KKK outfit worn in Australia Muslim veil protest

[chuckd]

"If she wants to wear a bikini down the road, fine"

At last. I just knew I could find something you posted I could agree with.

[sustento]

Kudos to the Australian Christian Lobby for calling these clowns out.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/27/anti-burqa-protesters-try-to-enter-parliament-wearing-ku-klux-klan-hood-motorbike-helmet-and-niqab?CMP=soc_567

Yeah! With the usual liberal apologist BS!

"The Australian Christian Lobby’s Queensland director, Wendy Francis, who saw the protest, described the stunt as “so hurtful” and said Muslim women she knew “wanted a peaceful Australia every bit as much as much as my Christian friends”."

What's the expression....."Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people" My invisible friend is stronger than your invisible friend! Does Wendy Francis know that some Muslim men and women I know would kill her for being a Christian?

In the UK the Muslims are promising to pass a law to male it legal for Muslim men to rape white women!

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

[notmyself]

How do you reach that offensive conclusion?

On what basis is it offensive?

In a free democratic country like Australia, where freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution, and freedom of expression is pretty much guaranteed (we got rid of morality laws back in the 50s and 60s) and we don't criminalise people for being who they are, how is it then do we get away telling a woman what they can or can not wear??

I certainly have no say in how a woman dresses. Not my right to.

If she wants to wear a bikini down the road, fine. If she wants to cover her face, fine too. I'm not going to tell her how to dress. Clearly you want to though.

Clearly you have some ideas though that women should be forced to dress a certain way (ie never wear a face covering) even if it is against their will.

Twisted logic which is why I introduced the personal ownership of another human being. When you understand why ownership of another human being is wrong use that same logic on forcing women to cover their faces.... Unless you think that it doesn't exist?

[notmyself]

Your link to Urban Dictionary didn't work for me so I don't quite know what you are trying to tell me on that issue.

Sorry... try this.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/I'm_all_right,_Jack

I thought the issue was those twits at Parliament wanted to be able to wear face covering because muslim women were allowed to wear face covering.

Nope. It has never been in any nation about banning the burka but about women being forced to cover their faces. Governments refuse to address it and if they are forced to so, then it's generally done via an aside issue such as banning the veil. Most major news outlets will not touch it with a barge poll as we saw with the Danish cartoons but this is beside the point. The entire issue has in effect nothing to do with wearing a veil and all to do with one individual telling another individual what they can or cannot do. Go watch some interviews and you will see that every time the real issue was close to being addressed the subject was changed. I think it was the ABC morning interview a member posted earlier that showed this to perfection.

[samran]

How do you reach that offensive conclusion?

On what basis is it offensive?

In a free democratic country like Australia, where freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution, and freedom of expression is pretty much guaranteed (we got rid of morality laws back in the 50s and 60s) and we don't criminalise people for being who they are, how is it then do we get away telling a woman what they can or can not wear??

I certainly have no say in how a woman dresses. Not my right to.

If she wants to wear a bikini down the road, fine. If she wants to cover her face, fine too. I'm not going to tell her how to dress. Clearly you want to though.

Clearly you have some ideas though that women should be forced to dress a certain way (ie never wear a face covering) even if it is against their will.

Twisted logic which is why I introduced the personal ownership of another human being. When you understand why ownership of another human being is wrong use that same logic on forcing women to cover their faces.... Unless you think that it doesn't exist?

Your response makes no sense at all. My response is based totally on the laws of the land in Australia. Again: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom from persecution on the basis of those two things.

Or are you calling the Australian constitution 'twisted logic'.

How does my position equate with me forcing women to do 'anything' or a tacit endorsement of slavery?

Edited October 29, 2014 by samran

[samran]

"If she wants to wear a bikini down the road, fine"

At last. I just knew I could find something you posted I could agree with.

Just wait till we talk about economics. I will outflank you on the right and then you really won't know what to do with yourself!

[ClutchClark]

So what exactly is the distinction between a KKK hood and a Muslim veil in the eyes of the Law?

Thanks

[notmyself]

How do you reach that offensive conclusion?

On what basis is it offensive?

You quoted but did not reply.

Some years back I received a verbal warning not to speak to fellow members as though they were children. I think that in explaining my point much further I am in danger of doing so again.

Damn this is a tough one.

[some 20 minutes later]

Can we do this in the OTB section because much of my reply would be considered off topic and likely deleted?

However.

How does my position equate with me forcing women to do 'anything' or a tacit endorsement of slavery?

