Muslims in veils are like 'American Negroes' who supported slavery, French minister says

Imagine that. Someone told the truth.

A French minister for women's rights is under fire for what critics describe as a doubly offensive comparison of Muslim women who wear head coverings to American slaves who she said supported their own subjugation. 

In a Wednesday interview on the TV channel BFM, Laurence Rossignol criticized clothing companies such as H&M, Uniqlo and Dolce & Gabbana for offering products catered to Muslim women who partially cover their heads, faces, feet or hands, according to the France24 news channel. 

The interviewer then noted that some Muslim women wear such clothing by choice. "Of course there are women who choose it," Rossignol replied. "There were American Negroes who were in favor of slavery." 

The comments immediately elicited a forceful reaction on French social media over both the use of the word "Negroes" and the suggestion that Muslim women who wear such clothing embrace the curtailing of their rights, according to the BBC. 

The word Rossignol used to refer to black American slaves is particularly incendiary, even in French, which offers less-offensive alternatives. Rossignol initially defended her use of the word "Negroes." 

Although she later described it as a mistake, she refused to walk back her comments about the Islamic clothing. 

"The word Negro is a pejorative word that is now only used in order to evoke slavery in reference to the abolitionist work of Montesquieu, 'On the Enslavement of Negroes,' " she told BuzzFeed France, referring to the Enlightenment philosopher. 

"There is thus no provocation on my part, nor any desire to shock. It's a word that I would not use in any other circumstance. I underestimated that the reference was not clear."

In other words, FUCK YOU, IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE TRUTH!

SCOTUS Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch

Samantha Elauf and her mother Majda Elauf of Tulsa, Oklahoma, pose for photographers outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch February 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. | Getty

A victory for hijab wearing, and the only dissent was that of Justice Clarence Thomas:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday against the retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, 8-1, deciding that the company’s failure to accommodate a job applicant who wore a hijab violated civil rights law.

The clothing chain declined to hire Samantha Elauf in 2008 as a sales associate because her hijab violated the company’s “look policy,” which at the time prohibited employees from wearing head coverings. Elauf was never informed of the “look policy.” Elauf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....

Read the rest HERE.

Inch by inch, Islamic supremacism is ruling the day here in America.

It's almost as if 9/11 never happened!

Additional reading: Bowing to Islamic Supremacy (2012).

Canada: Prime Minister Harper Says, Face Veil Is From Anti-Woman Culture

Stupid Christian Woman Dresses Up In a Portable Concentration Camp For Lent, Wearing Hijab For 40 Days

What a dumb fucking bitch:

A blonde, blue-eyed Christian mum-of-two has decided to wear a Muslim hijab every time she goes out of the house during Lent to remind herself what it is like to be “other”. 

Jessey Eagan, children’s director for Imago Dei Church in Peoria, Illinois, said that in the US she was part of the majority as a white, middle class woman. “I want to remind myself what it feels like to be an outsider – ‘the other’… So, I’m practising hospitality this Lent by getting into the shoes (or hijab) of my Muslim friends and neighbours. 

“I feel this is especially important now as there is increasing animosity once again from (white) Americans towards Muslims in our communities, which honestly makes me nervous about the idea.” A Muslim friend offered her a choice of headscarves.

MICHELLE OBAMA REFUSES TO WEAR HIJAB IN SUCKY ARABIA, LOOKS DECIDEDLY UNHAPPY IN THEIR FUCKED-UP WORLD

Just like a real American should.

Gotta Say, I Kinda Admire Michelle Obama Today.

Saudi Arabian TV blurred out her face because she didn't wear the head covering.



Weasel Snippers has a whole bunch of photos of Michelle looking more than displeased with her surroundings.

THE SAUDIS ARE OUTRAGED:

First lady Michelle Obama faced backlash from Twitter users in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for not wearing a head covering during her brief visit there with the president. 

Obama wore loose-fitting clothes including a long blue jacket and dark pants while accompanying President Barack Obama during their four hours on the ground in Riyadh to offer condolences on the death of King Abdullah and for the president to meet with new King Salman. 

On Twitter, Saudis used a hashtag that translates to “#Michelle_Obama_Immodest” or “#Michelle_Obama_NotVeiled” to chastise the first lady for being disrespectful to Saudi traditions. 

