European Convention on Human Rights – 1950). The very idea of European integration is based on racial, national, religious, and cultural diversity, as well as the free movement of people. The collapse of the ideological foundations of racism and the horrors of the wars of the ^20th century led the peoples of Europe to realize that prosperity and progress can only be achieved through peaceful coexistence, social justice, human rights, solidarity, and cooperation among people.

Τhis article will attempt to provide food for thought and perhaps help the reader find their own answers to critical questions, some of which were posed by Professor Ar. Chatzis in a related lecture², but which are also raised daily by citizens and researched by the academic community: To what extent and by what means can peaceful coexistence be achieved when different communities possess different forms of rationality, knowledge, and moral rules? How can «the other» be accepted when their value system conflicts with universally accepted human rights and fundamental freedoms? Can any cultural peculiarities override human rights and the imperatives of the rule of law? Can there be a balance between human rights and tolerance for practices that blatantly violate them? Can universal values, based on reason, be unconditionally accepted by all cultures, or should we embrace the cultural relativism of postmodernism, strengthening any particular culture and the preservation of the cultural identity of each distinct group? Finally, is there compatibility between the principles of feminism (gender equality, human and individual rights) and multiculturalism?

Definition of Multiculturalism

The term multiculturalism or cultural diversity refers to the coexistence in a given geographical space of a multiple cultural heterogeneity, which is primarily based on ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences. Cultural diversity is also expressed through the system of values, standards of living, social organization and behavior, dress code, art and literature, as well as the worldview and the handling of philosophical existential issues. Multiculturalism, that is, refers to essential changes taking place in the structure of society as a result of the coexistence of population groups with different cultural traditions, values, and ways of life.

The Vice-Rector of the University of the Aegean, Chrysi Vitzilaki, in the book, Gender and Culture (2006), notes that “every social formation creates its own particular culture, but accepts, to some extent, and processes the cultural heritage of the past, although a significant part of it may be rejected,” and observes that, while there have been notable analyses regarding the class content of culture over the last 150 years, gender as an analytical category has, until recently, been systematically silenced.

Multiculturalism, globalization, and nation-state

Forms of multiculturalism can be found throughout the entire historical trajectory of humanity, though more intensely after World War II and particularly after the end of the Cold War and the rapid political, economic, and techno-scientific changes that occurred at the end of the 20th century. These changes diminished the homogeneous nation-state and highlighted «deterritorialized» and «de-homogenized», both national and multinational collectivities. According to Jürgen Habermas, we live in a “post-national constellation,” in a globalized society with transnational centers of power and with multiethnic and multicultural characteristics (Panagidis 2004)..³

Many intellectuals around the world wonder if we are moving from the Westphalian state towards the Kantian ideal of cosmopolitanism, as expressed in the monumental work “Perpetual Peace”, that is, a transition from international law between independent states to global, cosmopolitan law (R. Wollin 2010)⁴ . Through the UN, the European Union, and other regional unions, Kant’s dream may have begun to take some form. The United Nations Declaration recognizes individuals as bearers of rights that in some way transcend those established by sovereign states. Similar developments are seen with the European Communities Court, the European Court of Human Rights, as well as with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In all these cases, individuals whose rights are violated can resort to international courts, bypassing the nation-state. Even the activism of numerous international non-governmental organizations creates new realities. However, “Perpetual Peace” is still a long way off, as the economic crisis, migratory and refugee flows, armed conflicts, and violence seem to have no end.

From their side, states are trying to control the movement and flows of legal or illegal migrants by fortifying their borders (Fortress Europe) and imposing fines on employers who use illegal labor. It is clear that the free movement of capital and goods creates a new major contradiction between people’s desire to move freely and states’ desire to prevent this movement.

Economists argue that the movements of migrants are the response to the “push & pull” forces of the globalized market and are linked to significant and lasting changes in all areas of economic, social, and cultural life. Massey (2003, p. 15) argues that the forces of globalization that provoke the flows of migrants and create demand for their services are the same ones contributing to the creation of networks for movement and communication, as well as the means and culture to make international movements of people cheaper, faster, and easier (the theory of global systems). Held & McGrew (1999) assert that to the extent that processes of movement and infrastructure acquire inter-regional and international dimensions, they influence and shape the globalization of migration and multiculturalism.

The public dialogue

The public dialogue about multiculturalism has proven to be very difficult, resulting in many abandoning it entirely. Brenna Bhandar argues in favor of pluralism, instead of multiculturalism. Old leftists support the respect for multicultural claims for flexibility and respect for any diversity, accusing anyone who expresses reservations of being racist or engaging in cultural imperialism. They likely appear indifferent to what is happening within minority cultural groups.

The attacks are primarily directed against feminists who place gender equality above the rights and claims of many immigrant groups for autonomy. It is worth noting that initially the pursuit of feminism for gender equality and respect for diversity was considered to coincide with the goals of multiculturalism. Today, the views that women’s claims undermine cultural diversity are upheld by many “progressives.” Women are often coerced into choosing between secular liberal democracy and cultural community, between “equality” and “culture,” or between “rights” and “religion.” For many women, this “choice” is impossible. Women wish to be able to choose both (M. Sander, 2007).

