Monthly Archives: March 2017

But I've also seen how religion is tightly proscribed.

Only five religious groups are allowed to exist in China: Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Protestantism and Catholicism. The government controls the appointment of major religious figures, and decides where places of worship can be built. It tries to influence theology and limits contacts overseas. And it bans groups it doesn't like, especially the spiritual practice Falun Gong, or groups it calls cults, like the charismatic Christian splinter sect Almighty God.

But overall, the message is glum. Almost all groups are said to face serious restrictions, with three groups --Uyghurs who practice Islam, Protestant Christians, and followers of the banned spiritual practice Falun Gong --facing "high" or "very high" levels of government interference.

While most of the facts in the study are correct, the context feels more negative than the religious world I've experienced. Of course it is in the nature of such reports to be critical --this is what watchdogs like Freedom House are for-- but it feeds into an overall assumption in western countries that the Chinese government is a major persecutor of religion.

On the face of it, this is horrific -- so many churches shorn of the very symbol of their faith. What better example of a heavy-handed atheistic state persecuting belief?

And yet I think this is not typical of Protestantism in China. I've made several trips to the area where the crosses were removed and feel I know the region well.

I'd say that the most important point is that virtually none of these churches have been closed. All continue to have worshipers and services just like before. In addition, the campaign never spread beyond the one province. Some pessimists see it as a precursor for a campaign that might spread nationally, but so far that hasn't happened and there is no indication it will.

What seems to have happened is a fairly special case. That region is at most 10% Protestant -- above the national average of about 5%, but still a minority. But local Christians decided to put huge red crosses on the roofs of buildings and churches, so they dominated the skyline of every city, town, and village across the province. That gave the impression that Christianity was the dominant local religion and irked many non-Christians.

Self-critical Christians told me that their big red crosses were meant well. They were enthused by their faith and wanted to proclaim it. But they also sheepishly said it might also have been a sign of vanity; rather than putting their money into mission work or social engagement, they wanted to boast about their wealth and faith. I felt they were a bit hard on themselves -- in a normal, healthy society an open expression of one's faith should be normal -- but it is true that it was also a potential provocation for a state that does not give religion much public space.

This mirrors what I've seen as well. Protestantism is booming and Chinese cities are full of unregistered (also called "underground" or "house") churches. These are known to the government but still allowed to function. They attract some of the best-educated and successful people in China. And they are socially engaged, with outreach programs to the homeless, orphanages, and even families of political prisoners. To me, this is an amazing story and far outweighs the cross-removal campaign, which basically ended and seems to have had no lasting consequences.

Now, it's true that all this could change. Last autumn, the government issued new regulations on religion. The most important point of the rules was to reemphasize a ban on religious groups' ties to foreign groups -- for example, sending people abroad to seminaries, or inviting foreigners to teach or train in China. This is clearly part of a broader trend in China that we see in other areas. Non-governmental organizations are also under pressure, and the surest way to get unwanted government attention is to have links abroad.

Given the predilections of the Xi administration, these new religious regulations could be harshly enforced. We could see unregistered churches forced to join government churches. And we could see outreach programs closed down.

If this happens, then I would say that Protestantism would be suffering from a "high" degree of persecution. And if it happens we'll need hard-hitting reports condemning it in no uncertain terms. But until this crackdown really occurs, we might be missing the forest for the trees.

Ian Johnson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent based in Beijing. His new book, "The Souls of China: The Return of Religion After Mao," will be published in April. The views expressed above are solely his own.

Original post:

Focusing on religious oppression in China misses the big picture - CNN

Wouldnt you feel that it was your fault that this child was raped? I know that I could never live with myself if something like that happened. That is why I wear the hijab.

Although only two or three years younger than Zoepf, this Muslim woman named Asma is light years removed from the idea that blaming an unveiled woman for the actions of a child molester [is] outrageous [and] to argue otherwise [is] to suggest that men [aren't] responsible for themselves.

Zoepf quotes Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan sociologist who has explained that the traditional Islamic society hardly acknowledge[s] the individual, whom it abhor[s] as a disturber of the collective harmony. Consequently, traditional society produce[s] Muslims who [are] literally submissive to the will of the group.

