Upon hearing the news of approval of the veil ban in the lower house of the French parliament, which opened the door for it to be ratified into law in September, Rachid Nekkaz decided to do something to combat it. A French citizen and Muslim of Algerian descent, Nekkaz declared that he would set aside a fund of $1 million euros to bail out and defend any Muslim woman charged under the new law. Nekkaz, who made his fortune in real estate, was not planning to take action; however, when the planned ban on the veil was extended from town halls and post offices to all public areas, he felt obligated to act. He calls the veil ban an unconstitutional violation of a woman's personal freedoms.
For the record, this law serves no legitimate purpose and is a thinly "veiled" racist and xenophobic attack on the French Muslim population, fueled by anti-Muslim paranoia. The irony is that only a small percentage of French Muslim women -- approximately 2,000 out of 5 million Muslims in France -- wear the veil. Yet, to many on both sides of the fight, it is a powerful symbol of identity; so powerful that the French government felt the need to take the extreme measure of regulating an aspect of life considered extremely personal. The arguments used by those defending the veil ban ("taking back our way of life") sound eerily similar to the rants of those who attend Tea Party functions ("taking back our country"). Given how liberal France generally is regarding what individuals are allowed to wear (or not wear), this ban is completely hypocritical.
Putting the absurdity of the law itself aside, Nekkaz must be applauded for his activism in defending what he sees as the right of Muslim women to dress in whatever way they choose -- as other French citizens are allowed to do. Whether I agree or disagree with someone on an issue (in this case, I happen to agree), I respect those who are willing to put their money where their mouth is and not simply complain about something.
Can you imagine the positive impact that could be made here in the United States by black people with the financial means (and public profile) to do things similar to what Nekkaz has done? Although there are certain individuals who may be contributing financially to causes who we simply don't hear about, the reality is that sometimes it isn't just about the money being given; it is about the willingness to publicly take a stand for something -- to be willing to actually sacrifice money, time and possibly public acceptance for a cause larger than yourself. The social capital of our most prominent African Americans is vast and has yet to be tapped for our most important causes.
The anti-Muslim backlash being experienced by Muslims in France shares many similarities to the anti-Obama, anti-black backlash here in the United States. Will any famous or wealthy black people step up in the same manner as Nekkaz,? Or will our African American elite simply focus on "getting theirs" while the masses continue to struggle? Blacks of means in America have something to learn from Nekkaz about how to influence politics through business.
Comments: (21)
Add a comment
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 6:51PM
You are SO WRONG on two points in this article. First, the French government has every right to ask for the removal of veils by Muslim women, and to ask them to make their identity known. The Koran (Muslim bible) does not state that women have to hide behind the barka (head-to-toe garments). This is a rule imposed by a male dominated society and accepted as a religious pledge of obedience. This is a horrible rule that places the burden of a man’s lust upon the back of females. Why should a woman feel guilty for having a female body, and guilty because some men will desire it. This rule only serves to protect the insecurity of men who may feel threatened that another man may take his woman, or threatened because he is not man enough to compete for a hold a woman through normal means. It is scary to see female Muslim toddlers concealed by headdress, and barka.
Second, it is confusing and insulting that you would try to RELATE the stand taken by this French tycoon, to your CALL for action against the “anti black” and “anti Obama Presidency”. And to ask that wealthy blacks take this stand. Tell me WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR WEALTH AND WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ATTACK, AND WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE? Your Article failed to mention the agenda. If you are not aware, blacks people have had our tribulations on this north American continent for over 500 years—the slave trade and the barbaric hardships that followed. But we are still struggling trying to overcome, despite black wealth, despite the mental brainwashing, the nightriders, the lynching, rapes, and massive imprisonments of our people. Why bring President Obama into this, black people alone could not have elected him with just our vote, and he will be re-elected by more votes than our small percent in the population.
Your article is missing something
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Dee on 7/19/2010 7:07PM
Bill, that mold in your trailer park has got you talking out the side of your flat azz! Your envy and jealousy of the black race permeates every time you jump on this BLACK VOICES BOARD.
Don't you have some people to steal, kill and destroy like the rest of your ancestors? Can't find any indians to steal land from, haven't found any black folks to lynch and drag behind your pick up truck?
