This article from Hamburger Morgenpost concerns a young woman who was refused service at a Hamburg post office because the clerk did not like the fact that she was in full niqab. Needless to say, the clerk’s job is now in jeopardy.
Many thanks to Liz from Europe News for the translation:
“You will not be served while veiled!”- - - - - - - - -
Santa K. (20) from Hamburg, was dismissed from the post office in the main station.It was a daily walk for Santa K. from Hamburg (20). She just wanted to get some post cards at the post office on Tuesday. But nothing happened then. “I will not wait on you,” said the woman behind the counter to the veiled woman. “I am face to face with you, so I expect you to do the same for me.”
For K. it was a slap in the face. This happened due to her niqab, a cloth that covered the whole body with only the eyes left uncovered, which didn’t suit Mrs. W. in the post office of the main station. As a result she refused service to the four-months pregnant woman. Husband Ferhat S. (26) couldn’t believe what he saw: “When people see us, it often happens that there is some talk, that we are characterized for example as Taliban. We can even laugh about that. But it was too much and has hurt us deeply. We are not living in Nazi Germany anymore. “
His wife converted to Islam last year. Her Polish mother had raised her in the Christian faith, but because of her Syrian father she has always been interested in Islamic culture, says K. “When I was an adult, I tried to orient myself,” said the confident woman, who in 2007 went to a showing of “Deutschland sucht den Superstar” [similar to “American Idol”]. Thereafter, she started wearing the veil, and finally the niqab.
“Many men had no respect. I wanted a kind of protective barrier,” she says. “And I wanted it to be a little bit provocative, too.” The Hamburg-born Turk, P., doesn’t pay any importance to her appearance: “Everybody thinks so, but I do not care what she is wearing.” In no case, however, should wearing a niqab authorize discrimination, which both haven’t previously experienced to this extent. “We love Hamburg, Germany, and we also love living here because we are allowed live our faith,” says S.
Mrs. W. wanted to stop this. When MOPO [Hamburger Morgenpost] asked her about the incident, she burst into tears. “I have anxiety when I see masked people,” she attempts to justify her behavior. She could therefore not guarantee that she would serve veiled women in the future.
Gerald Prang, store manager, does not want to tolerate the behavior of his employee. “This is very strange and impossible. In our office, every customer is treated equally,” he said, and announces the consequences: “I will have a conversation with her. If she has a problem with serving veiled people, then she can not continue working at the counter.”
For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.
18 comments:
It's a wonder we in the West don't all burst into tears on seeing increasing numbers of mummified women on our streets. Anyone who understands the full significance of what the veiling ideology means for our own culture is crying on the inside at least.
The woman is either:
1) an uneducated pawn of a primitive male paternalism that is taking over entire city blocks.
2) like this one, a stated provocateur who is obeying bin Laden's second in command al Zawahiri who considers veiled women to be like soldiers in the Islamic vanguard. The first step after a rebuff is to set up public caterwauling along with leftist dhimmi. The next is to demand personal financial compensation and/or costly concessions from the state.
3) someone who is spitting in the eye of westerners whose cultural norms of civility require face uncovered.
Where is our right to react to rudeness with rudeness?
Where is our right to feel spooked by these crow-like harbingers of our doom? Where is our right to fear and dislike a culture that detests and physically attacks ours?
“And I wanted it to be a little bit provocative, too.”
As with laine, the above quote nigh well leapt off the page for me. It is quite evident that this woman clearly knows her attire will elicit a response from people and that she is intentionally seeking for people to respond.
Of course, the moment they do so, we are greeted with a howl of, "Woe is me. I'm being discriminated against!"
In contrast to the hijab, the niqab and burqa are both forms of concealment that challenge legal norms of wearing a disguise in public. These norms are well established and go to the root of a free, open and safe society.
There might be a shred of argument in favor of peaceable female Muslim citizens going about covered in such a manner were it not for the ultimately malignant intent of Islam. To make one's self a walking advertisement for an ideology that seeks nothing less than the overthrow of every single non-Muslim country's government is a voluntary affront to the indigenous citizens of those nations and they have every right to be disturbed, alarmed or insulted by such a blatant demonstration of disrespect.
laine has capably articulated any other objections I might have and I will repeat his own highly cogent closing question:
"Where is our right to fear and dislike a culture that detests and physically attacks ours?"