If seen in a positive light, this group cohesion creates a strong community bond where all Muslims are guardians of the others in the group. Thus, if someone slipped, then the guilt would be shared." Consequently, less important are the rights of the individual compared with the "rights of the community." This sense of group identity is certainly a common thread among tightly knit communities of many different religious organizations.

On the other hand, this misogyny disproportionately burdens female members. Thus, females who grow up under this constant scrutiny face a particularly difficult path, since the mere fact of their being in the public eye is often enough to raise suspicions about their modesty.

Hereinlies a fundamental and clear-cut difference between a society based on individual responsibility for ones actions and one based on group conformity wrapped around a guilt-induced rationale. At no time does a mans accountability for assault enter this mindset. According to this point of view, the woman deliberately put herself in a position to be victimized and the community did nothing to stop the womans actions. This, is why Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim clericcan assert, without irony, that an unveiled woman is asking to be raped since she is "like uncovered meat who attract sexual predators." Moreover, al Hilali "suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame" since there were women who "sway suggestively" and "wore make-up and immodest dress." He went on to say that if the woman "was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred." Thus, the problem of rape lies entirely with the women victims.

And many followers of Islam concur. Abdul Jabar Azimi states that "Hijab prevents molestation" and mentions the Qur'an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab: "O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested (Al-Qu'ran 33:59)."

Thus,the "Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested."

Which, of course, begs the question -- if a woman is uncovered, does that make her ripe for a sexual attack -- thus, if a non-Muslim woman is wearing Western garb, is it correct to presume that she is a proper target for an attack? Ask the rape victims of Cologne and other European cities.

In her graphic novel Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi demonstrates how in 1980, Iran was transformed under the Islamic Revolution so that she no longer could go to a French secular school but was forced to wear the veil, attend a segregated school, and fear for her mother, who was demonstrating for freedom and choice.

With the Shah'soverthrow in 1979, alcohol was banned, clubs were shut down, and women had to be covered head-to-toe in public. Daniel Greenfield documents what happened recently to one young girl and her friends who had the audacity to remove their hijabs. The young people were taken to prison and the court issued its punishment -- for wearing a skirt, each girl would receive 40 lashes while the boys who had partied and listened to western music would receive 50 lashes.

Farhana Qaziwas interviewed by Abigail R. Esman and recounts how she was "blessed to be an American Muslim woman who would not have had the same opportunities in life if she had remained in Pakistan." She explains that her father raised her to be a bridge between the East and West and she has used her skills in counterterrorism work. Her work focuses on the divisions in the Muslim world today -- "a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditional, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures." She is trying "to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women's rights."

Qazi maintains that many Muslim females join Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups because, the groups, e.g., ISIS, "empower these girls." This is because "many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren't allowed to 'hang out' with Western friends and these girls certainly don't have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides" and the terrorist groups are only too happy to make use of the girls as "cannon fodder." And, if the girls do not obey, they will be silenced by being shot with paintballs, whipped, or stoned to death.

Qazi states that because Muslims "believe that God's love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways; they are unable to cope in a western society and compelled to stay with their own communities. They are quite vulnerable to extremist recruitment."

In 2010, Nonie Darwish wrote that President Obama

did not tell the Muslim world what they needed to hear, and should have heard from the leader of the Free world. He had a moral obligation to add that we need to protect the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab and punish those who force them to do so.

Many Muslim governments do not force the Islamic outfit on women. Egypt is one such country and the problem for the majority of Egyptian women is not being forced by their government to wear the hijab, but rather, they are forced by radical Islamists and their families. Mr. Obama should have known that the Egyptian government itself often discourages women from covering up and actually forbids the wives of Egyptian diplomats from wearing the hijab and even head covering. The reason I know that is because my brother is an Egyptian diplomat. The social and religious pressure on Egyptian women is huge and tyranny does not necessarily come from the top but often from Islamist Sharia enforcers on the streets who often want to take matters in their own hands. They use ridicule, pressure, intimidation, humiliation, and even throwing acid on women who do not wear the Islamic garb.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that Muslim women,resigned to their circumstances,survive by reciting "Inshallah, God willing." Thus, if a woman does not submit, "then a man's good name, and his authorityare damaged." This "belief is part of a larger one that individuals don't matter; that their choices and desires are meaningless, particularly if the individuals are women." As a result, "[t]his sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women's choices [so that] a whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women's shoulders."