Discussions and theoretical inquiries about difference, tolerance, and multiculturalism confirm the uniqueness and value of various cultures to an extent that has compelled many Western countries to formulate multicultural policies that recognize and protect cultural diversity, particularly minority cultures that operate within the framework of majority cultures. In many cases, this has led to exceptions to laws, or to the granting of “special rights,” in situations where these rights are deemed necessary to prevent the specific culture from disappearing. The question is how one can recognize the legitimacy of cultural self-determination, within the context of the politics of tolerance, without tolerating oppressive and dangerous practices against women? (Linda Fisher, 2004).

Will Kymlicka⁵, in his book MulticulturalCitizenship (1995) discusses the history of applied liberal thought on minorities and, while maintaining the core principles of political liberalism regarding autonomy, supports the sociological argument that every individuality needs roots, that is, community, culture, and history. For this reason, Kymlicka defends “national” cultures as sources of liberalism. He proposes a “liberal multiculturalism,” known as the culturalist consensus. These views, along with those concerning geographical minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, were considered by many as dangerous for secessionist movements. However, Kymlicka’s theoretical work aims to establish a balance between the cultural rights of minorities and the need for the creation of nation-states that would embrace minorities. This position is challenged by those who oppose “ethnic politics” that undermine liberal values and human rights. An attack on the “multicultural consensus” and Kymlicka’s theory was launched by Brian Barry with his work Culture and Equality (2000) and by Susan Moller Okin (1997)⁶

As noted in a recent article by Professor P. Kitromilides (Kathimerini, 31.01.10), for multicultural solutions to work, certain prerequisites must be met to make the endeavor sustainable. The existence of rules of social coexistence is paramount, so that societies can avoid mass forms of unlawful behavior and the risk of self-destruction. An equally necessary prerequisite is the existence of education, which will be based primarily on the cultivation of language and the achievements of culture, so that multiculturalism does not degenerate into a social and moral Babylon, but becomes a conduit for social cohesion. ⁷

Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Gender Equality

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN (1948) and many other declarations that followed referred generally to humans and not separately to the genders, without realizing that some rights were treated differently from those of men. At that time, there was almost no country in the world that did not have laws discriminating against women, often on issues of fundamental rights. In many European countries, women had not even been granted the right to vote (in Greece in 1952, in Switzerland in 1973). Today, of course, many changes have taken place in the lives of women, thanks in part to the policy of equality promoted by the EU, but the distance to full and substantive gender equality remains large. Gender inequality, unfortunately, even within the European Union, is perceived as more natural and inevitable than other forms of discrimination, such as race, national origin, religion, or political beliefs, while very often culture is used as a justification for the unequal treatment of women (Moller-Okin).

The first declaration of human rights referring to women’s rights, without neutral language, was the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” by the UN (CEDAW, 1979). This Convention, during its ratification process, encountered more objections from many governments than any other, with the justification that many of the rights it proclaimed were incompatible with the cultures and religions of their countries. However, the mobilization of women’s organizations at an international level led to the recognition of women’s rights as human rights, at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993. In September 1995, in Beijing, further progress was made at the UN World Conference on Women, despite the obstacles posed by both the Vatican and radical Islamists. Both CEDAW and the Beijing Platform of Action refer to respect for cultural rights and religions but also emphasize that “full gender equality may require changes in culture.”

The relationship between feminism and multiculturalism has been thoroughly examined by Susan Moller Okin. Her 1997 essay titled “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” sparked a storm of criticism and critique. Susan Moller Okin poses the following question: What should happen when the demands of minority cultural and religious groups conflict with the principle of gender equality, which, at least officially, is recognized and implemented by liberal democracies? Okin explains that the term “feminism” means that women should not be wronged because of their gender, that they should be recognized as human beings with dignity equal to that of men and entitled to live fully and freely, just like men. It would be impossible to disagree with this position. The problem is that the various cultural groups living in democratic regimes believe that their rights are not adequately protected through the guarantees of individual rights and therefore should be protected by granting these groups special rights and privileges.

Okin’s main argument is simple: The subjugation of women, whether by men or by cultures, is a mistake. Liberal democracies must protect the individual rights of all women within their borders, including those women whose cultures and religions punish them by denying their fundamental rights. Liberal democracies should not recognize particular rights or privileges for minorities to help them maintain their culture in a foreign country, as many multicultural theorists suggest. Because individual rights are sacred and any form of oppression is condemnable. The special treatment requested by most multicultural groups concerns gender inequalities and human rights violations, such as: forced marriages and child marriages, divorce systems that disadvantage women, polygamy, and female genital mutilation.

The World Health Organization reports that 130 million women worldwide have undergone genital mutilation, while two million are exposed to these practices every year. The tragic thing is that at least half of the African countries that observe this “tradition” have adopted legislation that fully or partially prohibits it, or have committed to it through the Partnership with the European Union (Cotonou Agreement), without however being respected. Obviously, prejudices and social norms hold more power than laws. In Europe, there are valid fears that these criminal practices have been transferred to the countries of the Union along with migration streams. According to data from the British Medical Association, 3,000 female mutilations are performed every year in Britain. However, among the EU countries, only Britain and Sweden have legislation that punishes this horrific practice (Karamanu, 2002).