Saudi Arabia has a strict dress code for women, who are instructed to wear black robes and head coverings at all times in public, though visitors to the country are not required to abide by the dress code. In 2011, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Abdullah in New York, she did not cover her face or hair. 

Nor did then-first lady Laura Bush during a 2006 visit with Abdullah in Saudi Arabia. 

Fuck the Saudis and fuck their whole stupid fucking family, their whole stupid fucking country, and their whole stupid fucking religion.

And that faggot Mohammed can lick my butt and suck on my balls.

Dearborn Woman Suing Police For Forcing Her To Remove Hijab When Placed Under Arrest

Local Muslim woman filing lawsuit against Dearborn Heights Police for forcing her to remove hijab during arrest

DEARBORN HEIGHTS - A 27-year-old local Muslim woman is filing a lawsuit against the Dearborn Heights Police department for forcing her to remove her hijab when she was arrested and booked for a traffic misdemeanor offense on July 9, 2014. 

Malak Kazan said she was humiliated by the department’s policy, which required her to remove her scarf when she was detained for driving on a suspended license. 

As part of the booking process, Kazan was asked to remove her hihab for her mug shot. Kazan allegedly expressed concern about the policy to the police men on duty, claiming it was a violation of her religion. 

She allegedly asked for a female police officer, but was told they couldn’t provide her with one. After growing frustration, Kazan was able to speak to a supervisor, who told her that removing head wear was part of the department’s policy and that she needed to comply or she would be further detained. 

Local Attorney Amir Makled from the Law Office of Cyril C. Hall, is filing the case at the U.S. District Court this week. He is demanding the department change its policy and is also seeking both compensatory and punitive damages for his client.

Burqa Poll: 38.14% of Muslims want to deny women the freedom to chose their own clothing

From Muslim Statistics:

38.14% (Mean) average would translate to 793,312,000 Muslims. The Muslim population worldwide in 2014 was estimated to be 2.08 billion people. The demand for women to wear a full covered cloak is not a religious obligation within Islam, but is a demand originating by extremist groups. 

Full body and face coverage with a Burka or Niqab is a dress created to warn women that if they do not hide, they face rape and abuse. The reasoning being that they invite and deserve these crimes by their own volition, unless they cover up.

The full report explains:   

The style #1 is en vogue in Afghanistan; #2 is popular among both conservatives and fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Arab countries; #3 is the style vigorously promoted by Shi’i fundamentalism and conservatives in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon; #4 and #5 are considered most appropriate by modern Muslim women in Iran and Turkey; and #6 is preferred by secular women in the region. 

Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia ranks highest for the most conservative clothing preference, as 63% of respondents pointed to the face-concealing niqab style as the most appropriate covering. On the other side of the spectrum, 32% of Turkish respondents and 49% of Lebanese respondents said that they considered an uncovered head to be most appropriate.  

Overall, most people surveyed considered the conservative hijab look of woman #4 to be the most appropriate dress for public. The study also investigated responses to the question, “Should women be able to choose their own clothing?”

What Does It Mean When a Woman Wears a Muslim Headscarf?

The following was written by the liberal Canadian philosophy professor, Elsa Schieder, PhD, reprinted with her permission:

I've been experiencing a big personal change, to do with seeing a woman wearing the Muslim headscarf. I used to have no response. Now every time I see this, I ask myself: "Just what does she believe?"

Like most Western people, I've learned to be very accepting — and even appreciative — of different styles of dress, food, music. So I used to have no response to the Muslim headdress, the hijab. It was just — you do your thing, I do mine. My response was to the color, the style — in other words, I responded as if this were a fashion item.

That has been changing. In fact, this change has lagged far behind my learning about Islam. Perhaps shockingly, it's taken me years to respond more fully to the Muslim headscarf.

There's more than one reason for this. First, I used to see few headscarves in my home city. Then, there used to be less Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide. There was also no group declaring an Islamic caliphate, rampaging from one Middle Eastern area to the next.

Most of all, my sense is that it's taken a long time for it to sink in that I'm seeing women walking around advertising that they're part of a religion that seeks world domination, that seeks the destruction of my culture and way of life, that views all non-Muslims as filthy Kafirs — to be deceived, beheaded, crucified, plotted against, terrorized, humiliated, according to the Quran, which they believe is true — or what are they doing, wearing the Muslim headscarf?

