General Antisemitism

The award for most cynical Nazi analogy in a Guardian story goes to…


…a Muslim citizen of the UK, named Kenza Drider, as quoted by the Guardian.

Kenza Drider

Drider, per a Guardian report by Angelique Chrisafis (the Guardian’s Paris correspondent), “France’s burqa ban: women are ‘effectively under house arrest“, said, regarding France’s ban on the burqa, the following:

“I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that’s happening to us.”

The appalling cynicism of such a comparison is beyond belief.

No, Ms. Drider doesn’t know what Jewish women went through.

Such Jews weren’t merely “singled out” for their religious customs.

They were rounded up, be they religious or secular – due to the fact that their mere existence as a people was deemed a threat to the world – and transported to extermination camps. 

The argument that the ban on the burqa (whatever the law’s merits) represents, as Chrisafis put it, an “increased mood of anti-Muslim discrimination”, is, in itself, highly debatable.

But, to suggest that it is a precursor to genocide makes a mockery of the word and represents yet another callous abuse of Holocaust memory.

30 replies »

  1. I have little time for people comparing current Islamophobia (and it certainly exists) with Nazi-era anti-Semitism

    But rather than attacking the woman in question and accusing her of “callous abuse of Holocaust memory”, you might prefer to focus on the man in that report who threatened “We’ll do to you what we did to the Jews.”

    • “I have little time for people comparing current Islamophobia (and it certainly exists) with Nazi-era anti-Semitism”

      As is usual with your comments about anti-Semitism this is merely an unconvincing throat-clearing exercise. Your utterly vile second paragraph is proof positive of that.

      • The only “utterly vile” thing around here is you and the baseless accusations you throw about – plus the filth who applaud you.

        Stop talking shite.

    • The ban is the real problem, not the niqab (no fan of it myself). It is the ban that enables such attacks. It is embarrassing that cifwatch doesn’t focus on that at least as much.

    • It’s a Guardian report, pretzelberg, based on self-report by a woman who seems ready to be offended and cannot understand why people actually want to see her face because it is the accepted thing in the culture in which she has chosen to live. The Guardian is hardly renowned for its honesty or impartiality in matters of this sort is it?

      I place more credence on the existence of the Tooth Fairy than I do on whatever the Guardian reports about matters like this. Biased as it is, it’ll always inflate the too-ready “victimhood” status of Muslims in Europe who want us to accept their imposition of their ways on us and feel affronted if we refuse to accept them.

      The article quotes that one ignorant man and yet look how often Muslims rant about Jews and not a peep about that in the Guardian and indeed, in WW2, helped Nazis to murder Jews.

      Islam, wolf in sheep’s clothing that it is, uses the aspects of its host with which it knows will cause discomfort (I would imagine that this woman has no love for the Jews whose plight she identifies with) to whinge about and try to undermine that host society in the same way as democracy-denying Islamists will not hesitate to turn to the democratic legal process of the countries in which they find themselves to try to undermine any criticism of them.

      And as ever the Guardian aids and abets.

  2. I have to say that, as a Jew, my trust in the warm intentions of the French toward their religious and ethnic minorities is quite low. Also, the number of women wearing face veils in France even before this is, IIRC, quite low.

    Meh.

    • Quite so. This is worth a read:

      Petain’s Crime: The Full Story of French Collaboration in the Holocaust

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/Petains-Crime-French-Collaboration-Holocaust/dp/033048785X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316502838&sr=8-1

      About the book:

      “A British journalist retells the familiar story of Vichy’s preemptive antisemitic measures, of French complicity in the war against the Jews. His principal themes are Pétain’s personal responsibility and the pervasive antisemitism that sustained his policies. The Catholic Church was divided: the many acts of individual courage saved the lives of 250,000 Jews. This derivative if readable book emphasizes the decades of postwar denial, when French textbooks and public opinion remained largely silent about Pétain’s culpability and that of many of his fellow citizens.”

      http://tinyurl.com/5r3scmq

  3. “I have to say that, as a Jew, my trust in the warm intentions of the French toward their religious and ethnic minorities is quite low.”

