Nasties, Nitwits & Nutjobs (videos)

The hypocrisy of the anti-Israel anti-patriarchy "pro-Palestinian" Western feministas knows few or no bounds, so I suppose they're more than comfortable with this:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOP-MdCsMk8

How about this indoctrination of young minds by the fiends of Hamas, though? Yes, the video's deveral years old, but what was taught in it presumably corrupted some youngsters, who in turn will  transmit what was learned to their own some day. (Warning: distressing scenes of cruelty to animals, despite that much-repeated story of The Prophet loving cats so much that he once cut off his sleeve rather than disrurb a sleeping feline).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ExZVimjST8

Meanwhile, catch the UK-based Neturei Karta nut Elhanan Beck propagandising for the enemy on Al Quds Day this year:

Another Neturei Karta nut:

 Much more re this year's Al Quds Day in lockdown on David Collier's blog here

"Don't Let Sharia Spread in America" (video)

A former victim of Iranian misogyny tells:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuQZ19Om1JA&fbclid

"Islam is a Feminist Religion"? No Way!!!

Don't let the apologists pull a veil over your eyes!

This young gentleman tells.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEbr7a_070

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.

"If Sharia Law Ever Were To Formally Become Part of Our Legal System It Would Not Exit That Legal System Quietly": A British lawyer's chilling warning

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/letter-to-the-justice-ministry-on-sharia-law-from-anne-marie-waters/

Rejoice, rejoice!  (And if you're female, dance a jig.)  A fightback has begun in Britain against the creeping inroads of the Islamic injustice system.  Britain's bulldog spirit is not yet dead! At least not on the part of some of the country's best and brightest, a number of whom (and this comes as no surprise, given the inferior status of women in Islamic law and practice) are female.

Yesterday, on the premises of the British House of Lords, a crucial new initiative called "Sharia Watch UK" was launched, and not before time.

As reported here (where several useful relevant links such as this are posted):

'The new organisation will campaign for recognition of the dangers posed by sharia law in the UK, particularly in relation to women’s rights.... The event was hosted by Baroness Caroline Cox who has campaigned against the use of sharia law in tribunals and councils across the UK.  Lady Cox has argued that sharia law “undermines the most fundamental principles of equality enshrined in British law” in respect of its treatment of women.

The new Sharia Watch UK web resource aims to highlight the impact of Islamism in Britain, and the often hidden face of is proponents.  Sharia tribunals and councils currently operate a system of family law in the UK which denies women unilateral divorce rights – even in cases of domestic violence.  Sharia family law also denies child custody to women and treats their testimony as worth less than that of their husbands....

Sharia Watch UK will show the public, and our political leaders, the extent of the threat that sharia and Islamic extremism pose to the rights and freedoms of women, freedom of speech, and democratic principles....'

 Concurrent with the launch, a report entitled "Sharia Law – Britain’s Blind Spot", has appeared:

 'It]analyses the beliefs of apparently “mainstream” Muslim organisations and argues that such beliefs represent an extremist view and should be regarded as such.  Some of the senior figures involved in these groups advocate not only sharia law, but “jihad” against non-Muslims.  Furthermore, they express a desire for a full Islamic state – including barbaric punishments – in Britain.  Such groups have been represented as “moderate” and endorsed by the legacy media and mainstream public figures.'

At the launch of the new initiative, Charlie Klendjian, Secretary of the Lawyers' Secular Society (LSS)  made an impressive must-read speech, in which he noted inter alia:

".... Political Islam, a crucial plank of which is sharia law, presents what we can calmly describe as “a unique set of challenges” for the 21st century.

Sharia law is perhaps the most serious political, legal, moral and social issue we face – and when I say “we” I do not mean lawyers, or secularists, but sadly humanity itself.

I am very pleased that this group has been set up, and with the participation of parliamentarians, because a political response is sorely needed to what is essentially a political threat, and a very grave one, to our way of life.

To the extent there’s any consensus on sharia law amongst our politicians at the present time it’s a consensus, at best, of collective head‐burying in sand and at worst, a consensus of positively encouraging and facilitating sharia law; of giving it the oxygen it craves.

This worrying trend must be reversed, and at some tempo, and I hope today might be the beginning of that process ....

Through the work of Baroness Cox and Anne Marie Waters, and many other fine individuals, we have seen the mayhem that sharia law is already creating in our jurisdiction – and remember, this is when it has the status of theology.

We know that women and children routinely have their fundamental legal rights violated in sharia councils, be it because of duress, because of an inequality of bargaining power, or because of a simple ignorance of their rights under English law. And so we can ask another question: “If this is the mayhem created when sharia law has the status of theology, dare we imagine what kind of mayhem it might create as law?"....

Make no mistake, if sharia law ever were to formally become part of our legal system it would not exit that legal system quietly. Indeed, this country might even require some form of civil disorder or something akin to a violent revolution to remove sharia law from our legal system.

Once sharia law is formally within our legal system there will follow a process of contagion to other areas of our legal system.

This is as inevitable as day following night.

It will spread to the criminal law.

