World Press on Movement against Rape, Amy Coney Barrett and Biden: New Age Islam's Selection, 22 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
22 October
2020
• We Must Look Beyond Law to Wage a Wider
Movement against Rape
By Nazneen Shifa
• The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett
So Dangerous
By Erwin Chemerinsky
• She’s Evangelical, ‘Pro-Life’ And Voting for
Biden
By Nicholas Kristof
-----
We Must Look Beyond Law to Wage a Wider
Movement against Rape
By Nazneen Shifa
October 22,
2020
Young protesters are using innovative tools to reclaim
the space for women, transgender and other minority communities and identities
in Bangladesh. Photo: Monon Muntaka
------
Law has
been seen as an instrumental tool of the feminist movement in Bangladesh since
the 1980s. However, this development did not take place in a vacuum, rather we
see this as a trend that we've seen all over the world through transnational
discourses of women's human rights. One can chart a long list of movements in
Bangladesh that ended up in demanding legal reforms or enacting a new law. The
recent rage against rape brings to the fore some of the complexities of this
law-centric activism and interventions in the context of violence against
women. The Noakhali rape incident has brought up the question of law and its
ineffectiveness in the public domain like no other time before. It appears as
though the government has succumbed to the popular demand by bringing some changes
in the relevant rape law (introducing the death penalty), a demand sporadically
voiced up in the ongoing public protests.
The
hastiness with which it was done surely raises some questions. It happened
without any discussion with the civil society and relevant actors in this
field. Such a decision on the part of the government has generated a heated
debate amongst the activists in Bangladesh. Most of this discussion is against
the idea of capital punishment on various grounds. A particular strain of this
position points to problems in our justice system leading to a very low
conviction rate when it comes to rape. This has been the expert consensus so
far.
Looking at
the predicament we are in today with the recent movement and the hurried
adoption of capital punishment as a way of solution, I am tempted to reflect on
some of the feminist debates on law and its centrality in feminist politics and
see if there is anything we can learn from it. Feminist scholars critically
examined the law and its transformative potential in the context of violence
against women. They have looked at the problem of laws and their presumed
emancipatory potential, often by emphasising how a focus on law in feminist
politics in the context of violence against women is fraught. An unstated
assumption in this kind of law-driven intervention is that it imagines the
state as having a magical and all-encompassing power over its subject
population. Such an assumption may give rise to a kind of complacency in the
feminist movement in the event of every law reform or enactment of a new law.
But the
fact of the matter is, violence has been on the rise even after so many laws
have been passed throughout South Asia over more than three decades. In
Bangladesh, it is possible to cite any number of examples where the state could
provide neither justice nor closure of the judicial process when it comes to
violence against women (two names that instantly come to mind are Kalpana
Chakma and Tonu). A narrow focus on the judicial process individualises the
survivor/survivor family's struggle in the bureaucracy of our judicial process.
The 3 percent conviction rate in rape trials simply affirms the view on the
poor outcomes of lawsuits. That perhaps explains why Flavia Agnes, a legal
scholar and activist in India, thinks that as long as the state remains anti-poor,
anti-minority, and anti-women, we must not expect much from law and its
potential to deliver social justice. The crux of the matter is that often
law-centric activism ignores the myriad vectors of power spread all over our
society and institutions in which a misogynistic culture is deeply ingrained.
Hence, an attentive reading of the current activist landscape helps us look at
an ignored area of laws' presumed neutrality in human rights discourses.
This new
moment of Bangladeshi young generations' voice against rape has opened up
possibilities to shift our attention away from the law and help us begin to
think of the multiple locations of power in a society where the misogynistic
and hyper-masculine culture as well as the culture of mastantontro (specific to
the Bangladesh context) are produced and sustained. In the wake of the
Begumganj incident, we see the emergence of a new activist landscape where
citizen participation is seen from small towns to the large cities. In
particular, what we are witnessing is the widespread participation of who may
be called our generation Z (Net-Gen), a generation for whom Facebook
clicktivism is a childhood thing! It is this new generation that has given our
new moment a virulent look! They are innovative in reclaiming the space for
women, transgender and other minority communities and identities in Bangladesh.
Like some of the recent movements of the generation Z—most notably the road
safety movement of 2018—this movement too has an apparent leaderless character
and is not limited to Dhaka. Sometimes the slogans and languages of banners are
ambivalent (demand for capital punishment, rape epidemic) but the powerful
presence of the generation Z on the streets and social media is a clear
indication of an emerging force. Are they going to change our activist
landscape for good?
