The French parliament has generously freed women from having the right to wear a full-length burka in public.
The bill, which critics say stigmatises immigrants, bans people “from wearing, in a public place, garments designed to cover the face”.
Offenders would be fined 150 euros ($216) or required to take part in a citizenship class.
How benevolent of them! I’m sure it was all about protecting the human dignity of such women, and not in any way about bashing a “foreign” migrant community that the native French dislike.
How 12th Century! A crime against fashion – now an actual crime.
And I don’t want to hear anything about how you could protect women from being forced to wear the burka without banning them from wearing it; making sure they have the genuine freedom to choose. Because, obviously, the only way to respect women as independent human beings is to criminalise a choice they might make that we know is bad for them.
Also, do you know how often banks are robbed by women in movement-restricting full-length burkas? Okay, never, but that’s no reason not to panic about the possibility of it happening at some stage in the future!
POSTSCRIPT: Bad news for motorcyclists in France, who will now presumably be prevented from wearing helmets.
Moved On 
I suspect most people who support this ban do so less out of a concern for women and more out of their own fears. The same rules regarding the covering of faces should apply to everyone. At the same time, coercing a person to conform to such primitive beliefs should be punishable as a form of assault.
I’m guessing they’ll get around the helmet thing one of two ways:
1) It’s not technically a “garment”
2) It’s design is not to cover the face, it’s to offer safety protection.
I’d much prefer the French Government concentrate on the more important aspects of oppression women face, rather than just the ones we’re uncomfortable because we can see them.
There are many Islamic doctrines which oppress women. Unfortunately too many on the left are so hung-up by political correctness that they focus their attentions elsewhere.
There are plenty of Catholic/Christian doctrines that oppress women, SB. But right-wingers are so hung up on Islam that they focus their attention elsewhere.
There is thankfully less emphasis these days on those doctrines in christianity, Keri. You aren’t seriously suggesting some equivalence here are you.
“I’d much prefer the French Government concentrate on the more important aspects of oppression women face”
Me too. I contend that the French Govt are pandering to the rednecks, just like our govt.
Me too. The dress code is the least of the problems inflicted on women by these primitive religious beliefs:
Speaking of primitive religious beliefs:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
King James Bible – Numbers 31:7
So Christianity encourages murder and rape.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to that foolish belief that quoting passages from documents that are centuries old and no longer followed in practice is an unfair/invalid way to evaluate a religion.
Historically, Islam was LESS oppressive. It’s the resurgence and introduction since the late 1800s of movements of Islam like Wahhabi that have meant that doctrine is interpreted differently.
Look at Mohammed himself. He was guided by his wives, particularly Aisha (Who led an army after his death).
Mondo, you apparently cannot tell the difference between a description and a prescription.
Muslim preachers readily encourage their followers to beat their wives. It is precisely because these barbaric doctrines continue to be preached and acted upon that they continue pose a serious threat. The dumb moral equivalence, such as you exhibited above, is the typical means leftists use to justify their craven inaction.
Whereas right wingers get to indulge their Islam-bashing fantasies while pretending to care about Islamic women’s rights. It’s a win-win for them.
I’m not defending this oppressive law, however, it is interesting to note that the French under Chirac passed a law banning religious iconography, symbols and garments of all flavours from public schools (a good law in my humble opinion). It seems the French are imposing secularity as the State anti-religion.
“Mondo, you apparently cannot tell the difference between a description and a prescription. ”
Comprehension = fail.
“Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man” – sounds like a direct instruction to me.
Buns somebody has to speak up for these people. The gutless left certainly does not have the stomach for it. They are too busy attacking people who do like Ayan Hirsi Ali.
And outraged ninjas are fleeing France en masse…
Buns you failed to comprehend that the bible passage quoted by Mondo was a description of a specific event, whereas the Koranic instruction to beat women is a prescription for all muslims.
There are plenty of vids of imams defending the beating of women. Do you have any evidence of ministers of religion preaching such things, or what Moses said?
Whether it started in Mohammed’s time (when he was being guided by his wives, allegedly, one of whom was 9!) or in the 1800s, the fact is that much of the Muslim world implements a gender apartheid that anyone who loves human liberty and dignity should find appalling. Where are the outraged protest marches, calls for boycotts, etc? Or does multiculturalism trump feminism?
If by “standing up for these people” you mean institute laws dictating what they can and can’t wear, I disagree.