Instead of wasting so much time on this site, why don't you pick up a book? Damn, that the hell are you gonna do with a book beside hold your trailer up. My bad!
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 7:19PM
You are SO WRONG on two points in this article. First, the French government has every right to ask for the removal of veils by Muslim women, and to ask them to make their identity known. The Koran (Muslim bible) does not state that women have to hide behind the barka (head-to-toe garments). This is a rule imposed by a male dominated society and accepted as a religious pledge of obedience. This is a horrible rule that places the burden of a man’s lust upon the back of females. Why should a woman feel guilty for having a female body, and guilty because some men will desire it. This rule only serves to protect the insecurity of men who may feel threatened that another man may take his woman, or threatened because he is not man enough to compete for a hold a woman through normal means. It is scary to see female Muslim toddlers concealed by headdress, and barka.
Second, it is confusing and insulting that you would try to RELATE the stand taken by this French tycoon, to your CALL for action against the “anti black” and “anti Obama Presidency”. And to ask that wealthy blacks take this stand. Tell me WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR WEALTH AND WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ATTACK, AND WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE? Your Article failed to mention the agenda. The “anti-black” sentiment has never officially vanished and black people have had our tribulations on this north American continent for over 500 years— the brutal slave trade and the barbaric hardships that followed. But we are still struggling trying to overcome, despite black wealth, despite the psychological damage, the nightriders, the lynching, rapes, and massive imprisonments of our people. Why bring President Obama into this. Black people alone could not have elected him with just our vote, and he will also be re-elected by more votes than our small percent in the population.
Maybe your article is missing additional info
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 7:24PM
Mr. Elliot Millner,
You are SO WRONG on two points in this article. First, the French government has every right to ask for the removal of veils by Muslim women, and to ask them to make their identity known. The Koran (Muslim bible) does not state that women have to hide behind the barka (head-to-toe garments). This is a rule imposed by a male dominated society and accepted as a religious pledge of obedience. This is a horrible rule that places the burden of a man’s lust upon the back of females. Why should a woman feel guilty for having a female body, and guilty because some men will desire it. This rule only serves to protect the insecurity of men who may feel threatened that another man may take his woman, or threatened because he is not man enough to compete for a hold a woman through normal means. It is scary to see female Muslim toddlers concealed by headdress, and barka.
Second, it is confusing and insulting that you would try to RELATE the stand taken by this French tycoon, to your CALL for action against the “anti black” and “anti Obama Presidency”. And to ask that wealthy blacks take this stand. Tell me WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR WEALTH AND WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ATTACK, AND WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE? Your Article failed to mention the agenda. The “anti-black” sentiment has never officially vanished and black people have had our tribulations on this north American continent for over 500 years— the brutal slave trade and the barbaric hardships that followed. But we are still struggling trying to overcome, despite black wealth, despite the psychological damage, the nightriders, the lynching, rapes, and massive imprisonments of our people. Why bring President Obama into this. Black people alone could not have elected him with just our vote, and he will also be re-elected by more votes than our small percent in the population.
Your article needs add info
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 7:50PM
Mr. Elliot Millner,
You are SO WRONG on two points in this article. First, the French government has every right to ask for the removal of veils by Muslim women, and to ask them to make their identity known. The Koran (Muslim bible) does not state that women have to hide behind the barka (head-to-toe garments). This is a rule imposed by a male dominated society and accepted as a religious pledge of obedience. This is a horrible rule that places the burden of a man’s lust upon the back of females. Why should a woman feel guilty for having a female body, and guilty because some men will desire it. This rule only serves to protect the insecurity of men who may feel threatened that another man may take his woman, or threatened because he is not man enough to compete for a hold a woman through normal means. It is scary to see female Muslim toddlers concealed by headdress, and barka.
Second, it is confusing and insulting that you would try to RELATE the stand taken by this French tycoon, to your CALL for action against the “anti black” and “anti Obama Presidency”. And to ask that wealthy blacks take this stand. Tell me WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR WEALTH AND WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ATTACK, AND WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE? Your Article failed to mention the agenda. The “anti-black” sentiment has never officially vanished and black people have had our tribulations on this north American continent for over 500 years— the brutal slave trade and the barbaric hardships that followed. But we are still struggling trying to overcome, despite black wealth, despite the psychological damage, the nightriders, the lynching, rapes, and massive imprisonments of our people. Why bring President Obama into this. Black people alone could not have elected him with just our vote, and he will also be re-elected by more votes than our small percent in the population.
Your article need add info
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 9:41PM
Sorry for the misspelling above, the correction for the Muslim female dress is --Burka(burqa) not barka. And the articles does show improvements and clarity now.
Report This
By: Sarai1371 on 7/22/2010 1:07AM
I agree with you. Also from a government point of view it is a dangerous security issue as msmack500 stated.
Report This
By: Wayting on 7/19/2010 7:49PM
Mr. Elliot Millner,
You are SO WRONG on two points in this article. First, the French government has every right to ask for the removal of veils by Muslim women, and to ask them to make their identity known. The Koran (Muslim bible) does not state that women have to hide behind the barka (head-to-toe garments). This is a rule imposed by a male dominated society and accepted as a religious pledge of obedience. This is a horrible rule that places the burden of a man’s lust upon the back of females. Why should a woman feel guilty for having a female body, and guilty because some men will desire it. This rule only serves to protect the insecurity of men who may feel threatened that another man may take his woman, or threatened because he is not man enough to compete for a hold a woman through normal means. It is scary to see female Muslim toddlers concealed by headdress, and barka.
Second, it is confusing and insulting that you would try to RELATE the stand taken by this French tycoon, to your CALL for action against the “anti black” and “anti Obama Presidency”. And to ask that wealthy blacks take this stand. Tell me WHAT EXACTLY SHOULD THEY DO WITH THEIR WEALTH AND WHAT IS THE PLAN OF ATTACK, AND WHAT WILL IT ACHIEVE? Your Article failed to mention the agenda. The “anti-black” sentiment has never officially vanished and black people have had our tribulations on this north American continent for over 500 years— the brutal slave trade, rapes, and lynchings and the barbaric hardships that followed. And we are still struggling trying to overcome, despite the psychological damage, the subtle and over injustices everyday and massive imprisonments of our people. So maybe I am missing the “other” black lash of which you speak. Why bring President Obama into this. Black people alone could not have elected him with just our vote, and he will also be re-elected by more votes than our small percent in the population. Yes, there are many who want him to fail but there are far more who want him to succeed.
Your article needs add info for clarity.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: joed on 7/19/2010 8:58PM
First-off Dee,"billy-boy", doesn't hate blacks or black culture. He actually, loves and adore it, to the point of spending his every precious time, pursuing attention from it. So, one day he can try and claim it as his own. That's what they(whites) do. Pretend they're hateful, all the while loving everything black. See it with their sun-tanning, adoring interracial children, loving big derrieres and lush lips, chrome rims(brothas were looked down on for this, now the manufacturers are selling the package.), singing like us etc.
Now, back to the blog. Elliott, the difference being that the black wealthy of america can't say anything or stand-up for anything black. Because if they do, they will immediately be stripped of all things considered wealth. Not only will they lose their high-profile, but, they also will possible arrested on some trumped-up charges and removed from the public's eye. They'll become an after thought.
A reason for this is that blacks, in u.s.a, don't have any community wealth. And that's major when talking about wealth. Therefore, these so-called wealthy blacks are really paper-maches. Emperors with no clothing. It's all a front.
When Muhammed Ali, Jim Brown, Paul Robeson, and countless others tried to stand-up for blacks they were ostracized, until they aged and now they are welcomed back. Maybe.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: msmack500 on 7/19/2010 11:03PM
Another case of the same old and tired "this is the same as the Blacks" song that is brought to co-op the Black American struggle. Muslims as a group, were not enslaved in France or forced to give up their language. They can still freely speak Arabic and probably have documents translated into that language if needed. Blacks were not allowed to bring their African customs here, so there is no comparison to this Burka issue.
In light of the terrorist threats, how can anyone really know who is under that burka? Is it a man or woman with a bomb, or just a woman expressing her religious freedom?
Reality check needed here in the post 09/11 world.
Reply to this Comment | Report This