Ban Blair-Baiting
Comment at end
30th June, 2009
The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy of a country where it seems few wear the burqa, has thrown the cat among the proverbial. Glad to see some European leader has the guts!
The French parliament is expected to consider both the burqa, as above, where the eyes are covered by a fabric mesh, and the niqab, which has an eye slit. (Reuters)
THE EYES BEHIND THE BLACKNESS
I caught a TV audience discussion programme on Sunday, The Big Questions, where the (male) anchorman, Nicky Campbell asked the eyes sitting behind the blackness (paraphrased) -
“You say it is to stop men ‘lusting after you.’ In Britain where we believe in equality, why don’t we men wear them, in case the women here lust after us?”
The niqab-wearing woman, Um Abdullah, was dumbstruck for some time, eventually saying something to the effect, “I hadn’t thought of that.”
She said her mode of dress was a requirement of her religion, Islam. She insisted that she had chosen to wear it by her own free will, and hadn’t been forced by others, mainly men. Quite how it can be a “requirement” but one can at the same time CHOOSE must be logic subtlety hidden to all but those behind the blackness, and their masters.
David Cameron, Conservative leader, said yesterday that niqabs like this, showing only the eyes, are quite acceptable in Britain! Wrong again, Mr Cameron.
A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE?
The women’s rights argument is argued forcefully by both sides. Forget the facile “women’s rights” debate. That is circular and can be used BOTH ways. It is also meant to appeal to the confused PC brigade. Many of us in Britain have had enough of their confusion.
On that same programme a British non-Muslim academic who had studied Islam and the koran for 40 years in BOTH Arabic and English insisted that only “modest dress” is called for in the koran rather than the ‘body bag’. He was told by some idiot who thought he’d read the mysterious koran better to go off and study Islam for another 40 years.
SAFEGUARD MUSLIM CHILDREN’S HEALTH
These women are also robbing their own bodies of vitamin D which the rest of us soak up from sunlight. How many weakened immune systems result from this, costing our National Health Service millions to try to remedy? How many generations of girls are being subjected to illnesses because of this? Is THAT protecting their RIGHTS and those of their daughters?
MEN’S RIGHTS
The burka/niqab is intimidating, is threatening, is separatist, is a generational health threat to females, is a sign of inequality and can be used as a disguise by men with criminal intent. (Its use by Islamist men, suspected or intending terrorists to disguise themselves and pass through customs is well recorded.)
Above all, these modes of dress are insulting to MEN.
Don’t flatter yourselves, my dear Pairs of Eyes, that you are SO-O-O-O irresistibly attractive that you and all men need this kind of medieval protection. Not in Britain you don’t. Can’t speak for the sexual fantasies of all Middle East men, of course!
And, since you insist it is YOUR choice, don’t insult men by insisting that you are so attractive. Modesty, in the good old-fashioned British way is wider that this. It encompasses more than just sex-obsessed certainties.
YOU’RE NOT OUR TYPE
The bad news for you, burqa/niqab inhabitants is that you are certainly NOT attractive in any way to most men in Britain, covered or, possibly, uncovered.
This insult to non-Muslim men, indeed even Muslim men in Britain must stop. It’s time British men of all religions and none stood up and said so.
This is OUR country first, second and last, with a liberal western culture you moved here to (presumably) embrace. If there was ANY other reason for coming here, explain it. Or ask your menfolk – then work it out.
Women in our British culture do not hide themselves away, nor do they need to, from the presumably sex-mad male population. If you don’t like it – leave. There are many countries more suited to your medieval, primitive beliefs.
Our liberalism has had and has given ENOUGH.
Also debated today on Woman’s Hour, BBC Radio 4, with the very same Um Abdullah holding forth. (Visit the site to listen again for 7 days.)
To summarise – I consider myself pretty liberal as regards social mores. But with the spread of the burqa in MY country, Britain, I think it is clear we got it wrong – VERY wrong.
It’s simple: to any Muslim woman who wants to live here – leave the ‘body bag’ behind. You won’t have to ask your husband if he’s OK with that, as it is YOUR choice, you keep telling us.
This form of dress has NO place in our society, none whatsoever. Just as shorts and t-shirt would have no place for western women on the streets of Saudi Arabia. Our women would not dream of wearing such apparel in strict Islamic dress-code lands. WE in Britain now need to insist on the same kind of restrictions here.
The alternative is clear.