Do most non-Muslims in the West respond with hostility, aversion, fear to women advertising their adherence to such an ideology? A Canadian journalist put on the Muslim headdress for a few days in order to record the prejudice Muslim women experience — and found that she was treated more positively than without it! (She saw this as a sign of racism — that people were not entirely neutral to the headdress, and instead cared to show they were tolerant and accepting! Oh well, what can you expect from the politically correct.)

I'm asking: Does it make any sense to be extra nice to someone belonging to a religion that has, as a goal, the destruction of my society? That views people like me as inferiors who are to be made to pay a special tax? That believes no one is to talk of any non-Muslim religion to Muslims? That approves of the murder and rape of non-Muslims, the enslavement of non-Muslims, the murder of gays, the inferiority of women?

No one has asked me to respond to people wearing the Nazi swastika as if this were meaningless, to people chanting Sieg Heil as if this were a quaint cultural artifact.

So what the blinkety-blank is going on here? It's vital to respond to what is happening. If we don't respond to, say, a lion prowling our way, we're much more likely to end up as lion supper.

That has made me sit down and create a handout. You'll find it at the bottom of the page. You're very welcome to download, print and distribute. You can also send it.

It starts:

A woman is wearing
a Muslim headscarf.
What does it mean?

For me, connecting the headscarf to what it stands for has changed everything. In fact, it melted something frozen inside me. It's only natural to connect something to what it stands for. A flag. It stands for something. If we respond positively or negatively, this is because of what we see the flag stands for.

Likewise with the Muslim headdress, the hijab.

The next thing. It's vital to get the word out.

The natural response of non-Muslims to the Muslim headscarf is recoil. It stands for something more dangerous than AIDS, than Ebola.

Most of us have had our senses numbed.

All the best to a world awakening to the reality of Islam and to taking appropriate action.

Again, if this suits you, you're welcome to download the handout below. It's a one-page two-sided handout.

All the best,

Elsa

See, download, or print the PDF handout here: A woman is wearing a headscarf. What does it mean?

Of Hijabs, Burqas, And Rickets

Muslimatoon on Fleet Street in London

As mentioned back in 2007:

Hijab and burka-wearing Muslim women are putting their health at risk because they do not get enough sunlight, doctors have warned.

An alarming number of Muslim women who wear headdresses such as the hijab, which covers the head, neck and shoulders, and the burka, which covers everything except the eyes, are suffering from bone deficiencies due to lack of vitamin D.

Most of the body’s vitamin D, which helps calcium absorption and prevents the bone disorder rickets, is obtained through sunlight acting on the skin. Only a very small amount comes from food.

Women with darker skin are most at risk because it takes their bodies longer to produce the vitamin.

The NHS wants to encourage women from communities that embrace the hijab, such as those from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Somalia, to increase their vitamin D intake.

A Department for Health spokesman said: ‘For ethnic groups there is an increased risk of vitamin D deficiency.

Studies have shown low levels in Asian women in the United Kingdom – particularly among those who cover most of their skin for cultural reasons.’...

Now in 2013:

LONDON (AP) -- Rickets, the childhood disease that once caused an epidemic of bowed legs and curved spines during the Victorian era, is making a shocking comeback in 21st-century Britain....

No mention this time of hijabs and burkas. Mustn't ever insult Muslims, you know.

Boston University: "Be a Muslim for a day"

So as to experience the joys of Islam, of course.

From Bare Naked Islam, citing this source:

...Like all of the other activities planned for Islam Awareness Month, the hijab challenge emphasized a theme of “common ground” and aimed to “dispel some of the stereotypes and misconceptions attached to Islam,” Hassanali said, “and answer some of the questions people have about the religion.”

The women, who signed up at their dorms or at the George Sherman Union Link, were given links to instructional videos and pink buttons that read “BU Hijab Day Challenge—Ask Me About My Hijab.” Hassanali said that while some of the women “got negative comments from friends and colleagues, most of them got positive feedback.”...

Full-time tuition at Boston University ranges from $42,000-$62,000. Getting one's money's worth of dhimmitude, huh?

Disney Sued By HIjab-Wearing Muslima

(With a hat tip to Tammy Swofford)


More HERE at Reuters. Note the following:

...Among the [dress code] restrictions, the policy prohibits visible tattoos and fingernails that exceed a quarter of an inch, the lawsuit said.