What Islamic women choose to wear or not wear is their business. It doesn’t impact on me or you in any way and I’ve yet to hear any sensible explanation as to why the voluntary wearing of the burka should be banned.
Given the general fear and loathing which conservative governments in the West hold for muslims, it is far easier to rationalise this (IMO) ridiculous and completely unnecessary law with populist muslim-bashing than any concern for women’s rights.
I suspect this law won’t achieve anything other than forcing women who do choose to wear the burkha of their own free will to no longer do so.
Those who are actually forced to wear it by husbands or family members will probably no longer be allowed to leave their homes — effectively, they will live under family imposed house arrest. (In fact I’m sure I can recall hearing a French Muslim bloke saying he won’t allow his wife to leave their house if this is passed when this law was first being talked about a while back).
Buns: “If by “standing up for these people” you mean institute laws dictating what they can and can’t wear, ”
I said in my first comment (which is in moderation) that I don’t agree with that.
I don’t do muslim bashing, but people who believe in shit like punishing gays and apostates, allowing husbands to discipline their wives, not allowing muslim women to marry non-muslims, and sharia law in general could do with some straight talk, not the cowardly silence of leftists.
Mondo, you apparently cannot tell the difference between a description and a prescription.
ROFL. Passages from the Bible are merely ‘descriptions’, whereas passages from the Koran are ‘prescriptions’. What wonderful semantics SB.
Muslim preachers readily encourage their followers to beat their wives.
Do they SB? Have you been to many islamic prayer sessions, or are you just regurgitating what you’ve been told by your favored media outlets?
The dumb moral equivalence, such as you exhibited above, is the typical means leftists use to justify their craven inaction.
LOL again. I assert no moral equivalence – I only assert stupidity equivalence. It is equally stupid to judge Christianity by reference to passages in centuries old documents as it is to judge Islam by the same measure.
Which is precicely what you were doing when you quoted the Koran SB. Go on – admit it.
gavinm – agreed. This law will solve nothing. If anything, it can only cause problems.
SB, “straight talk” won’t change Islamic culture. Neither will banning the public wearing of the full-length burka.
I’ve yet to hear any sensible explanation as to why the voluntary wearing of the burka should be banned.
How about because there’s no other practical way to address the involuntary (and repressive) wearing of it?
(For the record I’m not saying that I necessarily take that view – I’m just highlighting it as a possibile explanation)
“but people who believe in shit like punishing gays and apostates, allowing husbands to discipline their wives, not allowing muslim women to marry non-muslims, and sharia law in general could do with some straight talk, not the cowardly silence of leftists.”
Absolutely. And when the Right starts in on Christians who advocate the same thing instead of venerating them, you’ll stop sounding like a lefty-bashing broken record.
I don’t agree with anyone, anywhere of any religion telling any woman what she can and can’t wear. This law is not about helping the women be less oppressed, it’s about making Westerners not have to confront their own prejudices and uncomfortableness. That should never be enshrined in law.
Also, I find it pretty funny that you refer to “lefty silence” on a post disagreeing with the practice by a lefty, where almost every commenter has similarly disagreed with it.
somebody has to speak up for these people. The gutless left certainly does not have the stomach for it. They are too busy attacking people who do like Ayan Hirsi Ali.
Ah SB playing the victim again, an accusation he quite like to throw at the left.
I think Gavin is exactly right. The only people forced to wear a veil will now be kept in their homes and be further oppressed.
Also, I find it pretty funny that you refer to “lefty silence” on a post disagreeing with the practice by a lefty, where almost every commenter has similarly disagreed with it.
I too started chuckling at this apparent lack of comprehension, after i finished laughing at SB quoting the Koran but dismissing the Bible.
Historically, Islam was LESS oppressive. It’s the resurgence and introduction since the late 1800s of movements of Islam like Wahhabi that have meant that doctrine is interpreted differently.
Bang, exactly correct. And this rise of Wahhabi and Sharia directly correlates to colonialism of lands inhabited by Muslims and their fighting back.
And the more Muslims are demonised and vilified then the more they are going to turn inwards and embrace Sharia etc than “moderate” Islam or secularity.
Something people like SB either cannot comprehend of would rather ignore as it gets in the way of Left bashing and Muslim bashing.
I don’t do muslim bashing, but people who believe in shit like punishing gays and apostates
Oh this is just classic, and I call bullshit. Firstly, you love Muslim bashing. Even a cursory glance at any blog topic on this site concerning Islam or the current wars would show that.