I think I should go to the post office nude and start having sex on their counter while expecting service because otherwise I'm being discriminated against. Until European people won't just tell them that it's good that you're discriminated against because you don't belong in Europe and Islam has no place here, we won't be solving this. I'm fed up with this apologism. That counter woman should sue her employer and say that they are discriminated against people who don't like Muslims and make the case in court that Muslims don't like us either so it's the same thing and by not enforcing both sides, they are de facto discriminating.
Was I the only one cracking up when I read the part about Nazi Germany? I mean, they talk like they are ethnic Germans and lived there during the Nazis.
I disagree with you on this one. The clerk has no right to refuse to sell postcards to someone just because she's wearing a veil.
I also don't like all the anti-veil laws. What's the use of it anyway when you continue bringing millions of Muslims? Stop mass immigration, stop the free money, deport fanatic imams, deport anyone involved in any way with radical and terrorist groups and activities, start enforcing hate crime laws on Muslims as well, prosecute every Muslim that incites against kuffar, gays, apostates, drop the PC and start talking openly on TV about problems such as crime, gang rape and non-integration to put pressure on the Muslim community to control these behaviors, use serious measures to make Muslims understand no-go zones are unacceptable, get tough on crime and rioting, get tough on men who abuse or threaten women and children, stop all foreign Islamic financing for both Islamic and non-Islamic institutions, start taking pride in your own culture, and most importantly, stop mass immigration. What's the point in picking on the veil? Whether it's a symbol or not, it's not going to change anything. Maybe it's just easier to pick on the women, whether they choose it or not, than to directly confront the real perpetrators.
doom-and-gloom: The clerk has no right to refuse to sell postcards to someone just because she's wearing a veil.
Masked people entering a place of business tend to inspire a near universal response. While the clerk's job description may specify that she must serve all who enter, that does not change the justifiable and rational reaction that she had.
There already have been numerous business robberies and evasions of apprehension by criminals in Europe who were wearing burqas or other Islamic attire intended to obscure one's personal identity.
Any sane individual has every reason to feel apprehensive in the presence of someone who is intentionally concealing their identity. Throughout history it has typically been a criminal element that wishes to avoid ready identification. For Muslims to demand that they be made an exception to this historical and legal precedent is to request unequal application of the law in many, if not most, countries.
I'm really considering going to Germany and going nude to a post office to buy stamps or whatever. If they don't serve me, I will say it's discrimination against nude people. After all, the clerk has no right to refuse to serve me just because I am naked.
“This is very strange and impossible. In our office, every customer is treated equally,” he said, and announces the consequences: “I will have a conversation with her. If she has a problem with serving veiled people, then she can not continue working at the counter.”
Damn. Here was a nice opportunity to assert a basic common sense thing: Not to hide your face while dealing with others.
In Denmark, the large supermarket chains that runs FØTEX and others major stores have won in court the right not to have veiled personnel at the checkout, or anywhere else where it's seen by the customers. They fought hard for this right, and won.
This is a vitally necessary step. Unless Muslims are made unbearably uncomfortable about being in the United States, we'll never be free of them. That discomfort should be both economic and social. Otherwise, they'll swarm over our borders in increasing numbers, forming exclaves such as those in Dearborn where police will fear to go and shari'a is effectively the law. The Germans, the Swedes, the Dutch, the French, and the British can all tell you exactly what that would mean.
rebelliousvanilla,
I think the Germans might have a law against running about naked in most public places, while they don't have a law prohibiting the veil. However, I have a feeling that if you do that you'll find at least the male clerks quite accommodating.
"“And I wanted it to be a little bit provocative, too.”
As with laine, the above quote nigh well leapt off the page for me. It is quite evident that this woman clearly knows her attire will elicit a response from people and that she is intentionally seeking for people to respond."
