The "Burka Debate"

Slip slidin’ away:

 Taliban fighters pussies dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village



No need for this burka debate!

The burka comes as a package deal. As such, the burka has no place anywhere.  There is no place in the world where jihad, wife-beating, FGM, honor-killings, killing of infidels killing of apostates or homosexuals,  or mass-murder on Jews  is justified. There is no place for Islamic law, the sharia, and there is no place for child-marriage, polygamy, rape of infidel women, or Islamic terrorism. The burka is just another manifestation of  Islamic misogyny  Qur’an (4:34) - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other).  And finally, the burka is the cloak to cover it all up.

*  More below*


The burka is a tool to terrify and to alienate  increasingly agitated and irritated infidels, (that’s us!)  who have -somehow- (how exactly?) been fooled to allow large numbers of hostile Mohammedans to  invade  and settle amongst us. The price for this invasion is too high. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Muslims who insist on whacking their chattel into “portable seclusion” should be encouraged to pack up and  ship out.

If it wasn’t for the incessant dumbing down of the general population by multi-culti fanatics, the perversion of tolerance,  commie university professors and subversive polit-props who support Islamic immigration,  (while telling us flying our flag is offensive) we wouldn’t need to waste time with bad rubbish such as this.

There can be no compromise. 

Andrew Bolt, while looking for some kind of way out, presents 6 opinions. The above is mine. Read it all and let us know with whom you agree. 

Rod Liddle:

As Sarkozy has said, the burqa is merely symbolic of female subjugation — so what is the point of taking action against a symbol? The real subjugation comes from within Islam, from within the Koran and the way it is most usually interpreted. It is the ideology to which the politicians — both here and in France — should object, not its symbolism, or indeed the blameless actions of the majority of women who wear the burqa because they feel comfortable, among their peers, so doing. And yet here, both governments have gone out of their way to insist that Islam is a lovely, peaceable religion which we should all (by law in Britain) respect.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have French writers or British politicians hauled before the courts because they say uncomplimentary things about Islam and then, as president or politician, start slagging off the burqa and insisting that it should be banned from the country. The right thing to do, I would suggest, is to make it absolutely plain that there is no compulsion to respect Islam as either a religion or a political ideology and that our governments, both of which are liberal democracies, will at every juncture attempt to counter the poisonous sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, misogyny and furious reaction to apostasy which is more or less inherent in even the more moderate strands of this religion. But, these being free countries, people should be allowed to believe whatever rubbish they like — be it Islam, Scientology, Rastafarianism — and dress accordingly if they wish, without being bullied.

* Although Rod Liddle makes more sense than the others, the last sentence is still mush because it implies choice. The last thing Islamofascists offer their womenfolk is choice, in fact they force their women under the burka so we cannot see their bruises.

Lets see if the others make more sense:

Burka ban – the debate


  1. BBC NEWS | Europe | Sarkozy burka debate: Your comments
  2. Big burqa debate – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews
  3. The French Burka Debate – Putting an end to Islamic Fundamentalism ?
  4. “The Spread of the Veil in Europe is a Very Clear Indicator of the Spread of Islamism”: “Iran Has Imposed the Veil on All Women, Including Christian and Jewish Women”

Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, July 08, 09 


The French president’s denunciation of the burka has refired the debate over whether liberal societies protect themselves – or betray themselves – by banning what many take to be a symbol of the oppression of women.

This is no issue on which the Left simply aligns against the Right. In fact, all the following opinions – other than Sarkozy’s – are from people who have long identified themselves as of the Left. And the awkward thing is that I tend to agree with them all:

President Nicolas Sarkozy:

We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity. The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.

Christopher Hitchens:

Is this forcible French secularism run amok, or a prohibition that Americans, who often believe we have struck a better balance between church and state, might entertain? I would say the latter…

The whole point of the garment is that it weighs you down, restricts your movements and abolishes your peripheral vision. It’s like being condemned to view the world through the slit of a mailbox..o. It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of “right.” It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women – just like the compulsory growing of beards for men – is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Oliver Kamm:

It’s the task of constitutional government to uphold religious liberty while ensuring that religion does not intrude into civic authority. While members of a free society have various identities, the only one that matters for civic purposes is common citizenship under the rule of law… It’s no concern of the democratic state what its citizens believe about the origins and ends of the universe. But it is our concern when adherence to religious codes violates the principle of equal citizenship.