    Then you’re ignorant of history; three-quarters of France’s Jews, more than a quarter-million, survived the war intact. Internal Nazi memos complained of French non-cooperation in roundups.

    In comparison, the HUngarian government deported in three months, the same number of Jews which the Nazis, in three years, couldn’t pry from the French.

    And the French Church issued a formal, self-accusatory apology to the Jews for its initial failure to protect them.

    Jewish problems in France today are with Arabs, not with French.

    • That’s rather like suggesting that the murderer down the street is really quite a good man because he only killed two people. And, in any event, why make the comparison with Hungary when Holland’s record is even worse? After all, she is a much closer neighbour. I could also make a very good case that Britain’s behaviour was the worst of the lot.

      Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup

      ‘Three former SS officers testified in 1980 that Vichy officials had been enthusiastic about deportation of Jews from France. The investigator Serge Klarsfeld found minutes in German archives of meetings with senior Vichy officials and Bousquet’s proposal that the roundup should cover non-French Jews throughout the country.[7]

      The historians Antony Beevor and Artemis Cooper record:

      “Klarsfeld also revealed the telegrams Bousquet had sent to Prefects of départements in the occupied zone, ordering them to deport not only Jewish adults but children whose deportation had not even been requested by the Nazis.”[7] ‘

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel%27_d%27Hiv_Roundup

      New book lays bare French collaboration with the Nazis

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6078341.ece

      The Myth of Resistance

      “While Paris has done its best to promote the myth of the heroic French resistance to the German occupation of 1940-1944, the truth appears to be quite the opposite.”

      http://ivan-castro.suite101.com/occupied-france-resistance-and-collaboration-a185887

      Jewish people in the French capital live in the shadow of hatred

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/john-galliano-antisemitism-marais

      ADL Survey in Seven European Countries

      http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5465_13.htm

      Survey on Palestinian state

      “The survey, which was carried out online by YouGov in Britain and Germany, and Ifop in France, on behalf of the global political web movement Avaaz – which is conducting an online petition in support of a Palestinian state – shows that in Germany 84% supported Palestinian statehood and 76% believed Germany should act now to recognize; in the U.K. the figures were 71% and 59%; and in France the figures were 82% and 69% respectively.”

      http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/2011/09/big-majority-of-public-in-germany.htm

  4. Adam, your point is well made. You say quite clearly “increased mood of anti-Muslim discrimination”, is, in itself, highly debatable”, and yes it is a continuing debate, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to Jews under Vichy France and that government’s complicitness to the terror that Jewish men, women and children suffered.

    Making such glib comparisons belies at best an ignorant and at worst a remorseful attitude towards past and continued Jewish suffering and a denial of history.

  5. Banning the burqa, or, more properly, introducing legislation which might curtail its uptake by vulnerable and not so vulnerable Muslim women, is legitimate given the problems faced by many European countries struggling with the detrimental expressions of Islamic cultural aggression.

    To link it to the Holocaust is another example of the Guardian’s appalling bigotry.

    • Burqa-wearing Muslim women are somewhere between rare and nonexistent in Israel. Even the niqab (veil leaving only a slit for the eyes) is seldom seen. The hijab (headscarf) reigns supreme. The European nation-states, on the other hand, get their Muslims from regions where the Islamic dress codes for women are interpreted more severely.

      The main problem with the niqab and the burqa is the potential for criminal activity (bank robbery and the like). In fact, even some Islamic scholars—and mainstream ones at that, not moderates—have opined that the niqab and the burqa can be a cover for illicit sexual activity (compare the Biblical story of Judah and Tamar).

  6. “The European nation-states, on the other hand, get their Muslims from regions where the Islamic dress codes for women are interpreted more severely.”

    Probably more accurate would be suspicion that European Muslims are adopting Saudi Arabian or Wahhabist dress codes and that these may be interpreted as evidence of dis-integrationist approach to community building.

