There are moves afoot to ban the burqa in the Netherlands on the basis that they are oppressive to women and in the words of Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of parliament…
an insult to everyone who believes in equal rights
Which is quite curious logic because if he believes in equal rights, does that not include the right to wear what you damn well please without it having to be politically approved by the state? Will other forms of clothing be banned in order to make this an ‘equal right’? Moreover it sets a horrific president: does that mean ‘offensive’ clothing can be banned, such as, say, a mini-skirt that some Muslims with sexual hang-ups find offensive?
This proposal is a dreadful idea with only one thing to recommend it, and that with proviso is does not actually pass into law. The notion of making Muslim fundamentalists (and I would argue that anyone wearing a burqa is a fundamentalist) feel that they are not accepted and that even toleration of them is hanging in the balance is not such a bad message to send. Yet this is nevertheless an appalling notion for the state to decide what people can wear. A vastly better idea would be to just scale back the welfare state which brough many of these people to Europe and most importantly return the abridged property rights and freedom of association and dis-association to individuals to deal with who they please and freely (but peaceably) express themselves without fear of prosecution for ‘discrimination’.
That way, if enough individuals decide that not make people who wear burqas welcome into their places of business, the problem of state supported non-assimilation would quickly disappear. If people really do not care, then that too is the ‘voice of the people’. Either way, the state has no business enforcing dress codes. Provide some real social motivation to assimilate and adopt western norms of behaviour. If some un-assimilated Muslims find that notion offensive and choose to leave for some nation which is more accepting of dark ages mores. Either way the problem is reduced.
Actually, Perry, a couple of points.
First, those women and girls who sally forth in burqas have been indoctrinated, brainwashed and bullied since birth to believe that they are second class humans and their uncovered faces are a crime. I believe this is against their human rights.
They are taught by the behaviour of Islamic males at large that if they sally forth sans burqa, they will be regarded not as free women, but whores. I believe this is against their human rights.
They will also be regarded by ignorant and moronic Islamic males as inviting rape thereby. I believe this is against their human rights.
Ergo, donning the burqa as a result of indoctrination and intimdation is a breach of their human rights even if they don it apparently of their own free will.
Finally, I actually don’t give a monkey fart about the “human rights” of Islamic women – the aforegoing was just for the sake of turning the argument upside down – but I do care about the rights of the Dutch to interact with other human beings on a normal basis; the basis practised by human beings, save in Islamic areas, throughout the world. That is, being able to judge a person by their facial expressions. One is robbed of these essential human clues when one party to the conversation has a black bag over its head. There can be no equality of conversation when one party remains hidden.
It would be useful if there was a way to publicly identify the men who ‘own’ the women in the burqas. They’re the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power.
Verity’s right about the facial expressions. I even get upset with dark tinted front vehicle windows. It’s important to see the face of the person you are dealing with.
People should be free to wear they want. On the other hand, it does send a message to the muscum that they haven’t go the monopoly on being outraged – and when push comes to shove, just watch us be unreasonable too.
You may be correct in some cases… and then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases.
Some women really may wish to wear burqas and why should the state decide they cannot? Now if a Muslim woman chose to sue her husband for abusing her for forcing her to wear a burqa, well that would send a splendid message… but if she insists on wearing a burqa, it is a horrendous idea to use the power of the state to punish her for her idiotic beliefs.
does that mean ‘offensive’ clothing can be banned, such as, say, a mini-skirt that some Muslims with sexual hang-ups find offensive?
Rewrite:
“does that mean ‘offensive’ clothing can be banned, such as, say, a G-string that most people without sexual hang-ups find offensive outside the privacy of the home?
I renewed my daughters passport this week and notice that it is not acceptable in photographs for anyone to wear a hat – unless they are a female muslim. I know it is a scarf tied tightly around the head hiding the hair and ears and not a full burqua but it is still one rule for some and another rule for others.
At work, I recently had to deal with a Muslim man and his completely covered wife. I ascertained by proxy that she wanted to take out her dole money (now there’s a surprise – another productive member of the welfare class), however she didn’t say a single word. He did all the talking for her, had authorisation to transact on all her accounts. It was all above board – or at least I jumped through all the necessary hoops.
However, this scenario made me think that the scope for fraud is enormous. Our brains have evolved staggeringly large chunks of space to recognise the minute differences of an individual’s face. This is probably the major factor when we determine who we are dealing with and thus how we deal with them.
The burqa circumvents this primary discriminatory device. Why should those who don such a confusing garment be afforded anywhere near the leeway of one who shows their face freely? Of course it’s discrimination. Rightfully so.
“They’re the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power.” – Midwesterner
I don’t agree. With their twerpy attitude, these men will feel shunned by extension – thus reinforcing their well-earned sense of inferiority.
In any event, it doesn’t matter how the men feel. It is the women who are being oppressed.
“… then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases.” – Perry de Havilland
You would have to show me an adult woman who had never been forced to wear a burqa as a little girl and an adolescent girl, yet suddenly decides, completely off her own bat, to wear one as an adult. Not gonna happen, Perry, except in the case of loony tunes, attention-seeking converts to Islam.
Also, burqas place a big stamp on a woman. It reads: VICTIM. Along with this suppression of her facial features, facial expressions and personality, we don’t know what else has been done to these women in the name of “Islamic modesty” – as in clitorectomies; as in being forced to marry a cousin from her ancestral shit hole; as in being warned not to date a normal boy on pain of death.
As far as I’m concerned, the evidence is all in. No burqas in a civilised society.
No, I do not think they should be banned and if you go to the West End of London and hang around outside certain clubs, you will see people wearing very little indeed. I just think people should be able to ban people from entering their property for any reason whatsoever. The state should not get involved.
“They’re the ones I want to boycott/shun/insult. Locking the burqa bound women out of public life may just be helping those men keep power.” – Midwesterner
I don’t agree. With their twerpy attitude, these men will feel shunned by extension – thus reinforcing their well-earned sense of inferiority.
In any event, it doesn’t matter how the men feel. It is the women who are being oppressed.
“… then again, you are almost certainly not correct in other cases.” – Perry de Havilland
You would have to show me an adult woman who had never been forced to wear a burqa as a little girl and an adolescent girl, yet suddenly decides, completely off her own bat, to wear one as an adult. Not gonna happen, Perry, except in the case of loony tunes, attention-seeking converts to Islam.
Also, burqas place a big stamp on a woman. It reads: VICTIM. Along with this suppression of her facial features, facial expressions and personality, we don’t know what else has been done to these women in the name of “Islamic modesty” – as in clitorectomies; as in being forced to marry a cousin from her ancestral shit hole; as in being warned not to date a normal boy on pain of death.
As far as I’m concerned, the evidence is all in. No burqas in a civilised society. Geert Wilders is a hero.
Although I think Verity is far too dismissive of the rights of islamic women to wear what they want, she has a point about facial recognition in normal human interactions. When a guy goes into a bank, for instance, it is sensible security policy to take off a motorcycle helmet, sunglasses etc. We expect to see what a person’s face looks like. It is something that is biologically hardwired.
That said, Perry’s point is sound. Dress code is none of the state’s business, although I might draw the line at nudity in city centres.
James made the point I’ve been wanting to address.
I’ve been reading the book ‘Blink’. In one test, students were given a 2 second, silent video clip of an instructor and then asked to state an opinion on that instructor regarding the instructors teaching skills. The results correlated almost perfectly with their opinions after they had been in the instructor’s class for a semester.
I have occasionally experimented with mouthing but not speaking words in a noisy environment. Paying extra attention to letting my face speak. Eye’s especially. Afterward, amost everyone I have done this to could swear they heard my words.
I can assure you from personal knowledge, face is very important to communication.
For me the big problem is one of identity. You dont know who is under that sack, could be the proper dole claimant/ student sitting an exam/person taking a driving test, and then it could be a ringer.
The other thing is that it comes accross as a sort of ‘one upmanship’, see how much more islamic I am than you.
Apparently muslims find it offensive to be asked to join the human race…..good.
Rather than banning burqas directly – the law should act against the implicit threat of forced coercion that accompanies the act of wearing (or not wearing) certain items of clothing. It is already regarded as criminal behaviour to wear (or even be in the posession of) balaclavas in certain circumstances. The same rule should be applied to burqas and anything else used to control masses people through this form of blatant intimidation.
You cannot enter a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet, because experience has dictated that it’s a classic disguise in the event of a hold-up.
It would be interesting if a spate of bank robberies were committed by burqa-clad bandits. I wonder if practicality would override political correctness in such a case.
There exists no right NOT to be indoctrinated or brainwashed, Verity. To say so misconcieves ‘rights’.
Specific examples of free will being hampered, YES, but perhaps we could exert our collective force upon EVERYONE who we think may be indoctrinated? Sorry, but the only valid moral philosophy relates to individuals, not groups or collectives.
And therefore, no rights are being violated here, except the rights of those who may not now be able to wear a burqa even if they want to!
if you go to the West End of London and hang around outside certain clubs, you will see people wearing very little indeed ..
I was in the West End some weeks ago and visited Groucho’s with a ‘literary’ friend — but perhaps that’s not what you mean by ‘certain clubs’. Most people, both inside and outside, were wearing quite a bit (well, it was early February and minus 2 degrees …)
But do you seriously believe that it should not be illegal for a man or woman to walk naked down, say, Oxford Street in the middle of the day?
A naked male with an erection?
A naked male with a semi-erection?
A naked male with an erection but with his penis covered by a hand-towel?
Libertarians, discuss this crucial issue!
Facial cues are all important not only to human society, but to higher animals as well. A snarling dog is a threat not just to us, but to another dog. We know bloody fine what that dog’s intentions are. Cats have an enormous portmanteau of expressions. Ears up; ears back and pointed in fury; ears way, way back in fear; eyes open and mouth relaxed in friendliness; ears straight up and eyes wide open in amusement.
Both cats and dogs are adept at reading the expressions of their owners. It is a normal part of being part of the animal kingdom.
And the ability to read the face of another person is instintual. How many times have you almost been convinced by someone, and then there’s suddenly a very, very subtle and momentary shift in their expression, and you think, “He’s lying.”? I’ll bet your instinct has saved you from being sold a pup on more than one occasion.
I think they should be free to wear burqas in the privacy of their own home, but they should not force this abnormality on the rest of us outside their own premises.
It is hardly a crucial issue. I think ‘threatening behaviour’ is not tolerable and under some situations approaching someone whilst naked and whith an erection would certain be reasonably seen as threatening behaviour… but I really think that social pressures regarding nudity should be enough most of the time. If shops and restaurants will not allow you in if naked, and people will not hire you, that should be all that is needed. Society works if allowed to and social pressures are very effective most of the time when not regulated out of existance.
This is nonsense.
Are you really saying that someone should not be free to hide their face in public if that is what they want?
Maybe scarves will be next.
“if that is what they want?” – John Wright
It’s only what they want because they have been threatened by their fathers and brothers and the neighbourhood boys have called them “sluts” if they go out without it.
Exactly Verity “It’s only what they want because they have been threatened by their fathers and brothers and the neighbourhood boys have called them “sluts” if they go out without it.”
The “freedom” to wear a burqa is a false freedom because it is by threat of violence that the “need” to wear it is spread.
That’s possibly true (and, as Perry pointed out, quite possibly untrue in many circumstances). For the most part, it appears to be just typical religious tradition.
My concern is the door that this approach is cracking open. I believe that 90% of religious people are indoctrinated to some extent. But that doesn’t mean we should ban one of their traditions to ‘help’ them escape from it.
(I love most of your comments, by the way. 🙂
Joe-
NOT ALWAYS!
And why not say the same about other religious or ethnic dress?
A friend of mine works in a hospital and tells me he gets more and more burqa’ed up patients who seem unable to talk on their own. Standard NHS procedure is that if a woman or child is being tested they are told before to bring a friend/parent along plus a nurse is usually called in to act as a witness. The burka types however never bring a woman friend but always a male relative who watches all stages of the test. Just to make things worse they won’t remove the burqa although they will expose small areas of skin but only if the male gives his approval. Once the electrode has been attached the skin is covered. So by the end of the procedure you end up with what looks like a sack with wires coming out 🙂 The male answers all questions even when the patient is asked if something hurts.
Then prosecute people for violence and intimidation, not what they wear. The state has NO biz setting dress codes. Likewise doctors and nurses should refuse to listen to anyone except the patient and if they do not like that, tough shit. If they want to get treated, they need to adapt to western social norms just as in everything else.
Unfortunately extreme Muslim dress for women is often used by Muslim men to separate the rape-able women from the non-rapeable ones.
How does one go about ensuring that this does not happen without banning the burqa?
I am with Perry on this one. People should be free to wear whatever they want – burqa or bikini or blue jeans.
It doesn’t matter if they’ve been indoctrinated to want to wear them – once they are adults they get to choose for themselves.
However, I think there are limits imposed by the need to be able to identify people in certain situations. So, a woman can wear a burqa if she likes but must “de-hood” when she enters a bank or when she gets her drivers license photo taken.
I also think people who conceal their face in public reasonably should expect to receive more attention from the police – as concealing one’s identity is a strong facilitator for crime.
Susan, I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights. It is a right to be free to wear whatever you expressly desire. It is also a right to be free from rape. Uphold those two rights, and we are doing the RIGHT thing.
The NHS is drowning in “cultural sensitivity”. They would pay attention to a horse pawing at letters spread on the floor with its foot on behalf of a female patient if that’s what some bonkers imam (sorry for the tautology) told them is “our religious tradition”.
How do you suggest, Perry, that someone with a severe case of Stockholm syndrome, is going to claim violence and intimidation against the males in her family? She has been held captive all her life.
Anyway, as I said at the top, I couldn’t care less about them. But the Dutch should not have to accommodate themselves to something so primitive and uncivil, and dangerous.
John and Perry, Intimidation is not about the wearing of dress – its about intimidation: Full stop!
Intimidation is illegal- therefore (at this point in time) burqa wearing should be likewise.
Where Islamism is concerned there is no freedom involved in burqa wearing.
“I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights.” – John Wright
Incorrect. There is way too much emphasis on the individual and their “human rights” and not enough on the body of civil society.
Apart from anything else, it is extremely rude to hide your face from people you are dealing with. Expecting to be taken seriously while wearing a pillowcase is not just rude, but is a sign of a mental condition.
The rights of Dutch society come above the rights of anti-socially inclined individuals, and anyone who wears a bag over her head when out of the house and expects people to deal with her as an equal is very arrogant.
There is way too much emphasis on the individual and their “human rights” and not enough on the body of civil society.
You are Tony Blair. I claim the Westminster Gazette prize.
Actually, it depends on whose burqa is being gored, to mix a metaphore.
To illustrate, I will use a Samizdata post from a short while back:
A permissable burqa
Now THAT I could get behind. Beside. Befronted, Be-Blither…
holding comments for approval now?
Was it the link to another samizdata post?
Then prosecute people for violence and intimidation, not what they wear. The state has NO biz setting dress codes. Likewise doctors and nurses should refuse to listen to anyone except the patient and if they do not like that, tough shit. If they want to get treated, they need to adapt to western social norms just as in everything else.
We are still working the bugs out of the new system, so comments may be a bit troublesome until we get the technology squared away.