And two, I didn’t see you condemning the Texas GOP when Jeremy linked to their desire to re-criminalize sodomy, or adjust your love interest with the highly homophobic Tea Party.
The real reason this is such a big topic now for the European Right is because of the economic crisis.
Now they need to squeal and try diverting attention from their previous pandering to neo liberalism that caused the mess they have over there.
With the real threat to the people of Europe being austerity and cuts to working peoples living standards, the governments need a convenient scapegoat – Muslims, Refugees and Immigrants.
It also shows the complete political cowardice of the French supposed Communist and Socialist parties that they abstained from the vote.
They should have come out against the ban and stated exactly that it’s just clutching at straws by Sarkozy and his conservative party, that workers should ignore this Islamophobia and concentrate of maintaining their wages and current retirement age etc.
I won’t write a long post here because Jeremy seems fond of leaving my efforts in the queue behind other, later commentators, BUT on what evidence do you base the claim that Islam was historically “less oppressive” towards women (than what, pray tell?) Of course, it all comes back to the mean West’s fault, but how do you think those lands “inhabited by Muslims” came to be that way? Terra nullis? I think you’ll find a very sophisticated, very brutal colonial operation at work in fact. Read Efraim Karsh’s Islamic Imperialism and Paul Berman’s Flight of the Intellectuals for more on this.
Keri’s point feels a bit like saying in mid-1980s America that because a black man might have trouble hailing a cab in Manhattan, there’s no point in protesting Apartheid in South Africa.
Mondo: ”ROFL. Passages from the Bible are merely ‘descriptions’, whereas passages from the Koran are ‘prescriptions’. What wonderful semantics SB.”
The difference is that one passage is describing a past event, and is not taken to encourage such acts today. The other is given a general instruction on how to treat women, and is still taken as that today.
The issue is not the age of the respective passages, but whether either is still accepted as a guide to conduct.
Buns: “straight talk” won’t change Islamic culture. Neither will banning the public wearing of the full-length burka.”
I don’t favour the banning of the burka, and a bit of straight talk doesn’t hurt, even if many fools such (yourself included) refuse to listen.
Keri: I find it pretty funny that you refer to “lefty silence” on a post disagreeing with the practice by a lefty
The post didn’t disagree with the practice. It was a post advocating that the practice not be banned.
BT: you love Muslim bashing.
You obviously can’t read. I dislike particular doctrines. There are a lot of great things about Islam. I don’t attack Muslims per se, and I don’t attack the whole religion. What I do criticise is particular doctrines, particularly those which are currently being used to oppress people.
“I didn’t see you condemning the Texas GOP when Jeremy linked to their desire to re-criminalize sodomy, or adjust your love interest with the highly homophobic Tea Party.”
Well bugger me, I may have missed that particular post, but I have often complained about religious groups trying to legislate their religious convictions as law, to the detriment of the human rights of others.
BT: Now they need to squeal and try diverting attention from their previous pandering to neo liberalism that caused the mess they have over there.
Actually the PIIGS threw more money into the welfare trough than they could afford. Now they must learn to live within their means. They will be able to sort themselves out much more quickly if they hose out the socialist shit clogging up their system.
Of course SB – makes perfect sense. If it wasn’t for their welfare spending obligations it wouldn’t have mattered that the European countries suffered a massive loss of State wealth through the GFC.
Stupid poor people and their petty demands for a decent standard of living.
Mondo, German workers can’t retire until they are 67. They need to do this so they can work to bail out Greek workers who retire at 54.
“The real reason this is such a big topic now for the European Right is because of the economic crisis.
Now they need to squeal and try diverting attention from their previous pandering to neo liberalism that caused the mess they have over there.”
yeh i have to agree…
“Actually the PIIGS threw more money into the welfare trough than they could afford. Now they must learn to live within their means. They will be able to sort themselves out much more quickly if they hose out the socialist shit clogging up their system.”
nonsense, of course. little old greek ladies racked up the $400b debt in disability pensions, i suppose?
Karl, the fact is that Greece ran up deficits by overspending on public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits. The economic ignoramuses of the left don’t seem to understand that debts have to be repaid, and that when the national deficit becomes so large that even the interest payments cannot be met, the country becomes bankrupt.
The trouble with the left is that they are absolutely brilliant when it comes to pissing money against the wall, but have not a clue about how to earn it.
