Archive for the ‘morality’ Category

British schools teach stoning and amputation

November 21, 2010

Six of the best is so passé

 

A news item posted on Andrew Bolt’s blog today reports that schools across England are teaching sharia law, or how to chop off a criminal’s hands or feet, and stone or burn homosexuals, along with the predictable rabid anti-semitic material about the “main goal” of the Jews being to “have control over the world and its resources.” Apparantly these schools are part of the “Saudi Students Clubs and Schools in the UK and Ireland” organisation.

 

 

Charming stuff in cool Britannia.

 

The Education Minister Michael Gove reassured the public on the BBC in no uncertain terms:

I’m clear that we cannot have anti-Semitic material of any kind being used in English schools. Ofsted (Britain’s education watchdog) will be reporting to me shortly.

However, he gave a wonderful display of you beaut cultural tolerance, notably towards the restorative punishments of stoning and amputation actually being taught to his hapless British students, by telling the same BBC audience:

I have no desire or wish to intervene in the decisions that the Saudi government makes in its own education system.

Now, that’s a bold and open Education Minister.

Muslim veil deceit earns six months prison

November 18, 2010

Dishonesty and identity

 

A Sydney Muslim who was pulled over when driving and then  claiming falsely that the police officer tried to forcefully remove her face veil, has been sentenced to six months jail.

At a time when there is a national groundswell of annoyance and  indignation at Muslim women hiding their faces in public and playing the ‘religious sensibility’ card, this is a timely outcome. However, it must be stressed that it is a sentence given for knowingly making a false declaration.

Apparently, the woman went to the police station to sign a statutory  declaration in which she made her false declaration. She then went on to claim that it was not she who had signed it — she was wearing a hijab at the time.  Her complaint was rejected with Magistrate Rabbidge who said the signature on the declaration was almost identical to that on her driver’s licence.

The incident nevertheless puts a focus on the silliness of our appeasement to religious sensibilities when it comes to identity, and the expectations almost all of us have of openness in our society. In a court case in Perth recently, the judge insisted that a Muslim woman, a key witness, had to appear without her veil. However, he accepted the humiliation of dhimmitude by banning male journalists from his court.

The absurdity of this reality is eloquently illustrated in this mock licence from New Jersey [above]. As is now being realized in Europe, even apart from legal considerations, we all like to know who we see in front of us. Covering up is nasty and makes no sense, and certainly ill serves the Muslim community.


The Left’s fantasy of hatred and violence

October 22, 2010

No Pressure

Many have now commented on the sicko advertising campaign ‘No Pressure’ by Richard Curtis [pictured right] for a greener more caring environment, notably Andrew Bolt, and the way the Left seem to be attracted to hatred and violence.

The big thing that jarred for me was that Curtis was the director of Love Actually, one of my all time favourite films that is clearly the polar opposite of ‘No Pressure’. I defend Love Actually against all comers who prefer violent films, and films that obsess about unhappy dysfunctional and neurotic anti-heroes; the sort of film one critic called social worker porn. But that is another story.

I raise this issue tardively, as I have just read James Delingpole’s very eloquent essay in the lastest Spectator on just why the latest Curtis effort was truly not funny. It is well worth reading. He emphasises the Green Left’s contempt for humans, which is generally well known. That this is true, does explain, by extrapolation, why the Murray–Darling Basin Authority’s recent report on water allocation for the river left out any consideration for our farmers and riverine communities. Delingpole concludes:

After all, when your movement’s key influences, from Rachel Carson through Teddy Goldsmith to James Lovelock, are telling you that the human species is a ‘cancer’ on the planet, what better solution could there possibly be than a spot of radical surgery?

The burka again: contempt for our openess

August 5, 2010

Burka is legal, but it’s about manners

A PERTH Muslim woman is now waiting for Perth District Court judge Shauna Deane to decide whether she can wear a burka while giving evidence in a case brought against Anwar Sayed, director of the Muslim Ladies College of Australia for fraud. Again, much ink and air time has been expended on this persistent, and very strongly felt issue.

Hugo Rifkind, a columnist for the British Spectator, recently wrote the best, most common sense, opinion about what should be done with the burka in Western countries in relation to the tricky problem of “rights”. Conjuring up the idea of wearing underpants on his head — any, his own, porn-star panties, Victorian bloomers — he explains that he has the right go into a Post Office, a Jobcentre, a school, a church or a mosque. “Such is my right, as a freeborn Brit, and nobody has the right to force me to take them off.”