Yes, this is a dreadful proposal. But what surprises me is that I can’t find anything about it on Dutch news-sites. Then again, we’ve just had council elections (one voting day for all councils in the country) and the government lost. Labour (PVDA: literally, Party of the Workers) and the Socialist Party (SP) won. It’s said that in the major cities as much as 80% of – ahem – ‘foreigners’ voted for Labour. So the country’s said to face a turn to left, with general elections next year.
Apparently 20% of votes were protestvotes. The CDA (christian-democrats), the largest party in the coalititon, have now said that the government must explain policy even better. The SP is a typical protestparty. It’s very, uh, “action” driven, springing into gear and protesting for the little guy. Of course, all of this lead may run into the ground, but government policy looks like suicide to me.
So please excuse me while I fail to find this Burqa-issue very interesting. I’d be very surprised if this ever manages to pass through the House. The CDA will not want to look like radicals and the PVDA will certainly not vote for it.
NoProblem, just curious more than anything.
Perry, you are taking several separate issues that are currently combined in the burqa dilemma (fashion, freedom, and vicious intimidation)and then inexplicably stating that the combination must be treated as a single issue of freedom. Why? Any dilemma that is combined with a mixture of several issues must be viewed in the new light of what it entails in its entirety: Or else we would happily take the computer with us into the bath! 🙂
Not at all, Joe. In fact I am treating how people dress and the fact some people are subject to intimidation/violence as quite seperate issues. The state has no role in the first and certainly does in the second.
Perry, “I am treating how people dress and the fact some people are subject to intimidation/violence are quite seperate issues. “
Why do that when in this case they are combined in the one issue?
Separating them into unrelated issues is like sitting at the computer but refusing to touch the keyboard because that would be typing- which is a separate issue!
Susan, I think we have to base everything we do upon human rights. It is a right to be free to wear whatever you expressly desire. It is also a right to be free from rape. Uphold those two rights, and we are doing the RIGHT thing.
Reasonable thoughts, sir.
Reality: Muslims riot, kill and burn every time one of their “brothers” is prosecuted for raping a girl, especially an infidel girl. Judges, legal officers and witnesses, and the girl herself and her family, are violently intimidated.
Soon, the legal establishment just learns to “look the other way” as it is already doing in places like France and Sweden, and “slutty” Western women who live on the fringes of Muslim ghettoes already don the veil to keep from being attacked.
What then?
You are dealing with a mentality that thinks like the Mafia. And women and girls — especially “slutty” Western women and girls — are on the front lines of their “jihad.”
Are we the ones who get tossed out of the boat first, followed by the Jews and the gays?
Don’t let the burqa and the niqab take root in our socities. Your wife, your daughter, your sister, your mother — they are the ones who will be paying the price.
I meant to say in my last comment:
The state is automatically involved because the safety of the people as a whole is at stake
The burqa is not the issue, the fact some people are using violence to impose their views, THAT is the issue. To ban someone from wearing a burqa is absurd. If a wierd non-Mulsim woman, or hell, a wierd MAN decides to wear a burqua, is that going to be illegal?
Banning clothing is preposterous when what should be done is refusing to tolerate AT ALL the violence and intimidation that leads many (but NOT all) to wear the burqa. Socially people should not pretend the norms of how some muslims behave towards women are tolerable. They are not and fact should be make clear to them, right in their faces, and no apology offwered if they are offended by other finding their behaviour offensive.
And when there is evidence of violence and abuse, it should be investigated like any other criminal matter should be investigated and the fact they are muslims make not one iota of difference.
Hear, hear Perry.
I blogged on this issue today here.
I keep hearing about the difference between the ideal approach we should take and the “reality”. That’s the reason we have an ideal, so we can CHANGE the reality.
Perry, has there ever been a thread on Samizdata discussing the wearing of masks to conceal ones face in public places and right-of-ways?
I’m having trouble with the search function and thought you might recall.
Guy Herbert, you are so funny I almost smiled.
What I meant, and phrased badly, is that everyone is encouraged to be a special case now. The cohesion of society doesn’t matter as much as someone getting their personal quirk legalised. Like that loathesome little girl in Luton who wants to dress as a faceless blog to come to school. To hell with the school unform; to hell with the school’s identity and rules. She is special and needs to be catered to. This just doesn’t work.
Hey wait a minute here….. a tax. A tax on burquas. It’s an idea. Muslim ladies who wear them can show their licence for wearing one of the most obnoxious piece of clothing ever. One thousand pounds a year for starters. We protect their civil liberties snort bahahaahaaa
Perry, forgive me because you are our generous host, but this comment is infuriating: “The burqa is not the issue, the fact some people are using violence to impose their views, THAT is the issue.”
Hello? A Muslim woman who has been indoctrinated since childhood is going to go to the police and tell them she’s been beaten because she asked to be allowed to go out without a burqa? Or maybe she’s been “disappeared” for having such a slutty notion and the neighbours in the (self-imposed) ghetto never heard a thing? And neither did her own mother.
Verity, With you on that “loathsome girl from Luton”. Her case was backed by some very nasty caliphatists.
I’ve always thoguth the burkha (and similar forms of Islamic dress) pathetic. Certainly from the first time as a kid on Holiday I saw the muzzie birds paddling in the sea in full tent while everyone else was in more suitable beach attire. It is patheic because it isn’t even in the Koran (“dress modestly”) it’s a throwback to dark age Arab tribal antics (arguably Islam isn’t much more than a codification of those). Now, I believe that people should be able to express their religious identity by and large in their dress. I have no problem with a Turban or a Yamulkah – and not just because we’re not at war with Sikhs or Jews.
But this isn’t religion, it’s tribal practise from 1400 years ago originally carried out by people who drank camel urine. There is no reason why anyone in Holland would want to dress like this unless they’re brain-washed, mad, doing a promotion for a camping goods store or coerced.
I don’t believe in “Human Rights”, I believe in rights – the absolute rights of everyone. The rights of the Locke and Payne et al. These are individual rights. “Human Rights” are too easily hijacked by groups. Islam has no concept of individual rights (I not e that as of today Danish Muzzie clerics are still demanding an apology from the government of Denmark for the actions of individual Danish citizens). Islam is too taken up with the concept of the Umma to care about the individual who wants to be different, innovative or critical.
They are therefore stuck with a mindset in which womena are property to be protected. The burkha is the bike-lock on their women. It controls them and reinforces this “ownership” It is a way of thinking that is alien to the modern West.
The burkha is a symbol of submission, not freedom religous or otherwise. Supporting it is akin to supporting the “voluntary” wearing of chains by black people in the US South after the civil war.
I’m not comfortable with the government telling me what not to wear, but it is the much lesser evil than guttersnipe religous fanatics telling anyone what they must wear. The burkha is the first step to forced marriage, rape, honour killing and (for those brave enough to abandon it) the H2SO4 facial.
It is deeply ironic that the proponents of the burkha say it stops women being objectified when that is exactly the point of it.
I suppose ( pace Godwin) that there are those who would argue in favour of the “right” to wear yellow stars or pink triangles, on the grounds that, at least technically, it was optional.
Perhaps if it were men who were so degraded, some of the comments above might be a little less breezy.
Nick M – You comment: With you on that “loathsome girl from Luton”. Her case was backed by some very nasty caliphatists.
Not only that, but it’s being pled by the arrogant (and not very talented) and privileged Cherie Blair. Hmm, am I misremembering, or did some of her children attend an inner city school that’s 80% Islamic? I don’t recall reading about that. I think they went to selective schools.
Strange, I don’t have any problem at all with the yarmulka or the Sikh turban – perhaps because they are private symbols of religious devotion and are not used to intimidate. The burqa is a threat because, if you are terribly unfortunate enough to live in an Islamic settlement in Britain or Europe, it will be used to control non-Islamic girls and force them to obey Islamic customs. This is so disgusting I can’t find the words.
Then get out there and WIN the culture war against these people, that is what I am trying to do by saying it the way I see it.
LOUDLY say that if you are being threatened by your family, that is against the law and in this country you have a right to not be threatened. When the tide and pervasiveness of culture goes against them as it did against racists, who are now delightfully socially unacceptable, that is what we need to do to these people. We need to turn their own daughters against their whole system, but you do not do that by making burqas illegal with the force of law (believe me, in the long run if you do, mini-skirts will be made illegal one day too as the logic is as clear as day. Clothing is expression and expression must be free regardless of how loathsome it is).
It IS doable with enough will to make it impossible for Muslim women to avoid hearing the message they are oppressed if only the damn state stops threatening to make it illegal to upset people. I think some fundimentalists know we could turn their own women aghainst them which is what the more clear headed Islamo-fascists (not an oxymoron) hate us so deeply.
I have seen people wearing yellow stars and pink triangles at anti-ID card demos. Would you make that illegal?
Perry de Havilland writes:
“I have seen people wearing yellow stars and pink triangles at anti-ID card demos. Would you make that illegal?”
Context, as ever, is everything. One of the delights of English Common Law is that we expect it to be interpreted.
Ordinarily, I would go to the ramparts with you to defend the right of anyone to wear anything they choose. But that’s the point: the only woman who would choose to wear a burqa is one who has been brutalised.
Perry – I admire your spirit and resolve.
But by the time someone has been indoctrinated from birth for 20 years – and has possibly suffered horrendous physical violence – as in a clitorectomy – it would be a most unusual woman who could untangle the burqa that had been imposed on her mind.
Hirsi Ali is such a sterling, brave example, she keeps being held up as a hero, which she most assuredly is. Irshad Manji is another one. But Perry, to come up with the western notion that people have no fear of throwing off their chains in safe societies won’t wash. There have been two stonings to death in civilised France. Islamic women who breach the rules – whether it’s refusing to wear a burqa or having an affair or foolishly allowing themselves to be raped – provoke utter, vengeful fury in the stupid Islamic male. I keep saying, these people are Stone Agers. Men, even teenage boys, are much stronger than women. Sons can intimidate their mothers and their sisters.
It is not so easy for these women to speak out, Perry. The black Americans were not embedded in white families – and by saying this I am not trying to take away in any way from their heroic struggle. But Islamic women live in Islamic families. Sadly, in the title of that movie of the Eighties, they’re “Sleeping with The Enemy”.
They’re not a mass of separate people who can take courage and strength from one other. Each owes her allegiance to her family, where she is also the victim.
For once I disagree with Perry and agree with most of what Verity has posted above.
Indeed, IMHO, there is a simple way of dealing with all of this:
No one should be allowed to cover their face in public, whether with a burqa, hood or any other means — not because of the lack of human interaction through facial expression that Verity alludes to, but because of non-discrimination. After all, if I run around with a balaclava in public, I’ll be arrested. If I run around with a burqa or hijjab or whatever the hell these things are called, that is deemed virtuous.
That just can’t be right.
hm has a point. Hoodies are banned from shopping malls and supermarkets – and a particularly officious supermarket told an 83 year old woman that her little hat was a security risk.
Why are burqa wearers elevated to privileged class status over normal Brits? I use the word ‘normal’ intentionally. Burqa-wearers are, sadly, not normal. For any woman/girl complicit in her own demeaning, aberrant is not too strong a word.
Shopping malls and supermarkets are private property and can enforce whatever dresscode they like. One proper way to fight the hijab would be to encourage shop owners to refuse entry to people wearing them. If there is indeed “broad public support” for this measure in the Netherlands, it should be too tought to get just such a campaign started.
But please let’s not go the step of letting the state enforce dress codes!
Preview is your friend. Of course this:
Should read: “…it shouldn’t be too tough to get…”
Verity, Perry,
Hirsi Ali is undoubtedly a remarkably brave and resourceful woman. But even that wasn’t enough for her. She neded a slice of luck. She was sent from Somalia for an arranged marriage in Canada via Schipol. It was there she took her opportunity and why she’s in Holland now. We can’t expect eveyone to be as courageous, as smart or have that chance to defect.
There is a culture war. Verity, your point about intimidation is important. The burkha isn’t there just to intimidate the wearer. It is there to prevent “civilians” talking to its wearers, striking up friendships, influencing them maybe.
GCooper is 100% to point out the importance of context. If you’re kinked that way a ball and chain is fun for some in an S&M context, but as day to day wear for 100s of millions of women – surely there is something wrong, deeply wrong.
Burkhas are actually quite expensive in third world countries – much more so than other attire. Under the Taliban this was important because their ultimate desideratum was to keep all women indoors as sex-toys and baby-mammas. The Taliban were Islam (esp. Sunni Islam) taken to its absolute logical conclusion.
To all those apologists for Islam who trot(sky) out that old saw about how the crimes of Islam are “nothing to what white Europeans have done” I have usually one answer – “female emancipation”. There are many others, but I find this one stops the lefties (who always wanna seem “feminist” in their tracks).
There is no possibility of dialogue with Islam except via depleted uranium. And Let’s hope the UK replaces Trident with an absolute mother, because we’re gonna need it. Whether the world needs Riyadh, Tehran, Islamobad, Baghdad… is rather a moot point.
I believe it was a pub that told the woman to remove her hat – which is their right because they’re a private enterprise.
A state that has the power to tell people how to dress is just what fundamentalist Islam wants because that could be corrupted to their ends. However Islam will never win out in a society that values freedom above all else.
Nick M-
We had to destroy the village to save it?
I agree with you that these regimes are horrid, but nuking them is hardly going to liberate all the women living there. It’s certainly not a rational step to take to eliminate the burqa!
Nuking would only ever be justified as self-defense against an invasion – not as a means for liberation, surely!
Joshua,
I never said anything about liberation.
mark adams,
You trivialise the point beyond belief. In anycase they’re called “public houses” for a reason.
We are at war against Islam, not pub landlords (although I make an exception to that about the Landlord of The Union in Levenshulme – where they employ the most awful folk band on a Sunday afternoon).
No, I suppose you didn’t. But lines like this are confusing on that point:
If you really believe that one of the reasons Islam is bad is because they oppress their women, it seems counterproductive to nuke the innocent oppressed.
Right, and I am called “Joshua,” so I must be the savior of mankind?
Whatever they’re called, if they’re private property the owners can enforce whatever dress codes they like. It’s their space, not yours.
mark adams – “However Islam will never win out in a society that values freedom above all else.”
Are you mad? Are you referring to Britain as “a society that values freedom above all else?”
Britain doesn’t value freedom. It has had a taste for fascism since the Fabians, and now the Facism of political correctness because it’s dressed in frilly knickers and “makes people feel good about themselves”, whatever the hell that means.
Good grades and achievement give the same effect, although more difficult.
Forty percent of Islamics in Britain favour their primitive, tribal shariah law, although they were born and “educated” in Britain.
Twelve per cent were canny enough to say they “don’t know”. So make that 52% of these famed “moderate muslims” who want shariah imposed on enlightened, civilised Britons, yet they’re apparently in a minority? Fifty-two percent is no longer a majority? Is this something to do with arabic numerals?
If 52% want their desert tribal shariah imposed on civilised Britain, yet 52% no longer constitutes a majority under this shariah of the British press, especially the BBC, where is this notional “vast moderate majority” hiding? Is this doing your head in, or have I had one glass of wine too many?