And recently, the military ruler for the region of eastern Libya, General Abdul Razek al-Nazouri, announced his decision to bar Libyan women from leaving the country unguarded by a male.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also maintains that "the Muslim veil, [and the] different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery." In fact,a woman "must ask permission to leave the house, and when [she] does, [she] must always hide behind thick drapery. Ashamed of [her] own body, suppressing [her] own desires -- what small space in a [woman's] life can be called [her] own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and the Muslim veil blinkers botha woman's vision and her destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race, but of a sex."

That a piece of cloth should be the center of so much attention should speak to the fact that it represents much more than a piece of material. Certainly, Muslims can wrap their explanations around the idea of modesty as much as they want, but, in reality, far too many women are gagging under the weight of the veil.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

I am currently reading Excellent Daughters: The Secret Lives of Young Women Who Are Transforming the Arab World by Katherine Zoepf. One chapter discusses the use of the veil or the hijab and it is a most telling revelation about the astonishing differences of thinking in the traditional Islamic society as contrasted with Western thought. Zoepf recounts this encounter with a Muslim woman who proudly explains why she wears the hijab.

What if a man sees you girls walking in the street with your hair uncovered and becomes so aroused that he goes and abuses a child?

Wouldnt you feel that it was your fault that this child was raped? I know that I could never live with myself if something like that happened. That is why I wear the hijab.

Although only two or three years younger than Zoepf, this Muslim woman named Asma is light years removed from the idea that blaming an unveiled woman for the actions of a child molester [is] outrageous [and] to argue otherwise [is] to suggest that men [aren't] responsible for themselves.

Zoepf quotes Fatima Mernissi, a Moroccan sociologist who has explained that the traditional Islamic society hardly acknowledge[s] the individual, whom it abhor[s] as a disturber of the collective harmony. Consequently, traditional society produce[s] Muslims who [are] literally submissive to the will of the group.

If seen in a positive light, this group cohesion creates a strong community bond where all Muslims are guardians of the others in the group. Thus, if someone slipped, then the guilt would be shared." Consequently, less important are the rights of the individual compared with the "rights of the community." This sense of group identity is certainly a common thread among tightly knit communities of many different religious organizations.

On the other hand, this misogyny disproportionately burdens female members. Thus, females who grow up under this constant scrutiny face a particularly difficult path, since the mere fact of their being in the public eye is often enough to raise suspicions about their modesty.

Hereinlies a fundamental and clear-cut difference between a society based on individual responsibility for ones actions and one based on group conformity wrapped around a guilt-induced rationale. At no time does a mans accountability for assault enter this mindset. According to this point of view, the woman deliberately put herself in a position to be victimized and the community did nothing to stop the womans actions. This, is why Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim clericcan assert, without irony, that an unveiled woman is asking to be raped since she is "like uncovered meat who attract sexual predators." Moreover, al Hilali "suggested that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame" since there were women who "sway suggestively" and "wore make-up and immodest dress." He went on to say that if the woman "was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred." Thus, the problem of rape lies entirely with the women victims.

And many followers of Islam concur. Abdul Jabar Azimi states that "Hijab prevents molestation" and mentions the Qur'an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab: "O Prophet! tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested (Al-Qu'ran 33:59)."

Thus,the "Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested."

Which, of course, begs the question -- if a woman is uncovered, does that make her ripe for a sexual attack -- thus, if a non-Muslim woman is wearing Western garb, is it correct to presume that she is a proper target for an attack? Ask the rape victims of Cologne and other European cities.

In her graphic novel Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi demonstrates how in 1980, Iran was transformed under the Islamic Revolution so that she no longer could go to a French secular school but was forced to wear the veil, attend a segregated school, and fear for her mother, who was demonstrating for freedom and choice.