The European Women’s Lobby⁸ in a position statement issued on May 27, 2006, titled «Religion and Women’s Rights» observes that the conservative political climate that has prevailed in the EU over the last decade has led to an increase in the influence of religion – all religions – in Europe. The EWL highlights the danger that «religions refuse to question patriarchal cultures that promote the ideal role of wife, mother, and housewife, and refuse to adopt positive measures in favor of equality. This primarily concerns the two major religions – Christianity, especially Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants, and Islam». The EWL strongly criticizes the fact that religion is often used as a justification for attacks and violations against women.

In the case of France, the right to polygamy clearly constituted a minority right, not available to the rest of the population. Today, it is estimated that 150,000–400,000 polygamous families live in France, despite the fact that polygamy has been banned since 1993⁹. The government argues that polygamy hinders gender equality as well as the social integration of immigrants. To this end, the French government has deployed social workers to persuade second and third wives to move with their children to separate apartments. The effectiveness of these measures is questionable. The case of polygamy is highly characteristic of the deep dispute and growing tension between feminism and the attempt to protect cultural diversity.

According to Okin, many feminists, at least those who are politically progressive and opposed to all forms of oppression, were quick to conclude that feminism and multiculturalism are both very good things that can easily be reconciled. On the contrary, it seems that the dispute will intensify as multicultural action focuses on securing rights for groups, regardless of whether they respect human rights and gender equality. Susan Moller Okin argues that cultures or religions that violate human dignity and women’s rights do not deserve to be preserved¹⁰. Against Okin, Homi Bhabha (1999) wrote, arguing that Okin looks condescendingly at «non-Western» peoples. «Her position on liberal feminism has something of the paternalistic and stereotypical behaviors of patriarchy». In contrast, Martha Nussbaum (1999), commenting on Okin’s essay, confirms that liberal concern for multiculturalism conceals great dangers for women’s rights and gender equality.

In Greece, the example of Thrace is very characteristic, where for Muslims the Islamic law Sharia applies and not the laws of the Greek State (law 1920/1991), while in Turkey it was abolished in 1924. On May 23, 2010, during the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister to Greece, Dora Bakoyannis called for the abolition of the application of Islamic law in Thrace, describing this reality as a national disgrace, which unfortunately the government of New Democracy, despite its own efforts, did not decide to eliminate. “Today Greece,” emphasized the former Foreign Minister, “is the only European country that applies Sharia for its Muslim citizens, deviating from the Civil Code, in matters of marriage, divorce, guardianship, custody, wills, and intestate succession. This regime survives only in harsh Islamic regimes, such as in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. The result is that children are married by proxy at the age of 14, and the right to divorce is not recognized for women and mothers, who are forced to lose custody of their minor children.”

The justice of multiculturalism

Unfortunately, in other EU countries, apart from France and Greece, there are deviations from national legislation for the sake of a distorted perception of multiculturalism. In an article,¹¹ the British social-democratic journalist and author Johann Hari criticizes women’s organizations for their indifference towards what is happening in the closed groups of various cultural minorities, as well as for what courts decide based on political correctness regarding the respect for multicultural groups. Right from the start, he poses the question: “Do you believe in women’s rights or in multiculturalism? A series of decisions from the German courts last month clearly shows that you cannot support both. You have to choose.” The incidents she mentions are shocking. One of them: Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant in Germany with two children, had a psychotic husband who brutally beat her from the first day of their marriage. Covered in wounds, she turned to the police, who ordered the man to leave. He refused and terrorized her with death threats. Thus, Nishal filed for divorce, hoping that this way she would be free from her violent husband. A judge who believed in women’s rights and gender equality would easily conclude and decide: you are free from this man, the marriage is dissolved. However, Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed a multicultural rationale. She said that she could not grant a quick divorce because, despite the police’s written confirmation of extreme violence and threats to life, there was no “unjustified mistreatment.” Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, “should have expected it,” the judge explained, and she even read excerpts from the Qur’an to show that Muslim husbands have the right to use physical violence as punishment. “Look at Surah 4, verse 34,” she said to Nishal. ,where the Quran says it can beat you. This is your culture”!!

The German magazine Der Spiegel has published a long list of horrific “multicultural” decisions by German courts. One of the many: A Turkish-German who drowned his wife Zeynep in Frankfurt was sentenced with the lightest of penalties because, according to the judge, the murdered woman had insulted his “manly honor,” which stems from Eastern perceptions of morality. Today in Germany, as well as in other European countries, Muslim women have been downgraded to third-class citizens stripped of basic legal rights and protection. And this is because the doctrine of multiculturalism dictates that society should be divided into separate cultures, with different rules according to national origin (Independent, 30.04.07).

Among the multicultural groups that receive special treatment from the justice system, even for common criminal offenses, are the non-Muslims of East Asia, including Chinese, Indians, Japanese, as well as the Roma. The majority of Chinese believe that men are more suitable for political leadership, despite the fact that the party line for many decades emphasized gender equality and Mao Zedong proclaimed that women hold up “half the sky.” In practice, Chinese women occupy very few positions of responsibility and face severe violations of their human rights. The situation of Indian women is also characterized by violence and forced prostitution. Okin reports two cases of lenient treatment due to culture, from a court: A Chinese immigrant in New York beat his unfaithful wife to death, while a Japanese woman in California drowned her children and attempted to commit suicide because her husband’s infidelity had dishonored the family. Both cases were judged leniently due to cultural reasons.

