Heaven help us!

“Irene is undertaking some groundbreaking research”

There is a whole lot of ‘research’ going on, namely by universities and some (western) females who appear to have a vested interest in Islam-promo.

Veil ban ‘increased hostility towards Muslim women’- not. Islam increases hostility towards kafirs!

Irene Zempi  will present her  “groundbreaking” research on Islamophobia at a Departmental Research Seminar at the University of Leicester tomorrow:

 The veil ban policy is a clear manifestation of Islamophobia. The veil ban is not a ‘religious-blind’ piece of legislation; rather it attacks ‘Islam’ through the religious code of dress for Muslim women.”


No Christianophobia to see here:

Jordan: Bank fires Christian woman for not wearing hijab

Its all about choice, right?  Do crackpots like Irene Zempi and  Martha Nussbaum object to this kind of “choice?”  Will these poptards speak out about the rampant Christianophobia in Jordan and other Islamic hell holes?

Mrs Zempi’s awful conclusions (and solutions) are eerily similar to those of a Martha Nussbaum, who wrote a whole book about it, in the U.S.:

“The burqa and the new religious intolerance”

By Martha Nussbaum

Yet another twisted wreck from a U.S. university fantasizes about things she doesn’t understand.

Martha is not a lawyer and knows nothing about Islam, she tries to mix Islamic misogyny with western law and her  twisted feminist allures. May the burqa rest lightly on their shoulders!

Mona Eltahawy on France’s banning of face veils

Never ending burqa katzenjammer:

Prison is freedom, freedom is prison:

Liberty intervenes in European Court case over French ‘burqa ban’

DateTuesday, May 22, 2012

Liberty today announced it is intervening in the European Court of Human Rights case concerning the criminalisation of face coverings in France:

The so-called ‘burqa ban’ – which came into force last year – outlaws French citizens from covering their faces in public spaces in France. A Muslim woman, known as S.A.S., filed an application to the European Court opposing the law on the day it was introduced.

Liberty has now intervened in the case, S.A.S. v France, which has major potential repercussions for freedom of religion and freedom of expression – not just in France but here in the UK and across Europe. In July 2010 Philip Hollobone MP tabled a Private Members Bill which would have outlawed face coverings in public in the UK. But Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has described the French law as “incomprehensible” and asserted that the British government has no intention to follow suit.

Liberty argues that the burqa ban breaches Article 8 (right to a private life), 9 (freedom of religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and14 (no discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The law aims to ban the burqa by making it an offence to wear clothing that conceals the face in public places including beaches, gardens and commercial premises such as cinemas and restaurants. The penalty is a 150-euro fine and/or a ‘citizenship course’ – suggesting its wearing is a sign of being ‘non-French’. Some of the language surrounding the debate over the ban in France has proved alarmingly inflammatory and racist.

The French Government has tried to justify the law by claiming the ban actually prevents Muslim women from being ‘cut off’ from others, bolsters public safety and increases equality between men and women. But in reality it prevents Muslim women from expressing their beliefs through Islamic dress. While there may be security concerns over facing coverings these would be better tackled with less intrusive measures – relevant French law relating to identity checks, for example, is already in place. And while promoting equality is essential, penalising women for expressions of faith does not promote equality – it undermines basic dignity.

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer for Liberty, said: “Wearing the full veil may be considered demeaning by some but for many women it’s a precious symbol of their faith.

“Such controversy is hardly resolved by imprisoning at home those women who feel compelled to wear the burqa or niqab. This blanket, discriminatory and disproportionate ban only serves to fuel the flames of Islamaphobia spreading across Europe.”

Liberty press release, 21 May 2012


7 thoughts on “Heaven help us!”

  1. Yasmin Alibbai-Brown:

    Sixteen reasons why I object to this dangerous cover-up

    A dress code for Muslim women when in public institutions would free up our faith from the grip of fanatics and reintegrate us into our country

    The French government has banned burkas. There, tis done. The law is patently dictatorial and discriminatory. In democratic societies governments do not and should not interfere to this extent in private lives and personal preferences. France lays bare again its cultural supremacy and arrogance and hateful attitudes towards Muslims. I have not holidayed there since being subjected to racial contempt meted out by ignoramus Gallic folk to anyone who looks “Arab”. Unlike other colonial nations, the French have never sombrely reassessed their history. During some periods they systematically degraded humans in their own country and around the world. When the children of the latter came to stay, they too were, and are, maligned and despised.

    In Britain, in spite of racism, people of colour have in general progressed and millions have joined the middle classes. France has not opened up those opportunities. It keeps most incomers and their children within deprived banlieues, out of sight and mind and criminalised. So for this lifelong anti-racist, defending any French policy feels like scheming with the enemy, wicked treachery. My self-declared new best friends this week will be grisly right-wingers and repellent fascists, and some old best friends will be so angry that things may never again be the same between us.

    With all that in mind, I still come out against the various forms of veils taken up by fellow citizens, most born in Europe, now making a tent city within in its borders.

    Years ago, I warned that the simple headscarf (hijab) was but the first step to full fabric incarceration. I was mocked and disparaged then by Muslim adherents, as well as many on the left. To them, such challenges to cultural practices validate bigotry and threaten liberties. Their laudable concern makes criticism impossibly difficult. Now they are everywhere, ravens, in burka (long cloaks) and niqab (face veils), their little girls scarved and in cumbersome long coats (in training, I am told) for that big day when they too can go into prisons of black polyester. They will be smiling, one mother of four daughters said to me. Or they may be crying, I said, and nobody will see either.

