The jihad for the freedom sack rages in New Zealand

Two veil wearing Muslim women, living in New Zealand, say they are often asked to remove them.

(The audacity of the kafir! Know your place, infidel!)

Farzana Saheb, Burqa Wearer

They were speaking on TV ONE’s Close Up about the case of a woman who was refused entry to a bus because she was wearing a burqa.

The incident happened when the woman, a student from Saudi Arabia, was trying to board a bus in Auckland in May.  The student, who was wearing a veil with only the eyes exposed, was left crying on the street after reportedly being shouted at by the driver.

(She was crying, you see. I suppose that makes her right and the bus-driver wrong…)

However, it was not an isolated incident as two days earlier a driver for the same company told another woman to remove her veil. (Read it all, here)

Related:

• ‘Maskophobia’ claims rubbished
• 12:29 Veils can be forcibly removed in NSW

Predictably, there are a lot of Muslim propagandists in the comments section trying to sell the package as some kind of choice:

“If you feel that a Muslim woman is oppressed by covering her head, then the Niqab (face veil) can only seem like a still greater oppression. However oppression comes only when women have no choice in the matter – for example when she is not permitted to wear it by law.”

Get it? Its oppressive if the kafir’s apply their ‘man-made’ laws. Its not oppression when the Muslims beat or kill women for not wearing it. And once Muslims have the upper hand, all women are forced into the burqa. That law applies to all equally, you uppity kafir whores!

Meanwhile, in Australia, Christine Heard from SBS gets properly instructed by a Muslima who sells the hideous shrouds:

Jinane, who sells Islamic gowns, says there are ways around the sensitive issue of removing veils.

“They could politely asked to be taken in front of a woman and do it if they have issues doing it in front of a man. And that doesn’t do any harm to anybody”, she said.

To which our intrepid Mullah replies:

But of course, while this does no harm, requesting a taxi not driven by a muslim or wanting food not sacrificed to idols is racist, islamophobic, and culturally insensitive. Heads they win, tails you lose, like a snide penny, every time.

Two men were jailed today for the 2007 rape of a 19-year-old woman in the backstreets behind Wellington’s main nightclub and bar area.

Chala Sani Abdula, 27, was found guilty by a jury in Wellington District Court of rape and jailed for seven years.

Ahmed Ahmed, 35, was found guilty of unlawful sexual connection and being a partner to rape. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

The sentences were delivered to a near-full public gallery, with friends of the accused and of the victim in attendance.

Muslim immigration into the UK has left a trail of rape victims, but  
as long as the political elite place a higher value on multiculturalism,
Britain’s women will just have to keep taking one for the team!.

* Related: Rape victim drives attacker to police station after he falls asleep in car

* Rape victim too distraught to speak after video

* Rape is very much a part of Islamic doctrine

The rape of the 19-year-old student took place in the early hours of Sunday, April 29, 2007.

The court was told the woman was walking down College Street after drinking on Courtenay Place. She asked Ahmed if she could use the toilet of the business he was working in.

He walked her to, then accompanied her into the cubicle, telling her to sit down and remove her panties.

Ahmed then sexually assaulted her.

Shortly after, Abdula entered the toilet cubicle, then had sex with her.

The woman then escaped the cubicle and went on to the street, leaving her clothes where they fell.

Ahmed followed her, trying to kiss and hug her. She told him to “f*** off”, the judge told the court in his summary of facts.

Initially, Abdula had been called as a witness in the case, but became a defendant when his DNA was found inside the complainant.

Judge Mike Behrens said he was satisfied the men had not planned the rape and sexual assault, and that Abdula had only taken advantage of the situation Ahmed had presented to him.

Abdula was held in very high regard by his community and colleagues and had no prior criminal convictions.

Fasten your seatbelt:

Judge Behrens reduced his sentence by a year for this.

Ahmed had been tortured in his home country and had serious psychological issues from this, the judge said.

“[It is] a regrettably horrific thing to have happened, but the wider community of Wellington needs to have its interests protected,” he said.

Judge Behrens recognised that, though he was a New Zealand national, because he did not speak English well prison was going to be hard for him.

“Given your part in the whole affair and that you started this off, in the guise of helping the complainant”, Judge Behrens did not make Ahmed’s sentences concurrent, but consecutive.

“Her life came to a stop. Her studies and her relationship were destroyed. She is now, as she puts it, `building a new life’.”

- NZPA

Women refuse refuge because of nearby mosque

The Qur’an sanctions the beating of disobedient women (4:34). In one New Zealand town, those who want to escape this abuse are afraid to do so because a mosque is next door to the shelter, and they could be recognized. Don’t these battered Muslim women know that Islam teaches peace and tolerance?

“Women refuse refuge because of nearby mosque,” by Esther Harward for the Sunday Star Times, via DW

* Newslink: Canadian woman held against her will in Saudi Arabia by her husband — “under Saudi law, she is his property”

Muslim women are staying away from a domesitc violence crisis centre since a mosque opened next door.

The Auckland Shakti Asian Women’s Centre in Onehunga helps women escape violent domestic situations but women are too scared to go because they may be recognised by their husbands or relatives attending the mosque.