It is patently obvious to even the most myopic that the difference between an individual and a group such as society or civilization is meaningless to you. Because of this I am not sure that you do not understand even the basics of the concept of law in that it is not there to mandate good but to protect from harm. I would certainly have go into both of these topics in depth which would derail the thread in the news section and also be considered off topic.

There is already a topic open in OTB on this.

Johnno

Edited October 30, 2014 by notmyself

[notmyself]

My response is based totally on the laws of the land in Australia. Again: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom from persecution on the basis of those two things.

A piece on Australian's not knowing sh!t from shovel.

Rather than address the real issue they have to embrace the issue using BS which she obviously does not understand.

[samran]

My internet is not fast enough, but you are using jacquie lambie as a support for your argument?

[notmyself]

My internet is not fast enough, but you are using jacquie lambie as a support for your argument?

Not at all. She may be indicative but I have no need of her at all. Don't forget this this thread is on the news section so my post is relevant regardless.

[Seastallion]

Nope. It has never been in any nation about banning the burka but about women being forced to cover their faces. Governments refuse to address it and if they are forced to so, then it's generally done via an aside issue such as banning the veil. Most major news outlets will not touch it with a barge poll as we saw with the Danish cartoons but this is beside the point. The entire issue has in effect nothing to do with wearing a veil and all to do with one individual telling another individual what they can or cannot do. Go watch some interviews and you will see that every time the real issue was close to being addressed the subject was changed. I think it was the ABC morning interview a member posted earlier that showed this to perfection.

Again, I point out to you that this issue of the veil was brought up as propaganda to elicit the female vote and support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. "We're going to rescue them".

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

[JockPieandBeans]

It is also very evident, that you declined to comment on the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why am I required to comment? I have commented on a number of aspects of that issue in other posts. You have what right to demand that I comment on anything you or anyone else says?

I made a serious comment on an issue that was of concern to me at the time. I provided a rationale for linking that comment with the topic of this thread. Yet you believe that you may goad and deride my comment and me because of something I did not say. You are not a respectful interlocutor. So be it.

No

You are very good at commenting on off topic aspects of a particular thread.

The thread is about face coverings.

So here is my comment again for you.

It is also very evident, that you declined to comment on the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of ANY description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Before you answer, you might want to consider this.

Sorry, but I have heard enough people shouting that the niqab/veil/burqa is NOT a religious accoutriment, but that it is worn for there own personal reasons. So what is it ? Is it a religious requirement ? Or is it just a tool, to be used depending on your argument ?

I believe that it is the latter is the reason that it is worn. Therefore there is no defence for citing religious reasons as an argument for wearing it anywhere in public, or against its ban on religious grounds.

Here is an interesting paragraph from http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2770/

" While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

So in simple layman terms. We will not adhere to the society that has gone out of its way to provide a better way of life for us.

Edited October 30, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[harrry]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ seastallion

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand.

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

Disspentation is not really the right work. It means leaving off.

In both the case of the veils and turbans what we are talking about is putting something on and not allowing for it to be taken off.

Edited October 30, 2014 by harrry

[Seastallion]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ seastallion

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand.

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

Disspentation is not really the right work. It means leaving off.

In both the case of the veils and turbans what we are talking about is putting something on and not allowing for it to be taken off.

You're trying to make a joke, right?

If so, very droll. Very very.

If not...could I suggest you re-read the discussion.

[harrry]

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them. e to the subject at hand.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

Disspentation is not really the right work. It means leaving off.

In both the case of the veils and turbans what we are talking about is putting something on and not allowing for it to be taken off.

You're trying to make a joke, right?

If so, very droll. Very very.

If not...could I suggest you re-read the discussion.

I have read the topic. The law on veils is not a dispensation. It is discrimination against the whole of the rest of the poplulation of Australia if everyone is not permitted to wear one without question as to religious belief.

[notmyself]

Nope. It has never been in any nation about banning the burka but about women being forced to cover their faces. Governments refuse to address it and if they are forced to so, then it's generally done via an aside issue such as banning the veil. Most major news outlets will not touch it with a barge poll as we saw with the Danish cartoons but this is beside the point. The entire issue has in effect nothing to do with wearing a veil and all to do with one individual telling another individual what they can or cannot do. Go watch some interviews and you will see that every time the real issue was close to being addressed the subject was changed. I think it was the ABC morning interview a member posted earlier that showed this to perfection.

Again, I point out to you that this issue of the veil was brought up as propaganda to elicit the female vote and support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. "We're going to rescue them".