Islam is winning out by sheer politically correct intimidation. What a way to lose a war, eh? Especially a war that should never have been allowed to become even a tiny skirmish. Yet was planned by the fifth column known as the British government.
I didn’t say I wanted to nuke the camel-jockeys. I’m suggesting that we may need a good nuke capability either to coerce, or if it came to it, to ripple the shit out of them from Morocco to Malaysia.
As far as “the oppressed” are concerned I care, but I care more about this poison being spread in the UK (and the rest of the civilised world). I care about English girls being forcibly married to first cousins in Pakistan or Yemen. I care about that much more because I think we can do something about it. We can beat Islam here and what it does to it’s slave women here. I think the Islamic nations are so deeply infected that I know not what to do about them but contain them, or destroy them.
Earth has a gangrenous limb – invent a “wonder-drug” in very short order or amputate. Any better ideas?
Fascinating discussion. A couple of things struck me about the points being made.
It is interesting to see the approach of a minimalist like Perry in contrast to the approach of a current politcal type like the Dutchman.
Wilders immediate thought is to make a rule that brings the coercive power of the state into the situation. Perry’s proposes to let people hash this out amongst themselves.
I would suggest that we are in the over-regulated situation we are in because Wilders’ method of dealing with any issue has been the default response for far too long a time.
The idea of letting individuals work these things out in their own ways is controversial even here, not least because the we are so thoroughly saturated with the “there oughtta be a law” mindset. In most situations, the non-legalistic solution isn’t even considered.
There are stores and gas stations around my area which have introduced a finger-pad method of speedy payment. A small scanner compares the fingerprint of the customer to the exemplar on file, and then charges the pre-arranged credit card.
It does not seem far fetched to extend this model to any situation in which there is reason to doubt the ability of one side to ascertain the true identity of the other. The same result could be attained with retinal scans.
If the situation were reversed, and an Islamic administration in Holland, (not too far fetched a possibility in some countries, unfortunately) proposed that shorts be banned because they were offensive, some of the people here arguing that offensive clothing be banned would be very indignant, indeed.
There are any number of cultures around the world in which the norms of male-female relationships are not based on equlity of the sexes. It might be somewhat cavalier to label thousands of years of cultural tradition as unacceptable, or illegal, just because it does not conform to current Western standards.
I humbly suggest that women who want things to change are very capable of bringing that change about, given a legal structure which protects them from violent intimidation and assault. What is required is a non-corrupted legal system which applies the laws without regard to political correctness or political cowardice.
And if any of this makes Verity mad at me, I concede, and regret ever even thinking the thought in question.
I’ve been married for decades. I know my place.
The clothing that people wear is no business of the state. The state already regulates far too much of the minutae of our lives we shouldn’t give them another inch.
People are falling prey to the ridiculous (but sadly common) idea that problems can be solved by passing laws. There are already laws against intimidation and violence and in some respects against wearing masks. Enforce those laws evenly.
Although there are cases of girls rebelling against their secular families and covering themselves I would agree that, in most cases, women who are wearing a burka are doing so against their free will or have been so indoctrinated as to have no sense of free will. But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you’re dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all.
When will we learn? Laws don’t help!
veryretired, ResidentAlien,
Very naive. This has nothing to do with the law of the land. It is to do with the parallel law – sharia. Any aspect of family/civil/criminal law in the UK hardly touches the self-policing sharia mini-states which occur in the (self-imposed) inner-city ghettoes of the UK (and elsewhere). Cutting it root and branch is the only thing that will work.
This is not about legalism or alternatives. It is about Islam. How many muslims blog here (other than trolls)? They need to be taken down. One way or another.
Nick m,
If i’m not mistaken, you were alluding to nuclear weapons further up the post. Pardon me while I do not take your intellectual credentials very seriously.
It has everything to do with the law of the land and the desire by some to use the legal power of the state to make life unpleasant for a group they don’t like in the hope that group will go and live somewhere else.
I don’t get your point about Muslims blogging here but given the abuse dished out to the last overtly Muslim poster is it any wonder that they don’t post here.
If somebody wants to dress in a certain way it is none of my business and certainly none of the government’s. If somebody wants to follow a certain religion, it is none of my business. I could not care less. On the other hand if somebody acts towards me in a hostile way, conspires to or actually harms me then they become an enemy I do care, will defend myself and have the power of the state behind me.
If somebody wants to remove my freedom to wear a burka he puts himself in the same category as those who wish to prevent me from owning a gun or taking cocaine. The fact that I have no current inclination to do any of those things does not lessen the guilt and arrogance of anybody who wishes to stop me from doing so.
veryretired,
Yes, nukes are a very useful tool to have. Either to use, or to threaten with. I do not see how that reduces my “intellectual credentials”.
Did you tie flowers to the chainlink at Greenham Common in the 80s? If not, what’s wrong nukes?
ResidentAlien,
We pass like ships in the night. This is not a point about government against Joe Public, it’s about Islam against everyone else.
Islam is not a religion like Christianity, Buddhism or a number of others. It is a personality cult produced by an extremely evil man who had the nastiest ideas in the last 2000 years. It ought to be treated as such and eliminated. If you can’t see that, assume the position (facing east, on your knees, bend forwards, part your cheeks and hope muzzie brought the vasoline).
Resident Alien: But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you’re dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all.
Who gives a shit?
I’m not in the business of saving humanity. I just don’t want to be assaulted by religious maniacs in the guise of “modest” women, which is an aggression and I resent. These women/girls are making a statement, whether willingly or unwillingly. Who cares? . The burqa is a nasty and aggressive thing that has no place in the enlightened West.
veryretired, or may I call you veryboring? – you got a reputation here for incisiveness, but that has been diminishing as one trite, Garrison Keiller folk wisdom after another has been smugly intoned.
Don’t have the impertinence to compare me to your wife. The number of years you personally have been married has absolutely nothing to do with the value – one way or the other – of the thoughts I offer here.
You say: “But, if you think that banning wearing the burka in public would stop that intimidation you’re dead wrong. The most immediate consequence would probably be that those women would not be allowed out of their houses at all.” I don’t necessarily agree, but as I have said several times above, I don’t give a shit. If they want to be complicit in their own abasement, that is not my business. But I don’t want their bizarre practices in my face. Please let them practise their SM in the privacy of their own homes.
These women are aggressive. They will intentionally knock into you in a queue (if you’re a woman) because you can’t identify them. They use their anonymity as a weapon. I really have no interest in their fates. Concealing the faces of 50% of human beings is twisted, bizarre and utterly abnormal.
I have absolutely no humanitarian interest in their fates, but I don’t want them blighting with their presence my ancient, enlightened civilised society.
Verity,
Thank you for bringing some sanity to the proceedings.
And so, to bed – as a former memeber of our ancienct, enlightened civilisation put it.
(And he once buried a whole parmesan cheese so it would evade the damage wrought by the Great Fire of London).
Verity,
I’m very sorry to see you descending to personal insult and shrewish hysteria every time someone disagrees with you about this subject area.
I don’t see much point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you or your accolyte Nick when you are apparently prepared to accept anything up to and including genocide as a solution to the problem.
Have a nice time talking to yourself.
Pepys buried a whole Parmasan cheese during the Great Fire of London? How cool is that!
The problem isn’t so much the burqua as what lies behind it….. and I don’t mean a frightened, cowed, uneducated, three-paces-behind female. The burqua hides a veritable midden of mediaeval male bigots who have quite clearly stated ( as I have reminded you all many times) that they would prefer to see you dead.
With the enormity of threatened violence hanging over them you will see very little support for those brave female Muslim “Pankhursts” among their sisters. Who can blame them.
And here we’re rattling on about clothes & PC.
With all respect, forget the women and concentrate on the very clear & present danger which is a threat to what freedom is left to us….(pause for laughter)
I am sure that, among our posters, there are those who thought Enoch Powell was an idiot…..Well, think again………and make it bloody quick!
veryretired – a little bit of a thought fascist, aren’t we? The folk wisdom, and all, disguising your intolerance of dissent, dropping away at a rate of knots? I won’t trouble the readers with responses to your overwrought accusations.
You have turned out to be a typical, preachy, lefty, drab Garrison Keiller. “shrewish hysteria every time someone disagrees with you about this subject area.”
Would you have had the nerve to draw such a characterisation of any of the men posting here – and they are all men, save me? You picked on the one woman to use the words “shrewish” and “hysteria” against. How bloody pathetic.
Tackle the arguments, if you are able, however many decades you’ve been married, and see if you can prevail, there’s a good chap.
Permanent Expat – your post went up before mine, but I could not agree more. The burqa is a symptom of a deadly disease.
I just don’t want to be assaulted by religious maniacs in the guise of “modest” women, which is an aggression and I resent.
If somebody actually (physically) assaults you, they have committed a crime. If the physical assault only rises to the level of bumping into you in a queue then I would suggest you ignore it. (This is also more likely to be due to the burka-wearer’s restricted visibility than any agression.) If you are just saying that you can’t bear the sight of somebody dressed in a certain way then you have a right to your opinion but no right to use the power of the government to oblige people to dress the way you want.
The issue of not being able to have eye contact does bear more serious examination. If, for example, a bank decides not to do business with somebody who covers their face then they should have every right to do so. Also, it is perfectly OK to insist on unveiling when taking photographs for identification purposes. In general, social pressure and instinctive discomfort in the presence of veiled people will be more effective in unveiling women than laws.
I do care about the “human rights” of women who are mistreated by abusive men in Islamic societies. Women in the West gained equal legal rights because men came to recognize that there was an economic benefit to be had from allowing women to go out to work and participate fully in society. Unfortunately, because of the tremendous edifice of government subsidy to help the “disadvantaged” that economic incentive is all but gone. We need to cut back government and stop subsidizing those men who refuse to allow their women to go out to work.
The burqa is a symptom of a deadly disease.
Agreed.
I can’t wear a hat indoors. I don’t know if there is any law against it but I don’t want to be an asshole.
Resident Alien – all easier said than done. I think many women will be able to report incidents of being nudged or pushed by women in burqas. Remember, they think we’re inferior. (They think we’re dhimmis and are incensed that we haven’t yet recognised it.) Shariah can’t come fast enough for them. Many of them are unbelievably aggressive – but not against men, because of course, their “religion” forbids them to touch men who aren’t family members. Trust me. They’re aggressive. I don’t pity them at all.
Josh,
Exactly. Social pressure is what changes behaviour. The Burka is only a symptom of misogyny and misogyny spreads far beyond the Muslim community. Wearing a full burka is extremely rare in the UK. I lived in a Northern English inner city slap bang in the middle of one of the biggest Muslim communities in the country for four years and NEVER saw a woman wearing a burka. Muslim women commonly covered their hair with a veil but hardly ever went even as far as covering their necks or chins. To me it didn’t not seem particularly unusual and certainly not offensive. I had elderly female (white Yorkshire) relatives who thought that going out to the shops without a headscarf was vaguely indecent.
The only place in England I have ever seen a person wearing a burka is in the West End of London.
“Exactly. Social pressure is what changes behaviour. ”
Oh, yeah. A litle polite nudging and folk disapproval is going to defeat Islam.
The eye contact / identification thing is important. It is an added bonus to the camel jockeys that these commonplace requirements of the modern world – in banks, passport control etc. that their imposition of the burkha gives a new spin on centuries of oppressing women.
Re: Hoods in shopping malls.
Indeed, those are private facilities, but lets take the more extreme example, i.e. balaclava.
If you go out anywhere in public wearing one of those, you can rest assured you will be arrested.
So what distinguishes a balaclava from a full face burqa? Nothing.
Here’s an EU driver’s licence (no indication whether it’s been photoshopped, but alas, everything’s possible in Dhimmiland):
http://www.fotoalbum.nl/albums/userpics/12636/normal_Rijbewijsvoordehelefamilie.jpg
To me there are a number of separate issues here.
– wearing a burqa.
– a male (I will not call such types “man”) not allowing a woman to speak for herself.
– the behaviour of individuals, organisations and the state towards people wearing the burqa.
The first is hard to limit per se and we should not go there.
The second should not be tollerated by State institutions and I would recommend that individuals and corps do the same.
On the last point, the State can and SHOULD say, as they do in Turkey, that they will not tollerate such dress in their organisations, just as they will not tollerate nudity, erect penises etc (unless they are in the business of selling such, of course!).
The State should also be free to say that no benefits can be claimed by people so covered. I do know for a fact that women only in the company of women can disrobe even in the strictest regimes. Alas, this is a neat and typically very sneaky way of creating ‘women only’ areas and services.
I am of the view that the first step to banishing such garb is to have a flat and total intollerance of the “male representative” for burqa’d women when in mixed company. This entrenches language barriers (no need to speak other than “old country” tongue) and all the issues with filtering, distortion and most of all DEPENDENCE.
If I am expected to take off my bike helmet going into the bank – and I am, then muslim women can take off the burka. If its to show my identity for the cameras, then it applies to them too, or it applies to neither of us. If I am subject to arrest for going out in a balaclava, then so should any muslim who covers his/her face at a demo, we’re all equal aren’t we?
Oh, but I forgot (and I expect banning or abuse for this – freedom of speech is only for those who think the same way after all) most muslims are non-white, so we get the automatic race card being played.
For those who disagree, do you think that schoolgirl would have been allowed to wear a burka if she was a blue eyed blonde?
Yes, but a bank is private property and they should indeed have the right to decide under what terms and conditions they allow people to enter. What I am objecting to is the state setting dress codes.
But the state does set a dress code, i.e. the state stops us from wearing balaclavas in public or, for that matter, wearing nothing at all.
So either the state does away with does rules or RoPer females do away with the burqa.
What hm said!
The point I was making is that there is a bias towards muslim ways “Oh, we mustn’t offend them”, “Oh, we must respect their culture” Why? What is it that makes them superior to me? No Perry, while your points are well made, you ignore the elephant in the room.
Do you see him there? Over in the corner, big grey bastard! And on his side is written “Laws which are not applied equally to all, are no laws at all”
No masks for me, no burkas for them.
PIMF
does = those
I see the Religion of Peace (My Ass) has murdered – ooops! – executed – hostage Tom Fox. We should not criticise them or bring up our breakfast over this as it part of their rich culture and we must respect it.
If hoods are illegal, and they should be because they are, in the end, aggressive, then burqas absolutely must be illegal for the law to be enforced fairly. In fact, hoodies should immediately start charging discrimination when they’re fined for their apparel.
Burqas should also be required to be removed for the collection of free money at the Post Office. Why would the British worker wish to hand over his cash to an ambulatory black blob? And why are they on welfare anyway? They should be working and contributing to the country they are currently using as a squat.
And here’s the Catch 22, even if they tried to get a job, no employer in his right mind would hire an anonymous zombie in a burqa to chase his customers away or for all that Islamic drapery to get caught up in machinery. The burqa would then hie itself – or its husband or its seven-year old son would hie it off to Cherie Blair’s chambers and bring a civil action for religious discrimination. That’s another fine old mess you’ve got us into, Ollie.
And no, if the Luton schoolgirl had been a blue-eyed blonde she would never have been allowed to bring her case and would have been labelled an attention-seeker and self-glorifier. Of course, blue eyed blondes tend not to hide their light under a bushel and such a case verges on the realm of the impossible.
TimC is right to note that allowing male representatives to speak for these ambulatory black blobs reinforces the language barrier.
I’ve sometimes wondered whether the way to proceed is to make a point of engaging burka’d women in conversation – stopping them to ask the time, or the way to the cashpoint or the nearest tube, in short, treating them like normal human beings. Maybe the braver of us could wolf-whistle…
I guess, though, that most of the time they won’t (be allowed to) answer.
Ian – They would have a heart attack (hey! now there’s an idea!) if a male not in their immediately family addressed them at all. And to their mind, this is not being “treated as normal human beings”. It is an assault and highly improper of you to address them. It doesn’t matter what the custom of the country is.
I keep saying – and you should be grateful to me because my banging on resulted in someone posting a photo of L’il Kim almost wearing a burqa – that we should sexualise the burqa. Take it away from them. Wreck it for them.
The very top fashion designers always include a couple of way OTT jokes in their collections – things that no one of sound mind would consider as even a possibility for ordering. They should start playing around with the burqa for those OTT moments in their shows.
A skin-tight chador, for instance, with a slit up to the thigh bone and a burqa with sequined red pouty lips. A burqa with little blinking lights. A chador with a cut-out peek-a-boo top. A chador with a saucy bustle.
Once it was sexualised and men started wolf-whistling at these Islamic blobs on the offchance that they intended to be provocative, they would think twice about going outdoors in one of these outfits.
In fact, I am going to try to find out how to contact Vivienne Westwood who is just the gal to try something like this.
I keep saying this: wreck the burqa for them. Take it away from them.
Verity, have you been peaking at my up and coming collection for Paris? For shame, it’s nothing but industrial espionage! Seriously though, good idea. It’s got a spin on it. The alternative, blitzing them with our culture only seems to work sporadically. The Saudis haven’t lightened up since Desert Storm introduced them to thousands of US female soldiers driving (the shock!) and toting guns (the horror!) and wearing trousers (I’ve had a stroke!).
The ID point is of course vital. How do we know there aren’t two small boys in there, one on the others shoulders? How do we know there is anything in there at all. I know that sounds mad, but you wonder when you see BMOs (Black Moving Object – US Mil slang from Desert Storm).
How long till some male NHS A&E doc who saves the life off the unconscious contents of the bag, but has to cut it off in the process, gets in trouble for violating the “human rights” of the burkhster?
Burqster. I like that. I’m going to send an email to Vivienne Westwood. She is just the type to do this.
We really have to take away the value of the burqa and chador from them. I know! Lily Savage should appear in a drag queen’s version of the chador! – although I think he doesn’t do Lily Savage any more, does he?
We need drag queen’s to take it up! Not a lot to work with, but some of these guys are very creative and funny.
Hahahahaha…………….
Tick, tick, tick, tick…………………
The Labour party in Holland just won some local elections – due to the Muslim vote.
Banning burgas is just gesture politics – it will be seen as a weak kick from a dying culture.
But then where, other than the American “Bible belt”, is the West not dying out?
I do not understand why the forces of Islam bother to kill us. After all they wax and we wane – all they have to do is wait.
Still one must not be obsessed with a lack of babies or with churches turned into shops or casinos (although the Muslims of Bolton rightly see these things as signs of weakness).
If the West were financially sound something might still turn up – perhaps people from other cultural traditions would want to become part of the West. After all (contrary to certain people who used to be about on this site) there is no automatic link between race and culture.
However, all the major nations of the West have joke fiat money and fractional reserve financial systems (the Swiss had a fig leaf of non fiat money status up till a few years ago – but even that is now gone).
Also all the major nations of the West are out of control Welfare States (anyone who thinks that the United States is not such a thing should compare the cost of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 with their cost now).
Credit bubble joke economies may be worth taking benefits (or government and credit dependent corporate jobs) from – but they do not inspire pride.
How long the bubble economies will last is a moot point – but they are not something that are going to exist in the long term. Investment (indeed all borrowing) must be based on real savings – and in our nations it is not (it is based on shell games and smoke and mirrors).
The Muslims are wrong about usury (there is nothing wrong with it) – but what happens in the modern West is not usury (usury means lending out savings at interest – not playing games with nonexistant savings).
As for the so called “immigrants”.
There is little chance that, for example, the flocks of people going to see “Valley of the Wolves” in Germany will want to be part of the West – the fact that they were born in the West does not make them Western. Indeed they are more antiWestern than their parents (who were not born born in the West – they were the real “immigrants”).
“Economic determinism – what about Western culture?”.
Such as British education? Where “A” level pupils (sorry “students”) are not given books – not because of a shortage of money, but because “books are not needed for the examinations, and would just confuse the students”.
There may yet be a fight back in the West – but I will want more evidence than some tax reductions in the Isle of Man before I am convinced.
Paul Marks: What an excellent comment. All that you say is true…. and we don’t need Islamists to tell us we are decadent…..we know it but are loth, and/or are too stupid, to acknowledge it….and certainly too blinkered to do anything to stop the insidious rotting of the values, freedoms & traditions for which our forebears fought & gave their lives. Jesus, what a once avoidable tragedy! Our dear leaders add, almost each day, to the flesh-eating virus of yet more curtailment of our freedoms. Weep, weep, weep.
Economics! What is individual debt in the credit-card lunatic Septic Isle? The chickens will surely come home to roost & H5N1 will be a doddle in comparison to the ensuing havoc.
Education! Well,………..
Demographics! That’s the real killer. Be prepared to face East with your arses in the air.
Well now, I think a burqa should (not) be a matter of choice & I do wish they were a tad more colourful or would that not be really PC. If we showed more respect……………………
Tick, tick, tick…………
Well, permanent expat, you are right. But it looks as though Germany isn’t going to bother to ban the burqa, qua Holland. They are going right to the big guy. There is talk of banning the Koran as being incompatible with the German constitution. (Link) There’s has already been a formal complaint about it made to the German police.
I am not as gloomy as Paul Marks. The economic imbalances he mentions may prompt painful corrections in the medium term, but I believe that we will adjust and move forward. Like we did when moving away from Keynesian economics and planned economies in the late 70s and early 80s.
I also notice that, despite the many flaws in our societies, the West has it over Islam in every meaningful sphere excluding blind, irrational fervour. As a group, we treat those Muslims who wish to co-opt us with leniency because we don’t feel sufficiently threatened by them. When we do seriously feel threatened by them, I’m absolutely sure we’ll handle the threat in a suitable manner.
Yes the Koran is a political book that is not compatible with the “Basic Law” of the Federal Republic of Germany.
But, no it should not be banned.
One can not defend freedom by censorship (for example the German government still does not understand it just adds glamour to the National Socialists by seeking to put them in prison).
And a strong culture would not need to fear Islam.
There is a libertarian tradition in Germany. Murry Rothbard was an arse at times (in the latest book of his that I am rereading he even blames the Black Death on statism), but he is right (for example) in pointing out that in Bavarian law in the early 8th century a just price was defined as whatever price was voluntarily agreed by the parties (with no right to change one’s mind).
Charles the Great may have come along with his price controls and wars of conquest – but the Saxons, although defeated, never submitted to serfdom (and neither did Charles’s other enemies the Frisians, athough the great tyrant set off the Viking age by attacking the Frisians – the only sea power capable of holding the Norse in check).
The first Holy Roman Emperor may have held that all land belonged to him – but soon fiefs became hereditory in both the lands that became France and the lands that became Germany.
The story of Germany and serfdom is a complex one – with many ups and downs in the stuggle, in different parts of what is now Germany.
Also German economic thought is by no means just a matter of dark evil before a few Germans began to copy French, Italian and British thinkers in the late 18th and 19th centuries (there is a tradition in German thought that rejected the Cameralists).
There is also a pro family tradition in some parts of Germany (Bavaria springs to mind).
The Germans are not finished yet.
As long as they put their faith in the good parts of their traditions (family owned manufacturing, respect for science and craftsmanship, love of children and respect for the old,) and reject the bad part of their traditions (the belief that the state can achieve positive things), then they may surprise old grim minded people like me yet.
There are many good writers in German on ecomonic and political questions (just as there are in English) – it is not a matter of rejecting “German thought” any more than it is a matter (in Britian or the United States) of rejecting “English speaking thought” – it is a matter of rejecting false thought and following true thought.
Some Americans are known to be interested in ideas – but so are Germans, French people and Italians.
It is the British (or rather most British people) who make a cult of contempt for ideas – which simply means that we are ruled by bad ones without even knowing it (Lord Keynes got very few things right, but he got the “practical man” right).
In spite of the Thatcher revolt, sometimes I think there is less chance of real reform in Britian than virutally any other Western country.
True our “tax as a percentage of G.D.P.” may not be as high as some – but the mental decay seems to have gone further here.
On religion – no doubt the athiests on this blog will think I am being silly.
However, I do find the British habit of turning churches into shops and casinos (and other things) disturbing.
I suppose it is better than letting nice buildings fall apart (which many have).
But I do not think that faith in God has been replaced by faith in science or in liberty.
Indeed faith in all three seems to have gone down together.
The bulk of the British population are both wildly ignorant of science and hostile to it (neither of these things used to be true).
And the bulk of the British population react to any problem by demanding either more government spending, more government “laws” or both (this did not use to be true either).
Well, Mein Kampf is banned, so why not the Koran, which is an incendiary call to aggression, rape, conquest and murder?
I agree that Britain is much farther along the road to dhimmitude than any other Western country. This is because that’s how the Trots and Marxists running the country want it. Britain is the terror capital of Europe.
Serial commentator on Biased-BBC notes, regarding the Beeb’s report on the murder of Tim Fox, the American hostage: The hostage was merely “killed”, not murdered, according to the BBC. I guess the bullet just leapt from the gun of its own accord.
And:
“There were signs that he had been beaten before being killed.”
BEATEN? Merely being served your meals by a female in Guantanamo Bay is considered torture by the BBC, but this is merely labelled “a beating”.
Jack Straw is “saddened” by the news. “Saddened”???? Saddened is the word you use when the old lady in your street passes away. “OUTRAGED” is the word he and any civilised person should use for this.
Apologies. The above quotes should have been credited to Rob, a frequent commenter on Biased-bbc.
Because Mein Kampf shouldn’t be banned either. No purportedly “free” society should be banning any kind of publication based on content, period.
I wouldn’t get my hopes up about Germany banning the Koran, incidentally, considering they recently recently arrested a man for mailing a bunch of mosques pieces of toilet paper with the words “Holy Koran” written on them. He was charged with “disturbing the peace.”
No, I’m not getting my hopes up. But the fact that it is being bruited about might give the Islamics something to think about – and seethe about, even. It is good for them to understand that their book is only holy to themselves and to the rest of the world, it’s just a book. And one advocating violence, slavery, rape and conquest, at that.
Not in the UK or USA!
Perry – We were talking about Germany, for heaven’s sakes!
I have not read all the comments here, so please forgive me if these thoughts have already been addressed:
1. Every member of society has been bullied to dress the way they do. That is conformity itself. While, women who cover their whole bodies may have been coerced through violence, shouldn’t the government step in to prevent the violence as opposed to the result? The fact remains that these women are conforming to their society just like I do by wearing jeans and t- shirts. It seems to me to be hypocritical to punish those that conform when they conform in a way that to us is repulsive.
2. I understand why not seeing someone’s face (let alone her whole body) is an enormous hindrance in day-to-day business and otherwise, but why is that a reason to outlaw it? Why can’t people just not do business with them? This would force them to conform. The government has no place in enforcing other people’s values. And, as I am aware, Burka-wearing violates no right.
3. As #2 infers, I do not believe the government has a place in enforcing values (Perry, you have a convert I suppose), but please excuse my ignorance in this question: what keeps people from going streaking? Or just walking around naked? What about having sex in public?
All this is from an American perspective.
Thank you.
Trivia:
When registering a car in the Minden (MI) area I was unable to complete the numberplate as MI-SS(1234) because, although the choice of letters & numbers is personal & free, two Ss together is ‘streng verboten’.
Mein Kampf may be (?) proscribed but I have never visited a German friend who didn’t have a copy.
Anything banned is, automatically, rendered more desirable.
Paul Marks: Thanks for the history.
Troy Specter, as you came racing in with your own unique and incredibly valuable contribution without consulting other commenters who have been engaged in this discussion, why on earth would anyone assume you have anything valuable to add?
As far as your points being “from an American perspective” go, you’re hardly unique on Samizdata.
As usual with these burqa debates people are disingenuously describing the burqa as just a piece of clothing.
It isn’t anymore “just a piece of clothing” than a KKK robe or a Nazi uniform. The clothing represents more than an individual fashion choice.
I suppose you would also call the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, “just paper with a pattern on it”??
Nick M “The burkha isn’t there just to intimidate the wearer. It is there to prevent “civilians” talking to its wearers, striking up friendships, influencing them maybe. “
Exactly, it is a political tool of extremists designed to mold society in their segregated image.
This is why is it different to other choices of clothing…
The burqa represents subjugation.
Let me ask you Perry, if when a girl was young she was put in a cage and spent so much time in there she began to think it was normal. Then one day when she is older someone gets concerned about her treatment and ask her if she was ok, and she replied “I’m fine, its my choice” would you believe them?
Dave – That was a brilliant and incisive contribution that cut through the bullshit. The burqa is indeed not just a piece of clothing any more than chains on Africans were a fashion accessory. It is a sign of absolute subjugation.
And, as you note, it’s no more “just another piece of clothing” than a KKK sheet or an SS uniform. The KKK and the SS are no longer with us (I don’t know, but in today’s world, the KKK probably has “getting to know you” evenings and funds church suppers for children of single black mothers).
I do not know why people are wilfully avoiding the issue, except through an inability to face the reality that this dress represents.
Verity: “indoctrinated, brainwashed and bullied since birth to believe that they are second class humans and their uncovered faces are a crime. I believe this is against their human rights.”
That may be. But it is also not the business of the state to ban attire. There are two separate issues here. One, being able to wear what you want. Two, being brainwashed. Those that want to outlaw Burkas because women are bullied into wearing them miss the point. The real problem is the brainwashing and abusing, not what attire they wear.
Verity: “Ergo, donning the burqa as a result of indoctrination and intimdation is a breach of their human rights even if they don it apparently of their own free will.”
Wearing the Burka is the result of their indoctrination and intimidation, yes. But wearing the Burka is certainly not a breach of their human rights. The brainwashing that occurs from birth is the breaching of their human rights.
Verity: “One is robbed of these essential human clues when one party to the conversation has a black bag over its head. There can be no equality of conversation when one party remains hidden”
So then do not engage in conversation if you don’t want to. The government exists to protect rights. You do not have a right to have a “conversation of equality” with everyone.
What if someone feels that they are not afforded equality of conversation when others wear sunglasses? Indeed, poker players are well known for covering their eyes. In fact, the shape of the eyes and in what direction they dart tell a great deal about someone’s attitude, inner thoughts, or even what they are about to say or do. Granted, the Burka covers much more, but when applying matters of law, a crime is a crime, no matter the degree. If you feel that Burkas should be outlaws for the sake of “equality of conversation”, sunglasses should be banned as well.
To add some perspective to what I am saying, consider this hypothetical situation:
All the same subjugation occurred except that the women, instead of a Burka, were coerced to wear Blahblahs.
The crime committed is identical. The result – what garment one wishes to wear – is not a violation of rights; it is the means, it is the cause that abridges the rights – brainwashing, coercion.
Right, which is why it’s all the more crucial that we don’t regulate it. People are free to wear Nazi uniforms and KKK robes in public if they like – but the only time I’ve ever seen it happen ’round here is when they’re surrounded by like-minded people and police cordons protecting their right to free speech.
Which (it cannot be stressed enough) they have. Regardless of how odious you personally find their opinions.
I wouldn’t dream of having the police break up a Klan rally just for the fact of its being a Klan rally. Free speech is either a content-neutral right, or we don’t really have the right at all.
I’m sorry to hear that burqas distress you, but you’re just going to have to get over it. They are, as you say, a political expression. The ideology being expressed may be inhuman, but then, so are so many other ideologies that we let people preach.
It would take great stones for a Nazi to wear his uniform in public here. He would be ridiculed and heckled – might even be physically attacked. If we want to end the burqa practice, we’re going to have to start doing similar heckling. I think a good place to start is a movement among shopkeepers to bar entry to burqa-clad people, or anyone known to have accompanied one in the past. This seems like a much better solution to me than asking the government to please, please come in and assert authority over our scary ol’ free speech rights. We don’t want to set a precedent for government regulation of dress that we’re very much likely to regret later.
Or, actually, Troy put it better. You don’t have a right to “equal conversation.” Indeed.
Troy,
Quite right. The burka is a symptom. Banning it won’t change anything.
Actually, Dave, it’s ironic that you say:
“It isn’t anymore “just a piece of clothing” than a KKK robe or a Nazi uniform. The clothing represents more than an individual fashion choice.”
In my high school there is a group of kids who wear Soviet uniforms of some sort on occasion. They call each other “comrades”. So, yes, while I don’t think Soviet dress is all that cool, I think they should wear what they want. Allow me to tinker with Voltaire’s famous quip, “I may think what you where is offensive, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.”
Liberalism is a theory that works inside a liberal civil society. Outside of that context it is prone to failure.
Conducting a disputation with Islam in a liberal society is doomed to failure because Islam (as it is understood and practiced by its current adherents) is completely anti-liberal.
What should westerners do? It depends. Do you want to be correct or alive? Do you want your moral purity or your society?
We can say that the state has no business telling people to wear, but unless we do something to change the mind-set of the Muslims in our midsts, we are asking for trouble. Toleration will be viewed as weakness, kindness with contempt and eventually there will be a separate nation living in a separate world amongst us, and that nation will be in a state of perpetual war with the rest of society, just as it is in every-other place around the world where it is not a monopoly.
Ban the burkah. By all means. But don’t stop there. Stop it now or it will be too late.
Robert: That’s a refreshing argument to hear. And, though I don’t think it’s without merit, don’t you think openly attacking Islamofascists will only incite even more anger? I do not think, and please correct me if I am wrong, there has been a major push to pass legislation on the domestic front in a major Western democracy that openly assaults a component that is unique to Islam.
Do not allow them on your private property. Do not serve them in restaurants. Do not sell things to them. Do not buy from them. Do not hire them. These are all actions that are within your rights as a private citizen with private property.
And by them I mean whoever you wish. For me it consists of the fascists forcing their “wives” to wear Burkas.
The moment the West abandons its foundation and attacks Islamofascists with laws of repression and is the moment the West has sunk to the dismal lows of suppression, depravity, and censorship of Islamofascist regimes like Iran.
I have faith in the open society. It will eventually weed out the bad ideas when the people that hold them adopt the good ideas.
Oh please. Ban the burqa or the whole edifice of western liberalism will come crashing down?
Agreed. But banning the burqa will only make them more determined (because they’ll finally have an example of “real” oppression of their culture to fall back on). That’s one of the reasons I’m opposed. The way to fight this is to change the public perception of the burqa. Verity’s idea of sexualizing it is a gem. I think another good approach would be to start a campaign among shop owners to bar entry to their private property of anyone wearing a burqa.
No. The true sign of a strong society is one that doesn’t overreact when its way of life is threatened – doesn’t betray it’s own principles for comfort.
Troy Specter, not only are you an egoist who thinks no one preceeding you on the comments section has anything of interest to say, but you are, frankly, provincial.
With the exciting contribution you had to race in with before you had read the 100 (better informed) comments preceeding your own, because you could override them all, you drone: To add some perspective to what I am saying [in your case,there isn’t any], consider this hypothetical situation:
All the same subjugation occurred except that the women, instead of a Burka, were coerced to wear Blahblahs.
The crime committed is identical. The result – what garment one wishes to wear – is not a violation of rights; it is the means, it is the cause that abridges the rights – brainwashing, coercion.
Oh, yeah, Troy. Right. Excellent point.
The problem is the word ‘burqa’, is that it? Better substituted with blah blahs and then everything would be fine? – and not the 1400 year religious argument behind it? Is that what you have concluded?
You appear to be a little hysterical. You seem to blank out over history/context (but with an infantile belief that you have a critical contribution to make despite that). Everyone else (whose comments you have not read so have no means of judging the level of intelligence of your audience) is going to be swept away by the might of your juvenile argument?
They weren’t.
Joshua is a rather angry individual who doesn’t like being contradicted.
I leave you to your fates. And your wives and daughters to their fates in a few years’ time. Your vapid college sophistries will not serve you well. I hope to god the women in your families are smarter than you are, though, and will be their own salvation. They sure as hell can’t count on you.
No Troy, forcing someone to wear a burqa is worse than forcing someone to wear Blahblahs, because the burqa is about taking away someones individual identity. Its not just about forcing them to wear the ‘clothes’ its about forcing them to be anonymous.
Joshua:
Burqas don’t distress me as much as people who claim “they are just a piece of clothing”. They are not.
An astronaut wears a pressure-suit, but it isn’t “just a piece of clothing”, it has a function it is worn for a purpose as is a burqa.
If I was to put a burqa on my pet cat or dog I would probably be arrested. I’d love to hear what the RSPCA would have to say about it.
Dave: Thank you for your respectful disagreement. Indeed it is worse to force someone to wear a Burka as opposed to something else. What I was trying to get across is that the crime committed is the coercion & brainwashing. I suppose you are correct, but the underlying intent of my example stands.
Troy is talking nonsense. His hypotheticals are just that. To make a distinction in this case between the cause and the symptoms of the disease is incorrect because (apart from anything else) the symptoms engender the cause – it’s a vicous circle. Moreover it is not the case that this is just an arbitary piece of attire. It is not as Troy calls it a “Blah Blah” it is a piece of clothing that enormously restricts the capacity of the wearer to conduct normal activity and intimidates those around her. This is the difference between it and a Sikh’s turban for example. The Sikh turban is (from a non-Sikh viewpoint) an essentially arbitary badge of belonging. The Burkha is not that, it’s a highly practical way of controlling people. It is the way it is for a reason. That reason is control and it is as well designed for that specific purpose as a ball and chain.
I’m dissapointed at the doom-mongers. The West is stronger than Islam (not least because half our population is not enslaved). I’m also dissapointed with suggestions that we have become decadent. I don’t believe that. We have become stupid and (in many cases) self-loathing – many of us play out a dilly guilt trip over the colonial era.
I am disspirited by talk of “family values” or the “bible-belt” being the last bastion of Western values. Our values are worth more than that. They are the values of the individual above anything else. That is what made us great and keeps us great. I see no point , in any sense, of returning to some 50s utopia in order to defeat Islamic or any other tyranny.
What I intuited from the self-important inanities, is the case. Troy’s either a high school kid or a troll. My take: a troll.
Robert Schwartz: ” Toleration will be viewed as weakness, kindness with contempt and eventually there will be a separate nation living in a separate world amongst us, and that nation will be in a state of perpetual war with the rest of society, just as it is in every-other place around the world where it is not a monopoly.”
Yes indeedy. That is exactly how it works. They cannot encompass good-natured, broad-minded tolerance, so they interpret it as cowering.
Frankly, I am ready for a little shock and awe, and more shock and awe than Mr Rumsfeld gave us.
Let’s have airlifts of American butter and cheese dropped over the desert kingdoms.
Whoahhh! They’ll come begging, crawling through the sand on their knees. “I say this to you, son of a camel, three times because it is true: once we enjoyed delicious dairy products in this kingdom – Lurpak, havarti, Danish blue. The good old days. Now it’s Land o’ Lakes, Cheese Whizz and I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter. Who do we call to say ‘sorry’?”
Verity,
Troy’s not a troll, just a very naughty boy.
Well it’s like that in many parts of Britain already. I think I’ve said that a coupla times.
So, are you suggesting we go back to my plan of “culture bombing” them into the renaissance? I thought you’d convinced me a week back that wouldn’t work.
Troy’s a troll. We had an Islamic troll a couple of weeks ago and I was the only one who called it.
Nick M, I didn’t notice your plan, but read my post alertly, there’s a good chap.
It is very simple: an organised attempt to subjugate Western liberal ideas through the long-term scheduled production of elegible voters and the indoctrination-from-birth of those voters.
Techniques used to accomplish those goals include the nominal enslavery of women and control of conduct, language and assets.
Such ideas must be exterminated by any legal means, and the laws must be altered to make all means legal.
In addition to a previous comment: I’m not au fait with the measures that owners of commercial premises may take in banning entry to ‘Vermummten’ in The Septic Isle. Blairofascist PC, from what I have read, would seem to leave little room for manoever. However, if, as I have also read, Septic Yoof can be banned if they are ‘hoodies’ it would seem reasonable to ban folk wearing black bin-liners. There would be howls of holy protest from Islamonits…….
(Why? It affects only women, after all)…..and, of course, from our own midden-bred Leftie seditionists who are destroying our heritage quicker than the ragheads can breed enough vermin to do the job for them.
If there were any balls left in the UK a total ban on facial covering, anywhere but in the privacy of one’s home, would be enacted tomorrow. Today, the sheep one calls the electorate could do it. Tomorrow will be too late and, unlike the Quebecois, there won’t be another chance.
Tick, tick, tick………………………
permanent expat – Yes. You’re right. Tick … tick …. tick ……….
Burqas are nothing but cloth sewn together. To attribute ‘a statement that can never be made’ to them so they can be prohibited as unlawful speech flies completely in the face (er… no pun intended) of libertarian/individualist rights of free expression.
The mask is the only valid issue here. Not fashion or style. Certainly not repressing speech in the form of clothing.
Frankly, claims of being intimidated by these old fashioned dresses are on a par with taking insult from blasphemous cartoons. I know people intimidated by traditional nuns habits. Except for the mask issue, there is no physical difference in effect or intent.
Under our present rules, we may not decline service to burqa wearing customers.
There is a legal conflict here. Either stores, etc must be permitted to ban those wearing masks from their premises, or the wearing of masks in public must be prohibited.
I don’t care if someone wants to hop down the street in a plaid sleeping bag. But if I can’t avoid close proximity to someone, I want to see their face..
Midwesterner,
Absolutely right, we can’t start making distinctions based on the “purpose” of certain types of garments etc.
However, here, it is very simple to frame the law in a non-discriminatory catch-all manner, and indeed, such laws already exist today. i.e. one may not cover ones face in public.
The problem is that super special extra sensitivity exemptions have been concocted for RoPers so they can continue covering their faces and that is just plain wrong, it is a complete perversion of the non-discrimination standard that underlies all law.
So the answer is very simple: Enforce the no face covering law against each and every individual who does so in public. No more, no less.
“Then prosecute people for violence and intimidation, not what they wear.
“LOUDLY say that if you are being threatened by your family, that is against the law and in this country you have a right to not be threatened.”
Perry, you’re a lovely man and my very favorite libertarian. but for Christ’s sake, wake up and smell the coffee.
1. NOBODY is going to refuse to wear a dress when the alternative is to be beaten, spat upon and their life made a living hell. Likewise, your “prosecution” will fall flat when the “oppressee” refuses to testify because they will be beaten, spat upon and their life made a living hell if they do.
Your solutions would be perfect — in a law-abiding society with Western values. In the current scenario, it’s wishful thinking of the most pathetic and naive sort. It’s not your fault: you’ve never lived in a truly oppressive society, and the comments of most people in here reflect that innocence too.
2. The burqa is NOT just a few pieces of cloth sewn together. It is a potent symbol of oppression — the very means whereby women are belittled and turned into second-class citizens. Worse than that, it’s the thin end of the wedge of sharia against Western law. Think I’m joking? Why, then, would any issuing authority even contemplate acquiescing to the Muslim stricture against women revealing their faces, when it is our law that their face should be apparent on passports and drivers’ licences?
Next thing, you’ll be seeing sharia (okay, “community”) courts operating in tandem with the country’s. Think I’m joking? Canada was considering it — until the Conservatives won the last election.
3. Finally, what the Dutch decide to do is up to them. If the Dutch people think that banning burqas will serve their society better, then who the hell are we to tell them they can’t?
And don’t use the straw man “well, if they committed genocide, would that be their choice too?” argument. It’s a common one used in here, because most libertarians would rather indulge a deadly philosophy and die, as long as the purity of the philosophy was maintained.
Well, we can’t live in an ideologically-pure world: we have to grapple with messy issues like: is a woman’s right to wear an article of clothing gretaer than her right not to wear the clothing, if she so chooses?
We’re not talking genocide here, but a simple issue of ending discrimination. The Dutch think that making the burqa illegal will help.
Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.
But it’s better than trying to convince these Muslim assholes by polite argument and debate that their 7th-century worldview is a crock of shit.
Kim du Toit:
Right on. Philosophy is poor, indeed no armour against mediaeval bigots……rather the implementation of a policy with which this trash can identify: ‘They who live by the sword etc……..’
Tick tick tick……….
Kim,
You totally ignored the conditional second half of my statement.
NO MASKS!
A burqa with an exposed face is just a really ugly dress. A mask worn with anything is a violation of the peace, and under some circumstances, the means to control the person wearing it.
It is the mask, not the burqa as a whole, that is either a means of imtimidation or imprisonment.
We rely on recognizing people and estimating their intent when they approach us. ANYBODY could be behind that mask! Are we to have special ‘burqa police’ to go around checking to make sure that everyone in a burqa is who they claim?
What better way to violate a restraining order, stalk someone, or spy on them, or get close enough to assault them, than to don a mask? It is the mask not the rest of the garment that is the problem.
If someone approaches me, I want to be able to look them in the eye.
Tell me this(Link) isn’t a burqa in all but name and mask?
Well, it seems as if we need to clarify on our frame of reference here.
1. On the issue whether covering up your face in public is (should be) illegal regardless of religious or any other motivations, I think we are all clear about that.
2. Not all burqas are burqas. Now, I am not an expert on the exact terminology, but, in any case, it seems obvious that there are cover-hair and cover-face type burqas.
So coming back to point #1, I think we can all agree that the cover-face type burqa is/should not be allowable in public places?
As for the cover-hair type, I am inclined to agree with Perry’s original thesis.
Any takers?
BTW, anyone know whether the two types of burqa can be distinguished by name?
Midwesterner – We’ve already addressed the burqa as mask. Again and again, including on this thread.