The centre has an alternative premises but cannot move in because Auckland City Council has held back planning permission for more than a year.

Meanwhile, Housing New Zealand Corporation is paying $310 a week $4030 so far for security guards to keep vandals away from the empty building that the women could move into.

Centre spokesperson Shila Nair said victims were “really afraid” to go to the centre in Church St, Onehunga in case they were recognised by men worshipping at the Onehunga Islamic Mosque, which is over a boundary fence.

Women who visited the centre usually did so without telling their husbands, she said. “If their husbands, in-laws or any other family members or friends were to know that they have visited Shakti, life for them would be even more difficult. We have had instances of women who visited our Women’s Centre later accessing our refuge.”

Most were from Middle Eastern, Africa and Asian countries that don’t legislate against domestic violence. Staff tell them what their rights are under New Zealand law.

The crisis centre took 4800 phone calls last year on a 24 hour nationwide helpline of which 90% were about family violence. Of the calls, half of the women were recommended to visit for counselling, legal advice or training.

The housing corporation renovated another building for the women to move to after the mosque bought a building next door from the Jehovah’s Witness church. The women have been waiting for 18 months for the council to grant resource consent for them to use the house. Council resource consents team leader Ian Smallburn said the consent was “on hold” because of concerns about the impact of parking on neighbours, trees and stormwater. It was not known when the issues would be resolved.

The centre opened a decade ago and is the busiest of Shakti’s five branches in Auckland, Tauranga and Christchurch, which together they help 6000 women a year escape domestic abuse.

*****

Update from Pamela: take a look at Turkey:

SECULAR ISLAM: ‘WIFE BEATING VIRTUALLY INSTITUTIONALIZED”

Creeping Sharia: Halal butcher wants to see more blood!

Looks like blackmail, and  Ahmed might just about succeed in scaring the kuffars into submission. Halal slaughter stipulates an animal must be killed by one fast cut to the neck so the animal bleeds to death. It must face Mecca, and the slaughterman must evoke the name of God by saying “Bismallah Allahu Akbar”.  If its not done ‘correctly’ that means NZ could lose a great deal of its meat exports. What does it take to pacify a militant Muslim?

* Newsflash: Pakistan raids one terrorist camp to keep up appearances….

Press co.nz

“Not enough blood” `Troublemaker’: former halal slaughterman Ahmed Ghanem is critical of New Zealand killing practices.

A Muslim slaughterman’s attempts to discredit the New Zealand meat industry have drawn the attention of the country’s spy service.

Meat Industry Association members said they were contacted by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) this week after Ahmed Ghanem, an Egyptian-born halal slaughterman now living in Christchurch, published articles on a British website decrying New Zealand slaughter methods as inhumane and contrary to Islamic practice.

Ghanem said he and other anti-stunning activists in the Muslim world had successfully sought a fatwa, or religious ruling, from senior clerics condemning the practice.

Meat industry figures in New Zealand have called Ghanem a “troublemaker”.

They fear his comments could affect the multimillion-dollar industry, particularly in the Gulf states, where New Zealand has extensive markets.

Meat Industry Association management support officer Michael Pran said Ghanem could provoke Muslim states such as Malaysia and Indonesia to send inspectors to review New Zealand methods.

“He could scare people and that could harm the industry,” he said. “The SIS are on his case. They are looking at it as well.”

The SIS could not be contacted for comment yesterday.

Its website lists “protecting New Zealand from threats to our international and economic wellbeing” as one of its tasks.

Ghanem’s essay, published online at unstunnedhalal.com said New Zealand methods, which involve stunning animals with electrodes before slaughter, violated Islamic codes.

Halal slaughter stipulates an animal must be killed by one fast cut to the neck so the animal bleeds to death.

It must face Mecca, and the slaughterman must evoke the name of God by saying “Bismallah Allahu Akbar”.

Ghanem told The Press that in his time as a slaughterman, animals often reached his knife already dead from the stunning procedure, which was akin to eating carrion and therefore non-halal.

Many of the animals would not bleed when cut and the rate of killing up to eight a minute did not allow sufficient time for religious observances.

“Where is the respect for the animal? You don’t have time,” he said.

When he took his concerns to his employers he was fired, he said.

Ghanem said he and other anti-stunning activists had sought a fatwa from influential Egyptian Muslim scholar and cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who ruled against the process.

Ghanem’s former employer, New Zealand Islamic Meat Management director Dr Mohammed Abdel-Al, said Ghanem’s comments could have a serious impact on New Zealand’s exports and needed to be discredited.

“If you’ve got a twisted branch, you’ve got to cut it,” he said.

Abdel-Al said stunning livestock before slaughter was a legal requirement in New Zeal-and.

Stunning made the animal docile and reduced danger to the slaughterman, Abdel-Al said.

He said Ghanem worked for his company briefly but was “let go” after becoming aggressive with his plant manager over his concerns.

An industry paper released to The Press said it was “conceivable that in rare instances animals could be harmed or even killed by electrical stunning”.

“In any such case, it would be the responsibility of the Muslim slaughterman to identify such an animal,” it said

* Has anybody considered deportation yet?