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

Surely you cannot believe that it did not exist before, during and after to a large extent. I agree with your remarks of propaganda but that does not in any shape or form prove it did not exist otherwise. The claim was not made up but rather exaggerated.

[Seastallion]

Nope. It has never been in any nation about banning the burka but about women being forced to cover their faces. Governments refuse to address it and if they are forced to so, then it's generally done via an aside issue such as banning the veil. Most major news outlets will not touch it with a barge poll as we saw with the Danish cartoons but this is beside the point. The entire issue has in effect nothing to do with wearing a veil and all to do with one individual telling another individual what they can or cannot do. Go watch some interviews and you will see that every time the real issue was close to being addressed the subject was changed. I think it was the ABC morning interview a member posted earlier that showed this to perfection.

Again, I point out to you that this issue of the veil was brought up as propaganda to elicit the female vote and support for the US invasion of Afghanistan. "We're going to rescue them".

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

Surely you cannot believe that it did not exist before, during and after to a large extent. I agree with your remarks of propaganda but that does not in any shape or form prove it did not exist otherwise. The claim was not made up but rather exaggerated.

I do indeed think the issue did not exist as an issue before the post 9/11 propaganda.

Ironically, Jock has posted an excerpt above to make the point that the veil is a choice, as I have been saying.

His point, though, is that since it is a choice, it should not have dispensation. I think he makes a valid point.

[Seastallion]

I made a serious comment on an issue that was of concern to me at the time. I provided a rationale for linking that comment with the topic of this thread. Yet you believe that you may goad and deride my comment and me because of something I did not say. You are not a respectful interlocutor. So be it.

No

You are very good at commenting on off topic aspects of a particular thread.

The thread is about face coverings.

So here is my comment again for you.

It is also very evident, that you declined to comment on the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of ANY description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Before you answer, you might want to consider this.

Sorry, but I have heard enough people shouting that the niqab/veil/burqa is NOT a religious accoutriment, but that it is worn for there own personal reasons. So what is it ? Is it a religious requirement ? Or is it just a tool, to be used depending on your argument ?

I believe that it is the latter is the reason that it is worn. Therefore there is no defence for citing religious reasons as an argument for wearing it anywhere in public, or against its ban on religious grounds.

Here is an interesting paragraph from http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2770/

" While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being “set free” from society’s unrealistic fashion culture.

So in simple layman terms. We will not adhere to the society that has gone out of its way to provide a better way of life for us.

I am not one to blindly hold on to a position out of sheer pig-headedness so I don't mind conceding that I think you make a valid point. If it is a choice, perhaps there should be no dispensation.

Having said that and contemplating further......wearing a crucifix is a choice and tied in with the wearer's religion. There's always controversy when schools or companies try to ban the wearing of religious symbols such as the crucifix. (I know a crucifix does not cover the face...the issue is freedom to wear your religious accoutrements.) Start with the veil, and you must progress to other symbols/accoutrements on some other pretext. eg. Sikh turbans so that they are forced to don helmets and comply with the law like everybody else.

You either give dispensation for religious accoutrements or you don't.

[Seastallion]

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them. e to the subject at hand.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

Disspentation is not really the right work. It means leaving off.

In both the case of the veils and turbans what we are talking about is putting something on and not allowing for it to be taken off.

You're trying to make a joke, right?

If so, very droll. Very very.

If not...could I suggest you re-read the discussion.

I have read the topic. The law on veils is not a dispensation. It is discrimination against the whole of the rest of the poplulation of Australia if everyone is not permitted to wear one without question as to religious belief.

Sorry Harry, you've missed the bus by a very long way. Too far for me to be bothered explaining things to you.

But I will give you the definition of "dispensation". Hope that helps.

noun

1. 1.

   exemption from a rule or usual requirement.

   "although she was too young, she was given special dispensation to play before her birthday"

[notmyself]

I do indeed think the issue did not exist as an issue before the post 9/11 propaganda.

Ironically, Jock has posted an excerpt above to make the point that the veil is a choice, as I have been saying.

His point, though, is that since it is a choice, it should not have dispensation. I think he makes a valid point.

It's getting late so need to go to bed. I've sent out a couple of requests to people in the hope that perhaps 200,000 Muslim women will be enough.

[notmyself]

In the UK the Muslims are promising to pass a law to male it legal for Muslim men to rape white women!

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

He's probably referring to Shariah law....

Rape under shariah has to be proven by four male witmesses...

...good luck getting them.

...but wait...if you cannot find them they are liable to charge you with adultery.