Burqa/niqab clad women in Britain need to choose AGAIN.
Choose wisely.
Is this photo session a set-up? Of course not. It’s just a waste of a camera click and a waste of female lives. DREADFUL STUFF.
Thanks to BlairFoundation Blogspot for the mention.
[Please note, neither this site nor, I presume, Blair Foundation Blaogspot, claim to reflect Mr Blair's personal beliefs on this, or indeed on any issue, except where quoting from his actual, or, as reported words. Despite the blog name I can assure you that this site is NOT an extension of Mr Blair's thought processes.]
RELATED
Muslim schoolgirls have been told to remove their niqab face veils on a visit to a Catholic school in Jack Straw’s constituency today. Their teacher refused to remove hers, setting an interesting example. She was not permitted entry. That’s a start. From now on – NO ENTRY to Britain for burqa wearers, please. The mainstream party which adopts this policy may well get my vote in the next election. Also see The Mail report here.
Tags: ban burka, body bag, bodybag burka, burka, burqa, Muslims, Nicky Campbell, niqab, no place in French society, Sarkozy, schoolgirls removed bukhas, Sharia, teacher refused to remove burkha, The Big Questions, Woman's Hour
September 4, 2009 at 9:42 am |
Oh dear, a ‘hot’ wanna be perve recruiting for the Islamo-fascists ROFLMAO
Well, Blair friend, makes a change from your usual “customers” and their “concerns” – eh?
September 4, 2009 at 9:45 am |
I must say I would rather ban high heel shoes, calamitous for health and sometimes used as weapons, wether inadvertently or no.
September 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
But you don’t smuggle explosives onto planes inside high heels – oh, hang on. There was a shoe-bomber, a man, who tried to do that. Thus we all have to take off our shoes before boarding a plane. And today there is an ogoing trial in the liquid explosives case.
What have they got in common – ?
Islamists.
September 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
Ban the kilt? Yarmulkas? Turbans on Sikhs?
September 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
“What is worn under the kilt! – nothing, it’s all in fine working order”
OK, an old joke, but the point is the same one that I have made in another comment response.
It amounts to this – thus the suspicion on the distancing and disguise capabilities of the burka:
Only Islamists are attacking the world right now, and sometimes dressed as women hidden under a burka. A FARCICAL position from which to call “God is on our side”.
I rest my case.
September 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
Clearly, or preferably unclearly, what isn’t worn under The Kilt, leaves considerable potential for insult in the current weather.
September 5, 2009 at 10:34 am |
A wee joke, eh, QZ at the expense of we Scots.
;0)
A joke from the Muslim lady – ANY joke would be elucidating and a welcome change. A lack of the ability to self-mock is a lack of dispassionate judgement.
September 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
While the islamo-fascists are close to a world wide phenomenon, it is quite clear that jewish-fascist terrorists, qua Israel’s armed forces, have recently been attacking Palestinians, including women and children, in Gazza.
September 4, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
If we look at the misconceptions most “whites” had re the position of “Red Indian” women when they were negotiating with the Indians in Victorian times I think we shoud realise that it is likely that we in out time misunderstand the roles of muslim women.
It is easy to take a simplistic and mistaken view.
There is no doubt that in some societies where muslims predominate, women and girls do get a very raw deal in certain respects, and I hope that the changes already in train are reinforced in, for example, Afghanistan in time.
To ban the burka here makes almost no sense in my view; a liberal. plural society should be setting a good, tolerant example, rather than insisting on the sort of restrictions which the most conservative and reactionary muslim societies would see as reflections of their own worst failings.
September 4, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
We’ve been here before, QZ, as you will recall.
My differences with Islam, and where it is CLEAR as day to many of us they are a whole different issue from “Red Indians”! is that no other “religion” (and you KNOW this is a political religion) threatens the rest of the world. (Or at least PARTS of it threaten the whole world.)
You often use the term ‘Islamo-Fascists’ and it is clear you recognise there is an issue. But to me you are being as “blind” to the facts as many others if you think most moderate Muslims can just turn a blind eye to this fundamentalism as though it had NOTHING to do with them.
Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, they insist that WE accept THEIR ways in OUR lands even if they are medieval and unacceptabe to FREE peoples everywhere.
They are happy to accept OUR freedoms but not other strictures upon them.
When any political party or leader speaks the truth about this threat and the Islamist “truths” we are being made to swallow wholesale – in other words their LIES, I will find someone for whom I can vote.
Btw, what do you think of that woman telling you and me that Britain is NOT our land?
I’ll await your response with interest, QZ.
September 4, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
The burka issue is not simply a part of the islamo-fascist issue.
It is unfair to the muslims who warned me about the islamo-fascists I was working with to suggest that they avoid helping deal with their lunatic fringe. The principal.responsibility for such scunners is with the guilty, not other muslims. And the Iraqis and Afghans who have fought to protect their increasingly (usually) liberal ways deserve praise, not some uniform condemnation.
I am wearing old glasses, would have to re-read the Muslim lady’s posts again, not now.
We don’t own Great Britain, we belong to her if we so choose in my view. And her plurality is key.
September 5, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Yes, I DO take that point, QZ. But that will not prevent me from pointing out what I have pointed out before:
1. That the lack of an overall authoritative head at the top of Islam means that there is free and widely differing interpretations of Islam, and that NONE can be considered “wrong”, just “different”. Thus Anjem Choudary and his ilk will “defend ANY Muslim brother” against the rest of us. ANY, 9/11, 7/7 killers and all.
2. Point 1 means that the religion itself does not take overall responsibility for its wayward fundamentalists. And countries are too afraid of being descibed as anti-Muslim. SOFT, soft, soft and dangerous from both Islam and the world’s states.
As to ‘owning’ Britain – inasmuch as Islam’s caliphate ambitions mean that Islam thinks IT owns Britain or will … sorry, friend, over my dead body.
September 4, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
i must say you response is very weak.
i would like to mention in christanity adulteresses are also to be killed and it is not just in islam! and here are the sources!
its just modern chrisitanity has convieniently decided to leave these laws out and claim how babaraic islam is! all major 3 religions islam, judaism and chrisitanity all have laws regarding crime and punishment. But it seems only islamic laws are practised in its entirety
Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”
Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
Proverbs 6:32 “But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself.” He destroys himself by being put to death as shown above.
Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” Why should only a daughter of a priest gets burnt to death if she profanes herself? Why can’t this law apply to all daughters?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” This doesn’t make any sense what so ever! Why should the woman get her hands cut off for defending her husband? It’s not like she was cheating on him or anything like that!
regarding islam, when adultery takes place 4 witness must be present to view the action before the punishment can be put it into place. making it difficult to reach that scale. i can say that today no muslim country truly practices the sharia law as it should be which is why there are alot of injustices.
i dont really understand why you want us to shed our clothes when there are numerous british expats who can dress however they want in the uae, with no one telling them to cover up! it seems you are only viewing one side of the sitaution and creating a ” them and us” divide when thousands of british mulsims can flock to muslim countries like malyasia, indonesia, egypt, uae etc and can be allowed to drink, dress and eat how they like! and are treated as citizens and allowed to intergrate into society.
and your comment about islam trying to dominate the world, isn’t christanity and judaism trying to do the same?. look at history, the crusades that took place and look at today the fight for jurasalem by all 3 major religions. all 3 religions claim the truth and seek dominance so do not try to make it out as islam is the only one! there are prophecies in judaism and christanity about the end times , messiahs and world dominance just as they are in islam.
but it seems making islam look “evil” is just one competiton out of the way for you guys.
you talk about “us” taking away your land but what about the our land the british so freely gave away through the balfour declaration. i dont think the people of plaestine had wanted there country to be taken over and be given what looks like a collection of dots on the map. And years later nothing has been done about it. it seems your actions have come back to bite you. so quit the complaining!!!! you want Britian to be a christian nation? i do not think that will ever happen with all the countries you have colonized. Britain will be a country with all sorts of religions and beliefs.
to the other commentator who stated muslim women wear “body bags” to perve at men what a laughable comment. i don’t know whether you wear seeking humour or just plain stupid.
we all wear it for different reasons and if you still believe it because of men believe what you want to, each to their own. no matter how many women say it is because of their own free will, whether in millions, billions or trillions you will be still set on your own ways
just ponder over why society is able to coincide with religions but is unable to coincide with islam? Its because falsehood is able to coincide with falsehood, its just another brand, but falsehood will always unite to fight against truth whenever truth is aparent. As the Almighty Lord of all mankind stated ”Indeed truth has come and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish” Qur’aan 17:81 and again ”They intend to extinguish the light of Allah (Islam) with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light even though the disbelievers hate it” Qur’aan 61:8
Then ask yourself why over 1000 white europeans accept islam as their way of life every year (with three times more woman becoming muslim than men)? Again, because it is the truth.
