Monday, June 29, 2009

Ban the Burka

The latest from Pat Condell:

Hat tip: Gaia.

[Post ends here]


Anonymous said...

Another breath of fresh air.

Anonymous said...

Ban the Edmund Burke-a. Ulimately that's what will be achieved by allowing millions of Muslims to stream into Britain willy-nilly.

Why should Muslim women shed their headgear when wearing the burka, which is a religious obligation? Or is it? I forget and find it difficult to care.

Generally people do not leave their religious baggage at Heathrow Airport. Lots and lots of Muslims coming into Britain will make for an Islamic Britain and that's that.

Pat Condell, for all his bluster, seems to belive that the world is composed, at random, of six billion unconnected individuals and so is mentally incapable of opposing Muslims as a group.

What precisely is Mr. Condell demanding? Not that Britain be quarantined from Islam - that would be both insensitive and impractical.

What Mr. Condell wants is for Muslims to come to Britain and, after becoming exposed to infidel culture, adopt infidel culture as their own.

In this respect Pat Condell is essentially a variant on Blair and Sarkozy, albeit an agreeable version who at all times seems to be opposing Islam by saying not-nice things about it.

Zenster said...

It is difficult in the extreme to imagine that Britain has any better voice speaking for its noble leagal traditions and once-admirable moral character since Churchill himself.

Once again, Condell nails the issue spot on when he notes that any genuine rehabilitation of Islam must begin and end with a wholesale overhaul of how Muslim women are treated.

Churchill himself observed that:

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

This is no small matter as Churchill is, with proper sincerity, equating Islam's treatment of women with traditional slavery in all its abject squalor and ugliness.

Condell's biting condemnation of feminists and the cultural relativism needed to abandon any criticism of what is so cleary, Abject Gender Apartheid, is window dressing for a much more serious and nettlesome issue.

While the burqa may not be cut into the stone of Islamic doctrine, the unanimous and enduring guilt of women for leading men astray is.

According to whatever plagarized Abramic roots that Islam may claim, the paradise myth is used to blame all womankind―in perpetuity, no less―for Man's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

It is for this reason that Muslim women are prohibited from displaying so much as a lock of hair or well-turned ankle. Such exhibitions will only ignite the unquenchable lusts of even the most reasonable men and precipitate lust, rape and societal mayhem in general.

Thus are women, Muslim and kufar alike, relegated to the position of chattel and, rest assured, there is little to ZERO hope that this doctrinal aspect of women's status should, would or could ever change by an iota.

I have always advocated banning of the burqa and niqab for security reasons. I have also maintained for some time that Islam's policy of Abject Gender Apartheid is, in and of itself, reason enough to justify a permanent prohibition of Mohammedism from the modern world.

Add in the extraneous and horrendous elements of terrorism, capital punishment for apostasy, dhimmitude, polygamy and Islam's other various and sundry affronts to any civilized mind and it becomes patently clear that:


laine said...

No less an authority that Al Quaeda's second in command, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri is on record as calling veiled women foot soldiers of Islam. Their use is to demoralize the host population with constant in-your-face hostility to their ways.

Degree of veiling is correlated with degree of fundamentalism and extremism. Many if not most of these women despise the non-Muslim world they peer at through their eye slits.

Watching Eagle said...

(tongue in cheek, sort of)

Well, well, well, what have we here? "Personal Advanced Cloaking Devices" --PACDs-- for the 21st. Century!! Impressive, most impressive! (count the ways) Who would have thought 25 years ago that ANY women in WESTERN EUROPE would want to wear such things?

Keep in mind that feminists tell us that these "Advanced Cloaking Devices" are 'the response of a minority living in a hostile climate'. See, Western society is so bigoted, that women of 'misunderstood minorities' are driven to wear these things as a "defense mechanism". Seriously, feminists say so!!

And Oh, we Westerners must show 'tolerance' and 'respect' for 'diversity'. It is obviously too much to expect 'migrant women' to live under 'oppresive Western law' when they are entitled to be treated well under Shariah! After all, Shariah says men MUST treat women as KINDLY as men treated their DONKEYS, HORSES, AND COWS in the MIDDLE AGES!! WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE SO RACIST TO DENY THIS ALL HAS GREAT MERIT IN THE 21ST. Century??? AFTER ALL, IT IS NON-WESTERN, AND THUS PART OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST 'WESTERN IMPERIALISM'

What did that potentate of progressivism, Obama say?