And to those who dismiss these fears as pie‐in‐the‐sky, tabloid scare‐mongering, or “illinformed”, and who say, “Charlie, this could never happen, you’re just being silly now”, I say this: I didn’t think the Law Society would issue Sharia guidance on how to discriminate against women and non‐Muslims. Did you?”....'  [Emphasis added]

 Read all of Charlie Klendjian's important, admirable, courageous speech here

Lady In Red: The Sex Slave Bride In The New Egypt (video)

This blog focuses on topics relevant to Israel, and only occasionally strays into other areas.  This is one of those occasions. The video you are about to see is in Arabic, and shows something not salacious but profoundly shocking all the same.  The Christian scholar Raymond Ibrahim explains:

'Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi showed a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his slave. Before making the woman, who has a non-Egyptian accent, repeat after him the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas, instead of saying the usual "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you" .... Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared that she is forbidden from such trappings and commanded her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, by Muslim standards, a seductive red dress....

 The man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, who identified himself as an Islamic scholar who studied at Al Azhar and an expert at Islamic jurisprudence, then appeared on the show, giving several Islamic explanations to justify his marriage....

According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to wear a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed....

 Awn further went on to declare that he believes the idea of sex slave marriage is ideal for today's Egyptian society....

The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor in Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to "repent," to stop dishonoring Islam, and arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery"—to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What—because the UN said so?"  ....'

Read all of Raymond Ibrahim's article about this unsavoury circumstance here.

Oppression: A Saudi Princess Speaks Out

Al Beeb on its website carries excerpts from a radio interview on the BBC World Service with a genuine Saudi princess, resident in London.  These excerpts focus on the institutionalised oppression and infantilisation of women in the desert kingdom.  In the course of these remarks relating to women she also touches on other aspects of Saudi society  –  the fossilised educational curriculum and the endemic poverty encompassing much of society –  which she emphasises must also be changed.

For example:

'The content of the syllabus is extremely dangerous. For one, our young are taught that a woman's position in society is inferior. Her role is strictly limited to serving her family and raising children. They are actually taught that if a woman has to worship anyone other than God it should be her husband; "that the angels will curse her if she is not submissive to her husband's needs". Girls are also strictly forbidden from taking part in any physical education. This is a result of a complete misinterpretation of the Koran. I consider these ideologies to be inherently abusive.

 Aside from that, the focus in most of our educational system is on religious subjects such as hadith (sayings attributed to the prophet), Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), tafssir (interpretation of the Koran) and of course the Koran. The attitude is that "learning itself, anything other than religion won't get you into heaven so don't waste your time". I would like to see religious teaching limited to the Koran and the Sunna (the way the prophet lived), where the true ethics of Islam lie. The rest is blind rote learning of the most dangerous kind. It has left our youth vulnerable to fundamentalist ideologies that have led to terrorism and abuse of the true meaning of the Koran....

The ministry of social affairs is tolerating cruelty towards women rather than protecting them. The only refuge homes that abused women can turn to are state ones. In these, women are continuously told that by seeking refuge they have brought shame on their families. 

If they come from powerful families then they will be sent straight back to their homes in fear of the wrath of a powerful patriarch. As a result we have seen many cases of suicide by educated women, doctors and scientists who were sent back to their abusers.

 We need independent women's refuges where the rights of women are upheld and backed up by powerful laws that can override family traditions and protect women.

The ministry of social affairs not only abuses women's rights but is also one of the reasons poverty is rife in the kingdom. A corrupt system that lacks transparency has meant that more than 50% of our population is poor and needy even though we are one of the wealthiest countries on earth....'

It may be that Al Beeb is not squeamish about freely publicising these comments since they refer to a country that is a key ally of the West.

But the formalised oppression of women is prevalent in other parts of the Islamic world as well, and given the de facto existence of numerous sharia courts in Britain, which aren't renowned for being run by New Age guys, we don't have to travel to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to find it.

Moreover, I suspect that so-called "Asian" gangs who in Britain and other parts of northern Europe groom vulnerable under-age white girls for sexual abuse are acting on an ingrained premise that females are inherently inferior (and in all likelihood on the further premise that by sexually possessing these girls they are getting revenge on their former colonial masters, symbolised by the white fathers who, being male, "own" the girls).

Yet with honourable exceptions (there must be some, surely?) the Israel-demonising lefties regardless of gender are wilfully blind to all this.

Or at least wilfully shtum about it.

They misdirect their spleen at Israel.

What a bunch of hypocrites (to put it no stronger) they are.

Women Oppressed Under Islam? Show Some "Sensitivity", Mr Littman (video)

David G. Littman, representing the World Union for Progressive Judaism, condemned the oppression of women in the Islamic world in a forceful speech before the United Nations Human Rights Council  last month.

The president of the UNHRC, Sihasak Phuangketkeow, from Thailand, was, however, less than impressed:

"Can I remind the speaker that, you know, we're here to discuss human rights issues and when we raise issues of religion I think we have to do so with sensitivity and understanding... sensitivity... I hope that the speaker will be mindful of this when he takes the floor next time."

Oy!

I wonder what Mr Phuangketkeow would make of this ghastly report from India, about a Pakistani pater familias in the Punjab who has murdered his six daughters in front of their mother.  Two of the girls, the father suspected, had been associating with college boys from the neighbourhood, and their four sisters had known about it.

Solution: death by gunfire for all six, his male "honour" restored, and his conscience clear, for he is reported to have no regrets, and would do it all over again if need be.  http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-man-kills-six-daughters-for-honour/Article1-726694.aspx

Hat tips: Vlad Tepes blog and Juniper in the Desert blog, respectively.

The Suffering of Women in Syria (video)

Yes, it's funny (peculiar, not ha-ha) that the keffiyeh-wearing chicks and other Western lefties who just love to rant and rave against Israel turn a deaf ear to disclosures like this.

Their silence wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there are no Jews to demonise, I suppose.