SB, what about Paul’s prescription that women are forbidden from teaching men?
I’m even somewhat sympathetic to the feminists who think western standards of fashion (such as heels) are a bit anti-woman, so it’s pretty clear what I think of the veil. However, making it a crime to wear one isn’t going to do a thing about the underlying problem.
“Karl, the fact is that Greece ran up deficits by overspending on public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits. “
You left out
…while not bothering to find revenue sources (like proper taxation) to fund these things.
Broggly, having discriminatory rules regarding head covering is wrong.
I am glad that the Christian churches by and large diminish retrograde teachings. There is far more scope for doing that than in Koranic exegesis in the major schools of Islam. This has been a major problem for Islam since al Ghazali wrote “The Incoherence of Philosophers”.
In the end it comes down to what happens now, and right now women suffer considerably by the application of particular practices carried out in the name of Islam. There is no point playing moral equivalence games and shrugging your shoulders when women like Ayan Hirsi Ali are being persecuted for their efforts on behalf ofvictims.
Hands up anyone here who has NEVER encountered a Christian person, in mainstream Australia, who says that homosexuality is immoral because “the Bible says so”.
Anyone? I doubt it. In my university days I couldn’t help tripping over such ignorance on a daily basis … on the university campus, what’s more.
Actually the PIIGS threw more money into the welfare trough than they could afford. Now they must learn to live within their means.
Pure garbage.
For one, Britain is undertaking one of the biggest load of cuts at the moment, and there is no “B” or “UK” in “PIIGS”. In fact, one in three British children live below the poverty line at the moment, this is hardly because of excess social spending.
I suppose America’s financial problems because of generous social spending as well SB?
Nor is there an “F” in “PIIGS” – which is the country we’re talking about at the moment.
nonsense, of course. little old greek ladies racked up the $400b debt in disability pensions, i suppose?
Clearly Karl, it’s all the fault of pensioners who’ve paid tax all their working lives and then feel they should be rewarded with a decent retirement 😉
Well bugger me, I may have missed that particular post,
Yeah, strange how your “miss” a post about your hero’s being backwards shit heads.
Jeremy, the failure to fund the expenditure is certainly another way of looking at the issue. The Greeks had a problem because they spent more than they collected. They then borrowed to fund the shortfall, on the basis of books cooked with the help of Goldman Sachs.
The fact is that workers in more prudent countries are now paying the price of bailing them out.
“Karl, the fact is that Greece ran up deficits by overspending on public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits.”
greece’s budget deficit was 11%, the same as the US or UK. its overall debt is 115% of GDP, comparable with Japan, Singapore and Italy
i’d explain how greece got diddled through goldman sachs currency swaps, but happily for you, its my hometime
“Hands up anyone here who has NEVER encountered a Christian person, in mainstream Australia, who says that homosexuality is immoral because “the Bible says so”.”
So when was the last time someone was sentenced to death by the courts and hung for being a homosexual in a Western Christian country, RM ?
RM, is there any difference in your mind between a belief that homosexuality is immoral and in convicting and even hanging gays, as say the Islamic Republic of Iran does?
BT, there are obviously a few other countries who will also need to learn that debts have to be repaid, and when the national deficit becomes so large that even the interest payments cannot be met, the country becomes bankrupt. At least the UK is trying to staunch the bleeding. In the US the Democrats don’t seem to get it yet.
That’s the conservative yardstick for discrimination against gay people – Iran. Can’t get married? Hey, at least we’re not hanging you perverts.
Buns you are completely clueless as usual – the question is whether you can you see any difference between private belief and public execution?
My view is that people can believe what they like and say what they like. When they give that legal effect, like not allowing gays to marry, that is a bad thing. Criminalising homosexuality is worse, and prescribing the death penalty is very much worse. Apparently all of these things are the same to you.
Buns, you might like to check some of my comments re gay marriage and gay rights on the threads that pertain to that topic — it might have saved you making such an ignorant remark.
My reply to RM was because the extent of abuse of human rights between Western Christian nations and fundamentalist Islamic ones just doesn’t compare, his attempt to equate the 2 is foolish to say the least — incidentally, Iran isn’t the only Islamic nation that executes homosexuals.
incidentally, Iran isn’t the only Islamic nation that executes homosexuals.
True, yet seems to be the only one that isn’t a western ally, and hence the only one that ever gets panned in the western press…
At least the UK is trying to staunch the bleeding
Ah, so reducing the public debt is more important than children being able to eat eh SB?
