Tag Archives: Burkas

Giving birth in a burqa

Posted on by
1

From here:

A Muslim man who punched a nurse for trying to remove his wife’s burqa during childbirth has been jailed in France.

Nassim Mimoune, 24, had already been expelled from the delivery room for branding the midwife a ‘rapist’ as she carried out an intimate examination of his wife.

Then through a window he spotted the nurse taking off his wife’s burqa as she prepared to give birth.

He smashed open the locked door and hit the woman in the face, demanding she replace the full Islamic face veil.

It takes a peculiar logic – Islamic logic, I suppose – to insist that a woman’s face be covered while her nether regions are being aired.

Making wearing a mask during a riot illegal

Posted on by
1

From here:

A private member’s bill set for debate Thursday in Ottawa would make it a crime to cover your face with a mask or other means during a riot.

[….]

The Alberta MP’s bill exempts people from the bill that have a “lawful excuse” for covering their face. It does not define what a lawful excuse would be under the proposed legislation.

It’s anyone’s guess what would constitute a “lawful excuse”, but I’m betting that if the bill passes, the next riot will see a dramatic increase in burkas.

Why dress like a sausage?

Posted on by
1

To prevent body heat loss, shaking, swaying and an upset in the body’s equilibrium. It only works for women, though.

From here:

Veil is a legitimate right of a woman to protect her modesty as per Qur’anic and Hadith injections. Apart from this, there are a number of health and moral benefits that wearing the veil can provide. Many behavioral science studies that suggest that the veil is the best attire for women.

Protecting the head is very important from a health perspective. Results of medical tests show that 40-60 percent of body heat is lost through the head, so persons wearing head coverings during cold months are protected about fifty-percent more than those who do not.  Wind is said to cause sudden changes within the body and shaking, swaying and other movements that potentially upset the body’s equilibrium; thus, creating bad health.

A snooty response from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a letter to Rowan Williams followed by a condescending response from his office:

To Archbishop Rowan Williams:

RE: http://www.episcopal-life.org/81808_125254_ENG_HTM.htm

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams,the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.”

I find it mind boggling that you, Dr. Williams, have time to make pronouncements on the status of other religions when your own house is not in order. Rather than wading into the debates of others, you should successfully resolve your own problems rather than “indaba” them to death. As the chief churchman of the Church of England, you should be upholding Christian values, including the right of women to dress as they wish, not as their religious husbands order them to dress. Some customs in clothing represent the values our society wishes to maintain, and the rights of women are some of those hard fought values. Women got the vote only 100 years ago, and I would hate to see the Primus intra pares make women less equal than men in rights in the UK and anywhere else that Muslims seek to insert their sharia law into the lives of those who do not wish to live in the 7th century.

Dr. Williams, you are already on record as approving of some aspects of sharia law being used in the UK. I could not disagree with you more violently. You are undermining the rights of the Church of England, granted all the way back in 1215: “(1) FIRST, THAT WE [John] HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. . . . ” (Magna Carta). Muslims want a theocracy; sharia law is part of this desire. The mistreatment of women is also part of Islamic culture due to the Qu’ran and sharia law. If you grant equality to Islam re Christianity, do not think that Muslims will for one iota share your relativistic concept that we can all get along. Both religions make exclusive truth claims; therefore, one must be incorrect. That’s not politically correct, but then I’m not the Archbishop of Canterbury and I don’t make my living by being politically correct. I don’t think you should either. You should stand up for your own faith. Muslims don’t need any help standing up for theirs.

Personally, I don’t want my relatives in the UK to have to live as second class citizens in a Muslim controlled UK, because the way the birth rate is going, that is what is going to happen by sheer numbers unless legal guarantees are made and kept for religious freedom – freedom that does not discriminate against any women. And why is it that there are no-go zones even for Christian bishops in their own dioceses because Muslim citizens of the UK don’t want them there? Why have you not gone to bat for the Bishop of Manchester’s right to walk through his own city? Why did you allow that issue to just blow over, and thereby affirm a Muslim intrusion into the rights of Christian citizens of the UK?

