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

Mr (and Ms) Plod Abet the Maiden Tribute of Modern Britain

William Thomas Stead (1849-1912), was a prominent British journalist whose series of articles in the Pall Mall Gazette under the heading 'The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon' exposed the horrible sexual exploitation of and traffic in vulnerable underage girls by seemingly respectable members of Victorian society shocked the nation and led to the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (1885).

StephenYaxley-Lennon (b. 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, a working class lad with in some respects a rather controversial past, is a 'citizen journalist' who was livestreaming outside Leeds Crown Court three days ago when he was arrested by a group of Mr and Ms Plods, charged with causing a 'breach of the peace', and thrown in the slammer the very same day. 

In his footage he was focusing on that dastardly maiden tribute of modern Britain, the grooming and gang-rape of non-Muslim girls (mainly but not entirely white girls) by men whose cultural heritage is that of backward tribal societies so steeped in primitive misogyny that wives are routinely beaten for producing daughters instead of sons and females are gang-raped at the behest of village elders to atone for the misdeeds of male members of their families.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Z4YYIx_oI

As I mentioned here, Mohammed Shafiq, head of the Manchester-based Ramadhan Foundation, declared (to his credit) some years ago:

"There is a significant problem for the British Pakistani community, there is an over-representation amongst recent convictions in the crime of on-street grooming, there should be no silence in addressing the issue of race as this is central to the actions of these criminals.

They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought; it is this sort of behaviour that is bringing shame on our community.

I urge the police and the councils not to be frightened to address this issue, there is a strong lesson that you cannot ignore race or be over sensitive."

 And Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England, is on record as saying that such men  'think that women are some lesser beings'.

As journalist Allison Pearson, when writing about the terrible case in Rochdale some years ago, has noted of the official British 'softly softly approach' to Muslim gang-rape culture:

'When it comes to women’s rights, not all cultures are created equal, particularly those whose attitudes are frozen some time in the mid‑14th century. But we weren’t allowed to say that. Actually, we weren’t even allowed to think that. If you inhaled enough toleration of the intolerable, then you were well on your way to the opium of political correctness.

The layers of denial run so deep that it’s important to try to be clear where we can. First, it is an insult to Hindus, Sikhs and decent, integrated Muslims to classify those brutes under the catch-all title of “Asian males”. All but one are Pakistani Muslims who come from a patriarchal peasant culture that obviously regards young white British girls as easy meat. Those children were considered fair game for degrading sexual acts on an almost industrial scale. The men took a calculated gamble that no one gave a damn about the girls. And you know the worst thing? They were right.

The number of adolescents “passed around” like a congenial hookah pipe by the gang is believed to be more than 50. There were 631 documented cases of abuse over a five-year period, and many will have been too afraid to tell their story. Some may not even be alive to tell it. We will never know the full extent of their pain.'

And here's the great Douglas Murray, speaking last year (hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UoJareHfIw

Tragically for girls and women, and tragically for free speech and justice, that is the state of Britain today.

Had W.T. Stead not gone down with the Titanic he would doubtless be rolling in his grave.

A Warning to the Women of the Infidels

With grooming gangs such as this bunch of rotters (good article, do read it!) preying on non-Muslim girls in the UK, warnings such as this, from the inimitable Pat Condell, shouldn't really be necessary:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61HmpL35xY

That they are necessary is a testament to the ostrich-like nature of western populations, conditioned to perceive "Islamophobia" as a far worse crime than the Islamic subjection of women.

What dopes and dupes they are, not least the Jewish "leaders" who, citing the (supposed) parallels between antisemitism and "Islamophobia", tell anyone who disagrees with them, including mothers and grandmothers who oppose mass Muslim immigration because they are worried for the futures of their female progeny, that they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their  "racist" prejudice.

Yeah, right.

Al Beeb Defends Women's Rights & Western Values (video)

Um, not.

In some parts of the Muslim world women are severely beaten, even killed, by their male overlords for daring to throw off that abominable tent-like garment, the burqa.
 
In northern lands women who wear it deprive themselves of sufficient sunshine, thereby subjecting their offspring to the risk of rickets.

Western women who have worn this cloth prison as an experiment have reported how stifling and uncomfortable it is.

In several Middle Eastern countries Muslim women, when given the chance, and when not subject to reprisals from Islamic misogynists, have been glad to dispense with it.

In Saudi Arabia and in Iran brave female activists have rid themselves of surplus coverings in public, to strike a blow for female human rights.

In Turkey, women who appreciate the freedoms initiated by Ataturk have joined mass demonstrations against imposition of a conservative dress code.