Boudlal said she was given the choice of working in a back area, away from customers, or wearing a fedora-style hat on top of her head scarf. When Boudlal refused, she was fired...

Read Tammy Swofford's commentary HERE. Excerpt:

Dear Corporate America:

Have you updated your policies to maintain clear workplace compliance to code of ethics and compliance with any corporate grooming standard? What about your standard for private acts of worship within the public space?

If not, in the future, you may hire a "moderate" Muslim employee who later sues for the right to pray at work, with a separate space for ablution, and an additional space to pray.

If not, in the future you may hire a "moderate" Muslim woman who presents without hijab, and later sues to wear hijab.

These issues, are going to create morale problems in the future for many corporations....

The rest of the commentary is HERE. Worth your time.

Posts for Nov 3rd: Iranians in Isle of Man, Imam condemned in Spain, Sakineh update, Malaysian blogger Kamaruddin, Iraqi massacre update, Women and the Taliban, Algeria ambush, Obama adviser on "anti-Muslim sentiment"

1. Investigation: Why did Iran register ships in the Isle of Man? File on 4 investigation has discovered questions over whether the Iranians have already sidestepped the international arms embargo, on the UK’s own doorstep by setting up companies in the Isle of Man to register ships for its fleet.
2. Spain: Cunit's imam, Benbraim Mhamed, sentenced to a year in prison for coercing a woman to wear the Hijab:The president of Cunit’s Islamic cultural association, Abderrahman el Osri, was convicted of the same crime and sentenced to nine months in prison and the imam’s daughter, Hafssa Ben Brahim, to pay a fine of 730 euros. They may not approach the victim or communicate with her for two years and must pay 1,500 euros in moral damages. If it would have been me, I would have expelled them all. They have given sufficient evidence (with death threats and intimidation to her family) that they are not succesfully integrated in Spanish society.
3. Apparently Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was going to be executed today, but in the end she has not. But her family is also fearing for the lifes of both his son and lawyer, both arrested with two German journalists when they were trying to speak about her. When attempting to secure lawyers for the two, authorities have said that the two men did not need legal representation.
4. Malaysia: exiled Muslim blogger accused of "insulting Islam" is free to return. He has refused: “This order has lapsed but it does not stop the authorities from seeking my client’s detention on other grounds should he return,” said lawyer Jadadish Chandra. He lives in the UK now.
5. Iraq: Pope sends mesage to Syriac Archbishop of Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Vatican envoy to the UN, Archbishop Chullikatt, said that although the Holy See favors efforts to protect religion from “hate speech and incitement to violence,” his delegation was uneasy with the approach that targets “defamation of religion.” In practice, he said, measures promoted to stop “defamation of religion” have actually “served as a means for State-sponsored oppression of religious believers.” Let's see if someone really begins protesting about the abominable UN Resolution on the Defamation of Religions.
6. Afghanistan: negotiating with Taliban will crush women. "The evidence that girls will be able to go to school under the Taliban is slim. While girls might go to schools in some areas, in my experience, this is highly exceptional and by no means a uniform practice. The Taliban have been quite consistent in their beliefs that girls should not be educated and women who work outside the home deserve to die, a belief enacted in the Taliban’s murder of numerous female politicians, elections workers, policewomen and other prominent professional women. They are hardly interested in the protection or welfare of children given they regularly use children as suicide bombers and spotters and have hung boys they accuse of “spying for the Americans“".
7. Algeria: Islamic terrorists ambush soldiers: 2 killed, 3 wounded: On Oct 3rd, another 5 soldiers were killed on the same spot, a stronghold of AQIM.
8. US: Obama adviser decries "anti-Muslim sentiments".Hussain said he’s concerned about the increasing vitriol directed at Muslims, which he said may be due to their increasing visibility in the U.S. It’s a “reaction to a lot of progress made by Muslim communities,” he said.

Lastly, from Townhall.com:

Spain: school confirms hijab's prohibition

Its internal regulations forbid the use of any garment that covers the head:

The Centre's management announced that the Board of Education of the Secondary Education School "Camilo José Cela" has "decided to maintain the internal rules unchanged", according to a statement written by its director, Eduardo de Bergia. The center expelled a student from a Muslim background last week after she attended class with the veil.