My aim isnt to engage in an arguement with you, rather my aim is to clarify the truth, Islam is the truth and the only success in this life and the next, if you accept it you succeed and save yourself from the helfire and if you reject it then you only harm yourself and you do not harm Allah in the least. your ramblings and islam-facism will not harm us at all.
September 5, 2009 at 11:17 am |
I must say your response is rubbish, lies, unenlightened (take your pick.)
As before you emphasise the truth of my points by your reference to ancient scriptures. WE DO NOT PRACTICE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR ADULTERY IN CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM ANYWHERE IN MODERN TIMES.
Your nonsensical brand of your cruel religion does – I’ll repeat that – your nonsensical brand of your cruel religion DOES.
Christians do not kill adulterers of any gender. As I have mentioned before ancient scribes were written by ancient scribblers. Their “truths” have moved on – thank any God you believe in.
As for this – are you serious? –
You are actually saying that Sharia is letting you and your cronies down by NOT executing more adulterers?
You are attempting to mislead my readers here.
It is only when a woman claims she is raped that FOUR men – repeat MEN – must witness it! ‘Gang rape’ we call that here. And then only then can the WOMAN be found to have been raped if the FOUR male witnesses agree that she was raped!!!! CRAZY misogynist nonsense. As for adultery – women are invariably dealt with with much less leniency than the other half of the aulterous due – THE MAN. Deny that and we will have it confirmed, if we needed such confirmation, that you are a starneger to the truth.
Islam is misogynist in MOST ways as it is practised, even today.
There is NO other religion which preaches worldwide domination. Only Islam. Islam is NOT a just another religion but a POLITICISED and RELIGIOUS CONTROL system.
Pont of information: there are more people leaving Islam and becoming Christian every year than vice-versa. But of course your crowd will never admit to this apostacy. You just quietly do away with the apostates with as little publicity as possible.
If you think the world finds it hard to come to terms with Islam, look inside yourselves. It is NOT because your way is the truth, but the exact opposite.
As for “truth” – some suggest that Islam may well be the biggest LIE that has ever been perpetrated on a gullible world.
Do intelligent and informed people a favour and clear off and argue in a place with more susceptible minds. This is NOT such a place.
Personally I’d rather roast in ‘hell’ for an eternity than share any sort of afterlife with such narrow, self-opinionated and hate-filled minds as yours.
P.S. Robert Spencer has written a book – “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”
Some may think it odd that as a Blair Supporter (and yes, I still am) should point readers to this. But I consider Mr Spencer a source of interesting thoughts on Islam, its ambitions, desires and basis for belief. In the interests of free speech and understanding perhaps some might be interested in reading this book. Especially so when we are often told that reading ANY translation of the Koran is NOT the same as reading it in the original! A useful Catch 22, don’t you think?
In other words we might as well read what others who have read the Quran deduce that it means, since the meaning (to ‘para-quote’ my vicar with regard to God) is all “beyond our comprehension”.
September 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm |
Wake up burkha wearer!
The burkha is only a tool of oppression and a symbol of male domination.
I am wondering if you possess a devote vein?!
You know what it’s like with a horse. People put it blinders on to keep the horse focused on what you want it to focus on.You try to isolate it from the world around.The burkha isn’t any better.
You are owned by men!
September 5, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
As I may have inferred the high heeled show – “f me shoes” as Germain Greer put it – are far more of a menace and self imposed item of female submission than the burka.
To walk in them a woman must stick her chest out and tense her back. This might be thought to draw attention to some of her secondary sexual characteristics.
They need no explosives to be dangerous, exerting however many tons per square centimetres on the foot or dance floor on which they tread.
They wreck the feet of those who wear them.
On the other side a burka is a healthy garment, loose fitting clothes are best in most situations. I may adopt it myself.
September 6, 2009 at 10:53 am |
Are you missing my points about the burka on purpose, QZ?
It is not in comparison to high-heel shoes or any other item of clothing that it is, imho, a questionable item of clothing, but in its ability to distance others, to hide TRUE intent, even gender, and to by its very nature impose a societal norm on an entire culture which is alien to that developed culture, that of the second-class citizen.
As for you wearing the burka – suits you, Sir.