..so most rapes go unreported.

The above has no relevance to non-muslims in the UK for the time being.

[JockPieandBeans]

Seastallion

I am not one to blindly hold on to a position out of sheer pig-headedness so I don't mind conceding that I think you make a valid point. If it is a choice, perhaps there should be no dispensation.

Having said that and contemplating further......wearing a crucifix is a choice and tied in with the wearer's religion. There's always controversy when schools or companies try to ban the wearing of religious symbols such as the crucifix. (I know a crucifix does not cover the face...the issue is freedom to wear your religious accoutrements.) Start with the veil, and you must progress to other symbols/accoutrements on some other pretext. eg. Sikh turbans so that they are forced to don helmets and comply with the law like everybody else.

You either give dispensation for religious accoutrements or you don't.

Neither am I.

I also believe that people should be free to practice whatever religion that want to follow.

Herein lies the problem, the topic is about face coverings. I do not care a jot whether those face coverings belong to muggers, KKK members, Muslims or anyone else. Face coverings, of any description have NO place in a modern, civilised society.

religious accoutriments, and where or when they can be worn is a separate issue. Just for the record, places of education should be one of those places hat they are banned totally. To go along with that, places of education should not be taking part in ANY religious activities either.

It is interesting that although Sikh's have a dispensation from wearing crash helmets, I personally never seen a Sikh whizz by on a motorbike wearing a turban.

Here is an article that you might want to read.

http://news.sky.com/story/1360880/nigeria-girls-detail-horrific-boko-haram-abuse

I am highlighting one of the comments as it is relevant. Whether it is true or not, I do not knpw. If it is true, it highlights why people are getting sick and tired of many things Muslim.

@CAROL.ARCHBOLD Even more bloody amazing that you don't see the hoards of Muslims rising up and protesting over this...

Last week hundreds of Muslims protesting in the EastEnd for "Sharia Law - UK"

A couple of weeks ago Muslims blocked the Blackwall Tunnel...demonstrating for Islam.

Muslims praying out on streets, completely and utterly without any regard for anyone one else, motorist or pedestrian going about their business, their bloody praying comes before anything. If I and my friends lay down in the middle of EastHam High Street spouting secularism...you see how quick the blue lights would be flashing and how quick we would be whipped off to the police station.

At the moment I hang my head in shame as to how my beloved country is being run to accommodate Muslims left right and centre.

UK must rise up against this invidious threat...use your vote.

Still doubting...have a look at NewHam's Conservative Party...

London has one mayor, one city one mayor right? Not so...Tower Hamlets (a London Borough) has a mayor all of their own...a Muslim one...nothing is said or done...

[harrry]

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5341/being-disguised-with-unlawful-intent.aspx

there are other laws against disguise too. And a full head covering is surely as good a disguise as any.

[H1w4yR1da]

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

Usual apologist rubbish!

"Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.........Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab.............40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.............Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain" etc. etc.

The list is lengthy.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

And acid attacks against unveiled women in Iran.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2014/10/27/against-acid-attacks-on-women-in-iran/

[nontabury]

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

Usual apologist rubbish!

"Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.........Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab.............40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.............Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain" etc. etc.

The list is lengthy.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

And acid attacks against unveiled women in Iran.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2014/10/27/against-acid-attacks-on-women-in-iran/

How dare you provide facts to prove your arguments, H1w4R1da, be very,very careful otherwise those apologist bigots will call you a racialist.

[Seastallion]

Seastallion

I am not one to blindly hold on to a position out of sheer pig-headedness so I don't mind conceding that I think you make a valid point. If it is a choice, perhaps there should be no dispensation.

Having said that and contemplating further......wearing a crucifix is a choice and tied in with the wearer's religion. There's always controversy when schools or companies try to ban the wearing of religious symbols such as the crucifix. (I know a crucifix does not cover the face...the issue is freedom to wear your religious accoutrements.) Start with the veil, and you must progress to other symbols/accoutrements on some other pretext. eg. Sikh turbans so that they are forced to don helmets and comply with the law like everybody else.

You either give dispensation for religious accoutrements or you don't.

Neither am I.

I also believe that people should be free to practice whatever religion that want to follow.

Herein lies the problem, the topic is about face coverings. I do not care a jot whether those face coverings belong to muggers, KKK members, Muslims or anyone else. Face coverings, of any description have NO place in a modern, civilised society.

religious accoutriments, and where or when they can be worn is a separate issue. Just for the record, places of education should be one of those places hat they are banned totally. To go along with that, places of education should not be taking part in ANY religious activities either.