Sounds consistent with your love affair of neo liberalism.
Also, to try and pretend that neo liberalism with it’s symptoms like the and the sub prime mortgage are not to blame for the current GFC is absolute nonsense.
Even the major mainstream economics magazines and news papers such as the Financial Times are able to comprehend this point.
Typical Friedman fanboys like SB however would prefer to blame greedy workers for wanting a decent life.
SB and Gavin
This moral equivalence garbage you’re trying to run with is nonsense.
Examples of Christian intolerance are not raised with you as an attempt to draw some moral equivalence, they are raised to highlight that the clear problem of religious intolerance is not unique to Islam but is inherent across other religions too.
When you quote sections of the Koran at us in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that Islam is an inherently violent religion then we will quote sections of the Bible that are equally bad to prove you wrong. After all, if Christianity can overcome the intolerance of its sacred texts (and it largely has) then so too can Islam.
What you try to paint as support for Islam is generally nothing more than a reluctance to provide you with ammunition for your crusade to demonise Islam.
Mondo:”What you try to paint as support for Islam is generally nothing more than a reluctance to provide you with ammunition for your crusade to demonise Islam.”
The relevance of the section of the Koran I quoted was that it is still widely taught and practiced.
Sadly pious PC gutlessness is used by hypocritical leftists the world over as an excuse to say nothing while millions of women are oppressed, mutilated and murdered. Congratulations.
gavinm @ 1:15
Well said.
The first time I ever encountered muslim women in the full burqa was on a holiday to Penang in 2002 where the hotel my then boyfriend and I stayed at was heavily occupied by wealthy holidayers from Arab nations.
I got talking to an extended family one morning and i asked about their dress requirements which to me at the time seemed extreme in hot, humid conditions. One young woman said if it gets too unbearable, they just stay in the room where they don’t have to do the full dress, and can run around in t-shirts and shorts. This might be fine on holidays, where it’s only for a short time period, but what is the answer for women who no doubt will be forced do this in their place of residence by virtue of France’s new laws?
I believe it is wrong to force women to dress standards by way of rule of law. This simply oppresses people and limits their freedoms. And to be honest, I’m surprised to see SB arguing along these lines. No, actually I’m shocked.
confessions, just to be clear, you did notice that I oppossed the ban?
Actually I didn’t.
Perhaps you can refresh the thread with your opposition to the proposed laws, rather than your opposition to islam.
I have issues with particular practices and the theology behind them, but voluntary burka wearing isn’t offensive.
I should add that there is a lot to like about parts of Islamic belief, and it can quite seductive to the religiously inclined.
SB: I see.
Do you agree that women’s dress is something that should be regulated by the state?
No. See my first comment in this thread.
When you quote sections of the Koran at us in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that Islam is an inherently violent religion then we will quote sections of the Bible that are equally bad to prove you wrong. After all, if Christianity can overcome the intolerance of its sacred texts (and it largely has) then so too can Islam.
Now that is well said.
If the reasons behind this ban are in fact to protect women and their rights then I would expect the government to have also announced an increase in resourcing to womens shelters and assistance for single mothers, whom may require economical and emotional assistance to leave all those nasty men forcing the veil on them.
Clearly however, this is not the case.
BT, the reason to quote the Koran is to draw the connection between it and the oppression of women in the Islamic world. I also linked to videos of preachers still preaching the same bullshit. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=islam+beat+women&aq=f). Far too many leftists are so mentally debilitated by PC notions that they can’t bring themselves to attack the vile religious doctrines that are used to justify the hundreds of “honour” killings and millions of mutilations that happen each year.
Your last paragraph is excellent.
Very good Mondo,
Now re-read my posts and show me where I have quoted the Koran, where I have demonised Islam and where I have claimed that religious intolerance is unique to Islam.
My response to RM was based on his inference that countries whose governments legislate and implement the death penalty for homosexuals based on religion are equivalent to the personal religious beliefs of private individuals here in Australia – a difference I would expect even you to be able to see.
Mondo: “What you try to paint as support for Islam is generally nothing more than a reluctance to provide you with ammunition for your crusade to demonise Islam.”
The relevance of the section of the Koran I quoted was that it is still widely taught and practiced.
Sadly pious PC gutlessness is used by hypocritical leftists the world over as an excuse to say nothing while millions of women are oppressed, mutilated and murdered. Congratulations.