Now, the Department of Education of the Community of Madrid announced that, if the child wants to keep going to school with the veil, they will search "immediately" for another one, near the current center, in which they permit her go with the veil according to its internal rules, reported the deparment's official sources.

After an hour and a half meeting, the School Board, formed in addition to the permanent members (director, head teacher and secretary), by representatives of teachers, pupils, parents and administrative staff, decided to leave the article as 32 of the regulations which states: "Inside the building it's not allowed to use caps or any other garment that covers the head."

Background here.

So, Patients' Rights Don't Apply to Dhimmis?

Why should there even be a question about this if it is not a religion-affiliated hospital? This woman is a doctor, not a chaplain. She has a responsibility to her patients to not make them uncomfortable by foisting her religious views on them. But obviously she thinks her comfort, to say nothing of the advancement of the cultural jihad, is more important. She demands to wear her hijab while working as a doctor when a doctor in Saudi Arabia would be able to tear a cross or any non-muslim symbol off a patient? Hah.


Clinic Forbids Muslim Doctor to Wear Hijab
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Associated Press

DALLAS — A Muslim doctor interviewing for a job at a suburban Dallas medical
clinic says officials there told her she couldn't wear her headscarf while working.

Dr. Hena Zaki of Plano said Friday that she was shocked when CareNow officials told her in person and later by e-mail that a no-hat policy extended to her hijab.

Zaki had been on a tour of an Allen CareNow clinic two weeks ago when she said the regional medical director told her he didn't want her to be surprised about the policy during orientation.

"He interrupted the interview and said he didn't want me to take this the wrong
way," Zaki said. "Like an FYI."

Zaki wants an apology and a change in CareNow's policies to accommodate expressions of religious belief — "whether it be a turban or facial hair."

However, CareNow President Tim Miller said he doesn't see anything wrong with the policy.

Neither do I. (Fine with me if this bitch wants to grow a beard, however.) I know the "anti-discrimination" laws hamstring most employers, but there must be something in most hospital patients' bill of rights about medical staff not being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on patients.

Read the rest. Guess who wrote CareNow a letter.

There's no such thing as Voluntary Hijab!

Here is a great article I stumbled on, and I think warrants to appear in full.

There's no such thing as Voluntary Hijab!

By Soraya Shahabi

For all women, hijab (the veil) universally and unquestionably signifies subjugation and servitude. It is so everywhere and in every case. It is argued that there are some adult women in Europe who 'choose' to wear the hijab. This is a seemingly sound 'legal' argument. In real life, however, few veiled adult women ever get to taste any degree of freedom of choice in any respect of family, married and social life, be it in clothing, social life, behaviour, or even a simple thing like food. Few adult hijab-wearing women have not experienced the fear and terror of Islamic environments hanging over their lives. They are not citizens with freedom of choice but human beings fearful of jack knives, deprived of social rights, subjugated, and alienated by the atmosphere of terror existing in Islamic patriarchal environments. Under such conditions, speaking of 'volition' or 'free choice' in dress is a travesty of these concepts. Choosing the hijab as a mode of dress by adult women is no more 'voluntary' than, for instance, the 'choice' to stay in family relations that abound in terror and torture. In fact, in today's world, the concepts of volition and choice have clear, comprehensible meanings. They can hardly be interpreted arbitrarily. However, these clear concepts are easily made obscure when it comes to the rights of women living in Islamic environments due to concessions made to religion and racism towards those born into Islamic environments.

It is not hard to understand the reason why women living in Islamic environments surrender. In Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia where honour killings are daily threats to women's lives, speaking of choice in dress is an offensive joke. In Islamic environments where even women's breathing is measured, there are some adult hijab-wearing women who stop attempting to bring about change. 'Choice', or, more precisely, surrender, can be understood by reviewing the deprived childhood and adolescence of these women. They have simply surrendered in order to 'survive'. We know surrendered human beings want dignity to survive. They need to make themselves and others believe that they have some control over some corner of their lives. They 'deceive' themselves in order to be able to cope with the limitations. 'Voluntary hijab' of adult women is supposed to provide a sense of control over something in their life, as well as give a little self-confidence.