The worst of all is that those brave activists and feminists who opposed these practices of multiculturalism, such as the British Labour MP Ann Cryer¹², have been stigmatized as racists. In reality, as Hari points out, the true racists are those who vehemently condemn misogyny and misanthropy when it comes to white people but mysteriously remain silent when it comes to black men or Asians. Unfortunately, the issue is very often exploited by the far-right, which lumps “mass immigration and multiculturalism” together. To them, Hari responds very aptly:: «I think Britain should have more immigrants and refugees, not fewer, but multiculturalism is a terrible way to welcome them».

From the side of Greece, there was recently a serious intervention at the UN. On behalf of the Mariangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights, the International Alliance of Women, and the Greek Council for Refugees, an amendment was submitted to a document for the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995-UN World Conference on Women) during the ^54th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in New York City from March 1-12, 2010, which calls on member states “to eliminate any conflict that may arise between the rights of women and the harmful consequences of certain traditional and customary practices.”

ISLAM AND WOMEN – clash of civilizations

Bernard Lewis (2003, The Crisis of Islam), a leading figure among historians of the Middle East, identifies the greatest difference and conflict between Judeo-Christian and Muslim societies in the issue of women. Essentially, Samuel Huntington, regarding the clash of civilizations that he foretold, was partly right, despite the fact that his theory completely ignored gender issues and sexual liberation (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). In reality, the cultural red line that separates the West from the Muslim world does not concern democracy, but rather gender equality and women’s rights. Lewis, in an interview with Mars Hill Audio Journal, emphasized that Western visitors to Muslim countries are horrified by the subjugation and mistreatment of women, while correspondingly, Muslim visitors to the Christian world are shocked and horrified by the looseness of morals and by what they perceive as the absurdity of Western women (Weiner Lauren, 2004)¹³.

The mandatory covering of women’s bodies is one of the most discussed prescriptions of Islamic law. God Himself, through the Quran, gives clear instructions (chap. 33, verse 59):” Prophet, command your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers to let their veils hang down over their chests. This will make it more unlikely for them to be recognized and molested” This isolation, the anonymity, and the separation of women from men are reinforced by many other instructions in the Quran (Karamanou, 2006). As has been written, the Prophet warned shortly before his death ” After my departure, the great danger to my people will come from women. They cause unrest and are responsible for corruption and degeneration.” Men, therefore, must counter the threat by forcing women to cover their bodies and to be confined to their homes (Chalazias, 2001, p.48).

All religions, but particularly Islam, express patriarchal views, which certainly influence the formation of culture and the rights of women. Islam supports the notion that gender inequality is God’s command as expressed through the sacred texts of the Prophet. In most Islamic countries, with very few exceptions, the guidelines of the Koran, against women, have been incorporated into legislation – in family law, civil law, criminal law, labor legislation, etc. – and have deprived millions of women of fundamental freedoms and basic human rights. The Koran itself, meaning God (according to Islam), through the Prophet, declares the superiority of men and their right to beat disobedient wives (chapter 4, verse 34):

“Men are superior to women because of the particular way in which God has elevated them above women, and also because men provide dowries for women from their own wealth. Virtuous women are faithful and obedient and carefully preserve, in the absence of their husbands, what God has commanded them to keep intact. Those whose disobedience you fear, admonish them, separate them from your bed, and beat them. But if they are obedient, be kind to them. The Lord is the Most High and great.”

In many Muslim societies, the reference to human rights does not include women’s rights, which are systematically violated. One of the most common crimes is the so-called ‘honor killings.’ It is estimated that around (5,000) women and girls are murdered each year by male family members. The enforcement of inhumane, violent, and humiliating punishments for women, such as whipping and stoning, is a common practice in many countries in the name of religious traditions, which are misinterpreted as being of “divine nature and origin.” The perpetrators usually go unpunished since such violence is considered an acceptable way to control women’s behavior and not a serious crime. In these societies, the patriarchal family structure places women under the absolute control of the male members of the family. Female children become victims of discrimination from the moment they are born, as they are considered a misfortune for the family, unlike the birth of male children, which is seen as a gift from God. (Karamanou, 2003)

Of course, various apologists of Islam—in the West and the East—continuously repeat that the events concerning women are not the fault of Islam, that true Islam is in favor of equality, and that all blame lies on tradition and social practices. They even invoke relevant chapters of the Quran. If this is indeed the case, it raises the legitimate question of how, for so many centuries, Islam, while controlling every aspect of Muslim society, from sexual relationships to nutrition, has not managed to eradicate inequalities and injustices against 50% of its believers? (Kamguian Azam, 2005). Reality shows that the most emancipated women in the Islamic world have gained rights not through the renewal of Islam, but through the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

The politics of the Mandila

In today’s world, we witness daily tensions and conflicts regarding religious and ethnopolitical differences. Particularly after the attacks on the Twin Towers in the USA, the rhetoric of the “Clash of Civilizations” was replaced by the so-called “global civil war,” between the forces of political Islam and Western liberal democracies. The rivalry between Islam and the West has replaced the rhetoric of the Cold War (Benhabib, 2010). Especially the bodies of women have become the symbolic field of confrontation. Under the pressure of migratory flows, the destabilization of identities leads to the emergence of traditions. Certainly, the most discussed emergence that continues to dominate the public discourse in Europe and Turkey is the Muslim headscarf.

