Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label Ban on Burqa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ban on Burqa. Show all posts

Saturday, 11 August 2018

The Blond, the Berks & the Burqa



Regarding Boris Johnson's recent remarks about the burqa, condemned by Theresa May and a bunch of trembling Tories as well as the usual suspects, I was looking at this Twitter page admiring the forthright views of true feminists such as the page owner herself when I spotted this:


Corbyn's an atheist.  Strange to see him at prayer.  But has he been traduced?  Here's more on that story.

Among Suzanne Evans's tweets and retweets regarding Boris's criticism of the burkha, such as those by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who's in a spot of trouble over one tweet, there's this delight:


 Splendidly, British broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer tells a Muslim female caller that the burqa's "a horrible, ghastly dehumanising garment" and a lot else besides.

A fabulous set of arguments on Julia's part!  She's clever, polite and relentless!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-hiphhw0PY

Meanwhile, Guardianista columnist Polly Toynbee, an atheist, parades her "Islamophobic" credentials yet again. Too bad she lumps Judaism and Christianity in with the "primitives".
"The pens sharpen - Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same - Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women's bodies. There are ritual baths, churching, shaving heads, denying abortion and contraception, arranged marriage, purdah, barring unclean women access to the altar, let alone the priesthood, letting men divorce but not women - all this perverted abhorrence of half the human race lies at the maggotty heart of religion, the defining creed in all the holy of holies."
 As Taj Hargey, an imam in Oxford put it, inter alia, in a letter to The Times:
"Boris Johnson should not apologise for telling the truth. His evocative analogy is unfortunate but he is justified in reminding everyone that the Wahhabi/Salafi-inspired fad of female facial masking has no Koranic legitimacy. It is, however, a nefarious component of a trendy gateway theology for religious extremism and militant Islam.  The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion."
Update:
O, the irony!  Al Beeb (among others) reports:
"Christine Hamilton has been removed as a charity ambassador after comparing burkas to the hoods of the Ku Klux Klan. The broadcaster and wife of UKIP Welsh Assembly member Neil Hamilton sparked outrage on Twitter with her comments. Muscular Dystrophy UK said it opposed "prejudice and discrimination" and had severed all links with Mrs Hamilton."
"Prejudice and discrimination", eh?  For the prejudice and discrimination against women involved in enforced veiling try this for size, and be sure to look at the comment that links to this: http://www.faizaneraza.org/islamic-article-read.php?article_id=31

Sunday, 22 October 2017

Notley on the Niqab

The Canadian province of Quebec is banning face coverings on public transport and other public service providers such as public libraries.

See videos here and here

Ontario's "feminist" premier Kathleen Wynne is aghast at this affront to "diversity" and "progress" (see video here), but what takes the cake is the mealy-mouthed reaction of Alberta's premier Rachel Notley, put on the spot (and rightly) by a reporter who asks what she, as a feminist, thinks of the niqab.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=6644EjI6mlw

Friday, 18 August 2017

Would Brandis & pro-Burqa Bedfellows Expect An Animal To Peer Through a Grill of Mesh?

In the Australian Senate on Thursday, a bizarre-looking, frankly scary, figure with the look of a big black crow sits in the chamber, having been let in with scarcely a concern for security.

An assurance from an acquaintance  that the figure draped in what resembles a garbage bag was who she purported to be was enough to allow the figure to slip in, with no demand that she reveal her face.

The figure was, it soon transpired, indeed the controversial Senator Pauline Hanson, whose wrapping herself in a burqa stunt was performed in order to demonstrate just how lax security in the Australian Parliament is, and to request of Attorney-General George Brandis during Question Time an assurance that, given the terror threat, wearing the burqa be banned in public places in Australia.

As seen on video, George Brandis was not amused by Ms Hanson's stunt and unmoved by her request.  Not that Brandis was unmoved, mark you: his voice trembled and tears bid fair to trickle down his cheeks as he berated Ms Hanson for offending Muslims.