With the Shah'soverthrow in 1979, alcohol was banned, clubs were shut down, and women had to be covered head-to-toe in public. Daniel Greenfield documents what happened recently to one young girl and her friends who had the audacity to remove their hijabs. The young people were taken to prison and the court issued its punishment -- for wearing a skirt, each girl would receive 40 lashes while the boys who had partied and listened to western music would receive 50 lashes.

Farhana Qaziwas interviewed by Abigail R. Esman and recounts how she was "blessed to be an American Muslim woman who would not have had the same opportunities in life if she had remained in Pakistan." She explains that her father raised her to be a bridge between the East and West and she has used her skills in counterterrorism work. Her work focuses on the divisions in the Muslim world today -- "a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditional, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures." She is trying "to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women's rights."

Qazi maintains that many Muslim females join Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups because, the groups, e.g., ISIS, "empower these girls." This is because "many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren't allowed to 'hang out' with Western friends and these girls certainly don't have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides" and the terrorist groups are only too happy to make use of the girls as "cannon fodder." And, if the girls do not obey, they will be silenced by being shot with paintballs, whipped, or stoned to death.

Qazi states that because Muslims "believe that God's love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways; they are unable to cope in a western society and compelled to stay with their own communities. They are quite vulnerable to extremist recruitment."

In 2010, Nonie Darwish wrote that President Obama

did not tell the Muslim world what they needed to hear, and should have heard from the leader of the Free world. He had a moral obligation to add that we need to protect the right of Muslim women not to wear the hijab and punish those who force them to do so.

Many Muslim governments do not force the Islamic outfit on women. Egypt is one such country and the problem for the majority of Egyptian women is not being forced by their government to wear the hijab, but rather, they are forced by radical Islamists and their families. Mr. Obama should have known that the Egyptian government itself often discourages women from covering up and actually forbids the wives of Egyptian diplomats from wearing the hijab and even head covering. The reason I know that is because my brother is an Egyptian diplomat. The social and religious pressure on Egyptian women is huge and tyranny does not necessarily come from the top but often from Islamist Sharia enforcers on the streets who often want to take matters in their own hands. They use ridicule, pressure, intimidation, humiliation, and even throwing acid on women who do not wear the Islamic garb.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that Muslim women,resigned to their circumstances,survive by reciting "Inshallah, God willing." Thus, if a woman does not submit, "then a man's good name, and his authorityare damaged." This "belief is part of a larger one that individuals don't matter; that their choices and desires are meaningless, particularly if the individuals are women." As a result, "[t]his sense of honor and male entitlement drastically restricts women's choices [so that] a whole culture and its religion weigh down every Muslim, but the heaviest weight falls disproportionately on women's shoulders."

And recently, the military ruler for the region of eastern Libya, General Abdul Razek al-Nazouri, announced his decision to bar Libyan women from leaving the country unguarded by a male.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also maintains that "the Muslim veil, [and the] different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery." In fact,a woman "must ask permission to leave the house, and when [she] does, [she] must always hide behind thick drapery. Ashamed of [her] own body, suppressing [her] own desires -- what small space in a [woman's] life can be called [her] own? The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The veil sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and the Muslim veil blinkers botha woman's vision and her destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race, but of a sex."

That a piece of cloth should be the center of so much attention should speak to the fact that it represents much more than a piece of material. Certainly, Muslims can wrap their explanations around the idea of modesty as much as they want, but, in reality, far too many women are gagging under the weight of the veil.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

More here:

Articles: Islam, the Veil, and Oppression - American Thinker - American Thinker

As the world gears up for Israeli Apartheid Week 2017, Pedro Ferraracio Charbel says that Israel continues to enact violence in Latin America, and South Africans and Latin Americans should stand together to oppose Israels continued globalised oppression.

As a child of the 90s Ive only read, watched and listened to the inspiring stories of the South African anti-apartheid movement. I am deeply proud to come from Latin America, where social movements and some governments backed and advanced this struggle. It is even more inspiring to see that our people, while still struggling locally today, continue to find the time and energy to commit solidarity and support to others that are fighting oppression elsewhere.

Our struggles unite us, and this sense of internationalism becomes only more urgent with the rise of conservative and racist forces around the world. In this context, the recent support by Israels prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to US president Donald Trump and his intention to build a wall on the Mexican border does not come as a surprise. Israel considers policies such as Trumps as golden opportunities to promote and export their field-tested weapons, military technologies and racist policies.