In fact, the surrendered justify their captivity and slavery and portray it as logical and tolerable in order to gain some respect in their lives. It is here that some racists take snap shots of the 'high' status of these victims, share in the victims' self-deception, justify their servitude and theorize this justification through cultural relativism. They say that the hijab is the 'free choice' of these women. This choice is made as 'freely' as the choice made by a European woman to remain in an abusive relationship! Legally, this choice is as legitimate as the choice and freedom to remain in a sadistic relationship!

Child Hijab

The veiling of children is another matter all together. It is where discrimination and force are imposed on children. It is where society, the family, and adults attack children. The veiling of children must be declared illegal all over the world as a form of violence against children. Children do not have any type of 'voluntary' or 'compulsory' hijab. The deprivation of under-age girls from freedom of comfortable, prevalent, nice- looking clothing, despite any justification to the contrary, must be forbidden just as it is prohibited to cover their mouths, cuff their hands or blindfold their eyes. The former should be prohibited with the clarity of the latter. If one's conscience, public opinion or a 'contemporary' state categorically rejects the idea of allowing a group of young girls being paraded around one part of town with their eyes blindfolded, their hands cuffed, and their mouths duct-taped, then they should categorically not tolerate child veiling either. However, we have seen, and continue to see, that this is not the case. We have seen, and continue to see, how Western states like Sweden, Canada, Britain, and Germany have for years watched such parades without moving an eyelid. For such 'modern' states, the girls being paraded under the shroud of hijab, prior to being human beings and citizens, are 'immigrants', 'foreigners', 'outsiders'. They measure the rights of these 'immigrants', even if they are residents and citizens, with the yardsticks of nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Their rights are not covered by international conventions pertaining to human rights, women's rights, children's rights, elderly rights, criminals' rights and civil rights. Their basic rights are conditional to the religion, ethnicity, and traditions of their family and place of birth. And they call this sickening hypocrisy 'respect for all cultures'. Cultural relativism is thus a practical platform for discriminating against girls and women. It leaves the life, education, and health of girls at the mercy of religious families, religious schools, and the ethnocentric values of the father. They have no belief in the universality of the rights of children or human beings. They are racist!

The veil is not just another kind of clothing; opposing it is not just defending the right to freedom of clothing even though it is put forward as such. It is not something that a woman decides to put on for a change one day and to take it off the next. It is not a costume put on a young girl who is going to a costume party! Veiling young girls teaches them that they belong to an inferior sex and should be ashamed, and that they are sex objects and must limit their physical movements. By the same token, young boys are taught they belong to the 'superior' sex, and that girls are inferior and sex objects. An unbridgeable gap is thus created and institutionalized between the two sexes at the expense of young girls' deprivation and young boys' 'empowerment'. That is when the license for violence against women is issued. This marks the beginning of 'sexual apartheid', the official subjugation of women during childhood and the nipping in the bud their potentialities to enjoy a happy, creative life. It marks the beginning of the process of making two unequal sexes out of two born-equal ones. This is the beginning of human alienation. The goal is to produce two 'deformed' sexes, i.e. superior and inferior, master and slave, bread-winner and dependent, strong and weak. Much more than an item of clothing, the hijab is a decree of prohibition enforced on young girls; it is a series of laws, threats and tools designed to subjugate and enslave them.

Child hijab is an extreme form of violence against children: * Children are deprived of sports and movement. * Girls are transformed into sex objects from the age of nine. Their 'coming of age' is celebrated and they are virtually prepared for all sorts of sexual abuse. * They are robbed of their self-respect, self-esteem, ambitions, aspirations, and sexuality. * They begin to see boys as inherently 'dangerous', rapists and cruel. * They are deprived of the right to freely socialise with boys and are perceived by boys as sex objects, weak, ignorant, wrongdoers who must be put under men's guardianship. * They are denied music, dancing, and skipping around, of practically all sports, and of certain fields. * Their freedom of personal taste is denied and divided into sacred and profane.

In a nutshell, child veiling is a system of brainwashing girls and boys; it is a tool to marginalise half of society's children. It aims to alienate the two sexes. It must be eliminated. The Hijab and Honour Killings in the 'West'

Western governments have paid so much 'respect' to the violations of girls' and women's rights in Islamic environments in their countries, that their contemporary and progressive societies have become 'unsafe' and slaughterhouses for a large number of girls and caused alarm among people. We know that they would continue to portray their society as 'safe' were there not progressive activists from protest campaigns opposing these atrocities.