Not a word passed his lips about the offence the grotesque garment called the burqa gives to womankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDf-5ygFXGk

Conservative columnist Andrew Bolt notes:
'First, Brandis — and Senators of the Left — savaged Hanson for wearing a burqa, but many voters would know these same MPs would have applauded the “courage” of a Muslim MP wearing that alienating sack.
Second, Brandis dangerously elevated the burqa as an important symbol of Islam — a “religious garment”.
Labor’s Penny Wong was as bad, praising the wearing of the burqa as a “sincere act of faith”.
That’s troubling.
Apologists used to claim the burqa was just a backward tribal thing that did not represent nice and sweet Islam at all. But now it apparently does.
Third, Brandis, voice cracking with emotion, then got to the heart of his problem with Hanson’s burqa, and this is not just troubling but alarming.
“It has been the advice of each Director-General of security … and each Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community,” he blustered.
“To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.”
Let me translate: do not mock or criticise the burqa or more Muslims will attack us.
Sorry, but I don’t want us cowed by such threats. The burqa is an abomination, and no threats should stop me from asserting this feminist truth.
Does anyone tell gay activists to stop dressing up as nuns or Christians may blow us up?
What Brandis has in fact said is that Muslims are dangerous, and the burqa represents them.
I hope Brandis is just exaggerating the extremism of most Muslims.
But I certainly know he’s kowtowing to a radical minority who want their women bagged and hidden from view.
That is unacceptable....'
Sure is.  But I'd make an additional point regarding these politicians' motives; they're out to catch Muslim votes, and (as with these pro-Islam wets representing the churches) if women's rights, welfare and dignity have to be sacrificed in order to achieve that aim, then so be it.

Leftist hypocrisy regarding feminism and Islam can be clearly seen in many of the comments on Bolt's article.

One earnest leftist tells those who agree with Pauline Hanson on this issue that they belong in Victorian Britain.  O, how laughable (that is, if it were not so very sad!) A male apologist for that misogynistic oppressive garment the burqa telling those who oppose it that they (and not he) belong in a time and place where women (like females under Sharia today) were in subjugation to patriarchal tyranny!

Inevitably, among the champions of burqa-wearing was Greens leader Richard Di Natale, that weaselly foe of Israel, pictured below (front centre) with some buddies.


As a doctor of medicine, Di Natale cannot be ignorant of the danger to unborn babies the wearing by pregnant women of a garment that blocks out sunshine poses: he has obviously heard of rickets and its causes.  I suppose he's happy with the advice that burqa-clad women compensate by dosing themselves with milk fortified with Vitamin D.

But what about the deleterious effect on women's comfort and eyesight that accompanies being encased in a stifling sack and forced to peer at the world through a grill made of mesh.

Perhaps Senator Hanson should borrow somebody's Fluffy or Fido next time, put its head in a burqa, and watch the reaction of senators to that.

I'll wager that they'll label as cruelty to animals (and rightly so) the cruelty they are content to have women endure.

(Unless, in the case of Fido, they recall something about Muslims considering dogs unclean, of course.)

Wednesday, 29 September 2010

Costume Dramas (Part Two): Burkhas and Niqabs – The Case for a Ban

A compelling if often overlooked argument for a ban on the burkha (the robe with the gauze grille), as well as upon that other face-covering garment, the niqab (the robe with the eye-slit), must surely be the damaging effect that these shroud-like garments have on the health of pregnant wearers’ babies. In Australia, Britain, and other western countries, rickets – a disease of the past among inhabitants generally – is increasing in the offspring of women who wear these all-concealing garments. The reason, of course, is the insufficient exposure of the mothers to sunlight, and the consequent deprivation of the foetuses of Vitamin D. The lack of that vitamin is also causing bone disease among the women.

In some countries – Britain is certainly one – such Muslim women are being given vouchers for Vitamin D supplements, fortified baby formula, fruit and vegetables . This is a typical politically correct reaction – but why is it not deemed politically incorrect for the state to encourage in this way a garment which is a prison for women, designed to protect one man’s sexual property from the gaze of other men?