More importantly, in your link, those women are not wearing a burqa. It’s a hijab. You have misunderstood this thread. We are talking about burqas.
Kim du Toit, your entire post was brilliant and crunchy, but thank you in particular for this: And don’t use the straw man “well, if they committed genocide, would that be their choice too?” argument. It’s a common one used in here, because most libertarians would rather indulge a deadly philosophy and die, as long as the purity of the philosophy was maintained.
This makes libertarians, with whose principles and goals I am generally in accord, awfully difficult to debate with. They scamper up onto the high ground of absolutes and straw men and there’s no pursuing them.
As to your other well-articulated points, those girls who try to refuse to wear a burqa are not just beaten very severely by their father and brothers (often with the mother holding her), but if, by any chance they found a lipstick in her purse or pocket, she will be sent back to wherever (her parent’s ancestra shit hole) for “a holiday” and will never return. In Britain, and presumably Europe, around 100 girls a year are sent to Pakistan to be murdered. Frankly, I don’t know why they go to the expense. They could have them murdered in Britain and save the money. The British police don’t really investigate “honour” (ROFL) killings – out of cultural sensitivity. It’s their custom, after all, and all cultures are equal.
We are picking up velocity down that slippery slope and if the Dutch and the Germans have the resolve to put the brakes on, my hat’s off to them.
I think midwesterner has got it about the masking. I think of you don’t get something else. The burqa is a symbol of oppression, but it is also the opression in and of itself.
Should we classify muslim women as either burqa-shirkers, or burqa-lurkers?
That should of course have been: I think some of you…
Oh, and two more points from the news item Perry links to:
“the Dutch-born Muslim, one of about 50 women in the Netherlands who wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.”
ME: Obviously, the cover-face type burqa is allowable in NL.
Last December, parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure.
The cabinet is awaiting the results of a study into the legality of such a ban under European human rights laws, before making its final decision.
ME: What a complete crock. Tony Blair signing Britain up to this “Human rights” BS is what will ultimately prove to have been the point of no return into Britain’s demise.
Seen this:
Razanne
I don’t think they have the suicide bomber or Chechen black widow models out yet. Oh, won’t the little ones be dissapointed if they don’t get one for Eid!
James Waterton said something about Britain turning away from the doctrines of Lord Keynes.
Perhaps in an alternative universe – but not here.
In this version of the United Kingdom the money supply is growing fast (however measured – have a look at the back pages of the “Economist” some time) and the government is running a large open deficit (and an even bigger hidden one – remember the P.F.I.s, the “Network Rail” borrowings, and so on).
Lord Keynes is dead – long live Lord Keynes.
Almost needless to say regulations (“planning”) are also exploding. Even direct land use central planning (remember the Deputy Prime Minister?).
Britain will react to any Muslim threat the way it is reacting to all other problems – with more government spending and regulations (and “progressive” “education” and “publicity” policies to get us to think differently – or at least pretend to in the modern corrupt way).
As for the police – Sir Ian Blair (the degenerate in charge of the Police in London) is only one of a new breed of policemen carefully created by the government.
They are not the defenders of private property or the other traditions of their nation – they are enemies to these things (and they seek to drive out of the force any policeman who still believes in them).
The Thatcher revolt of 1979 was very brave and (especially in the mid 1980’s) had some tactical victories – but we must face facts.
In the end the Thatcher revolt was defeated – the lady was tossed out by her own party (or by a faction of its M.P’s anyway).
For the record I think the Thatcher revolt was defeated very early on (right in 1979) when Mrs Thatcher, under the advice of the man who is now Lord Howe, decided to accept all the government spending increases (mostly pay increases) agreed by the outgoing Labour government.
This (along with the failure to really tackle union power in the first years of Mrs Thatcher’s time in office) led to a vast recession in Britian (far worse than in other Western nations in the period) and the government (and public opinion) never fully recovered from that.
“Free market” came to be seen (quite wrongly) as just code for mass unemployment and the decline of manufacturing.
Nor are the British people the same as they were in 1979 – decades more of Welfare Statism (and all the rest of it) have done their work. The British people (or very many of them) are much more decadent and corrupt than they used to be.
Mr David Cameron may be a man with all the deep convictions of a worm – but he is correct, the modern voters would never vote for someone like Mrs Thatcher.
They (the voters) will react to any crises with demands for more statism – not less.
The above may show a lack of “postitive thinking” but I am reflecting reality.
Mr A. Clarke is fond of telling me that my troubles in life are caused by my lack of positive thinking. In this he reverses cause and effect.
I am negative about the future of my country and my own future because of the objective situation – that is why I am gloomy.
It is not my gloom that creates external reality.
There is a difference between libertarianism and philosophical Idealism (with its denial that the exterior world is objective).
If the objective sitution changed so would my mood. But changing my mood would not change the objective situation.
“Well then change the objective situation”.
Oh yes, by doing WHAT?
If I could think of any way of changing (for the better) the objective situation I would have already have done so.
Demise, slippery slope, decadence… A lot of you seem very pessimistic.
But, Those things are exactly what the mullahs fear for the Umma.
Let’s flip it around. Why have the rag-heads been getting ever more obnoxious for a generation? It’s globalization and technology. they’re the ones who are worried. They have had a nice little stranglehold over their fiefdoms for centuries and now they’re seeing the possibility of that crumbling. We are seeing a backlash. Yes, it’s very ugly and yes, it’s dangerous. But, the uglier things get, the less up with this Europeans will put.
The more they restrict freedoms, the more they will fall economically behind everyone else. Perhaps we are seeing a desperate (potentially apocalyptic) last stand by the mullahs.
The question is will the muzzie population believe that all their ills are due to “Crusaders and Zionists”. If they carry on believing this forever, then we really are fucked. If not, Islam might implode like the Commies did – only more slowly and much, much more messily.
No verity. Those are NUNS! They are wearing HABITS! You are the one misunderstanding things.
Is this clever speak for having basic principles?
And verity, maybe the stress of the system problems damaged your synapses, I don’t know. But you express your opinions, I express mine. You may not sweep my opinions out of the discussion because we ‘already discussed’ them and you’ve decided they are wrong.
It appears you are appointing yourself not only the fashion police, but the thought police.
Perhaps you should move to a pragmatist conservative website where the ends justify anything and principles don’t get in your way.
hm – Nothing’s forever. A British (or French or Danish or whatever) leader with sufficient resolve could simply say, “We are rescinding our membership in this treaty. Have a nice life.” Countries do it all the time. Does anyone know – are there any treaties still in effect dating back more than a hundred years? Fifty years?
The other signatories to the treaty could sue us … where? The International Court of European Bullshit?
Just so Midwesterner and others who are not really exposed to this Islamic infestation and are arguing without knowing any definitions, can identify what they’re talking about: a hijab is a headscarf tied tightly around the the neck. (Unfortunatley, not tightly enough to cut off the blood supply.) A burka is a nasty thing that covers the whole face with a slit for the eyes. Sometimes the eye slit has a kind of a net cage attached to it. It really needs to be outlawed.
A head to toe black shroud is a niqab and is what that hysterical little teenage attention seeker got permission to wear to school (thanks to the efforts of Cherie Blair).
What is shown in Nick M’s link is the shalmar kameez. So suitable for hot climates, don’t you think? But who cares? It’s only girls and women. The men wear designer tennis shorts.
What Malaysian Muslim women often wear is the very beautiful, tight-fitting and colourful sarong kebaya – a different kettle of fish entirely. Sadly, they too have bowed to pressure to wear a hijab.
This is a very well coordinated world movement.
Nick M,
It’s hard to overstate the significance of Tony Blair signing up to that pile of BS called the EU Human Rights Convention. Effectively, this has now become Britain’s constitution, after the country did very well without one for many hundreds of years, thank you very much.
I can only hope Cameron or whoever gets to move into #10 post Labour, does away with it as the first thing they do.
Verity,
Thanks for clearing that up.
hm,
I can only hope Cameron or whoever gets to move into #10 post Labour, does away with it as the first thing they do.
Cameron
The weather is nasty and I needed a laugh, thank you, though I’m not sure my diaphragm agrees.
Verity,
It’s not co-ordinated. It’s a lotta little scumbags who have been feeling the same pressures and come to the same conclusions. For sure they encourage each other “Can I be a suicide bomber too! Please Daddy!” but there isn’t a movement here. They’re a disperate bunch of malcontents who share a virulent hatred for all the peoples of the world who have done better than the Umma in the last 500 years.
Nick M,
Well, a few posts ago you blamed me for being pessimistic… 😉
Midwesterner – whether they’re nuns or not, what they are wearing on their heads is the hijab. There will be a different name if they are Western nuns, but it is identical to the hijab. We are not discussing hijabs. We keep saying that we are discussing burqas. As bloody ugly as hijabs are, they do not conceal the face.
“You may not sweep my opinions out of the discussion because we ‘already discussed’ them and you’ve decided they are wrong.” Actually, I can do exactly that unless Perry tells me not to. It is very irritating to read an argument presented as a new thought when it has been thrashed to death earlier on.
Paul Marks, I hear you. It is a tragedy. You are right about the degeneracy of the police force. They are there to enforce government thought laws and political correctness, not to keep the peace. How far has the country that had the first police force in the world fallen! And how Robert Peel would be amazed and sickened. I regard Ian Blair as one of the top enemies of Britain. On the same level as Tony and Cherie Blair and Jack Straw. But everything that Britain once was has been dismantled, with great suppurating malice.
Here is the incredible Dr Wafa Sultan giving her first interview in English, on Israeli radio. (Link) For those of you who’ve been living in a coalshed for the past month, Dr Sultan is a psychiatrist (now living in the psychiatrists’ natural habitat, LA) who went on Al Jazeera last week to debate an imam and wiped the floor with him. She is totally brilliant.
What is it with this horrible “religion” when all the heroes are women? Hirsi Ali (an apostate, but brought up as an Islamic until she ran away passing through Schipol Airport to an arranged marriage in Canada), Irshad Manji in Toronto who styles herself a refusenik, wears short skirts, sassy hairstyles and loads of makeup, and now the heroic Dr Wafa Sultan! This is getting rather fizzy!
Verity, you rail against and verbally bludgeon people who don’t pay attention. So pay attention.
First, you said,
But according, again, to wikipedia,
Secondly, you said
but according to wikipedia
If you are stipulating a less than full burqa, you never said so.
Thirdly, what I said was,
To which you replied
How very straw man of you to change the topic. They are wearing full body coverage deliberately intended to conceal all but the face to the maximum extent possible. My statement
stands.
Fourthly,
So you ARE the thought police then?
I find your diligent inaccuracy to be amusing in light of its source. Please do us the courtesy of living by what you preach. Check you facts first, you have internet access. Read what other people say and address that, don’t create straw man arguments when your case falls flat.
Paul Marks –
Perhaps I conflated Keynesian economics with large scale government economic planning that tended to go hand in hand with orthodox Keynesian economic prescriptions. Despite the present-day British and American governments’ penchant for deficit spending, the government controls regulating a whole manner of commodities and economic devices have yet to return. These vestiges of the planned economy so eloquently laid out in The Road to Serfdom were put to rest by Reagan and Thatcher. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned the end of Keynesian economics.
This post/thread/comments was about the burqa, always was, and thats what we were talking about.
The full or real burqa IS total covering from head to toe Saudi style. Those burqas who allow the face to be shown are not considered full burqas.
When verity said niqab I think she ment jilbÄb as that is what the school girl in the UK was arguing about.
Either way Midwesterner, if you think the burqa is not face covering thats your mistake.
You can’t say, so and so is a burqa but without the face cover, it is the face covering loss of identity that the burqa is about, remove that aspect and its not the same thing at all.
Dave, please read my posts. Throughout, I have stipulated the problem with the burqa is the mask, not the fact that it is a burqa.
The points I am addressing are about banning a style of clothing worn as a statement v banning concealment of the face.
Verity was very clear and derisive in her statements. They don’t need interpreted.
Verity – As opposed to kebab, which is what people use to stuff their face…
Verity/Midwesterner – I am very much of the opinion that the hijab is the nuns’ habit, for the Quran mentions that it should be worn by ‘pious women’. I believe that ‘pious women’ are in fact nuns, and that to extend it to all women is just convenient male control-freakery.
Paul “top” Marks – you mentioned the German moves to ban the Quran. This open discussion of the anatomy of the document is what I have previously asked to see – the guts of the work opened up for plain, clear, rational dissection.
Dave – You are right about the jilbab! This leaves me wondering, but not too fervently, what the hell the niqab is, then. Anyway, they’re all garments of oppression and they’re all spooky and rather threatening. It is extremely disconcerting to see someone looking at you, but you cannot look back at them because they are completely shrouded. In the instances where they have that fine black netting over the eye slit, you can’t even see the eyes.
What’s more, as I mentioned above, the women wearing these shrouds are aggressive. They know you can’t identify them and they push to the front in queues or intentionally nudge one as they walk by. (They only touch women, so the men reading this may find this hard to believe.) They regard us with absolutely contempt and want us to know. They may be under the impression that we are interested in their primaeval opinions.
TimC, I think you’re right. The nun’s habit predates Islam by several centuries. They were probably copying Christian precedent.
A lot of these things go by different names in different tribal areas. French Muslims have a different word for hijab.
But burqa is a pile of black materials covering the entire face except the eyes. Some of them are folded in such a way as to provide material to shield even the eyes. A hijab is ugly and incredibly unflattering, but it does not cover the face. Just the hair.
I don’t know TimC, I might have to eat my words and disagree with you afterall, based on this –
Midwesterner, I did make a mistake by confusing the niqab with the jilbab. Possibly because names for repulsive Muslim garments of oppression don’t occupy my thoughts very much.
However, I stand by everything else. There are different names and different degrees of severity with which these items are cut in different areas of the world, according to local Islamic customs. In Pakistan, for example, some women don’t wear a burqa, but hold their hijab across their face with their teeth.
Unlike more provincial people, I often don’t need to look these things up on the internet, having seen them for myself and thus able to speak from personal experience.
Judging from your posts on other threads, you seem to spend a lot of time researching subjects on the internet. I don’t know why you are so keen to post on subjects about which you know nothing – especially when you are commenting on a thread on which all the other posters display personal familiarity and thus some depth.
Verity,
Not often enough, it would seem.
What spectacular arrogance! Now, I’m not allowed to discuss freedom of expression? And it would appear you, at the least, are posting things about which you know less than nothing, you are flat out wrong!
You stepped in it bigtime on this thread. Now you are looking for someone to scrape your boots on. Find someone else.
I do not debate Euan, and I will not debate you. Both of you for the same reasons. You make up your mind first, and then defend your choice, by all means, against the assaults from fact or reason.
veryretired “There are any number of cultures around the world in which the norms of male-female relationships are not based on equlity of the sexes. It might be somewhat cavalier to label thousands of years of cultural tradition as unacceptable, or illegal, just because it does not conform to current Western standards. “
Oh yeah! Those evil Western standards.
I suppose you would also think slavery was ok in those wonderful native cultural traditions around the world??
And before anyone says the slave would want to be ‘freed’ thats not always the case especially if they were born into it and don’t know any other way of life.