“If the reasons behind this ban are in fact to protect women and their rights then I would expect the government to have also announced an increase in resourcing to womens shelters and assistance for single mothers, whom may require economical and emotional assistance to leave all those nasty men forcing the veil on them.”
Exactly right BT — although it is true that there are both cultural and law and order issues in France’s Islamic community, (many of which the French have brought upon themselves), I suspect this law is more to placate the perception many French people have that Muslims simply refuse to integrate into the community than it is to protect those women who are oppressed by their husbands and male family members.
“incidentally, Iran isn’t the only Islamic nation that executes homosexuals.
True, yet seems to be the only one that isn’t a western ally, and hence the only one that ever gets panned in the western press…”
I think you’ll find a few more non-Western allied nations besides Iran, BT — but you’re right, Iran gets highlighted, not sure why…maybe because the international spotlight is on it due to its nuclear ambitions and the high profile of Ahmadinejad ?
Looks like someone is impersonating Gavin. You can tell by the stupidity of the comment made by the imposter.
It’s Gavin, and cut it out.
Really? Why did he quote himself? It seemed a bit odd. I’ll take your word for it.
Sorry, I get it now. The bit in the comment that I thought was stupid was where he was where he was quoting BT
There are seven countries with the death penalty for gays:
Iran
Mauritania
Saudi-Arabia
Sudan
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Nigeria (death penalty applies to 12 Northern provinces with Sharia law).
Looks like someone is impersonating SB. You can tell by the stupidity of the comment made by the imposter.
Touché buns.
Sorry for that confusion — I only put my original quote in there to provide context for my reply to BT.
Sadly pious PC gutlessness is used by hypocritical leftists the world over as an excuse to say nothing while millions of women are oppressed, mutilated and murdered.
I love that SB has invented a ‘leftist silence’ on this issue despite their being no such silence in reality. If he was so inclined he could trawl through this thread alone and find substantial criticism of Islamic practice from lefties – but SB’s confirmation bias prevents him from seeing reality.
Unless the criticism is hysterical, unhinged and offered as a blanket criticism of all of Islam then it apparently doesn’t count.
Which is understandable in a way. To many here Islam is simply another religion causing a myriad of behavioural problems amongst its followers, but for SB it is also a competitor to his personal religion. His staunch Catholicism demands that he view Islam, not just Islamists, as the problem.
Sadly for SB, however, secular Australia is not going to join his religious crusade. It’s going to continue to provide measured, unbiased and rational criticism of Islamic practice instead of hysterical condemnation of an entire religion.
No matter how much he huffs, bleats and whines about it on this blog.
Mondo: “Unless the criticism is hysterical, unhinged and offered as a blanket criticism of all of Islam then it apparently doesn’t count.”
Where did I say that? I did say:
“I should add that there is a lot to like about parts of Islamic belief, and it can quite seductive to the religiously inclined.”
and:
“I dislike particular doctrines. There are a lot of great things about Islam. I don’t attack Muslims per se, and I don’t attack the whole religion. What I do criticise is particular doctrines, particularly those which are currently being used to oppress people.”
Your ability to read is as deficient as your ability to reason.
Mondo: “Sadly for SB, however, secular Australia is not going to join his religious crusade. It’s going to continue to provide measured, unbiased and rational criticism of Islamic practice instead of hysterical condemnation of an entire religion.”
In fact my criticism is of specific doctrines which are quite widespread in their acceptance and practice. Your basic approach is obfuscation and denial. Just look at the issue of women’s rights in Islamic countries. It is beyond clear that the oppression of women is based on particular doctrines which are used to justify that oppression. Your pathetic PC response is to close your eyes and blather on about moral equivalence.
All I’ve done is to point to particular offensive teachings which result in the daily abuse of women and all of a sudden apparently I hate the whole religion of Islam.
Sadly pious PC gutlessness is used by hypocritical leftists the world over as an excuse to say nothing while millions of women are oppressed, mutilated and murdered. Congratulations.
Again, this is just absolute garbage by SB.
It’s precisely because this law is NOT going to stop the oppression of women that the left are opposed to it, and speak out against it.
Clearly it was the Left that protested against the war in Afghanistan, and one of the reasons was it was NOT going to liberate women.
How do you liberate women by bombing their country and replacing one group of misogynists with another?
Any serious discussion of womens liberation and Afghanistan would have to include the views of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), however you’ll never see SB quote any of them (this includes previous threads). For SB and the right they dont even exist.