As someone
who had participated in the 1998 anti-rape movement at Jahangirnagar
University, I can see how different the fight today is. Back then, our battle,
our collective rage was against the university authority for not taking proper
action. The movement was place-based. In the absence of internet or social
media, our movement was not in the public discourse the way it is today. I
remember how the JU rape incidents were represented in the public discourses
which often villainised the space of the JU campus (Jahangirnagarer jhopjhare
je kotokichhu ghote) as well as its students (Jahangirnagarer meyer biye bhenge
jacchhe). Through this time travel back and forth, I can see the emergence of a
new language, a language that recasts the notion of chastity, the central tool
of the patriarchal discourse controlling women's body. When there is already a
culture of impunity and when the idea of using brute force with indulgence from
the establishment is taking root everywhere, there is no other option left for
us except building a collective movement against misogyny and hyper-masculine
culture.
-----
Nazneen Shifa is a PhD candidate at the Center
for Women's Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/we-must-look-beyond-law-wage-wider-movement-against-rape-1982057
----
The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So
Dangerous
By Erwin Chemerinsky
Oct. 21,
2020
Coney_Barrett_NewAgeIsl.jpg)
In 1987,
Robert Bork was denied confirmation to the Supreme Court because his
originalist beliefs were deemed a serious threat to constitutional rights.
Originalism is no less dangerous for those rights today, yet Judge Amy Coney
Barrett’s repeated statements professing her belief in originalism have been
met with little objection.
Originalists
believe that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it was
adopted and that it can change only by constitutional amendment. Under this
view, the First Amendment means the same thing as when it was adopted in 1791
and the 14th Amendment means the same thing as when it was ratified in 1868.
But rights
in the 21st century should not be determined by the understandings and views of
centuries ago. This would lead to terrible results. The same Congress that
voted to ratify the 14th Amendment, which assures equal protection of the laws,
also voted to segregate the District of Columbia public schools. Following
originalism would mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided in
declaring laws requiring segregation of schools unconstitutional.
In fact,
under the original public meaning of the Constitution, it would be
unconstitutional to elect a woman as president or vice president until the
Constitution is amended. Article II refers to them with the pronoun “he,” and
there is no doubt that original understanding was that only men could hold
these offices.
Throughout
American history, the Supreme Court has rejected originalism and protected
countless rights that cannot possibly be justified under that theory. For
example, the court has interpreted the word “liberty” in the Constitution to
protect the right to marry, to procreate, to custody of one’s children, to keep
the family together, to control the upbringing of one’s children, to purchase
and use contraceptives, to obtain an abortion, to engage in private adult
consensual same-sex sexual activity, and to refuse medical treatment.
Judge
Barrett doesn’t need to explicitly say that she would vote to overrule Roe v.
Wade because she has left no doubt by saying that she is an originalist in the
mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked. “His judicial philosophy
is mine too,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Justice
Scalia, who died in 2016, repeatedly and unequivocally urged that Roe be
overruled, arguing that the Constitution says nothing about abortion and states
should be allowed to decide the question for themselves. Judge Barrett’s
scholarly writings suggest she would have no hesitation in overruling Roe,
either, nor those “liberty” decisions. She wrote, “I tend to agree with those
who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more
legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather
than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”
The
rejection of originalism is not new. Early in the 19th century, Chief Justice
John Marshall wrote that “we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are
expounding,” a Constitution “meant to be adapted and endure for ages to come.”
It is a
myth to say that an “original public understanding” can be identified for most
constitutional provisions because so many people were involved in drafting and
ratifying them. In teaching constitutional law, I point to the many instances
where James Madison and Alexander Hamilton disagreed about such fundamental
questions as whether the president possesses any inherent powers.
Moreover,
it is a myth to think that even identifying an originalist understanding can
solve most modern constitutional issues. Can original public meaning really
provide useful insights about the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and whether
the police can take DNA from a suspect to see if it matches evidence in
unsolved crimes or obtain stored cellular phone location information without a warrant?
Also, what
often is overlooked is that conservative justices ignore original meaning when
it does not serve their purpose. One of the worst decisions in recent years was
Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, which struck down key provisions of the Voting
Rights Act that required states with a history of race discrimination in voting
to obtain approval from the attorney general or a panel of judges before making
significant changes in their election systems.
The court,
voting 5-4, said that this violated the principle that Congress must treat all
states alike. But no such requirement is found in the Constitution. Moreover,
the Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment imposed Reconstruction on
Southern states, showing that it did not mean to treat all states alike.
In fact,
Congress after the Civil War adopted many race-conscious programs that today
would be regarded as affirmative action. Yet Justice Scalia and his originalist
colleague Clarence Thomas ignored this original understanding in repeatedly
declaring that all forms of affirmative action are unconstitutional.
If Hillary
Clinton had won the presidency in 2016 and replaced Justices Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, originalism would have faded in importance.
Justice Thomas would have been the only originalist on the court and the theory
would have been kept alive only by some conservative law professors.