Israel truly is a world leader in globalised oppression. When most of the world was isolating the apartheid regime in South Africa, it was Israel that broke the boycott and supplied the racist government with military including nuclear technology. Israel, it has been documented, also exported weapons to Rwanda during the genocide in 1994, and it further fueled the civil war in South Sudan supplying groups there with weapons.

The Israeli regime was also deeply associated with bloody dictatorships and death squads in Latin America. In fact, till today, Israel and its companies are promoting, abetting and profiting from human rights violations and killings perpetrated by several governments and police in my region. In Latin America, this violence that Israel is essentially part of, is almost always against black, poor, migrant and indigenous populations. Israels mistreatment of Palestinians and of Africans is been imported by our governments and used against our peoples.

There is no surprise, then, that Trumps wall on the Mexico border would whet the appetite of the Israeli government and companies complicity with its violations. One such company, the Israeli Elbit Systems, was already contracted by the previous US government to build watchtowers on the US-Mexico border. Elbits selling point includes Israels apartheid wall and military drones which have been used against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.

From Latin America to South Africa the question asked by most conscious people when confronted by Israels racist regime against Palestinians and its collusion with human rights violations abroad is how do we confront this?

Launched in 2005 by the vast majority of Palestinian civil society, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) is inspired by the isolation campaigns that helped to put an end to apartheid in South Africa. It aims to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law, calling for citizens and progressive grassroots movements around the world to pressure governments, companies, universities, artists, and different entities to break the ties of complicity with Israels occupation, colonisation and apartheid. Not only because of its legitimacy, but also because of its spectacular results and connections to our own local struggles, BDS is the main answer as to what we can do.

Elbit, mentioned earlier, recently lost a major contract in Brazil, after pressure of local social movements in solidarity with Palestinians. Effective BDS pressure has led major multinationals, like Veolia, Orange and CRH, to abandon the Israeli market. The giant private security company G4S, which is also active in the US-Mexican border, sold almost all its business in Israel after losing several contracts and investments worldwide, including in South Africa, Colombia and Ecuador, due to BDS campaigns. Connecting BDS to struggles against water privatisation in Latin America, Brazilian and Argentinean social movements have managed to suspend deals of Israels apartheid water company, Mekorot.

These are just few examples of how people all around the world are answering the Palestinian call for BDS and effectively internationalising the struggle for human rights and against globalised repression and injustice. For South Africans and Latin Americans, standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people is organically connected to our own struggles in our respective regions. The two go hand in hand fighting local battles and lending solidarity internationally.

The South African government, like several Latin American and other African governments, has shown support to the Palestinian people. However, Palestinians, who were among the most principled and reliable supporters of the struggle for liberation in South Africa as well as for battles for justice in Latin America, are asking for effective solidarity, not just rhetorical support. Actions taken by our governments must be strengthened and intensified. It is time for a full military embargo on Israel and concrete measures to hold the Israeli regime and complicit companies to account.

Otherwise, no matter how eloquent ones speech may be, our governments will be supporting the material and symbolic walls being built and promoted by Netanyahu and Trump. Walls that are part of an international industry of injustice that has been harming Palestinians and our own peoples for decades. Let us all fight together for freedom, justice and equality.

Pedro Ferraracio Charbel is the BDS Coordinator for Latin America. He has been involved in various campaigns and struggles for justice, equality and freedom in Brazil and around the world.

View post:

From Latin America to South Africa: it's time for effective solidarity towards Palestine - The Daily Vox (blog)

A music video entitled Hwages, which loosely translates to concerns, featuring a trio of veiled female artists with colourful clothing underneath, playing together and singing about the oppression women face in Saudi Arabia has not only gone viral, but has also divided the country, reported The Independent on 5 January 2017.

The women, while they are shown playing basketball, skateboarding and riding in bumper cars, sing lyrics such as: May men be eradicated as they cause us to have mental illnesses; may they all go crazy, they seem to be possessed.