Australian former Prime Minister John Howard described the full cloaks and face coverings, in contrast to the hijab, as “confronting” for the population at large; British former Home Secretary Jack Straw stated that he’d ask any veiled constituent who came to speak to him to remove the impediment to free communication; Conservative MP Philip Hollobone, who announced his refusal to meet any constituent with her face covered, and delivered what the left-liberal Guardian perversely called “a slur on the burkha", was referred to the race relations authorities; Conservative MP Damian Green, Immigration Minister in the Cameron-Clegg Coalition, has breezily assured everyone that no Continental-type ban on the burkha would occur in Britain – such a ban is “a rather un-British thing to do” ; Conservative MP Caroline Spelman, Environment Minister in the Coalition, debased herself and betrayed other females by describing the burkha as empowering for women – seeing it on location in Afghanistan had convinced that “the burka confers dignity”.

Have people like Spelman never read what women who have worn the burkha or niqab say regarding what it feels like to wear these erasures of their femininity and personal identity?

Here, for example, is a British-born journalist of Pakistani origin, Zaiba Malik, describing her experience of the niqab (and remember, folks, that’s not the one with the grille, which must be terribly hard on the wearer’s eyes):
 “The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter. The slit for my eyes keeps slipping down to my nose, so I can barely see a thing. Throughout the day I trip up more times than I care to remember. As for peripheral vision, it's as if I'm stuck in a car buried in black snow. I can't fathom a way to drink my cappuccino and when I become aware that everybody in the coffee shop is wondering the same thing, I give up and just gaze at it.”
And here’s Elizabeth Wynhausen, a Sydney journalist, who similarly experimented with wearing the niqab:
 “I found that even on a mild spring day, the outfit was suffocatingly hot. The cloak restricted my movements. The veil restricted my vision. The straps pressed on my eyeballs. With my head swaddled in cloth and my face covered, I felt I could scarcely breathe. The sense that I had become an alien being was more oppressive still.”
The banning of the burkha and the niqab can be justified on the grounds of health and safety alone. It’s not just the risk of rickets. The restriction of peripheral vision has caused car accidents even for experienced wearers, and there have been accidents in which wearers have been strangled to death when the garments have become lodged in machinery – this happened recently in Australia, when a young mother’s head covering became entangled in a go-kart.

Tellingly, the disgusted stares that greeted Ms Malik and Ms Wynhausen as they went about their business fully covered was not confined to non-Muslims; there were plenty of dismayed glances from Muslim women dressed less drastically, in hijabs and long skirts. At a recent demonstration against proposals to ban the face veil in public held in Sydney, a niqab-clad speaker railed that "Islamic values are superior to flawed Western secular values”. For women like her (and the men who often compel them to drape themselves in what is effectively a portable form of purdah), the face-covering is emblematic of rejection of the surrounding culture and of integration.

But it’s not as if the Quran makes the all-enveloping garments mandatory. There is no shortage of imams and Muslim scholars who have pointed that out. Syrian universities have banned such garments even as western “liberals” strive to present bans as “Islamophobic”. As the Canada  Muslim Congress observed in a long and thoughtful article:
"We believe that the facemask worn by some Muslim women [is about] political symbolism that reflects the contempt of radical Islamist groups for Western civilisation. Today, the only forces that demand Muslim women to cover their faces are: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Arab World [and Europe], Al-Qaeda, and the Saudi religious establishment. All four groups see women as a source of sin and objects of sexuality, and Canada and the freedom of women in Canada and the West as manifestations of evil sexual depravity. Yet it is worth noting that leading clerics and scholars from both the Shia and Sunni communities have stated quite explicitly that the burka or niqab are not an Islamic requirement, but a cultural and tribal custom."
There is also the security issue: male robbers and other criminals (not only in non-Muslim countries) have dressed in burqas to disguise themselves, and there is also the threat of terrorists concealing weapons.

And for a taste of life in Islamic London see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdRfT76s7UQ&feature=player_embedded