You’re concerned about the coming civil war in the Sudan. Have you tackled the Christian / Muslim clash there? Have you spoken out about Christians murdered by Muslims in Nigeria? Have you spoken out about Muslim state sanctioned persecution of Christians in countries like the Yeman or Iran or …. Have you exposed for all to see what the Qu’ran actually says about how to treat those who are not of the Muslim faith? Do you really know how sharia law restricts women?

Don’t you have better things to do than suggest that men should be allowed to control “their women” by encouraging the use of the ultra religious, control symbol of the burqa? How is it that you are in favour of women bishops in the UK ( I assume you are since you allowed debate on this topic), yet support the maintenance of the downtrodden state of women who have Muslim husbands? I do not understand this apparent hypocrisy.

In Canada it is illegal to cover one’s face to hide one’s identity. This is for safety purposes. I assume the same is true of the UK. As a member of the House of Lords, as part of British institutions, you should be upholding those institutions, not helping to undermine them. You will lose the very freedoms you think you are upholding if you continue to waffle the way you do into such relativistic religious waters.

I was in South Africa in 1993, and visited the mosque in Durban when I was there. I was invited to meet Imam Ahmed Deedat, who was referred to as a “prophet,” although I thought that rather odd. This man attacked me as the “devil incarnate,” as a “racist” because I was white, and as a victim of delusions because the bible was full of lies. In the head office there were piles of posters ready to be dispersed proclaiming the forthcoming “MUSLIM DESERT STORM OF GREAT BRITAIN. You’re in the middle of this “Desert Storm.” Ahmed Deedat told me that if Jesus had wanted to prove he was risen from the dead and was the son of God, he would have appeared to a man first, not a woman. I assume you do not wish to align yourself with such misguided ignorance.

thank you,

Here is the reply:

Thank you for your email to Archbishop Rowan’s website.

I think that it is a mistaken understanding of Christianity to suggest as you seem to, that upholding Christian values is incompatible with engaging with issues arising from the presence of communities of other faiths in this country and internationally.

Issues of religious conscience in the face of State legislation have always been important matters for Christians whether they affect our own community or others. Indeed the basis of individual freedoms under God is rooted in our understanding of the nature of God and God’s relationship with human beings.

The particular issue that the Archbishop was referring to was whether there should be legislation banning the wearing of the niqab or burqa in Britain as in some other European nations. This is a different matter than whether it is desirable for this face covering to be worn. Whilst one may well consider this – and indeed some other forms of clothing to be undesirable for socialisation and integration – there is no tradition of legislation on these matters in this country and nor should there be. The niqab is not religiously required and is a matter of culture and custom and should remain a matter of personal decision.

May I correct your comment about the Archbishop as being on record as ‘approving of some aspects of sharia law being applied in the UK.’ This is not the case. If you are referring to his lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice some years ago, you will see from his text that he was defending the cause of religious conscience against recent legislative trends in this country.

You refer to a number of other matters and I regret having to say that you appear to be substantially misinformed perhaps because you have relied on newspaper headlines.

The Archbishop is one of the foremost and respected amongst those who proclaim the gospel both in this country and internationally, including giving a series of addresses on Christian doctrines to Muslim audiences in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya.

Finally you refer rather slightingly to the Archbishop’s role in Sudan and Nigeria. In relation to the former the Archbishop has not only been in Sudan to support the Church there, but has raised the issues directly in Parliament and with Ministers. In relation to Nigeria, he frequently is in touch personally with the Christian leadership and in recent months has sent a delegation in the aftermath of the violence in Jos.

I hope that you may be led by my comments to take a more informed and charitable view.