    Here is a list of my main objections:

    1. While modesty is required of Muslim men and women and men are asked to “lower their gazes”, there is no injunction to hide the hair, and the verses on coverings have different interpretations. The Prophet’s wives were veiled to stop harassers and supplicants. Saudis use big money to push their fanatically anti-woman Islam in this country. Each niqab is one more win in that assault on hearts and minds.

    2. Iranian, Afghan, Saudi and other Muslim women are beaten and tortured for the smallest sartorial transgression. European Muslims donning the niqab are giving succour to the oppressors in those countries.

    3. They say it stops molestation and is a mark of respect. Oh yeah? So tell me why there are appalling levels of rape and violence in Muslim lands. And by implication do we, European women who don’t cover, therefore deserve molestation?

    4. It is a form of female apartheid, of selected segregation tacitly saying non-veiled women are pollutants. There is such a thing as society and we connect with our faces. A veiled female withholds herself from that contact and reads our faces, thus gaining power over the rest of us.

    5. “Choice” cannot be the only consideration. And anyway, there is no evidence that all the women are making rational, independent decisions. As with forced marriages, they can’t refuse. Some are blackmailed and others obey because they are too scared to say what they really want. Some are convinced they will go to hell if they show themselves. Some bloody choice.

    6. It sexualises girls and women in the same way as “erotic” garb does and is just as obscene.

    7. When a woman is fully shrouded, how do we know if she is a victim of domestic violence?

    8. God gave women femininity and individuality. Why should we bury those gifts? How grotesque to ask a women to parcel herself up and be opened up by only her husband.

    9. What an insult this is to Muslim men – the accusation that they will jump any woman not protected with a cloth. Are we to assume that sexuality snakes around every male-female contact, even between a surgeon and patient, bank clerk and customer, teacher and pupil?

    10. When on hajj in Mecca, men and unveiled women pray together. The Saudis want to change that.

    11. The niqab is pre-Islamic, was worn byupper-class Byzantine women to keep away from riff-raff.

    12. Muslim women in the 1920s and 1930s threw off these garments to claim freedom – my mother’s generation. Their struggles are dishonoured by brainwashed females.

    13. Veil supporters say they are going back to the original Islamic texts and lives. But they don’t ride camels, and have mobile phones and computers. So they can embrace modernity but refuse to on this.

    14. These women who fight for their rights to veil do not fight for the rights of those of us who won’t.

    15. They say it is free will, but in three private Muslim schools in Britain, girls have to wear niqab and are punished for not obeying. The same is true in many families and communities.

    16. Most importantly, all these cloth casingsaccept that females are dangerous and evil, that their presence only creates inner and outer havoc in men and public spaces. All religions believe that to some extent. Feminists must fight these prejudices.

    More arguments are on the website of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, which I co-founded. Bans are too harsh, but without some state intervention most Muslim women will be rendered faceless and probably voiceless too. We have societal expectations and conventions – naturists can’t go about starkers; motorbike helmets are removed in office receptions; woman don’t wear tight miniskirts to serious job interviews. A dress code for Muslim women when in public institutions would free up our faith from the grip of fanatics and reintegrate us into our country.

    Remember, when France disallowed hijab in schools, there were similar, dark warnings. All is calm today. As Almira, a 17- year-old, told me: “The state looked after us.” Ours must too.

  2. My ancestors split from Europe before WW1 to leave garbage like this behind.

  3. I do not always agree with Yasmin Alibbai-Brown, but well done. Good luck with all the hate mail and death threats from your crazy co-religionist.

    Disappointed. Usually, a lot of good research comes out of Leicester, but I can not speak for this department. I read through, some of Ms. Zempi’s claims. I would challenge her premise that the “triggers” was not the French burqa ban, but were the dates of 9/11 and 7/7. Further validated by the dawning on the British indigenous population that Muslim immigrants hate them. Sorry, but the burqa ‘is’ a symbol of Islam.

    Every time, the native population hears or sees poppy burning, signage that glorifies the happy death of British soldiers or that say “we soon we will take over your country”, etc. It reinforces a disgust for Muslim immigrants.

    I want to hear from Zempi, the examples of personal experience, that I am sure she will use to reiterate her point and validate ‘proof ‘ that Muslims are always victims.

  4. Are our lives going to come to a complete standstill because of these people? We are spending more and more time, money and energy on these people and the problems they confront us with. Our countries will go broke supporting them, even as they demand more and more of us and spend their own time quibbling amongst themselves, as they do in Muslim countries.
    The burqua is a big fat expression of contempt for the rest of us who must support them. They are here taking what they can and they don’t even have to do us the honour of smirking at us? Creeps!!

  5. Zempi is a fool – the quran, athough it is an evil document, does NOT mandate the burqa. The burqa is a cultural relic, and it is a statement of assumed cultural superiority.

  6. Man wears burqa to give secret sex lessons to Muslim Housewives. Buddhist convert
    kicks fundamentalist up the butt while praying.
    Read all about it in The Burqa Master by Cid Andrenelli: free to download from Amazon. Satire, comedy and
    everything irreverent on how to use a burqa.

  7. @basil kenny

    Have not read the book of Cid Andrenelli, but in the UK, Muslim men have used the burqa to rob stores and flee the country.

    Reenforcing what a bunch of pussies they are. Not only do they literally hide behind woman and children as human shields, but the cowardly Mulim men use woman’s cloths to hide in as well.

Comments are closed.