The honour killings of young girls are not accidental. They are the natural product of the imposition of the hijab over the lives of young girls and boys in Islamic environments. One cannot be outraged by honour killings and at the same time ignore the roots and cause of these atrocities. Every decent person who reads about the tragic lives of Fadime, Sarah, Pela, and tens of other young girls will undoubtedly search for the cause. Islamic violence occurring in the centre of the 'civilised' West is no accident. These atrocities are not the result of desperation, poverty or addiction. These murders are official Islamic sentences for 'disobedient' women. If a father, brother and husband do not kill their 'wanton' daughter, wife, and sister, they will be stripped of their 'honour'. These are what they put in the heads of young innocent girls in Islamic schools and with the veil.

There is only one way to stop these atrocities. By giving them real protection, the killing of children and young girls in Islamic environments can be opposed. It is only by rescuing their lives, freedom, and education from the influences of Islamic environments that these tragedies can be efficiently prevented. This protection should undoubtedly begin with prohibiting child veiling. Children's rights as human rights are universal and must be applied to Islamic environments as well.

It is five years now that the communists from Iran and Iraq have been saying that something must be done! Children and girls in Islamic environments must be helped. They must be able to enjoy the same rights as other children and women. We have said that the veiling of children and under-age girls must be prohibited. Religious schools, which are the centres for teaching inequality between sexes, misogyny, discrimination, violence, and so on, must be closed. Mansoor Hekmat wrote extensively about the prohibition of child veiling five years ago (Islam, Children's Rights and Hejab-gate, June 1997). If it is not right to deprive 'Mike' and 'Helen' from a life in which the two sexes freely mingle and socialise, and if it is not right to send them to religious schools, then it is not right to do so with 'Mohammad' and 'Nahid' who are born in an Islamic environment! If it is wrong to cover 'Rosa' or 'Julia' from head to toe in a shroud-like, dark piece of cloth called the hijab, then it is equally wrong to do so with 'Shahin' or 'Maliha'. If it is prohibited to teach children violence, inequality, and patriarchal ideas in schools, then Islamic schools must be eliminated. Understanding these objective truths about the equality of human beings irrespective of sex, race, religion and nationality in the 'centre of civilisation' is being reached at the expense of the rights tens of girls in Britain, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Canada.

'Immigrant' children and young girls are daily struggling for their rights as equal citizens. These rights, including the right to the freedom of clothing and socialising with members of the opposite sex, must be taken for granted like the right to breathing is. These rights cannot be taken away from a Swedish, German or British girl; it must be made impossible to do so in the case of those born children and girls born into Islamic environments.

Indonesia: Non Muslims to wear hijab and massageuses to wear padlocks in their pants

About the obligation for non-Muslims to wear hijabs:

In Padang, capital of the province of West Sumatra, the atmosphere is increasingly that of an Islamic state. Female students who do not wear the headscarf (hijab) are frequently suspended from school. The requirement to observe Islamic customs, sanctioned by the controversial regional law of 2005, is also imposed on non-Muslim girls, and has generated an atmosphere of strong pressure on religious minorities. The proliferation of local laws inspired by sharia (perda syariat) is a growing phenomenon in Indonesia, but the central government has chosen not to intervene for now, in spite of protests from religious minorities and human rights NGO’s.

About the massageusses:

Chastity belts are gaining popularity in Indonesian massage parlors as a way to stop clients and masseuses from getting too close, parlor owners say.
A number of massage parlors in Batu, Indonesia, are requiring female masseuses to wear padlocks over their pants zippers to prevent men from bombarding workers for sex, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.

Indonesia has already a terrible history about Islamic fundamentalism, with campaigns which included sexual violence against Timorese females, recognised by UN, and more than 500.000 communists killed because they opposed Suharto, whose troops also carried abductions and mass killings in the mid-1980s.
Last year 100.000 people in Indonesia, asked for the coming of the Global Caliphate in an event. They were summoned there by Islamist group Hibz ut-Tahrir.