Yet the BBC, which knows these things well enough, has seen fit to make the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUVWVBrPsTM

No wonder that BBCThree, which made it, is copping flak on Twitter.

Yet there are always the Leftist apologists for Islamic values that reflect the mindset of the BBC itself. 

What a weird lot of feminists these BBC types are.  

As with the ABC here in Australia:

Patriarchy rules  OK.  Just as long as Islamic, not western, patriarchs are doing the ruling.

"We're Not Racists, We're Not Fascists, & We're Not Far Right" (video)

"We need to put voices like mine in the House of Commons."  So declares British campaigner against Islamic misogyny and creeping sharia Ann Marie Waters, and who, having heard her calmly delivered yet urgent message, spoken earlier this year, can blame her?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3501pCQT20g

We need more voices like hers in influential positions in the West in general, of course, people who tell the truth about Islamic misogyny and refuse to jump through politically correct hoops on its behalf, people like American Professor Phyllis Chesler, whose recent shameful and ludicrous treatment has been well-described by Professor Richard Landes here

Women like the writer of this article on the terrible plight of women in Afghanistan

People who can respond to and neutralise the apologetics for Islam such as characterises this BBC report by Clarissa Sebag-Montefiore entitled "Urban Burqa: An artist's striking critique of Islamophobia"

People who write robust articles about radical Islam such as this one

People like Australia's most widely read columnist Andrew Bolt, who today absolutely demolishes preposterous claims by Islam's apologists, following this weekend's airing of an embarassing (to Islam and its leftist allies) Hizb ut-Tahrir video, that violence against women in Islam is not allowed:

'Sure [he concludes], most Muslims probably oppose domestic violence, and many imams say other passages of the Koran recommend mercy. But I’d suggest most also know Mohamed gave men control over their wives and let them beat the disobedient, which is exactly what Keysar Trad, head of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, conceded in an interview with me earlier this year.

Trad confirmed that beating wives was “step three” after counselling, but urged: “Before you even consider using your hand, before you consider an act of violence, have you checked box No. 1?”

But when you point all this out, quoting the Koran, apologists protest.

Silma Ihram, a convert from the Australian Muslim Women’s Association, even claimed on Sky News we had “no right” to quote the Koran like this: “That is for a scholar to do and not for you or me.”

More evasion, I’m afraid. You see, the most authoritative scholars confirm the Koran’s plain words.

Take Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife”, he should counsel her or stop sleeping with her. But “if this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas”.

Or take Sheik Ahmad al-Tayyeb, Grand Mufti of the Egypt’s famed Al-Azhar Mosque and voted the “most influential Muslim in the world” by the Muslim 500 magazine: “With regard to wife beating ... in a nutshell, it appeared as part of a program to reform the wife …

“By Allah, even if only one woman out of a million can be reformed by light beatings ... It’s not really beating, it’s more like punching ...

“It’s like shoving or poking her. That’s what it is.”

I’m glad apologists say that’s not how they understand the Koran, but they shouldn’t pretend that’s not what Mohamed preached.

Otherwise, it seems they’re fooling themselves … or us.'

Pro-Women's Rights Baroness Cox Shouted Down by Muslim Leader

During an on-air discussion, Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadan Foundation in the UK, loses his cool.  He rants against Baroness Cox, doughty campaigner for the rights of Muslim women oppressed by Sharia Courts, calling her an Islamophobe, and attacking her ties to the "rightwing fascist" Henry Jackson Society and the Gatestone Institute.  He also drags in Jews and Hindus.

To quote the uploader:

"Debate is raging in the UK over the work of Sharia Councils often used by Muslims to settle family disputes and divorce.

Two inquiries have been launched into its practices after accusations of discrimination against women came to light.

Activists made their cases in the House of Commons on Tuesday..both for and against the Councils.

We put the issue up for debate with Baroness Cox, who raised a motion against Sharia law in the House of Lords today, and Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadan Foundation in the UK"

Veiling Islam's Sexism: What the BBC tells the kids

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Dhimmified for Oil: Ffion Jenkins (Mrs William Hague)

Some say that just as England once colonized the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, and the Far East that now, the favor is being returned; the Islamic world is giving the colonizing Mother Country a taste of its own well deserved medicine.

Tragically, this means that infidel women are sexual prey; that their rape, sexual harassment, and sexual slavery is being done quite openly, publicly--just as it is done in the Muslim world....

Will Britain, will all Europe, fight to remain Western countries? Or, hoisted on their own petard of political correctness, will they simply become vassal states of Islam?'

From BBC hack Paul Danahar's Twitter page

And in Britain no entity is more politically correct, more ready to bang the drum for Islam, than the national broadcaster, dear old "Auntie", the BBC.