But now,
with the confirmation of Judge Barrett, it will be a dominant theory on the Supreme
Court. Make no mistake, it is just as much a threat to all of our rights as
when Robert Bork espoused it more than 30 years ago.
-----
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school
at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author, with Howard Gillman,
of “The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/opinion/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----
She’s Evangelical, ‘Pro-Life’ and Voting for Biden
By Nicholas Kristof
Oct. 21,
2020
A
granddaughter of the Rev. Billy Graham, Jerushah Duford, is a committed
evangelical Christian who describes herself as “pro-life.”
For most of
her life, she voted Republican. Yet this year, she is voting for Joe Biden and
is encouraging fellow Christians to distance themselves from a president who
she says is trying “to hijack our faith for votes.”
“The Jesus
we serve promotes kindness, dignity, humility, and this president doesn’t
represent our faith,” Duford said.
She made
clear to me that she is not speaking for her grandfather, the famous evangelist
who died in 2018. But she added: “I think he would be sad. I think his greatest
desire had nothing to do with policies but to introduce people to a loving
Jesus, and the division this administration has caused I believe has hurt this
effort.”
In one
sense, Duford is an outlier. About eight of 10 white evangelicals voted for
Donald Trump in 2016, and polling suggests that the great majority will vote
for him again in 2020. But Duford is part of a broader movement among some
evangelical leaders to distance their faith from Trump, which in turn means
interpreting “pro-life” in a broader way. In a sign that some evangelical
voters are in play this year, the Biden campaign is advertising heavily on
Christian radio stations.
“Mr.
President, the days of using our faith for your benefit are over,” declares a
video from a Christian group called Not Our Faith. “We know you need the
support of Christians like us to win this election. But you can’t have it. Not
our vote. Not our faith.”
The Rev.
John Huffman, who once was President Richard Nixon’s pastor, said he has voted
Republican all his life but has now joined a group called Pro-Life Evangelicals
for Biden. He said he prays for Trump but sees him as “an immoral, amoral
sociopathic liar who functions from a core of insecure malignant narcissism.”
Huffman and
others say they are speaking up partly because they fear that Christianity is
tarnished and losing ground in the United States because of the strong support
Trump receives from many evangelical leaders. (One of them is Duford’s uncle,
Franklin Graham, who has claimed that Billy Graham voted for Trump in 2016.)
Duford told me her message to the public is, “I’m sorry you have witnessed the
same greed and hypocrisy in the church that you see in the world, but this is
not what Jesus is about.”
There’s
nothing inherently conservative about evangelical Christianity, for Black
evangelicals mostly vote Democratic and there is a long tradition of liberal
evangelicals from Martin Luther King Jr. to Jimmy Carter to the writer Jim
Wallis. But in recent decades, white evangelicals have mostly voted Republican,
and Duford and others engaged in the new outreach acknowledge that many find it
somewhere between scary and unthinkable to break that tradition.
A huge
obstacle for many evangelicals considering a vote for Democrats is abortion
policy. So a particularly important part of the upheaval now underway within
evangelical ranks is a move to redefine “pro-life” to apply to more than
fetuses.
“I
genuinely wish the Democratic Party would have a greater value for life inside
the womb,” Duford said. “Yet I equally wish the Republican Party would place a
greater value on life outside the womb. You cannot choose just one and define
yourself as pro-life.”
The
progressive outreach to evangelical voters also argues that as a practical
matter, abortion rates fall more during Democratic administrations than
Republican ones, a claim that has some basis but tends to be exaggerated. It is
true that one of the most effective strategies to reduce abortion numbers is to
provide comprehensive sex education and family planning, to reduce unwanted
pregnancies. For example, countries with free, legal abortion, like the
Netherlands, have substantially lower abortion rates than the United States.
“A growing
number of Christians have realized that their religious beliefs concerning the
sanctity of life can be advanced in practical ways other than simply voting for
conservative judges to make abortion illegal,” said Deborah Fikes, a former
evangelical leader in Texas who became so disillusioned by policies of the
American Evangelical Church that she left and joined the Methodist Church.
Evangelical churches, she said, have mistakenly pursued a harmful “strategy of
political gain in Jesus’s name.”
A similar
ferment is apparent among Catholics. “I am voting for Joe Biden because I am
pro-life,” a Catholic nun, Sister Mary Traupman, wrote to The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. Describing family separation at the border, environmental
degradation, denial of health care to the poor, she added, “These are not
pro-life policies.”
The Rev.
Greg Boyle, who runs programs for gang members in Los Angeles, told me
something similar. “I have never endorsed a candidate in any race until now,”
Father Boyle said, but now he endorses Biden. “This is a vote for the soul of
the nation,” he added. “I’ve never seen an existential threat like this in my
66 years of living.”
“This is
not about partisan politics,” he said. “It’s about truly choosing life.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/opinion/evangelicals-election-biden.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism