Why are you still surprised that these women indeed shock people?

I’m not. Surprised, that is. I believe that distinct lack of surprise was the topic of the very first paragraph of my post.

Demirbag-Steen is not all of Sweden just as Cherin Awad isn’t every veiled muslim woman in Sweden.

Fortunately, and thank god.

Taking the words of one person to make assumptions on the views of the whole group?

Which person and what group? My own final statement: My post, so far as it was about any one thing, was about the supposed threat Muslim women presenters pose towards neutrality. I don’t think that in the process I’ve implied that Demirbag-Steen is spokesperson for Sweden, or that Awad is an envoy for Muslim women.

If you indeed feel that these women are being used (your word) to cause shock (again, your word). Why are you still surprised that these women indeed shock people?

I just want to say, again, that these women are being used to project an image. The fact that these women are veiled is not a fortunate coincidence that has happened to cause debate. Neither is the name of the show… That the issue of debate is not the actual show but indeed how it has been marketed is evident even in the headline of your first post.

These women have been hand picked to project a certain image and to serve a commercial need without really adressing any of the problems that muslim women (or any muslims, or any women) face.

Regardles of the words used in the articles to highlight this fact (beslöjad), this is how I’ve percieved the debate. Demirbag-Steen is not all of Sweden just as Cherin Awad isn’t every veiled muslim woman in Sweden. Taking the words of one person to make assumptions on the views of the whole group? Well, there you have it…

Halal-tv is an attempt to exploit the way muslim women are percieved rather than trying to remedy the problem.

At the risk of sounding extremely big-headed, I’ll quote myself:

“this show seeks to make use of the shock value of three headscarf-clad women with ‘orthodox’ Islamic values as presenters”

But at the same time, I’d argue that the presenters could have made better use of the opportunity the show gave them to speak for themselves.

I may agree with the strange use of the word “beslöjad” in the Metro article but these approx 200 words should not, and cannot, be used as representative for this whole debate.

I think this is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I wouldn’t call the use of the word “beslöjad” in the Metro article strange, because the same word was used in every other article I read. I feel that this is a major part of the debate in Sweden – a natural and inevitable, but still major, part.

However, my point remains that this doesn’t really apply here. Because Halal-tv is an attempt to exploit the way muslim women are percieved rather than trying to remedy the problem.

Actually, I never intended to be drawn into a debate about the program itself but originally commented about your description of the debate in Sweden, a description I did not recognize or in any way felt relevant to my own personal experiences.

I feel that when commenting on a debate one should look at the context of the debate, not focusing on some aspect of it and ignoring others. I may agree with the strange use of the word “beslöjad” in the Metro article but these approx 200 words should not, and cannot, be used as representative for this whole debate.

If you want to prevent Muslim immigrants then go back to your crypto-nazi era and isolate yourselves.

Stick to the topic at hand. When someone writes an article about Libya then talk about it, now its about Sweden so use what you learnt in grade 9 critical thinking class and apply it here or is Sweden one of them backward European countries that has an education system equal to that of a Muslim country?

I do not feel that Halal-TV is a “regular” swedish program

That’s not what I said. Maybe I wasn’t clear, though I did say ‘on the other hand’…

What I meant was, programs that do make an effort to be ‘regular’ are still perceived to be just about Islam. Halal TV, from its name on, starts off from the “three Muslim women in Sweden” angle, emphasis on ‘Muslim women’. Even though the three have very different opinions.

I agree that this makes the program a little like a women’s section in a newspaper, hemmed in by its own issues rather than part of the public arena of ‘real’ news, investigative reporting, politics, and the whole wide world.

But I still feel that, whatever the program was like, the emphasis would have been on the presenters’ religion and the piece of cloth on their heads. As well as whether or not they had managed to shed the habits native to their native habitat and become indistinguishable from the host population.

Gäsper Trött, I’m in no way arguing my country is the epitome of tolerance, but there really are more churches there than wikipedia will tell you, the nun was buried in the Muslim cemetery per her request, and I don’t agree with what was done to the Jews. I’m very much for the idea of the compensation plan and giving Libyan Jews their right of return.

Considering how repressive Libya is, why bother about Sweden?

Is it your opinion that, given how repressive Libya is, Libyans should never talk about anything but how repressive Libya is? Because that seems almost…dare I say…repressive? Not to mention, tedious, repetitive and intensely depressing…

I don’t feel I need to justify writing about representations of Muslim women, beyond ‘it’s something that interests me’.

Esra,
You can scream racism all you want and you’d better do that, since you doesn’t seem to have any arguments left.

My argument, seeing as I must repeat myself:

Everyone has a right to criticize anything they want regardless of their background, especially if it’s so irrelevant (as is the case here.) This article and its implications doesn’t say anything about Tasnim’s thoughts concerning Libya’s Jews and Christians, which you yourself could probably care less about. So why bring it up?

Now you can refute it. A person’s nationality doesn’t limit them from what they can and cannot criticize.