Among the various non-broadcasting initiatives that the feather-bedded BBC provides with all the money it accrues from hapless licence-payers is a "service" called BBC Bitesize, in which it provides teenagers with information connected with exams.

Among these Bitesize portions are topics related to "Religious Studies". And within that range, the attitudes of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism (in that order) towards "Prejudice and Discrimination" are described.

Under the heading "Inequality in the Christian Church", the British national broadcaster has absolutely no qualms about telling the kids (emphasis added):

Many people think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

The teaching of St Paul is often quoted to support the way some churches today treat women. From the extracts below, it would seem that he believed that the role of women was different to that of men, and secondary to it.

St Paul said:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7

Jesus, however, always showed by his actions that he respected and valued women. He included them among his closest companions, and sometimes went against the conventions of his time which kept men and women apart. Jesus made it clear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan how his followers should treat people – he made no distinction between men and women.

Some Christian denominations have recently begun to allow women to be priests or ministers (eg, Church of England and the Methodist church). Some remain opposed to this (eg, the Roman Catholic Church). Some Christians believe that women are second to men, that men should lead and women should follow (see 1 Timothy 2:8–15).

So although Christianity teaches that everyone should be equal and should be treated the same, this doesn't always happen.

"Fair enough," I hear you say. "That's an accurate and objective summary."

How about this, regarding  "Attitudes to women in Judaism" (emphasis added)?:

"The Tenakh (Jewish Bible) and the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara collected together) describe different roles for men and women.

Traditionally women have a sacred role - they bear children, run the home and take responsibility for their children’s Jewish upbringing. The woman passes on Jewish values and it is because of the mother’s Jewish faith (not the father’s) that a child is born Jewish.

While Jewish law excuses women from some religious duties (eg, they don’t have to wear the tzizit and tefillin) there are some duties that women are obliged to carry out like the lighting the Shabbat candles. (Shabbat is the day of spiritual renewal and rest commencing at sunset on Friday, terminating at nightfall on Saturday.)

Some people say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodox services and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewish women today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men and choose to combine a career with family responsibilities.

Progressive Jews (which includes Jews of both liberal and reform traditions) think that this attitude is wrong and treat women equally in all respects, so they too can become rabbis (Jewish teacher) if they choose to do so."

 Okay so far?

On the basis of the above, we are entitled to expect that BBC Bitesize will tell the kids a little of the sexism inherent in Islam.

However, in sections such as Marriage and Divorce it avoids the sexist bits, and this is what we find, in the section "Islam: prejudice and discrimination" under the heading "Attitudes towards women":

 "Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for a woman to look after the home and family.

Some of these differences and responsibilities are mentioned in the following words from the Qur’an:

O Prophet, direct thy wives and daughters and the women of the believers that they should pull down their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. This will make it possible for them to be distinguished so that they will not be molested. Surah 33:59

Wives have rights corresponding to those which the husbands have, in equitable reciprocity, though, in certain situations men would have the final word and would thus enjoy a preference. Surah 2:229

Men are appointed guardians over women, because of that in respect of which Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend of their wealth. Surah 4:35

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said: Paradise lies at the feet of your mother. (Sunan An-Nasa’i)"

Nice little bit of propaganda there, huh?  Not one honest mention of Islam's sexism, let alone the misogyny that that infuses it and makes Saul of Tarsus/St Paul look like a Sensitive New Age guy in comparison.

In reality, this is what UK Islam's attitude to women looks like (as set out in this important British document of 2012, of which the BBC, if it's worth its salt the enormous amount of public money it gathers via a compulsory poll tax cannot be ignorant).

Note the testimony regarding the oppression of women in Islamic law as set out by female victims of sharia courts operating in Britain and by conultants including such scholars of Islam as the Australian Dr Mark Durie.

See, for instance, this:

"Women’s rights are compromised by the operation of Sharia law in the UK. Sharia Councils often permit polygamy. Men have multiple Nikahs (Muslim marriages) and have multiple wives to gain sex and/or money. Polygamy is not about protecting women.

If women marry through an Imam and they eventually have a problem with their marriage, they will be forced to go back to an Imam and discuss the problem; these women feel intimidated. Many women are unable to discuss their personal issues with an Imam; they feel embarrassed and do not feel comfortable talking to a total stranger about personal issues.

I am in contact with large numbers of women who have a language barrier. They are not in contact with the wider community and they have no understanding of the laws available to them. Instead they believe the lies that their husbands tell them. These women, unable to speak English, are tied to unhappy marriages and have no way of accessing their rights.