"It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit. For instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear. We can't disguise hostility to any religion behind the pretense of libealism."

Beware the secular inquisition!

All right, folks, seriously:

THE WESTERN ELITE ARE THE REAL BUNCH OF CRACKPOTS!!! Muslims don't need nukes, they can shout "Western Imperialism".

Get these CRACKPOT Western "leaders" OUT of POWER before it is too late!!

Afonso Henriques said...

In my opinion, we do not have the right to ban burkas or whatever without a serious reason.

I think we must respect other people's cultures and all that. Muslims have a culture we may consider inferior, but then its their culture and they have the right to be muslims and Arabs and Turks.

What we should have never permited was to let these peoples colonise us.

Put them out. Do not fight their ways.
The problem is not their ways, the problem is them among us.

That's my two cents only. If you accept them among us, you will have to get along with their costumes and culture. Otherwise, it will make you a bad person.

View from the Trekant said...

"We do not have the right to ban burkas"??!!

So . . .may I wear a ski mask to my local bank?

The precedent of using women in burka to be suicide bombers already exists in the middle east.

This video is correct - it is a security concern. There are laws about being identifiable in public. It is illegal to have extremely dark window tint on your vehicle in most states. You cannot walk into a bank with a ski mask on without exciting concern.

It should be very clear that we do not allow a shrouded figure to fly on an airplane, use public buildings or public transportation etc.

This speaker is right on from beginning to end. Thanks for posting him!

thll said...

The burka isn't a feminist issue. The women that wear them want to wear them - were you to investigate you'd find that the women inside the burka are usually the stroppiest vis a vis the host culture.

Henrik R Clausen said...

thll, no more a feminist issue than the yellow star worn by Jews in the 30's in Germany was a racist issue. They wore it voluntarily, for otherwise there'd be no end to the trouble that would befall them.

It's about intimidation. Intimidation that takes place away from the eye of the public, intimidation that makes women 'voluntarily' wear the sign of being owned by the men in their families.

It is an issue as feminist as any that has ever existed.

parisclaims said...

Frankly,I don't care what it says in the koran about black tents. Condell seems to imply that if the koran commanded it then it's OK.
As we all know the koran commands that muslims kill the unbeliever wherever they find them.
That said,he makes a good point all the same

Czechmade said...

Ban those visual condoms along with their architects - the imams.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting post on Galliawatch about this issue.

To Ban or Not To Ban?

Sample excerpt:

"The MNR notes that since the arrival of the Sarkozy era, we have witnessed a rapid development of Islam in France. The creation of the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith) by the current president of the Republic was an encouragement to Muslims to develop and to, eventually, impose their law, a law that is, however, incompatible with the laws of the French Republic.

After dietary concessions, the official segregation of women, and the authorizations to build new mosques that are often illegally financed by the taxpayers, Islam progresses, as it has been urged to do for seven years, with the on-going aid of the UMP party.

The MNR therefore considers that the UMP deputies who today claim to oppose the burqa, have knowingly participated in the Islamization of our country. If they are sincere, they should resign immediately from the UMP and join the camp of those who have chosen to defend European civilization.

The MNR knows perfectly well that they will do nothing of the sort and that this false resistance is just another electoral maneuver that will be added to Sarkozy's catalogue of saber-rattling (...)"

Anonymous said...

Afonso Henriques

I agree wholeheartedly with your views. I've maintained for a long while, that it is not our business what Muslims wear, eat, or whatever. But by the same token it is extreme folly that Muslims have been allowed to settle in the West, and are now a threat to our customs.

Anonymous said...

Here is a Youtube video of a debate that took place on the BBC a few weeks ago:

The Big Questions: Should Britain Ban the Burka? (1 of 3)

Skip to 1:23 to see the mediator ask a woman, in full niqab, if it was good for women to hide their faces, why wasn’t it equally good for men to do so?