Midwesterner – “say to the believing women“. I remember seeing a translation that it was ‘pious’. Still, this is just another problem with relying on a dead, frozen language like C7th Arabic to communicate. If you notice, the text does not mention the hair must be covered, only the bosoms, which is not unreasonable, though I would not go so far as to prohibit the striking of feet to show off such hidden ornaments…
TimC – I think the “striking of the feet” actually means walking in such a way that the little bells on anklets tinkle and draw attention to the walker. These little anklets are still quite common in rural India, and probably Pakistan and Bangladesh.
“striking of the feet” has been interpreted by some islamic scholars (not that’s a prize oxymoron) to be a prohibition on dancing.
It’s almost the same, Nick M. Walking in a manner which causes the little bells to tinkle and dancing to cause the bells to tinkle have the same result: it draws attention to the one wearing the anklets. This kind of striking of the feet is very common in classical Indian (Hindu) dancing, but the dancing girls in the Mughal courts – from Persian miniatures – appear to have worn similar anklets and struck their heels on the ground in the manner of Hindu dancers.
Midwesterner “Throughout, I have stipulated the problem with the burqa is the mask, not the fact that it is a burqa.”
Well the burqa IS a mask and therefor your comment doesn’t make sense.
I have read all the comments here.
Sure its possible I have misunderstood something. But it seems like you don’t accept the burqa is always face covering? If that is what you believe you are not talking about the full burqa that I am talking about..
Perhaps Perry could have included a photo so we all knew exactly what was meant.
I thought we were talking about this (Link)
And I am supprised to read (my ignorance perhaps) that Italy has already banned “hiding ones face in public”.
I think I read about Italy, too, Dave. It didn’t seem to make waves.
Why don’t these awful women take a leaf out of Queen Rania’s book? She goes around with her hair uncovered and down around her shoulders or swept up glamourously, she wears make-up, sometimes she wears trousers and a jacket, she drives an ambulance.
And Allah doesn’t strike her dead!! Instead, she lives in a palace and gets to wear designer clothes. There’s a lesson in there somewhere …
Just saw on the BBC news that the UK Gov seems to be back-tracking on a law to ban forced marriages. A ban on burkhas in the UK seems highly unlikely in such circumstances. It’s enough to make Santa Claus himself vomit with rage.
Tony Blair’s the West’s chief dhimmi. “Don’t hurt me! Don’t hurt me! I’m your friend!” That is why Britain is the terrorism centre of Europe. The French have tried to extradite terrorists from Britain, and Blair refuses, under the insane believe that appeasement works. He probably thinks that if you pay off a blackmailer, that will be the end of it. What an evil, evil man.
I would never live in Britain again, or even visit it. If I ever came back to this side of the Atlantic, I’d go to Denmark.
Denmark’s adorable, and the people are at ease with themselves, too. I was kicking myself that I’d only bought one packet of Lurpak in support, not being able to find Havarti and not liking the Danish blue cheeses in stock. Then I remembered I went to Copenhagen a few months ago, flying SAS to boot, so I’ve done my bit.
I bought 10 packs of Lurpak, just to make a dent on the shelves and get the computer on the alert to order more, and I bought several packs of Rosenberg blue cheese.
I don’t know that I would fly SAS after the dhimmitude of the publisher of Magazinet in Sweden, who gave a full, humble apology to a gathering of imams. If you want your blood chilled – which you probably don’t, as I’ve been reading about your weather – to to Bruce Bawden’s very well written blog and read it and weep.
Sorry, it’s Bruce Bawer. (Link)
Thanks for the link, Verity.
Verity,
Figured what you’re gonna do with all that butter?
How about greasing the steps of the local mosque next Friday when they’re all praying for the destruction of The West.
I don’t think TB is deliberately following a policy of appeasement. He thinks he’s doing something else. He is so stained thru with the multi-cult ideology that he really wants to be seen to have been a greater builder of a “bridge between cultures” (his comments on Turkey joining the EU). He’s also aware that Labour have lost much of the muslim vote which was always almost a block vote for Labour. Like very many “wickednesses” his is one of hubris and stupidity.
Of course this will never work because he doesn’t understand Islam. He really believes it’s just a minority of nasty types using Islam as a cover. It’s like that old nonsense that “communism is a great idea but never worked in practice (insert whatever excuses you like). They are reassuring fairy-tales the left tell itself.
He has to believe Islam is fundamentally good because mult-cultism means he knows everyone from Eskimos to Satanist has something equal to offer. And make no mistake, Blair is about as multi-cult as they come. Look what a spiritual tourist his wife is.
TimC, Yes, I caught that and wondered if that isn’t just a modern, convenient re-interpretation. The whole thing seems about as clear as the EU constitution. And about as conveniently flexible in it’s interpretation.
Just to confuse things a little further, there is this, from a CAIR page(Link) –
That they should be “known”? How can someone be “known” with a face mask?
Whatever, I thought the first quote at 5:05PM remarkable the great lengths they went to defining which males were allowed to see her ‘beauty’. “Old male servants who lack vigor”, or maybe had it removed?
Dave, there are many people in this thread who want to ban the symbolism of a burqa. To this point they have named other, non-clothing symbols that have been banned. My point is and shall remain, we don’t ban symbols. The grounds under which the burqa should be regulated is strictly the masking function.
And on that point, you said
While burqas may include a mask, according to CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations),
They do not, according to “ the vast majority of Muslim scholars and jurists”, need to cover their faces in order to be hijab.
“the vast majority of Muslim scholars and jurists”
c.f. Christians scholars – how many interpretations of the Bible are there? “Islamic scholars” covers a multitude of opinions and traditions (some drawn from pre-islamic times in various areas). There isn’t a huge amount of consensus. There is though, in most Islamic areas a trend towards being more conservative over the last few years.
I’m quoting CAIR, Nick. It could be deliberate deception, but I think that is their legitimate opinion.
I think it goes to the point TimC and I suspect but haven’t made the case for. Recent reintepretations for non hijab related agendas.
Midwesterner “While burqas may include a mask”
wrong, there is no ‘may’ about it.
Burqa = Full body Mask including face.
We were not talking about being in hijab we were talking about burqas! (Link)
It is a very important difference. I’ve no problem with religious dress, I complain about the burqa because it is about dehumanising people in a way that other religous dress does not.
The butter’s in the freezer, Nick M, and it thaws out just fine.
Actually, Anthony Blair is not an appeaser, he is a Marxist and internationalist who has worked for eight years to destroy Britain. He has been successful. Fifty per cent of the population are now clients of the state, through “credits” for mortgages and so on. Multiculti has destroyed our sense of national identity. Schoolchildren are taught to be ashamed of our glorious history and our achievements – i.e. the first police force in the world is now under the charge of the repulsive Ian Blair. Tone’s well aware of the absurdity of Islam, but it’s a handy cudgel to beat the backs of the formerly British and now Scottish, Welsh and some English.
Our formerly cohesive society has broken down. Dangerous and feral lifetime-clients-of-the-state children are now collecting ASBOs as a sign of street cred. “Honour” killings don’t really get investigated without kid gloves, the British police officers told to take off their shoes on entering a Muslim household – why? – they’re in Britain, where British norms prevail. The prime minister of Britain is being advised by Cat Stevens, who is banned from the United States.
After the Muslim terrorist mass murders and maimings of over 700 travellers on London Transport, Blair went on TV to reassure the “Muslim community” that we wouldn’t hold them responsible (why not?). The Muslims are a handy cudgel for the effete Blair to wield against the backs of the British, whereas in Europe, they have recognised the problem and are beginning to deal with it. Blair is evil.
Blair is unpicking Britain stitch by stitch and I fear it is too late to put it all back together again. What a malevolent, destructive little spirit lives in that person. I am astonished that it only took eight years to unpick our constitution and our national fabric of over a thousand years.
I really don’t know what the endgame is. My guess is shariah law and surrender. Why? I can’t encompass the depth of the malevolence.
Dave,
Since what you said (at 4:34PM) is
You are apparently unaware that what they wear in Saudi Arabia is not a ‘burqa’. It is an ‘abaya’
As it points out in that link –
Just in case you forgot what a niqab is.
Holy mackerel……is this crap still going on!
Just make the masking of one’s face, anywhere but in the privacy of one’s home, illegal. No exceptions. Finish……………………….I said that umptysomething postings back but everybody’s (wildly & often wrongly)pissing about doing a C.E.M.Joad.
Just get the bin-liners & their handlers, complete with their loathsome unreconstructed progeny, off the streets & send them back to the shit-holes of their origin.
permanent expat – yes. Just do it.
Symbols are powerful things, which is why we have national flags. Which is why companies have logos.
The burqa is an international symbol of aggression and oppression. Just ban it. Let them sort it out.
Just ban this atrocity. This fascist piece of garb has to be consigned to the bin of history in the enlightened West.
It is so true………..Outsiders see the game far more clearly. For those of you resident in The Septic Isle, I can tell you that the view from the Stands is nothing short of horrible: The self-immolation of a once proud & achieving nation (more than ably helped by your present & elected evil government).
Britain has, arguably, given the world more than any other nation….including the untold number of lives of its best & brightest………..and you are allowing a bunch of wicked, evil & mendacious seditionists to piss it all away while you run up your credit-card debt & plea for more casinos. The barbarians are not AT the gates, you blinkered twits…..they are inside & will shortly be presented with the keys. God help you all & I weep for the now unrecognizable land of my fathers.
Well Midwesterner, I am unaware of the official government policy yes, but that doesn’t mean a lot of them don’t wear the burqa (or same thing under a different name). I got the name of what they wear wrong , sorry, but fact is a lot of them do totally cover in exact same why as the burqa even if they call it something else.
Either way, I think this post by was about full face covering burqa (or very similar masking dress).
“If” it was not, then I would change some of the comments I made..
No no no Verity……do NOT ban the burqa. Absolutely counter-productive……Only make the masking of faces illegal.
Agreed, permanent expat. But I find it depressing that so many Brits are posting pickily about which particular vessel they want to sink in. A burqa or a nijab or a jilbal?
Let’s consider the legal aspect and debate that for the next two years, as though everyone participating in the debate were normal and had Britain’s best interests at heart, by which time debate will have become even more constricted by more Tony-laws made on the hoof than it is today. There is no free speech in Britain.
None.
If you went onto the streets (and are an indigenous Brit) and shouted that you hated Tony Blair, you would be hauled off and held for however long it takes. If you are progeny of Muslim immigrants who have lived on British taxpayer welfare for three generations, you can threaten our state with impunity under “freedom of speech”.
permanent expat and others, we are well out of this roiling, malevolent insantity.
But it breaks my heart.
Verity, permanent expat,
You are (getting) histrionic. We’ve got problems in the UK, but some of your statements are so OTT as to make me suspect that you’re engaged in a wind-up. Sadly, I think you’re both intoxicated on your rhetoric of inevitable decline.
We did you leave this country (I assume permanent expat is a permanent expat from here)? If you left to better your lives in whatever way, fine. If you ran away then… I can only conclude you’re carping self-indulgently. Either shake the dust of Europe from your coats and forget about Britain, or say something constructive.
I was about to add that you should lighten-up and that doom-mongering never got anyone anywhere. Alas, I fear, it would fall on deaf ears.
God, you two depress me on this. Which is a shame, because a lot of the time I think you’re provactive, well-informed, amusing and right.
What you say about Blair is as absurd as what the lefties say about Dubya. Blair is not Satan personified, he is a mediocrity with no clear agenda and a farcical desire to please all of the people all of the time. Which, of course, means he’s pleasing ever fewer of the people ever less of the time.
Nick M: I value the comments you make although I think that to accuse Verity & me of ‘histrionics’ & an addiction to verbal diarrhoea is also a bit OTT. Likewise self-indulgent carping. Yes, we do get a tad miffed at the how-many-angels philosophies bandied about here, although you may consider them ‘constructive’. As for ‘lightening up’ you must be kidding; Rome is burning, goddamit & what’s to lighten up about? If you wish to continue fiddling that’s your indisputable choice.
Moreover, if we have depressed you then at least an initial reaction has been elicited. We are bloody depressed..and, rightly, so should you be.
My ‘hearing’ is quite OK & sensitive to the opinions of others. I haven’t been reading much which I would deem constructive in the thread (so far)….and viewing The Septic Isle I see only DEstruction….& most of it self-inflicted, to boot.
Further, whatever your interpretation of Blair, it is he & his elected(!) cronies who are directing hesitant Limey lemmings over the cliff.
I assume you are a US citizen, forgive me if I err, & Dubya is your problem while Blair is ours….I mean in the purely domestic sense, of course.
Speaking of depression, the truism that folk get the government they deserve is the nadir.
Depression can be cured. One such is ‘Res non Verba’ ……..but, fat chance.
Tick..tick..tick………
NickM,
Here! Here!
I’m probably going to live outside the UK for most of the rest of my life but I certainly was not pushed away from the UK I was pulled away by the attractions and freedoms of living in the US. The biggest single reason I left was to get affordable housing. I certainly do not rule out returning in the future.
Neither country is perfect but to listen to some of the comments here one might think that the UK was as economically capable as North Korea and already under Sharia law.
Tony Blair does not rate highly in my estimation because of his smarminess and addiction to passing new laws but he deserves recognition for standing firm with the US over Afghanistan and Iraq.
Resident Alien: Here, here?? Did you mean ‘there, there?………..and I hope you found your affordable housing….and you’d better rule out a quick return to The Septic Isle because it’s doubtful if you could afford a cardboard box there now.
Please don’t, as Nick M says, go OTT. Nobody has even suggested an economic comparison with N.Korea nor that we are already arses-in-the air facing East five times a day.
What has been said is that individual indebtedness in the UK is at staggering & unacceptable levels. (Now that I come to think about it, it’s quite possible that you could pick up a reasonable semi in the not too distant future.)
I am all for supporting the US, even on a ‘my-mother-drunk-or-sober’ basis because they are the biggest boys on the block & someone has to do a “Normandy” on us in the event our becoming part of the Eurabian Caliphate;-)
Pragmatism is important……enjoy your alienation.
A thought:
If the state has no business telling people how to dress, then if I as the director of a hospital – a private enterprise – tell the surgeons to quit wearing masks, hairnets, and fresh gloves – to save money – then the state can not interfer with my decision…
Yes? No?
The whole issue of covering is a ruse by the inadequate Islamic male (again, I cannot bring myself to describe them as “Men”!) to control.
So what it Mohammed pointed his finger. He is not God and the saying was just that, a saying, not law. Should and must are different concepts in English – not sure of the translation.
Still, Midwesterner sees what I see – the vagueness and scope for bad deeds. Does anyone need more proof that the Quran is NOT a divine document? A Supreme Being would not be so vague given the purity and simplicity of the universe, so why come up with such a document delivered in such a clumsy, haphazard, fragmented way, conveniently fitting the standing issues of the day (“I need to marry X…oh, go to desert and get a revelation to justify it…great!”).
I have mentioned this before that it would not surprise me if Mohammed bumped into the Devil in the desert but, unlike Jesus, he did not see through him…
Correct… however their insurance company will drop them like a hot potato and people who get infected will sue the pants off them and win for gross negligence, so if they want to stay in biz, they will do no such thing.