Same here. Provocation is exactly the point. When I see a woman wearing a hijab and, at the same time, tight-fitting jeans and body-hugging tops (which happens quite often), I know right away that this is not about modesty. This is a political statement meant to provoke, induce fear, and stake your territory.
doom and gloom, you said you are against the laws that prohibit the veil. Then how come you aren't for letting me go nude to the post office? Either how you're dressed doesn't matter or it does. And yes, the problem is that the veil should be prohibited - at least the niqab/burka.
Funny enough, in my country we have a small minority of Muslims, most of them towards the sea and some in my city, yet I saw only two veiled(hijab only) women in my whole life. I saw the ninja women in France and the UK though.
"We are not living in Nazi Germany anymore."
Yeah. Precisely. That's why we don't want you over here.
As much as I dislike the French so-called "Republican values", which are most of the time a fig-leaf for Leftist ideology, they do come handy in such situations.
A law, currently under discussion, might permit state employees to refuse service to fully-veiled women. If it does pass, thus extending the current ban against the plain Muslim veil in schools, it will stem from the positive side of the French Republican myth.
Its good side says that all citizens are equal, therefore such an outrageous claim of a distinct identity as the niqab is supposed to be "non-French".
Its bad side says that all citizens are equal, therefore you're a racist thug if you suggest that races exist, Islam is bad, or immigrants are disproportionately responsible for crime.
French "Republicans" keep banging their heads against walls because of that contradiction.
(Note to outsiders : French "Republicanism" is the closest thing we have to a national political consensus, crossing party lines.)
Félicie: Same here. Provocation is exactly the point.
Although none of us are qualified to read this Muslima's mind, there still arises the question of:
Exactly what was she trying to provoke?
Just as we cannot read her mind neither can she read ours and fully anticipate how others would respond to her provocation. To act surprised − or at least tearful − at the negative reactions she then accordingly encountered is contrived at best and more likely pretentious.
It is doubtful that many of us are unaware of just how intentional all of this was in order to elicit an "Islamophobic" response that will serve to initiate another round of Muslim lawfare. If this does not happen it will be astonishing.
To close, in California there are crooked lawyers who team up with greedy chiropracters who then provide a bunch of Mexican illegal immigrants with a run down car so that they may involve themselves in an accident. The driver picks a freeway where a large, well-insured truck is traveling. They then abruptly swerve in front of said truck and slam on the brakes to create a "rear-end" collision which, without exceptional and mitigating circumstances (with reliable witnesses), is always the fault of the trailing driver. Lawsuits ensue with interminable rounds of costly asjustments by the quack and endless pain and suffering by all.
This practice is called "swoop and squat". What this Muslima did was the cultural equivalent of "swoop and squat". She purposefully attired herself in a way that she knew would provoke and intended to be provocative. Then she voluntarily sought out an altercation where exception would be taken to her apparel. All that awaits is the inevitable lawsuit with its similar claims of pain and suffering.
It should be mentioned that one unintentional side effect of the "swoop and squat" strategy is that the truck, unable to stop at all, infrequently plows right over or through the target vehicle killing some or all on board.
One can only speculate at how much longer people will tolerate individuals going about while blatantly advertising their specific intention to overthrow host governments.
Much like the truck that was unable to stop, some citizens may well find themselves unable to refrain from colliding physically with such offenders. Similar hospital bills may even await although the contributors of those injuries may not chose to stick around in order that they may be identified.
Ciao Robert,
"...As much as I dislike the French so-called "Republican values", which are most of the time a fig-leaf for Leftist ideology, they do come handy in such situations..."
How about no fig-leaf? Why pretend? What if we simply refuse to even think about it in French enlightenment terms and get up the cojones to say: "Viva la Francia!" In other words: "this is our country, we love it warts and all, and sorry, you just don't fit in even if on this here piece of paper - which was a mistake - you might or might not have the right to wear this or that piece of fabric around this or that stretch of body."
What's all this fuss over banning or permitting face masks but yet another (so-called) enlightenment fig leaf?