  7. This wretched woman seems to have no idea either, that the fact that her coreligionists collaborated with the Nazis in the demonisation and sowing hatred of the Jews is at all at odds with her behaviour! So much Arab/Muslim literature is replete with Nazi-type slogans which might have been lifted straight out of “Der Sturmer”

    I am heartily sick of this malignant and OTT self-pity – assumed for ignoramuses like Guardian writers who swallow it whole and unthinkingly.

    Well, political correctness be blowed – it’s high time that all Western nations followed Holland’s and France’s example, in terms of banning any women’s clothing which singles out its wearer from others and, where the veil or niqab or burqa are concerned, “disappears” them and makes them into non-people. I refuse to speak to or listen to anyone wearing a face veil, and if I have to be in an elevator with one I make a point of turning my back to her. If I meet one on the street I behave as if she is not there. Wearing a veil, it seems to me, means that she wants to be ignored – I am merely conceding to her wishes.

    Whether for females or males, to cover one’s face in public should be an immediately arrestable offence. Would all of the oh-so-brave rioters in the UK have had the nerve to go on wrecking sprees, or in Egypt and elsewhere, to front up to others, had they been forced to show their faces?

  8. Adam, supposing we were to apply the same test to the allegedly increasing Islamophobia as Muslims like Inayat Bunglawala apply to the very real antisemitism in Islam. I believe that Islam is responsible for much of the increase in antisemitism, given the almost gadarene rush by Western governments to buy into the “poor me” narrative of the Muslim in the West :

    Bunglawala et al, implicitly and at times explicitly, suggest that the Israelis (and for that you may read Jews) decision to (chose any one of) fight Cast Lead, carry out retaliatory attacks for shelling of southern Israel and elsewhere, have their own state at all (the Bungler is on record, on CiF, as saying that he thought Israel was “a very bad idea”) is responsible for the increasing antisemitism in the world. They also clang on ad nauseam when they are given the opportunity about the “Jewish lobby” and they do not do that at all lovingly or in a conciliatory or mutualistic or respectful manner.

    Using the same yardstick, can it not be also argued that 9/11, 7/7, 21/7, the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets where gays are banned; the seemingly never-ending flow of twisted so-called Muslim thinkers who are allowed into the UK to twist the minds of Muslim students at UK universities; the incident in Manchester where a Muslim taxi driver, snared up in traffic outside a Jewish school was arrested because he had yelled that “All Jewish children must die”; those Muslims arrested in the UK for plotting terrorism – all should share responsibility for much of the fear if not outright hatred towards Muslims at least here in the UK?

    The strong suit of far too many Muslims of this ilk in the West is belligerent self-pity and to feel victimised easily whether they are or not, whether their behaviour has led to increased antipathy towards them or not. They are phobically avoidant of taking responsibility for their actions if to do so means that they will be criticised or blamed and shamed, for in their eyes they are never to blame and are never wrong. Even the ready condemnation of 9/11 and 7/7 Islamist terror by Muslim leaders here in the UK was so full of caveats as to be meaningless.

    Muslims are enjoined by their prophet (who they must emulate because he is said to be the perfect man) to subdue everyone to Islam. When the proud people in Western society are not willing to be subdued peacefully (thankfully!) Muslims are enjoined to do everything they can, including sowing violence and discord in society (fitna), so that only Islam will remain untouched and so as to bring these doubters to Islam. Their prophet told them to strike terror into the hearts of the infidel, and of course they try to do so and succeed occasionally as we have seen.

    The antidote to such behaviour is, of course, to refuse to give in to it – for governments to make crystal clear that their cultural mores are pre-eminent and incomers/immigrants are welcome to participate, but if they do not, or try to undermine us, then they should expect to be asked to depart for a country which will suit them far more.

    Unfortunately, however, our governments lack the insight or the collective strength of character to do this or even to articulate it.

    And the result is as we see, in this typical example of a Guardian article where a frankly ridiculous, not to say potentially divisive point of view is allowed to be promulgated widely and become accepted uncritically so that it eventually becomes “true.”