In the France of Voltaire, Diderot, and Montesquieu, which considers the secularity of the state as one of the great achievements of the French Republic, the sight of the constantly increasing number of headscarf-wearing students in schools and the emerging trend of a reactionary return to roots have created great tension, concern, and reflection for many years. Hence, the radical decisions for the rescue of the educational system from religious fanatics and the maintenance of schools as zones free from religions. On February 10, 2004, the French National Assembly, with 494 votes in favor and 36 against, voted for a law prohibiting the headscarf and other religious symbols in public schools, despite strong protests and criticism that the measure restricts religious freedoms (in contrast to France, in Iran the headscarf (hijab) is mandatory by law). The Commission, headed by Bernard Stasi, presented the issue of the headscarf to the President of the French Republic as part of the political threat of Islam against the values of the secular state.

The hijab can only symbolize the submission of women to patriarchal norms. Those in power have interpreted Islam as they see fit, always with the aim of blind obedience of women and control of their sexuality. From the Muslim neighborhoods of France, horrific stories of women who suffer persecutions, rapes, and tortures for “transgressions,” such as the rejection of the Islamic hijab, periodically come to light. However, the fact that (39%) of French Muslims supported the decision to ban religious symbols indicates that a critical mass of Muslims is already becoming autonomous, liberating itself, and preparing to join a different present.

In Belgium, on April 29, 2010, out of the 138 members of the Belgian Parliament, 136 voted for a law that prohibits, throughout the country, the veil that covers the face. The law, which does not specifically mention the burqa or the niqab, states that individuals appearing in public spaces “with their face covered partially or completely and with clothing designed in such a way that the person wearing it is not recognizable” will be punished with a fine or imprisonment from one to seven days. However, certain exceptions are provided for costumes during carnival season.

A similar attitude and concern prevails in Britain, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Austria, and the Netherlands. In Britain, in October 2006, then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw asked women who visited him in his office to remove their niqab. These women were many, as Jack Straw is elected as a Member of Parliament in Blackburn, where 25-30% of the residents are Muslim. In his statements, he emphasized that in a Western society, where facial expressions are of great importance for human communication, the Islamic veil creates separation and «parallel communities.» ¹⁴ It is also well known the incident with the teacher who was dismissed because she wanted to teach primary school children while wearing a niqab.

The reaction to the ban on the headscarf has been expressed by representatives of Muslim organizations, the socialists of the Council of Europe, as well as human rights advocacy groups, such as Human Rights Watch, which emphasize that such a measure is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Women’s organizations were divided. While members of the Ni Putes Soumises organization celebrated the ban, organizations such as the Federation of Parents-Teachers, SOS Racism, and One School for All argued that women’s rights to education and religion were being violated. Several organizations outside France, including Human Rights Watch, The Islamic Human Rights Commission, and Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, agreed.

The phenomenon of the return of the veil cannot be interpreted only in terms of religion. The questions are many. What exactly do the young women who are wearing the hijab again aim for? Obedience and submission to religion, protection and promotion of the unique culture, latent hostility towards Western values, an attempt to draw attention or simple narcissism? It is not difficult to answer that all these motives are together. (Benhabib, 2010).

The Islamic political plan for the “purification” of the West has its roots in 1920s Egypt. In 1924, a reformist government inaugurated a modern university that allowed women to attend. At the same time, Huda Sha’arawi, the first feminist of Egypt, publicly removed her veil, and photographs of her unveiled face were published on the front pages of all newspapers. It was then that Sayyid Qutb and others founded the first Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. However, Islamism matured and began to gain substantial followers in the 1970s, right when the feminist movement started to gain political power in Europe and America and was also strengthening in the urban centers of less developed countries (Weiner Lauren, 2004).

The Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi¹⁵ (1987) argues that «what enrages the fanatical Islamists is that the era of post-colonial independence did not create an exclusively male new order since women participate in public events». Even today, in the 21^st century, many urbanized and educated men consider modern women who possess degrees and careers as the worst traitors of Islam. These zealots, Mernissi asserts, see insults to «true» Islam everywhere, but according to their own standards, the worst heretics are the «uncovered» women. Many of course from this generation make up today’s radical clerics who promote their own interpretations of Islamic law (sharia) and advocate for holy war (jihad) as an obligation of faith. However, it should be emphasized that violence is not addressed with even more violence. Its causes, beyond cultural differences, should be sought in the deep economic inequalities and divisions of the modern world and in the lagging of Muslim countries compared to the West. The creation of a common global space of freedom, peace, security, development, solidarity, and justice is the greatest challenge of the ^21st century (Karamanu, 2004).

the abolition of the veil and the political battle for the headscarf in Turkey

In the prohibition of the headscarf, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk preceded the European politicians by several decades. He did not hesitate to publicly remove, with a gesture of strong symbolism, the headscarf from the head of his own mother, as it is said. It was at a time when Kemal was trying to bring Turkey into the modern world, with the separation of church and state and a more modern interpretation of Islamic scriptures. The main symbols were targeted back then – the headscarf, the men’s fez, and the beard.