If a legal dispute arises they go to a Sharia Council and consult an Imam, they are not aware of the English legal system, nor are they ever informed of their rights under English laws.

Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution that they suffered in their home country. They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The Government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.

For these reasons I am totally against Sharia law in the UK. The law should not be left to religious men to manipulate women in a democratic state. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that everyone in the UK submits to the law equally. I am worried because the Government and people outside the Muslim community are frightened to address sensitive issues like Sharia law, when the wellbeing of the majority is more important that the sensitivity of the minority....

 Shaikh Haitham al-Haddad is a member of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Sharia Council ‘judge’ in London. In a speech entitled "Why Marriages Fail" Shaikh a-Haddad made the following observation: "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves. Even the father of the daughter who is married to the man, he should not ask his daughter why you have been beaten or hit by your husband".

 (Note also this statement:  "People argue that Sharia Councils should be allowed to operate in Britain because Britain allows Beth Din systems, but Jewish Law does not affect mainstream life as much as Sharia Law which aims to control rather than simply affect mainstream life".  Emphasis added)

As Professor Dennis MacEoin, another very respected expert, points out in "Sharia Law or One Law for All?", a paper for the Civitas thinktank in 2009:

"a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam (such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man);  polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is legal: a man may divorce his wife without telling her about it, provided he does not seek to sleep with her; a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for that); a woman may not stay with her husband if he leaves Islam; non-Muslims may be deprived of their share in an inheritance; a divorce does not require witnesses (a man may divorce his wife and send her away even if no one else knows about it); re-marriage requires the wife to marry, have sex with, and be divorced by another man; a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce (which may be initiated arbitrarily by her husband); sharia law must override the judgements of British courts; rights of child custody may differ from those in UK law; taking up residence in a non-Muslim country except for limited reasons is forbidden;  taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; it is undesirable to rent an apartment belonging to a Christian church; a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia; employment by driving a taxi is prohibited; it is allowable to be a police officer, provided one is not called upon to do anything contrary to the sharia; women are restricted in leaving their homes and driving cars; an adult woman may not marry anyone she chooses; sharia law of legitimacy contradicts the Legitimacy Act 1976;  a woman may not leave her home without her husband's consent (a restriction that may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden;  a man may coerce his wife to have sex; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl);  a civil marriage may be considered invalid;  sharia law takes priority over secular law (for example, a wife may not divorce her husband in a civil court); fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty;  recommendation of severe punishments for homosexuals;  a woman's recourse to fertility treatment is discouraged;  a woman cannot marry without the presence and permission of a male guardian (wali); if a woman's 'idda (three months, to determine whether or not she is pregnant) has expired and she no longer has marital relations with her husband, he is excused alimony payments;  an illegitimate child may not inherit from his/her father."

It would be unreasonable to expect a megillah on the BBC Bitesize website regarding Islam's sexist attitude to women, but we are entitled to honesty, to at least some indication of how Islam disadvantages females.

So how is the BBC's whitewashing of Islam in its attitude towards women to be explained?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a Muslim, Aaquil Ahmed, is the BBC's Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion and Ethics?

 Or is it because the left-liberals who dominate Al Beeb despise the Judeo-Christian heritage and save their barbs for that?

 Or is it due to a combination of both?

 Here, by the way, is what some American Muslims replied when asked whether Sharia should  supersede the US Constitution:

(hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Meanwhile, in a must-read article in the current Quadrant, Australia's conservative intellectual magazine, regarding the secularised and myopic West's facilitation of Islamic dreams of hegemony, Jim Campbell notes:

"Perhaps the most dangerous misconception that has gained some traction is the notion that Islamic and Christian values, and by default secular democratic values, are similar. This was suggested recently by a professor of religious studies no less, and on the ABC’s Q&A program [analogous to the BBC's Question Time] by a Muslim guest.

 The most astonishing aspect was not the theological invalidity of the statements, but that no member of the panel or of the audience sought to take issue with the assertion. That silence said a lot about Australia’s spiritual immaturity, as nothing could be further from the truth, as the precepts of Islam and Christianity are diametric opposites. Islam pits Muslims against non-Muslims; Christianity instructs followers to love their neighbors as themselves

 Islam’s aim is the subjugation of all to the God of the Qur’an; Christianity asks people to consider the claims of the God of the Bible and make personal decisions. Islam offers salvation through the coercive performance of “good deeds”; Christianity’s salvation comes through faith in promises of the God of the Bible.

 Are these differences important? They should be for the West, whose secular democracy is founded on the precepts of the Bible. On this issue the West is myopic behind its rose-coloured glasses."

Goes quite a way to explaining Al Beeb's stance, I reckon.