Nima Daryamadj is a columnist for one of Sweden’s major tabloids and has written a few very good ones on the subject of religion and spirituality. Here is a post from his blog that I have translated and am reposting with his permission. I don’t really think it requires more by way of introduction…

ETA: Apparently I had a brainfart and forgot to translate a word when I first posted this. Apologies.

Last year in december I got in touch with Pernilla Ouis, ((lektor)) lecturer at Malmö Högskola. I was told that Save the Children had censored her research paper on sexual violence against girls in the Middle East.

Save the Children (SC) have offices in different parts of the world. The office that handles the Middle East and North African region is called SCS-MENA (Save the Children Sweden - Middle East and North Africa). In 2006, Ouis was a consult for SC and was commissioned by SCS-MENA to lead a research project to do a situation analysis in the countries of Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine. The analyses concerned honour violence, early marriage and sexual abuse of girls.

When the report was almost done, SC required certain parts of it to be removed, supposedly because they were not in accordance with SC:s core values.

On May 7, Moa Roshanfar from the regional office in Lebanon wrote the following:

/…/ The problem for us at Save the Children is that the text about violence creates a polarisation between different groups, between west and east, between western and muslim societies. We want to be a radical voice and challenge men’s violence against women and children, but not in a way that separates cultures from each other and may lead to us and them-thinking. Below follows a few concrete examples in the text that either need to be clarified or changed, that can be understood as offending, generalising and may be viewed as polarising. Often in the text the words “culture”, “traditions”, “communities”, “societies” etc. are used, it’s important to be clear on what is meant. /…/

Then she gives examples of polarising paragraphs:

“Since sexual relationships outside wedlock are associated with strong religious taboos in this Muslim setting, sexual abuse in the MENA region is a special problematic topic for children.”

If the research shows that muslim sexual morals makes it difficult for children to tell others about sexual abuse, why are you not allowed to say this?

“It was suggested to have separate FGD with male teenagers as well. The male opinions, perspectives and experiences are important since we are dealing with gender-based violence in patriarchal communities.”

Here it was problematic to say “gender-based violence in patriarchial communities”. As Ouis herself answers: To exclude that the Middle East is generally patriarchal would be a faulty analysis that I as a scientist would feel ashamed of. Of course it’s a patriarchal society!

Let’s take a break: Maybe Pernilla Ouis isn’t a scientist but a “scientist”? Maybe she’s a rabid closet racist who hates people from the Middle East and Islam? Maybe the report is part of a hidden agenda to defame these?

Ouis is an arabic name. Pernilla has been married to an arab, whose name she chose to keep even after the divorce. Additionally, she converted to Islam in 1986 and has been a muslim for over 20 years. Not exactly a description of a hater of Islam and the Middle East.

Those suspicions dealt with, where were we? More polarising sentences:

“Playing games and bicycling for example are not accepted for girls in many honour societies because of…”

Ouis: That girls in many honour cultures are not allowed to play like boys or ride a bike (for fear of losing their virginity/hymen) is an acknowledged fact. It’s an important piece of information. Why should it be left out? Girls have told us about this. Should their evidence be silenced?

The blame of sexual assault and rape is on the victim, not the offender; in honour cultures…”

Ouis: The guilt is on the victim in honour cultures (in our western society too, if a comparison has to be made!). All the people we’ve interviewed say this and their answers also show how they’ve internalised this thinking. Should I lie about this and keep it in the dark? Motivate this, please. Is lying in accordance with SC:s core values?

After this, it becomes even more absurd:

“The acts that can do so are various, but it seems that in Yemen only wearing a decorated, but still Islamic, dress or laugh in the street is…”

“…children suggested that the Islamic dress…”

Apparently it is problematic to call the clothes of yemenitic girls “islamic”, despite the fact that 1) it IS islamic clothing and 2) the girls themselves used that term!

The children in Yemen called their clothes “Islamic dress” and said that if it had even the smallest decoration it could be viewed as immoral. They were only allowed to wear black, from head to toe. Islamic clothing has different names in different cultures; sometimes it’s called abaya, jilbab or hijab (which means different things, but still), but the term “Islamic dress” is to me a neutral term. How could it be offending? It’s what the children said!

“…and not to be debated openly in public, since it damages the self-image of many Muslims…”

Ouis: Of course the self-image of Muslims is damaged by discussing sexual violence against children. Sexuality is important for the self-image of a society and it’s problematic to discuss openly. This is the case in the west as well. Why do you think certain countries in the Muslim world don’t report any cases of HIV? Well, because it damages their self-image, as the disease is viewed as shameful and connected to sexual immorality.

In her letter Ouis points out that she’s been a Muslim for more than half her life, that she has a unique inside and outside perspective, has travelled a lot, written and read a lot about Islam, is an active participant in the debate about Islam in Sweden and often gets invited to tv, radio and government institutions.

The news were published yesterday in the newspaper Nima writes for. Today, Sanna Johnson from Save the Children responds in a different newspaper, claiming that Ouis’ report states that patriarchism and honour thinking is a problem exclusively in muslim societies.

Nima, who has read the report, states that this is not the case, which means that Johnson is either lying or incompetent. Given that Save the Children has expressly asked Ouis to lie by omission in her report, it seems the former isn’t so improbable.

Save the Children wants to find a way to criticise the individual instances of sexual abuse and honour violence without judging a whole culture. Essentially, they put political correctness and rampant “tolerance” before the advance of modern, secular thinking - equality. Given that their mission is to “creating real and lasting change for children in need”, it seems they’re really shooting themselves in the foot.

islam, save the children, sexual abuse, pernilla ouis, middle east