It is interesting that although Sikh's have a dispensation from wearing crash helmets, I personally never seen a Sikh whizz by on a motorbike wearing a turban.

Here is an article that you might want to read.

http://news.sky.com/story/1360880/nigeria-girls-detail-horrific-boko-haram-abuse

I am highlighting one of the comments as it is relevant. Whether it is true or not, I do not knpw. If it is true, it highlights why people are getting sick and tired of many things Muslim.

@CAROL.ARCHBOLD Even more bloody amazing that you don't see the hoards of Muslims rising up and protesting over this...

Last week hundreds of Muslims protesting in the EastEnd for "Sharia Law - UK"

A couple of weeks ago Muslims blocked the Blackwall Tunnel...demonstrating for Islam.

Muslims praying out on streets, completely and utterly without any regard for anyone one else, motorist or pedestrian going about their business, their bloody praying comes before anything. If I and my friends lay down in the middle of EastHam High Street spouting secularism...you see how quick the blue lights would be flashing and how quick we would be whipped off to the police station.

At the moment I hang my head in shame as to how my beloved country is being run to accommodate Muslims left right and centre.

UK must rise up against this invidious threat...use your vote.

Still doubting...have a look at NewHam's Conservative Party...

London has one mayor, one city one mayor right? Not so...Tower Hamlets (a London Borough) has a mayor all of their own...a Muslim one...nothing is said or done...

Nice quote there Jock. It stands to show the spittle-laden splutterings of the ignorant xenophobes. London has 32 boroughs, all of which have borough councils that could have mayors. Four of which actually do have elected mayors. One of those mayors is a Muslim. Shock horror! She makes it out to be a conspiracy that Boris has secretly installed a mayor just for the appeasement of the Muslims of Tower Hamlets. And the writer is a Londoner! I have to laugh, really, at the hysteria.

[Seastallion]

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

Usual apologist rubbish!

"Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.........Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab.............40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.............Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain" etc. etc.

The list is lengthy.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

And acid attacks against unveiled women in Iran.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2014/10/27/against-acid-attacks-on-women-in-iran/

How dare you provide facts to prove your arguments, H1w4R1da, be very,very careful otherwise those apologist bigots will call you a racialist.

Do you know what a bigot is? It's certainly not me or any of the other chaps that argue against bigotry. May I suggest a dictionary?

Do you realise (unlike h1w4r1der) that Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc are not "the West" as stated in the quote of me he was responding to?

[samran]

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

Usual apologist rubbish!

"Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.........Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasnt wearing a hijab.............40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.............Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain" etc. etc.

The list is lengthy.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

And acid attacks against unveiled women in Iran.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2014/10/27/against-acid-attacks-on-women-in-iran/

How dare you provide facts to prove your arguments, H1w4R1da, be very,very careful otherwise those apologist bigots will call you a racialist.

Do you know what a bigot is? It's certainly not me or any of the other chaps that argue against bigotry. May I suggest a dictionary?

Do you realise (unlike h1w4r1der) that Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc are not "the West" as stated in the quote of me he was responding to?

They rationalise that they can't be bigots cause how can a bigot also like shagging brown chicks?

[nontabury]

There has been no evidence tabled that shows women are forced by men to wear the veil, other than the assertions of the propaganda.

.

They are no more "forced" to wear the veil than Catholics are "forced" to observe lent or not eat meat on Fridays. Celibacy of priests is quite a burden "forced" upon them, wouldn't you say? Nobody seems to mind Orthodox Jews segregating women. Nobody cares that their religion obligates Hindus to forego the pleasure of a Big Mac. These people are not "free" to do as they wish, not because of individuals imposing rules on them, but a religion mandating it.

The subjugation issue of the veil is a fallacy, at least so far as Muslims living in the West are concerned.

Usual apologist rubbish!

"Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it.........Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab.............40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab.............Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain" etc. etc.

The list is lengthy.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

And acid attacks against unveiled women in Iran.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2014/10/27/against-acid-attacks-on-women-in-iran/

How dare you provide facts to prove your arguments, H1w4R1da, be very,very careful otherwise those apologist bigots will call you a racialist.

Do you know what a bigot is? It's certainly not me or any of the other chaps that argue against bigotry. May I suggest a dictionary?

Do you realise (unlike h1w4r1der) that Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc are not "the West" as stated in the quote of me he was responding to?

According to my dictionary a bigot is a person who is intolerant to those holding different opinions, perhaps you have a different dictionary.