The notion that thr world will come to an end if the state does not regulate things is just false. Regulations that work will happen (I very much doubt most sanitary hospital regulations are followed because of there is a law requiring them, they are followed because they are rational and make sence and wilful negligence when representing yourself to be an expert is a really great way to get sued… THAT is how you regulate things).
Always a pleasure to get up in the morning and have a bracing encounter with Perry de Havilland’s spelling. That and a nice cup of tea get the day off to a good start.
resident alien writes: to listen to some of the comments here one might think that the UK was as economically capable as North Korea and already under Sharia law Could you point us to just one of those comments, please? I don’t recall any of them.
Tony Blair is a very destructive spirit. Most of Britain’s traditional freedoms have been surgically excised from the butchered body of our constitution under his stewardship. The United Kingdom has been broken up. There has been a hectic rise in crime in a country previously mainly free of serious crime. (Although it’s always been a hotbed of petty crime, such does not jeopardise society.) A police state has been imposed, and that is a work in progress. The thought police has been created. Over 700 new laws have been passed. (Doesn’t that at least give you pause?) More to come. The cabinet is not only corrupt, but incompetent to do anything other than advance itself. The prime minister’s wife uses his position to advance herself and profit monetarily.
We will never know why Blair went into Iraq. It certainly wasn’t for the stated reasons – he is pro-Muslim in a very major way – a very dangerous stance and he should watch his back because they will demand more and more and will turn on him if they don’t get it – but why is a mystery to me. I don’t think he likes George Bush – although he certainly envies him. I don’t think he likes or respects the United States, although he likes swanking around in it. I think Blair’s reason for going into Iraq will never be known. It certainly wasn’t principle.
Verity,
George Bush is a very destructive spirit. Most of Iraq’s tradition and culture has been militarily excised from the butchered body of our Arab Republic under his occupation. Iraq has been broken up. There has been a hectic rise in imorality in a country previously mainly free of serious vice. (Although it’s always been a hotbed of petty vice, such does not jeopardise society.) An imperialist state has been imposed, and that is a work in progress. The occupation has been created. Anti-Islamic “democracy” and a new constitution have been passed. (Doesn’t that at least give you pause?) More to come. The cabinet is not only corrupt, but incompetent to do anything other than advance itself. Vice President (Cheney) uses his position to advance himself and profit monetarily.
(In my other guise as Niq-al-M)
permanent expat.
Actually I’m English. I live in South Manchester. I see burkhas every day. And like Verity I’ve seen the BMOs playing dodgems with non-muzzies.
Now, if you’d said what’s happening in the UK makes you angry then I’d understand and, in many ways , agree with you. It makes me mad as hell. A local council member here (LibDem) is a Pakistani asylum seeker and doesn’t speak a word of English so we have to pay for him to have an interpreter all the time. Bizarrely, Mr Liaquat Ali claims to have been a fencing contractor in Pakistan and sought asylum here because of death threats from a rival! These things make me angry. As does the feeling that half a mile up the road from where I live (where the burqa density rises sharply) I might as well be in Islamobad. I hate the ghettoisation and life here being lived in two parallel streams that never intersect more than a trip to the corner shop. It’s fine where I live (that’s the thing with ghettoes – cross the street and enter a different world) because it’s all sorts here – but mainly Irish and Poles. I hate the fact the council have built seperate community centres 200m apart for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and neither would’ve been cheap.
I hate lots of these things and they anger me. Depress me, sometimes, but depression is negative and is a little too close to surrender for my liking. Get angry and do, don’t get depressed and moan.
Ok, I’ll bite…
And this is bad?
And this is bad?
I am usually all for vice.
Sorry but when Baathist Iraq attacked Iran and Kuwait, that was NOT a would-be ‘imperial state’ in action?
And this is bad?
Yeah, when you phrase it that way, it makes me wonder if I have been too hard on old Dubya in the past!
So we’ve made them more like us, eh? And this is bad?
🙂
Nick,
re your post at 3:42, did you see the comment “Posted by hm at March 13, 2006 01:29 PM” in the Steyn thread.
Pulled for ‘legal’ reasons? It must have been part of a conspiracy to tell the truth. That can’t be legal.
Perry,
I was rather hoping Verity would bite. I hope you saw what I was trying to do…
Midwesterner,
I think you’ve got me at a disadvantage. I’m not sure what my post had to do with the Steyn thing.
You’ve both got me confused.
Nick M. : I apologise for my mistake concerning your provenance…….silly me.
If it weren’t so bloody tragic one would be tempted to laugh at your description of South Manchester, it’s denizens & councilors……..Jeez! No wonder you’re mad.
Well, you must console yourself that the once great British electorate, of which you are doubtless (now that I know) a member has promulgated this state of affairs…….and you ask me if that isn’t depressing! Nobody actually DOES anything about it. Is that not depressing?
Good luck, I say…..you’re going to need it.
Well, permanent expat,
I still live here, and the only way I’m buying my girlfriend a tent is if she decides to go camping.
permanent expat – They allowed it to happen. Every single tiny incursion into their freedom, hatchet nick into our constitution should have been opposed with vigour, but it wasn’t. Blair got away with taking inches and then became emboldened to take miles – and he does it with such contempt. Patricia Hewitt, who should have been sacked, keeps her job. Tessa Jowell has kept her job. Blair was going to make someone who lent the party £1.5m into a lord. The contempt for the electorate is palpable.
But they allowed it to happen.
Going masked in the public street is an individual freedom that should be eliminated in exchange for the greater freedom to be able to see who is in the public street for everyone else. Whether it’s a klan sheet, a burka, a police balaclava or a robber’s ski cap, masked infringes everyone’s liberty.
Verity: Sadly………….yes! What is beyond my, admittedly limited, understanding is that there are still intelligent people out there….but they are in denial. Just what is necessary for a wake-up call? It really is an enigma.
Nick, the cached article (original deleted) describes the method behind the “two parallel streams” you describe. It is thoughtful and calculated planning by those who seek to take over Britain (and everywhere else) in the name of Islam.
We’ve known it for quite awhile, but it’s unusal to see it so credibly described. And depressing that the article, for whatever reason, was censored.
staghounds,
I agree with you. But not with very sound principles to stand on. I would like to see this topic debated on principles, somewhere.
I can see a strong case to be made for the right to wear a mask, but I’m having a more difficult time making the case against. If there is, it may be along the lines of not ‘do we have a right to indentify strangers?’ but rather, ‘do we have a right to know if an enemy is approaching us?’.
Since you also think masks infringe our liberty, can you give me any principles to use in debate?
James Waterton.
In some ways Britain is less regulated than it was in 1979, but it other ways it is more regulated than it was in 1979.
And the regulations increase by the day.
As for the United States.
Again in some ways the United States in less regulated than it was in 1981 and in some ways it is more regulated.
I suspect that regulations are increasing at the moment – although not at the rate they are in Britain.
James Waterton.
In some ways Britain is less regulated than it was in 1979, but it other ways it is more regulated than it was in 1979.
And the regulations increase by the day.
As for the United States.
Again in some ways the United States in less regulated than it was in 1981 and in some ways it is more regulated.
I suspect that regulations are increasing at the moment – although not at the rate they are in Britain.
James Waterton.
In some ways Britain is less regulated than it was in 1979, but it other ways it is more regulated than it was in 1979.
And the regulations increase by the day.
As for the United States.
Again in some ways the United States in less regulated than it was in 1981 and in some ways it is more regulated.
I suspect that regulations are increasing at the moment – although not at the rate they are in Britain.
Thanks Midwesterner for clearing that up. I didn’t see it, but I didn’t need to because I live in it.
Anyway, I’m going to quit this thread for good. It’s getting way off-topic. I think we should all draw a burqa discretely over it and walk-away. I’m up to my niquab in Islamic clothing now, anyway.
Certainly before Verity and permanent expat’s doom-mongering reaches it’s inevitable nadir and they post a joint statement of “profound despair” and do themselves in en blog so to speak. It might be another first for Samizdata but I for one would miss “debating” with our very own North- and South-going Zaxs.
Except I can’t resist this, Paul Marks shows in his post that we are certainly heavily regulated. Even he posted in triplicate!
Nick M – “Posted in triplicate”! Funny!
However, I don’t think permanent expat, nor I nor Mike who lives in Hong Kong nor any of the others who have left the land of our birth are doom-mongering as much as we are trying to warn you out of your complacency. You all have this attitude of, “It’s terrible what’s happened, and is happening, to Britain – but it’s not so bad. No need to panic.”
As more and more laws are made disadvantaging native Brits (meaning Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans, Vikings, Jews, Hugenots, Indians – not people from third world cesspits) and hand the primitives rights and privileges, and money and Most Favoured Status on a platter. Already, they’ve taken your history away from you because it might make the immigrants feel badly about their colonial status. They’ve takent our ancient right of free speech away, because it might might the immigrants flutter and reach for a bomb. They’ve allowed London to become the terror capital of the West because … uh … because, uh … oh, yeah, Tony Blair’s scared shitless. That’s why he has Cat Stevens on his Islamic advisory panel. And that barrister who believe the world is run by a cabal of Jews and Freemasons. Nothing like having lucid, well-informed advisors on your ship of fools, eh, Tone?
OK Verity,
Point taken and hammered home. The thing I find sad is that many of the first wave of 3rd world immigrants came to these shores to improve their lives by becoming British. I’m sure some still do, though they wouldn’t be allowed to because the race-relations “industry” needs them to remain true to their “culture”. If you’re right then the point at which there will be no net migration from the accursed parts of the world will be the point at which the UK is just as bad. For me, the whole point of moving to a different country (I’ve spent quite a while in the US) is for it to be different (call it the “Royale with Cheese” argument) not to live essentially the same life with different weather.
The problem is that in the UK “rascist” is a term of abuse on a par with “peadophile” and that distorts everything. People are so terrified (esp. since the Stephen Lawrence stuff) of being labelled “racist” that they will jump through the most ridiculous intellectual hoops to avoid even the vaguest taint of it. This has widened and blurred the concept of “race” beyond any reasonable definition: nationalities, linguistic groups, religions… Of course that keeps more out-reachers, co-ordinators and human-rights lawyers (step forward Ms Booth) in cushy numbers.
My girlfriend is a self-employed translator. She does Scandinavian languages and Russian. Manchester Council has never given her job – “If only you knew Somali or Gujarati…” Do you have any idea how many “success story” immigrants in this country have been given jobs interpreting for the next batch.
Gurkhas who have shed blood for this country have no automatic right of abode here, but any number of scumbags who call for the destruction of this country get “exceptional leave” to stay because they’re wanted for terrorism where they came from and the folks there might give them a hard time.
It’s very fucked up, and it’s very unpopular. Just not with those who wield the power. But that could change. The most important change is for the left’s McCarthyism (racists under every bed) to be halted in it’s tracks.
Then, perhaps, we could move past anyone who says “I hate what Islam stands for” automatically being translated as “I am a racist, xenophobe, who hates Arabs and South Asians”.
OK, I’ve broken my pledge not to post on this bloated thread. Won’t do it again.
PS. My girlfriend’s work for Danish pork processers is actually paying the next two months rent. No, seriously. She’s a bit bored with it, after you’ve translated one sausage recipe, you’ve done ’em all.
PPS. Read Littlejohn’s “To Hell in a Handcart”?
Nick M – I believe that the wreck of Britain and the demise of all genuine freedom reached a tipping point about three years ago and no one bothered.
Now comes this ‘abolition of Parliament’ bill by which your final rights are going to be removed from the cold, dead fingers of the British electorate. Read Melanie Phillips on it: The Self-neutering Parliament – (Link) Blair will be able to postpone elections indefinitely. There is no longer a critical mass of like-thinking Britons to oppose it.
Someone called Murk posted this on another thread above: (Link)
Verity,
Cheers for the link. I guess I was suckered in by “the oh so dull” title of the piece of legislation. As I was supposed to be. I guess they wouldn’t have called it the “Bill for Blair’s 1000 year Tonyate”. I have dispatched an email to my MP, Gerald Kaufman (Lab – Manchester, Gorton). It’s below.
Now, this is so off topic, and this thread is so huge now that I really am going to have to quit it. Honest.
Nick – I’ll bet you’re lurking just to see who says what about your letter to Kaufmann. Well, I think it’s an excellent letter.
If you can get four or five more constituents to write letters as well, that will be a step towards defeat. Kaufmann is important and influential. Why not write a letter to the local newspaper and get other people interested? Or call the editor and ask why they haven’t run a story?
Nick M: Should you still be lurking 😉 you may just wish to admit that ‘doomster’ doesn’t quite describe Verity……or even me.
Congrats on the awakening.
Verity, permanent expat,
I wasn’t lurking. No burqa-lurker am I! I was watching “Kath and Kim” (very good Ozzie Comedy if you ain’t seen it) and having supper. I was just checking the computer for my bittorrents. Whenever I wait for something I always check Samizdata. I still think the two of you need to lighten-up. If there is a single thing all tyranny has in common it’s a complete inability to deal with humour or light-heartedness. That’s one of the reasons the whole cartoon fiasco is (in a sense) so bloody funny. I don’t suppose the New Labour wonks would find it at all funny that MS Word spellcheck suggests “guano” for “quango”.
And so, to bed.
PS. I have lurked in the past. Everyone does, but not this time.
PPS. I’m really quit with this thread. No, really I am. See y’all on something else.
No, Nick, who writes: I still think the two of you need to lighten-up. We who saw the light and hied the hell out don’t need to lighten up. We’re fine. We’re not on a ship that’s taking on water.
Perhaps you need to lighten down and stop being such a happy guy.
“If there is a single thing all tyranny has in common it’s a complete inability to deal with humour or light-heartedness.” Correct.
When was the last time someone launched a satirical, funny, damaging lance at NuLab? Not in the last five months? Not in the last five years? Not ever?
Conversely, when was the last time Goodfella T Blair cracked a joke that anyone save his mob laughed at? Recently? Fairly recently? Within the last five years? Never?
As you so rightly say, Nick, dictators don’t like humour. They don’t do humour. They discourage humour, especially about them.
So tell me, Nick: why should I lighten up?
I know many say that the population “lets it happen”, but I see a big share of the blame goes with the media who are systematically failing the country on this and other issues. Ok, they can attempt to treat “IJS”, but on other issues they can be spectacularly quiet. It is almost like they want it to go wrong then make a story about it – strife is good for circulation!
I am a firm believer in “Prevention is Better Than Cure”
Nick M. is quite correct, I did post in triplicate.
And although I thought I had a computer problem it may be that my Civil Service conditioning programming was kicking in.
Paul Marks.
Ex Home Office – D.I.A.1
TimC – Probably no point in posting here as the thread is about to slip off the bottom, but I agree with you about the media. They, too, have let it happen. Picking nits, concentrating on fine points instead of slaying the dragon.
Have you ever had a conversation with a woman wearing a burquah? It is most fascinating.
It is not like talking to a woman at all. It is more like talking to a human being. There is actually a person with a mind in there. There are no secondary sex characteristics to distract the conversation.
Modest clothing keeps the muslims free from fornication which is one reason why God likes the muslims more than he likes us.
Each time we fornicate, we reject Allah and the chance increases that
ALLAH WILL NOT LIKE US .
Well Peter, as I think God is a figment of imagination, I really do not give a damn if some imaginary deity likes me or not.