Agnès Poirier:

For someone like me, firmly on the Left, the defence of secularism is the only way to guarantee cultural diversity and national cohesion. One cannot go without the other…

That such a debate is taking place again reveals the sturdy health of secularism in France, a tradition that doesn’t shy away from being confrontational even in a country with the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Europe… Seen from France, Britain’s tolerance of extremist views looks at best naive, at worse dangerous: a recipe for trouble, division and painful soul-searching. Britain’s recent questioning of Britishness and what is it to be British, could never happen in France where a sense of common identity has been steadily forged through two centuries during which the Revolution and the Republic have provided the cement of national unity…

In France, public swimming pools would never allow women-only sessions to satisfy the demands of a minority. A public space is constructed for citizens to interact freely, and legislation written to remove the barriers of difference that separate them. Seen from Britain, French principles of equality and secularism are often misinterpreted, and dismissed as authoritarian or prejudiced. But critics of the French approach don’t seem to understand that secularism is neutral – the State doesn’t recognise any religion in particular but protects them all, guaranteeing cultural and religious diversity by ensuring that one faith does not get the upper hand.

Norm Geras:

The public space in a secular democracy is not an atheist public space. Secularism means that no religion is favoured or specially catered for; but it leaves people free to wear the religious insignia they choose to or not to wear any. To insist on a notion of secularism that would forbid the wearing of these items is the equivalent of insisting that secularism prohibits religious belief and its expression, which it patently does not…

(I)f there are some or many women whose own choice it is to wear the burka, a legal ban on their doing so does not uphold their equal citizenship; it does the opposite, making them unique amongst citizens in not being allowed to express their religious or non-religious identity as they choose….

Does the law need to intervene in this matter at all? Why may it not be dealt with by the influence of education, social criticism and the like? Many in Western societies find it an obstruction to interacting with people if their faces are hidden. There is nothing to stop those who feel this way from expressing their preference as and when appropriate.

Andrew Bolt is looking for compromises:

Perhaps the middle ground is this: that a ban is indeed illiberal and, perhaps worse, counterproductive. It treats merely the expression of opinions and attitudes which are the true challenges. Given this – and given, too, the possibility of simply being wrong about the burka, it is best that critics restrict themselves to arguing, rather than banning.

But – and a big but – that requires the state to allow such debates, rather than shut them down for the “offence’’ they cause. And here is the true threat, to which all the above may safely join in condemning: we now have too many new laws and tribunals that seek to punish those who criticise aspects of religions, and especially of Islam. In doing so, they rob us of the most peaceful, intelligent, democratic and liberal way to affect cultural change, and ward off challenges to our values.

* But compromising with Islam doesn’t work and simply leads to more demands, as we can see here:

Here’s a simple solution: find another job

The ongoing stealth jihad battle at the J. B. Swift meat packing plant in Greeley, Colorado has inspired an admittedly “wishy-washy” editorial in the Greeley Tribune. The editorial writer wants both sides to compromise, which seems reasonable enough until one realizes that the fanatical intransigence of Islamic supremacism admits of no compromise.

“Now is the time for JBS, Muslim workers to reach agreement about Ramadan,” an unsigned editorial in the Greeley Tribune, July 8 (thanks to Jihad Watch):

Last year’s conflict between Muslim workers and officials at the JBS USA meatpacking plant inspires wishy-washy thoughts.We understand, and appreciate, both sides.

We understand why Muslim workers would want to find time to pray at sunset during the holiest month of the year. And we also understand why JBS USA had a problem with pulling a good chunk of its work force in a business that loses profits from unproductive minutes.

That worries us, of course, because Ramadan is approaching once again. This year, the holy month starts on Aug. 21, and though that seems like a long way away, summer, with its generous helping of daylight, has a way of making you believe time stretches further than it actually does.

When there’s no clear-cut answer to this problem, it makes it difficult in our eyes to find something that will work for both JBS and the Muslim workers.

But that’s exactly what we’re calling for. We believe there’s enough time for a compromise, but both parties need to start working toward one today….

No one wants to compromise their religion. What is religion, after all, if you’re allowed to do what you want, when you want? And asking a business to lose money, or at least adjust its profits, in a competitive market, in this economy, seems like a lot. Meatpacking plants are ruled by an inflexible clock.

But we’re asking both parties to try. No one wants another ugly fight that draws the attention of the national media, a media that never bothers to scratch beneath the surface of our town and prefers to lump people into categories. This usually means JBS looks insensitive and the Muslims look whiny. We know deep down that neither is true.

Prove it.

Don’t hold your breath. The editorial says it will be hard in this economy for the Muslim meat packers to find other jobs, but if this issue really means so much to them, they ought to be willing to make some sacrifices. In reality, this is an attempt to compel an American company to institute a privileged status for Muslims and Islamic law. Many more such challenges are coming — just watch.

*   Qur’an (4:34) - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.”

Qur’an (2:228) - “and the men are a degree above them”

Qur’an (33:59) - “Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…”  Men determine how women dress.

Qur’an (2:223) - “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times.  They serve their husbands at his command.  This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was “revealed” when women complained to Muhammad about the practice.  The phrase “when and how you will” means that they lost their case.

Qur’an (66:5) - “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins”  A disobedient wife can be replaced.

2 thoughts on “The "Burka Debate"”

  1. The burqa debate …
    For me I don’t even have to analyse it – I see them and I know ,
    ” That’s wrong “

Comments are closed.