    • Australia has a different take on this to the Europeans:

      Prime Minister Julia Gillard – Australia. Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
      Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques:

      “IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT… Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

      “This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

      “Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

      “We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
      This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’
      We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted”

  9. Check out these two American newswomen kowtowing to the furher of iran and his Islamic dress code.

    Ann Curry of NBC

    Diane Sawyer of ABC

  10. Here we go again, Muslims as the “new Jews”

    Bloody cheek but how typically Muslim: to use what they criticise in any society (be it Jews or democracy) to attack the attitudes of that society which gives them a home.

    I am very offended by this stupid woman comparing herself to Jews victimised by the Nazis. And she doesn’t realise that she is most criticised not because she walks around in a tent, but because of her views.

    Jews were FORCED to wear the Yellow Star which made it easy for the Nazis to intern and later kill them.

    This dope CHOOSES to wear a tent, and then blames the rest of society for not agreeing that she should wear it. No-one molests her, no-one targets her for extermination.

    (Perhaps that’s it! Perhaps people ignore her and she can’t stand it!)

  11. This foolish woman obviously doesn’t realise that the face veil is a cultural rather than a religious requirement for Muslim women.

    I hope it will not be long before the rest of Europe, including the UK (though I shan’t hold my breath) follows France’s lead.

    And I agree with Snigger

  12. From the CiF article: “…Before the law, Stephanie would often be called names like “Batman, Zorro, or Ninja” in the street – often by pensioners. Now people favour swear words or sexual insults. She wants to work with children, but despite having a degree in theology, she can’t find a job…”

    When I trained psychologists in psychotherapy at a large university I had many Muslim students. Many wore the hijab, one wore a niqab but none wore a face veil. Had any done so then I would have insisted that they be excluded from the class unless they removed it. The classes being mixed, that would have been a non-starter.

    My reasoning is that the face is an essential, vital component of nuanced communication. A therapist’s facial expression – kind, angry, benign, judgemental or whatever oils the wheels of her patient’s communication with her and should complement her tone of voice. Where the facial expression and the tone of voice are at odds, then good therapy is much more difficult. (True, if the patient were blind then he/she would have to rely on cues from the voice, smells, perhaps (rarely) touch from the therapist, but my argument remains, for a therapist deliberately to choose to make herself unknowable to her patient in this way is counterproductive, even abusive). As Jack Straw (who has hearing difficulties) found out, it can be difficult for such a person to hear a veiled woman properly or adequately. If a patient who has had a history of being brought up by an emotionally distant or withholding mother, then to be confronted by a veiled therapist would make therapy almost impossible.

    Veiled women psychotherapists must necessarily limit themselves to working with women only since alongside wearing the veil comes the social injunction that they must not be alone with a man who is not related to them, which in turn means that a great deal of their development in their training in the West is closed to them. This hampers their professional and personal development and in my university they could not attain professional practitioner status since this depends upon attaining competence at working with a wide patient range of all ages.

    Had I a school age child, I would not want him/her to have more than fleeting contact with a woman whose face was covered, because of the difficulty this would pose to the child’s ability to form a relationship with such a person.

    It would be unfair on the veiled woman, too, since she would have to try twice as hard to relate as would her unveiled colleagues.

    This may explain why this woman cannot find a job working with children.

    • It’s not a Nazi analogy?

      “I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that’s happening to us.”

      Is it an autism issue?

  13. @zeitgoose, (assuming you are not being ironic) I doubt it although this woman’s lack of identification with how others might perceive what she is doing shows that she is egocentric in the extreme, and probably histrionic too. I also doubt that she gives a damn about what Nazis did to Jewish women – she is cynically using that analogy to put her case in the most florid terms because she knows full well the discomfort it will cause in people with little ego-strength.

    This is passive-aggression writ large. The only way to counter it is not to give in to it and not to give this woman’s self-chosen way of being (as Serendipity says above, wearing a face veil is not mandated by koranic law) any more attention than it deserves.

    And to continue to bar her from employment which necessitates her interacting with others face-to-face unless she shows her own face

  14. Pingback: {smpbargins}