The dress code was a key element of Kemal’s program for the Europeanization of the country, precisely because he had realized its symbolic, and not only, character in the battle against outdated institutions. He personally toured to teach people what “civilized dressing” means. In a speech in Kastamonu on August 30, 1925, Mustafa Kemal launched an attack against the veil, saying: “In some places, I have seen women who put a fabric or something similar to cover their faces and turn their backs or fall to the ground when a man passes by. What is the meaning and logic of this behavior? Gentlemen, can the mothers and daughters of a civilized nation adopt such a strange attitude, such a barbaric habit? Is it not a sight that ridicules the nation? It must stop immediately.” ¹⁶. However, the great reformer did not dare to propose legislation against face covering. The unveiling of the face, which had already been accepted by educated women in the large cities, progressed very slowly in the countryside.

In 1935, the prohibition of the veil was proposed at a conference of the People’s Party, but even then, no corresponding measures were taken. The veil was only banned in public buildings, schools, and public services, while there was tolerance in other areas, especially in rural regions. The veil was associated with rural life, which is why women abandoned it when they moved to the larger cities. This mainly occurred with the wave of urban migration that began in the 1950s. However, in the present era, the controversy over the dress code, particularly regarding the veil, has renewed and moved to universities and parliament. It is true that many see the abolition of the veil not as a step forward for the modernization of the country, but as a sacrifice of the authentic Islamic/Turkish identity at the altar of the materialistic values of the West. This system of moral values of Islam in Turkey, for many years, dating back to the time of the Empire, has led to daily political conflict between liberal modernizers and conservative Islamists.

On November 16, 2005, according to the Turkish newspaper “Milliyet,” the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that the European Court of Human Rights“did not have the authority to validate the ban on headscarves in Turkish universities… On this matter, the court did not have the right to decide. That right belongs to the religious scholars of Islam.” On the same day, Mr. Erdoğan was responded to by Haluk Koç, a member of the Republican People’s Party: “Erdoğan showed his true face, but Turkey will not become a Ayatollah state” (To Vima, 17.11.2005). As Anthony Giddens aptly stated, (2004), “the battle for the headscarf is intense, emotionally charged, and truly global.” The dispute continues today with intensity between the Kemalists, supporters of the secular state, and the Islamists, while at the same time Turkish intellectuals continue to investigate and analyze the compatibility of Islam with democracy… Ernest Gellner, through his analysis of Islam, has already concluded that this compatibility is impossible. This is certainly a “battle for power,” along with the “battle for identity,” that has been ongoing for years, with an unpredictable outcome at present (Bora Kanra, 2005).

The study of the situation shows that the Islamists, having held political power in Turkey since 2002, are once again seeking to control the public sphere through the restriction of women’s presence and the enforcement of the headscarf. On February 7, 2008, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, after a discussion that lasted more than ten hours, adopted a constitutional reform that allows the use of the Islamic headscarf in universities. 397 deputies voted in favor and 112 against. Undoubtedly, the headscarf, as an element of identity, also serves as a form of political activism.

As the vice-rector of Bogazici University in Turkey, Yesim Arat (2000) argues, it is very difficult to reconcile Islamic ideology, where men are privileged, with the feminist perspective that seeks gender equality.¹⁷ Indeed, contrary to the «right to choose», that feminists advocate, Islam seeks to regulate all aspects of socio-economic and political life, as well as the rights and obligations of women. Under these circumstances, it is logical for the women’s movement to align itself with the secular state and Europeanization, defending women’s interests and fighting for a democratic framework that recognizes and promotes the equality of men and women.

CONCLUSIONS

The answers to the big questions initially raised remain open. This article cannot substitute for the extensive discussions, scientific studies, and theoretical inquiries. In the new globalized environment, critical reflection needs to continue substantively, aimed at a renewed, modern social contract and a political vision for the society of the future that will inspire and mobilize people.

Certainly, we want a society united in its diversity. It is a common understanding that multiculturalism is a source of wealth for societies. However, this observation must be accompanied by the recognition that this positive element also has costs and negative aspects. Experience has shown that there can be no social progress and economic development without modernization and progress at the level of ideas and culture. Therefore, any attempts to renew the social contract within strictly economic and technological frameworks, while keeping intact the foundations of outdated patriarchal societies, are doomed to failure. The processes of women’s emancipation and gender equality are directly linked to the historical evolution of humanity and progress.

The European Union has already created a common framework of rights and obligations, a modern social contract for all in the EU, regardless of nationality and origin. The Charter of Fundamental Rights provides the framework within which we can effectively and decisively resolve cultural or religious differences, respecting the freedom and equality of men and women. The central position that human rights and gender equality hold in the Treaty of Lisbon is demonstrated by the fact that they are included in Article (2), where the values on which the Union is organized and functions are recorded.

Cultures and civilizations are constantly changing. Today’s multicultural framework of Europe is very different from what it was 50 years ago. Daniel Cohn Bendit in his latest book “What to Do” (2009) writes that ” The stakes of multiculturalism are to decide whether we want to live in an open society or in a closed society. Diversity and respect for it are one of the foundations of democracy. It is also one of the basic principles of political ecology. The multicultural society is not a utopian vision; it is reality. A reality that we must work with.”