Yours sincerely,

Canon Guy Wilkinson
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Inter Religious Affairs

Archbishop Rowan Williams and the human sausage

Posted on by
2

Rowan Williams thinks men should be allowed to force their wives to dress like a bratwurst; from here:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.

Archbishops should have better things to do than tell governments they have better things to do.

Burka Rage

Posted on by
1

From here:

A retired teacher is facing three years in prison for ripping off a Muslim’s face veil in the world’s first known case of ‘burka rage’.

The 63-year-old woman, so far only referred to by her first name Marlene, appeared before the Paris Correctional Court to defend her attack on Shaika, 26, who originally comes from the United Arab Emirates….

Marlene, who is accused of aggravated violence, is said to have ‘lost control’ when she saw Shaika choosing furniture in a department store.

‘I knew I would crack one day,’ said Marlene. ‘This whole saga of the burka was really getting to me.’

Speaking in English to her victim, Marlene, who has taught in Morocco and Saudi Arabia, said: ‘I told her to take off the veil she had on her face. I grabbed and pulled it.

‘To me wearing a full veil is an attack on being a woman. As a woman, I felt attacked.’

A few minutes later Marlene is said to have started hitting Shaika, who refused to take her veil off.

‘I went over to her and tore her veil,’ said Marlene in a police report. ‘We came to blows. I was very upset.’

After allegedly slapping Shaika, Marlene bit her hand before successfully removing the veil, shouting: ‘Now I can see your face.’

Security guards had to separate the women, with one describing the fight as being motivated by ‘pure burka rage’.

Wearing a burka in public in France is now illegal – it wasn’t when Marlene went burka bonkers – but a pre-emptive citizen’s arrest defence isn’t likely to fly. I wonder if she would be facing three years in prison if she’d ripped a ku klux klan hood off its hapless wearer?

Muslim in the UK woman fired for not wearing a headscarf

Posted on by
1

From here:

A Muslim woman has been awarded more than £13,500 after she was sacked for refusing to wear a headscarf at the estate agency where she worked…..

However, within days of working there she was left feeling ‘very uncomfortable and intimidated’ when Mr Ghafoor put it to her that she had not been brought up as a ‘good Muslim’ and that if she had been his daughter she would not be allowed to work and would have been long since ‘married off’.

He asked her to wear a headscarf at work – even though white non-Muslim women he employed in the same office were never asked to and never did.

On the day she was due to start her third week in the job, Mr Ghafoor told her not to bother coming in.

So much for Muslim women being free to choose whether to wear a head covering or not – and this coercion came from a fellow who was not even her husband.

Another kind of wardrobe malfunction

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Woman fined for erratic driving caused by niqab headscarf impairing her vision

A motorist has been fined for erratic driving caused by her Islamic headscarf, just weeks after a similar incident sparked a major political row.

Police in Vaucluse in southern France stopped the woman after she was spotted driving her vehicle carelessly on the road.

It was then officers noticed the driver was wearing a niqab, a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed, and that her sight was impaired, according to commanding officer Charles Bourillon.

‘[The headscarf] was bothering the driver in her manoeuvres … It was obvious she could not see a thing,’ he said.

The solution is obvious: drive one of these and leave your niqab at home:

Add an Image

Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Hitchens isn’t always wrong

Posted on by
2

From Slate:

French attempts to outlaw the burqa strike a blow for the rights of women.

The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa—whether the garment covers “only” the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a “ban.” To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another.

In contrast, Bishop Barry Clarke – a bellwether whose proclamations I routinely use as a litmus for ideological buffoonery – unsurprisingly opposes a similar ban in Quebec:

MONTREAL – A bill that would bar a woman wearing a face veil from receiving government services is an attack on women’s rights in the guise of defending equality of the sexes, say the Anglican diocese of Montreal and the Simone de Beauvoir Institute.

In a statement approved Monday night by local clergy and Bishop Barry Clarke, the diocese said the bill erodes freedom of religion guaranteed under the Quebec and Canadian human-rights charters.