Saudis on social media have called the video disgusting and extremely inappropriate, but many have also praised the video for breaking stereotypes and helping to empower women in the country, reported The Sun on 4 January 2017.

The video, which was released on 23 December 2016, has over 9.2 million views as of the writing of this article. Click here to watch the Hwages music video and to learn more about women artists in Saudi Concerts and cinemas corruptMeanwhile, Saudi Mufti Abdel Aziz Bin Abdulla Al Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, has denounced a decision by the government-affiliated Entertainment Organisation to grant permits for music concerts and to establish the countrys first movie theatre, reported France24 on 14 January 2017.

Al Sheikh warned the organisation not to open the doors to evil, saying that no good can come from music concerts and that cinemas allow men and women to mingle a move that would violate public morality, reported Saudi online news source SABQ on 16 January 2017.

Concerts and cinemas corrupt the public, Al Sheikh said. Cinemas might screen films with sexually explicit content, thus harming public morality, inciting blasphemy and destroying our values; foreign films would impact negatively on our culture.

These new initiatives are part of the countrys ambitious new Economic Reform and Diversification Programme known as Saudi Vision 2030, which was launched in April 2016 by Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, in part, to develop Saudi Arabias entertainment sector. History of censorshipWomen in Saudi Arabia live under harsh restrictions and art featuring women is often censored in the countrys male-dominated society.

In 2015 the Daily Mail reported that the country would censor album covers that were deemed to have sexy covers. In extreme cases, religious police were paid by the government to physically alter album covers by unwrapping individual CDs, removing the inserts and colouring over any exposed female flesh with a marker.

In response to such actions, three female artists in 2015 launched a poster campaign in Saudi capital Riyadh, pasting more than 400 posters that said Art is halal, meaning art is permissible, to provoke a discussion about the limits to freedom of expression people have in the country, reported Bustle in March 2015.

In 2013, the countrys Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) allegedly ordered music shops to put up signs that banned women from entering. In May 2015, authorities cancelled a concert scheduled at the Jeddah Amasy concert hall because the audience was going to be of mixed gender.

More recently, in 2016, the emir of the eastern region of Makkah banned the playing and carrying of musical instruments, headphones and speakers in public spaces. Also in 2016, the CPVPV in the Mayahel province stopped artists from performing music at a festival on two consecutive nights to prevent swaying and dancing which they deemed inappropriate and not worthy to be performed in front of women.

The level of restriction on freedom of expression in the country has gotten so stringent that in 2015 the United Nations human rights expert David Kaye expressed grave concern, noting a series of severe punishments against artists and citizens who expressed their beliefs and opinions about the country.

Photo: Screen shot from Hwages video/8ies Productions Sources

NPR 1 February 2017 Saudi women stunt hard (and dis men) in a music video gone viral

SABQ 16 January 2017 Mufti takes decisive stance on entertainment, concerts and movies are corruptive

France 24 14 January 2017 Saudi Mufti: Music concerts and cinemas corrupt the public

Stuff 9 January 2017 Women star in music video rebelling against banned activities in Saudi Arabia

The Independent 5 January 2017 Saudi Arabian women release video mocking kingdoms driving laws

The Sun 4 January 2017 Female pop band spark outrage in Saudi Arabia with music video mocking Donald Trump and condemning oppression of women

Daily Mail 25 March 2015 Cover up! How overtly sexy album artwork from singers like Madonna and Lady Gaga are censored for audiences in the Middle East

Middle East Eye 29 March 2015 Art is Halal poster campaign sparks lively debate in Saudi Arabia

Bustle 15 March 2015 Art is Halal posters by Saudi Arabian female artists ignite debate about censorship, a risky move in the kingdom More from Freemuse

3 March 2017: Podcast: Spotlight on Saudi female artists

8 July 2016: Saudi Arabia: Emir bans playing and carrying of musical instruments in region

20 January 2016: Saudi Arabia: Festival stopped due to swaying and dancing

17 December 2015: Saudi Arabia: Growing clamp down on freedom of expression

30 June 2015: Saudi Arabia: Concert with mixed gender audience cancelled

3 July 2013: Saudi Arabia: Women banned from entering music shops

Original post:

Saudi Arabia: Music video and government initiatives split society - Freemuse