The positions of John Rawls have influenced contemporary thought on justice. Through his monumental first book, A–Theory–of–Justice (1971) he attempted to provide solutions by proposing the concept of overlapping consensus. Rawls argues that the most reliable principles of justice are those that everyone can agree are fair, that pluralism and consensus are the essence of liberal democratic thought. In any society, it is likely that a set of values can be found that can be accepted by people with different views on what is good. This can serve as the basis for a way of coexistence among different people.

Certainly, we need a multicultural policy that will prevent the disappearance of cultures, but at the same time will safeguard the individual rights of those who participate and contribute to culture. Feminism and multiculturalism have some common goals, such as equality of rights for all people. However, cultural sensitivity is not enough. We need to take into account the practical aspects of culture, the way the system supporting it operates, and to examine whether it functions fairly for both sexes.

It is an urgent necessity to politically address religious fanaticism, of which women have been and remain the main victims, and to take measures. The human rights of women, which are protected by international treaties and conventions, cannot be infringed upon under the pretext of religious interpretations, cultural traditions, customs, or legislations. No religion, no tradition, and no doctrine can be above human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The European Women’s Lobby, at the demand of women in the EU, has asked governments to honor their signatures and promises for the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and emphasizes that “under no circumstances will the EWL accept arguments of cultural relativism when it comes to women’s rights, that the violation is supposedly dictated by faith and culture and therefore should be exempt from human rights.”

The positions of Susan Moller Okin have great value for understanding contemporary problems of multiculturalism, as do those articulated by the educational advisor Kosta Papachristos in his article, “The Dialectical Process in Intercultural Dialogue: an Alternative Proposal Based on Constructivism,” namely, that there can be a dialogue of cultures and a common ground can be created through a logical dialectical process in which all parties wish to submit their views to critique, dialogue, and revision. This dialogue is important because it allows people from different cultures to jointly address issues of mutual interest. The argument that “cultural differences should be respected” is not in itself a justification. The dialogue and coexistence of cultures must go beyond “respecting cultural differences.” The constructivist approach subjects all existing cultural traditions to reflective critique, recognizing that no culture has a monopoly on good ideas and that none is above criticism.

It is certain that revisions and deep changes are needed in the systems of our values, on which modern culture has been built, that deifies material wealth, that reproduces and tolerates discrimination, inequalities, social Darwinism, racism, and violence. Respect for human rights, without any discrimination based on gender, race, national or social origin, religion, age, or sexual orientation, is an essential condition for the peaceful coexistence of people, the fight against violence, and economic, social, and cultural progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Foreign language

• Andrian Favell and Tariq Modood, (2003), The philosophy of Multiculturalism, the theory and practice of normative political theory, Edinburgh University Press

• Arat Yesim, (1994), “Toward a Democratic Society: The Women’s Movement in Turkey in the 1980s”, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 17, Nos 2/3, pp.241-248, 1994
• Arat Yesim, (2000), “From Emancipation to Liberation:The changing Role of Women in Turkey’s Public Realm”, Journal of International Affairs, 54, No. 1, 107-23, Fall 2000

• Benhabib Seyla, (2010), “The Return of Political Theology”, Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 36 nos 3-4, pp 451-471
• Berkowitz P., (1999), “Feminism VS Multiculturalism?”: The Liberal Project at Odds with Itself”, The Weekly Standard, Nov. 1, 1999
• Bhaba, H.K. (1999) “Liberlism’s Sacred Cow”, pp 79-84, in Susan Moller Okin Is Multuculturalism Bad for Women? ed. Joshua Coen, Mathew Howard and Martha C. Nussbaum, Princeton University Press

• Bhandar Bh., (2006), “Beyond Pluralism: contesting multiculturalism through the recognition of plurality” Workshop Report, The School of Law, King’s College London, 17.11.06
• Cohn–Bendit, D., (2009), What to Do, Kédros Publishing, 2010 Greek
• European Women’s Lobby, (2006), “Religion and Women’s Human Rights”, Position paper, adopted 27.05.06
• Fisher L., (2004), “State of the Art: Multiculturalism, Gender and Cultural Identities”, European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 11: 111-119
• Giddens, A., 2004, “Beneath the Hijab”, New Perspect Q 21 no 2, Spr 2004

• Habermas, J. (1992) ‘Citizenship and national identity: some reflections on the future of Europe’, Praxis International, vol.12, no.1. pp.1-19
• Harri J., (2007), “How Multiculturalism is betraying Women”, The Independent, 30.04.07
• Inglehart R. & Pippa Norris, (2003), “The True Clash of Civilizations”, Foreign Policy, March/April 2003

• Kandiyoti, D., (1981), “Emancipated but not Liberated? Reflections on the Turkish case” in Karabasakal-Arat “Where to Look for the truth”, Women’s Studies International Forum, 2002vol. 26, No 1
• Karabasakal-Arat, 2002, “Where to Look for the truth”, Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 26, No 1