How about honesty? As in "Cher Muslims, you have proven yourselves to be a real nuisance, we don't like you, we don't want you... and never mind this silly business of Liberté, fraternité, et egalité. It was our honest mistake. We're French and we are crazy, but not stupid, far from it. So take your prayer rugs, your Imams, your minarets et tanti saluti! You kicked us out of Algeria, we kick you out of douce France! Jihad your chance and you blew it!
Kinda radical and fascistic? Maybe... but I challenge anyone to come up with a better solution. That's what it's gonna become anyway. French enlightenment values got us into this mess, (and other messes) there's no sense in playing the fig leaf game! Perhaps it can be done more cordially than the old days against Vendea.
I agree, IoshkaFutz.
The trouble is, this way of thinking is so simple few people get it. Yet.
The right to self-determination for aboriginal peoples. Even when they are white.
Generally speaking, I support turning the tables on the multiculti crowd. Hit them with their own weapons. Tell them they are the racists, the Nazis. Tell them they offend our religion. That's what the Muslim veil is about : offending non-Muslims. There's absolutely no reason we should put up with this.
Note that a genuine Muslim should be slightly embarrassed by this reversal of the usual charge of "offending one's religion" : after all, Jesus is a Muslim prophet.
Since Muslims have stolen Christianity and turned it on its head, so to speak, hanging Islam by its feet is the best we can do.
rebelliousvanilla,
"you said you are against the laws that prohibit the veil. Then how come you aren't for letting me go nude to the post office?"
Who said I'm against nudity? I prefer going to the post office dressed up myself, but don't mind what you do. If many people will do it though, it might create a bit of a public disorder, with all the exposed sex organs in various states hanging out and about, which is, I suppose, why there's a law telling you to put something on and there isn't a law telling you what exactly you should and shouldn't put on, but I personally don't care if you go around naked.
"Funny enough, in my country we have a small minority of Muslims, most of them towards the sea and some in my city, yet I saw only two veiled(hijab only) women in my whole life."
In my country we have a large Muslim minority. In my city there are quite a few of them, some even in my neighborhood. I've seen Muslim women in various attires. It's not always a political statement.
Zenster,
"Exactly what was she trying to provoke?"
Maybe it's a form of protesting against the anti-Muslims atmosphere in general and the anti-veil in particular. You know, like the gay pride parade where they proudly exhibit their sexual identity to challenge society to accept them and to feel good about themselves, not having to hide.
IoshkaFutz,
"How about honesty?"
Exactly. It's like the French banned the veil/burka (I forget), large crosses and yarmulkas in public service as if they were having an episode of secular zealotry, while everyone knows it's just about the veil and just about Islam and the rest is just to disguise it as non-discriminatory. They don't fool anyone - not themselves, not the Muslims and not the rest of the public, and they know it, but still choose this transparent hypocritical facade. Everybody knows, and everybody knows that everybody knows, but you mustn't ever utter the forbidden thoughts that everybody's thinking. Just pretend you're not pretending and everything is cool.
doom and gloom, the problem is off course that if she is allowed to dress like that, then neither nudity nor dressing in a Nazi uniform and painting the Swastika on your car shouldn't be problems. Just as I wouldn't mind someone punching this woman in the face, I wouldn't mind someone dressing in a Nazi uniform being beaten up. There's a reason why nudity is illegal and it's not what you said, just like why dressing like a ninja should be.
Another thing, I want just the burka banned. Christianity is European and not foreign. Islam is. And I don't find discrimination a bad thing, considering I'm a sane rational person and I don't live in stupid universal notions of equality and under trash. I don't expect them to let me jog around Mecca nude wearing just a cross either.
"You kicked us out of Algeria, we kick you out of douce France!"
I like that idea. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Algerians presumably found the French to be cramping their style in Algeria. Well the net effect of Muslims on France is demonstrably negative. So out with them! Or at the very least, doors closed to further Muslim immigration and the cold shoulder socially instead of the multiculti welcome mat. The idea is to encourage Muslims already in the West to seek one of their 57 paradises on earth with their own kind. Social ostracism must make a comeback and leftist PC must have a stake put through its heart for preventing westerners from exercising the most basic survival instinct...disliking and shunning the despoilers of one's culture and home...
Post a Comment