Beveiled Muslims Test Tolerance in Secular Britain

Photo courtesy of the International Herald Tribune
Women covering themselves up is objectionable to many British people, and is seen as a sign of subjugation. British women, along with their sisters in other Western countries, fought long and hard for their liberation and equal rights. They view the veil, especially the full veil, as a step back in time, as a step back to a bygone age. Wearing it is also seen as a clear sign that Muslims do not wish to integrate.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE - LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.

Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.

The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.

David Sexton, a columnist for The Evening Standard, wrote recently that Britain has been "too deferential" toward the veil. "I find such garb, in the context of a London street, first ridiculous and then directly offensive," he said.

Although the number of women wearing the niqab has increased in the past several years, only a tiny percentage of women among Britain's two million Muslims cover themselves completely. It is impossible to say how many exactly.

Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq and at home.

"For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it's an act of faith, it's solidarity," said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, Al Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. "9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims," she said. Head-to-toe Muslim veils test tolerance of secular Britain >>> By Jane Perlez

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

Dead Because Of Her Hijab

Or, more accurately, because she wouldn't continue to wear her hijab.

At least, that's how the situation looks right now.

Aqsa Parvez, 16-years-old, was this week choked to death by her father in the Greater Toronto area of Canada. From this source:

The 16-year-old Mississauga girl who was allegedly strangled by her father in a dispute over her refusal to wear the hijab has died.

Aqsa Parvez, a Grade 11 student at Applewood Heights, succumbed to her injuries late last night, Peel Regional Police said today.

The girl’s 57-year-old father, Muhammad Parvez, has been charged with muder. Aqsa’s 26-year-old brother, Waqas Parvez, has been charged with obstructing police.

Friends believe Aqsa...was the victim of a dispute over the teenager's desire to be more western.

“She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to, not the way her parents wanted her to,” classmate Krista Garbhet told the Post this morning.

“She just wanted to be herself, honestly she just wanted to show her beauty, and not be pushed around by her parents telling her what she has to be like, what she has to do. Nobody would want to do that.”

According to this source,

Friends of the teenager...said she had been threatened by her strictly religious family before.

“She got threatened by her father and her brother,” said Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, who had known Aqsa since they both started high school together. “He said that if she leaves, he would kill her.”

Ebonie Mitchell, 16, another friend of the victim, said the conflict with her father over wearing Islamic dress came to a head at the beginning of this school year. “She just wanted to dress like we do,” she said.

“Last year she wore like the Islamic stuff and everything, the hijab, and this year she’s all Western. She just wanted to look like everyone else. And I guess her dad had a problem with that.”

Ebonie said her friend had left home once before, in September, for about two weeks. She returned home, but the fights with her family over what she wore just got worse.

Dominiquia, 16, said her friend had been arguing with her father for more than a year over the restrictions he imposed on her, including demanding that she wear the hijab at all times. “She wanted to go out with her friends, hang out and just be like a normal person,” she said. “But he was always trying to control her ... he wouldn’t let her go out or do anything.”

The stricken girl’s friends said the fights with her father got so bad that she had left the family home to live with friends about a week ago. “She was going back, but just to get her stuff,” said friend Krista Garbutt. “She was scared to go home, but she had to get her clothes and stuff.”

Neighbours said as many as 11 people lived in the home, which was sealed off by crime scene tape and surrounded by police cars yesterday, all members of an extended Pakistani family. Const. Valade confirmed that there were other people in the home when the teenager was attacked.

“I didn’t really know any of them,” said one woman, who would not give her name. “There were a lot of them living in that house, always coming and going. They didn’t talk to me, maybe just to say hello once in a while. That’s all.”

The home where the teen was attacked is the listed address of Muhammad Parvez, a Mississauga cab driver. “He was Muslim and very devout, very observant,” said one of his fellow drivers at Mississauga’s Blue and White Taxi, who did not want his name used. “He was always stopping to take breaks and pray: three, four times a day.”

His eldest son, also named Muhammad, also worked as a cab driver and lived in the family home with his wife and at least one child, the driver said. Several people inside the home were questioned by police before being allowed to leave.

Neighbours said the family moved in just over a year ago.

Police have cautioned not to jump to conclusions about the case. But it doesn't take much of a leap to figure out the father's motive. Aqsa was assimilating, as the children of immigrants will do, and her father wasn't about to have that happen.

Remember the face of Aqsa Parvez:



[Hat-tip to Nanc, who sent me this link from Breitbart. The article is receiving lots of comments]