• Kymlicka, W. (1989) Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Clarendon
• Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Lewis Bernard, (1961), The Emergence of Modern Turkey, trans. ed. Papazisis 2002
• LewisBernard, (2004), TheCrisisofIslam, Phoenix, London

• Madhavi Sunder,(2007)Gender and Feminist Theory in Law and SocietyEdited by, University of California, Davis, USA
• Massey S.D., (2003), “Patterns and Processes of International Migration in the 21^st Century”, Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa, 4-7 June, 2003Held D. – McGrew A. -Goldblatt D. – Perrraton J., (1999), Global Transportations,People on the Move, Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Mernissi Fatima, (1987), Beyond the Veil:Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, Indiana University Press, revised edition 1987

• Moller-Okin S., (1999) “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”, originally published in Boston Review, Oct.-Nov 1997
• Nussbaum, M., (1999), “A Plea for Difficulty”, pp 105-14, in Susan Moller Okin, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” ed. Joshua Coen, Mathew Howard and Martha C. Nussbaum, Princeton University Press
• Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, London: Macmillan. pp.484-495
• Rawls J., (2005) Political Liberalism: expanded edition, Columbia University Press, New York (originally published in 1993)
• Shankland, D., (2003), Islam and Society in Turkey, ed. Kritiki
• Sunder Mudhavi, (2006), “the New Enlightenment: How Muslim Women are Bringing Religion and Culture out of the Dark Ages”, Workshop Report, The School of Law, King’s College London, 17.11.06
• Torpak Binnaz, “Islam and Democracy in Turkey”, Turkish Studies, Vol. 6, No 2, 167-186, June 2005
• Weiner Lauren, (2004), “Islam and Women-Choosing the Veil and other paradoxes”, Policy review, October-November 2004
• Wolin Richard, (2010), “The Idea of Cosmopolitanism: from Kant to the Iraq War and beyond”, History Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, NY, USA

Greek

• Vitsilaki X., (2007), Gender and Culture, Atrapos Publications
• Dalakoura, Kat., (2007), Islam, Liberalism, and Human Rights – Implications for International Relations, ed. Patakis
• Ioakeimidis, P., (2004), “Islamization or perhaps Europeanization?”, newspaper Ta Nea, 15.10.04
• Karamanou, A., (2003), “Globalization of Violence and Religious Fanaticism,” TO BHMA, 29.11.03
• Karamanou, A., (2002), “Women Targeted by Fanatics,” Eleftherotypia, 08.03.02
• Karamanou, A., (2006) “The Kemalist Modernization of Turkey and its Impact on the Position of Women,” Master’s Thesis in European and International Studies, University of Athens.
• Kitromilides, P., (2010), “National Identity as Dilemma and Perspective”, Kathimerini, 31.01.10
• Papachristos, K., (2007), “Gender and Interculturality in All-Day Primary School,” Scientific Step, vol. 6, March 2007

• To VIMA, “Anti-European shots by Erdogan regarding the headscarf,” 17.11.2005
• Chalazias Christos, (2001), The Political Islam, pp. 45-49, Domios Publishing.
• Hatzis Ar., 24.5.2007, “The Limits of Multiculturalism”, e–rooster.gr.

1 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Paris, November 2, 2001

2“Are there limits to multiculturalism?”

(Speech organized by the Liberal Alliance on 12/5/2007 – streaming – audio)

3 Panagidis, An., “The demands of multiculturalism in contemporary citizenship and the role of intercultural education,” Speech at the Symposium “Which Active Citizen in Which Democratic Society” of the Cyprus Peace Council, 24.12.2004

4 Richard Wolin is an intellectual, a professor of the history of ideas at New York University, known for his attacks on postmodernism.

5 Will Kymlicka is a prominent Canadian political philosophy professor who has particularly dealt with multiculturalism. His aim is to create a liberal framework for the fair treatment of minorities.

6 Susan Moller Okin was a leading scientist, prominent researcher, and perhaps the best feminist political philosopher. She passionately argued that the condition and status of women should be a subject of political philosophy and criticized the exclusion of women from Western political thought. She maintained that gender issues belong at the core of political philosophy and not on the periphery. A professor at Stanford University, she was born in New Zealand in (1946) and passed away on (March 3, 2004).

7 Pashalis Kitromilides is a professor at the University of Athens, director of the Institute of Neohellenic Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation.

8 It represents 5,000 women’s organizations from across the EU. It is based in Brussels.

9 DW World.De, Deutsche Welle, 31.07.05

10 Berkowitz Peter, 1999, “Feminism vs Multiculturalism?”, The Weekly Standard

11 Newspaper The Independent, 30.04.07

12 Member of Parliament for Labour 1994-2010. Fought against honor crimes and forced marriages.

13 Weiner Lauren, “Islam and Women-Choosing the Veil and other paradoxes”, Policy review, October-November 2004

14 Hatzis A. 24.5.2007, “The limits of Multiculturalism”, e–rooster.gr.

15 Mernissi Fatima, 1987, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, Indiana University Press, revised edition 1987

16 B., Lewis 1961, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, trans. Papazisis Publications, 2002, pp. 532-534

17 Arat Yesim, 2000, “From Emancipation to Liberation: The Changing Role of Women in Turkey’s Public Realm” Journal of International Affairs, No 1, 107-23