When the Republicans go on the offensive against womens rights in the US, in regards to birth control, abortion and sex education, it’s the Left (this does not include the Democrats, who are not left) that stand up to them, whilst SB and the self appointed liberators of women such as Howard and Abbot are completely silent, or worse.
Whilst Tegan Leach is facing jail in QLD for having an “illegal” abortion, it’s the Left that has made noise about it. Where is SB or the right on this issue?
It’s the Left that are against the funding of brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whilst the right just ignore their atrociousness.
When Clinton and Bush were funding Toto Constant to gang rape women with an affiliation with Lavalas in Haiti – it was only Left wing outlets that would give them a voice, like Democracy Now!
Do i need to go on SB? Or are you ready to climb down from your moral high horse and stop talking shit?
The Left are NOT for Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, the Taliban or for using a twisting of ANY religious doctrine to justify the oppression of women, or gays anywhere in the world.
It’s just that most of us are smart enough to realise that continued vilification and demonisation of Islam and Muslims is going to only further worsen the problem not resolve it.
Iran
Mauritania
Saudi-Arabia
Sudan
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Nigeria
And which of these are not allied in some way? apart from Iran, I think the only other one is Sudan.
Iran gets highlighted, not sure why…maybe because the international spotlight is on it due to its nuclear ambitions and the high profile of Ahmadinejad ?
Our governments and media don’t really give too much of a shit about the plight of oppressed people in the middle east or anywhere else really.
If they did they’d have more to say about Sri Lankas treatment of Tamils.
Or on nuclear ambitions. India is encouraged and they’re not part of the non-proliferation treaty and are continuing to kick people of their land to mine bauxite etc.
The reason Iran and Ahmadinejad get highlighted is because Iran doesn’t kowtow to US imperialism.
I think a brief bit of evidence of this is the elections Iran had.
Ahmadinejad gets called for vote rigging when he “won” like, 65% of the vote – because such a high vote is deemed too unlikely.
But nobody says shit about fucking Mubarak winning elections with 96% of the vote!
They’re both scum bags, but one gets funded to the tune of billions of dollars by the US, whilst the other gets demonized at every chance.
In fact the US establishment has been screaming about Iran since the Shah was overthrown.
Don’t be silly, BT. Iran has copped flack recently because recently it has hanged two gay blokes. Saudi Arabia cops plenty of heat for its barbaric practices.
All of the listed countries do have something in common though, don’t they?
BT: “It’s precisely because this law is NOT going to stop the oppression of women that the left are opposed to it, and speak out against it.”
It is not just the left that opposes this law. I have said numerous times on this thread. Can’t you read?
“Do I need to go on SB?”
I’m pretty sure nothing I say could staunch the torrent of lies issuing from your anus!
Don’t be silly, BT. Iran has copped flack recently because recently it has hanged two gay blokes. Saudi Arabia cops plenty of heat for its barbaric practices.
From who?
When has somebody in the US Establishment or News Limited come out and denounced anything Saudi Arabia has done?
Yeah Iran has copped heat recently, but doesn’t change the fact it has copped heat since the Shah was overthrown. Just new reasons to pretend Iran is more oppressive than other Islamic regimes.
All of the listed countries do have something in common though, don’t they?
Um yeah, the leadership of all these countries have been allowed to twist a certain religion for their own benefit.
It is not just the left that opposes this law. I have said numerous times on this thread. Can’t you read?
I never said you didnt oppose it. I’m countering your bullshit argument that the Left leaves womens rights in the gutter, when in fact it’s people like you, and the right that are happy to do that.
I’m pretty sure nothing I say could staunch the torrent of lies How about you actually specify the lie and address why it’s a lie?
OR, if that’s too hard, how about you shut your own damn turd hole.
I was inferring nothing of the sort. Part of the original argument by some commenters here was that Islam is what is to blame because of what it is. My argument is that “what Christianity is” isn’t much different.
Atheists might have no problem with homosexuality, or might find it unpleasant, but they won’t formulate an opinion on it based on what it says in the bible.
Meanwhile, shorter catholic church: Stop the abuse of children by priests: outlaw women clergy!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/16/2955994.htm
There has been an outbreak of anti-Islamic sentiment in the U.S. -not that it was ever easy for them- recently.
I definitely see the redneck factor, but I didn’t expect it from France.
Check this out http://honeybrownblues.com/?p=161 It is about Muslims in the South