But I don’t have the right to not be told by people who see me that I look like an idiot. I don’t have the right not to be asked if I wouldn’t perhaps mind growing the hell up, and taking them off.

When did the world suddenly decide that the right to do something necessarily entailed the right not to be politely asked to stop doing it? It’s a dangerous nonsense. None of this is about ‘rights’ at all. It’s about manners. Security concerns aside, of course, women should have the right to wear the burka, anywhere they like. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an inherently repellent garment, the wearing of which, in Britain, is basically just rude. So stop it.

So, getting back to the Perth woman; she was reported as saying “I’d like to make it very clear that … it’s a personal choice and we lead a very normal active life just like everyone else.”

Well I say that this is plain silly. How can she claim to lead a normal, active life with a sack covering her head? In Western countries it is simply not normal to cover your face and deprive everyone in public of seeing who you are, and then to expect to interact with you in a normal way. It is not normal to be an Australian women and feel uncomfortable showing your face in front of men other than your immediate family because you believe “intermingling” between the sexes encourages adultery.

Perth District Court judge Shauna Deane clearly has the judicial power to maintain her own standards of conduct and respect in her own court. Let us hope she has the courage, or the conviction, that to be hidden from view for personal reasons might just be considered to hold the court, the judge, the jury and the public in contempt.

The beauty of our system is that, in this case, the witness has the right to refuse to attend.

UPDATE

The Prime Minister has worked out which side her electoral bread is buttered.

BURQAS should be removed when the public interest overrides personal choice, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.

Age editorial correct !

June 16, 2010

The Age reflects agendas of journalists

In a previous post I quoted an Age editorial where they boasted that “quality newspapers offer their readers an implicit assurance with every story they publish: that their selection and presentation of news does not reflect the personal or corporate agendas of journalists, editors or proprietors.”

We knew that it was their idea of a joke, but the very next day we had the proof. Yesterday they ran a news report, not opinion, on a debate that took place in Melbourne on racism, between Professor Robert Manne and Hanifa Deen for the affirmative, and Professor Bob Birrell and Dr Tanveer Ahmed for the negative.

The article, written by Paul Millar, was headed Country ‘drifting back to racism’. A strange heading for a debate with two sides whose subject was to determine whether or not Australian had escaped its racist past. However, The Age never lets facts get in the way of story. Looking closely at the article, almost all of it was taken up with Hanifa Deen’s presentation for the affirmative. In a total of 470 words, Professor Birrell was given only 42 words, or barely nine percent of the report. Not another word from the negative.

In a follow-up editorial today, we learn that the debate was an IQ2 event, sponsored by The Age. We also learn that the audience voted in favour of the proposition, 71 per cent to 20 per cent. The editorial suggested that maybe it was because of the difficulty of  “satisfying the opposite contention”. But is it not as feasible that the vast majority of the audience were Age readers and thus ill-informed because The Age coverage of issues never satisfies the opposite contention.

Spot the Afghan woman?

May 5, 2010

An old joke, but now a debating issue.


This was on old joke that at first glance appears to be cruel. However, with the debate on burquas in Europe taking off in earnest, people are facing up to what seems so self evident. The photo is indeed shocking. No surprise then that last year the French President Nicolas Sarkozy came out and said what most people think; that burquas are incompatible with equal rights for women.

But just as European jurisdictions are acting to destigmatise the treatment of women [from looking like rubbish bags] there has been condemnation from Muslim groups for … stigmatizing Muslims.

Muslims in the French city of Nantes, where a woman was fined for driving while wearing an Islamic veil, have expressed concerns over stigmatizing Muslims. “The Muslims of Nantes are worried by this systematic stigmatization which goes against the values of the Republic,” the collective of Nantes Mosques said in a statement on Sunday.

[Thanks to reader PG for finding the photo]

UPDATE:

A report from Italy via Andrew Bolt

A Muslim woman queuing at a post office in Italy has been fined £430 for wearing a burka in public.  Amel Marmouri was spotted by police and penalised in the first case of its kind in Italy.

The 26-year-old Tunisian lives in Novara – 50km (30 miles) west of Milan – where the mayor brought in laws banning clothing that ‘prevents the immediate identification of the wearer inside public buildings, schools and hospitals’.

Husband Ben Salah Braim, 36, said: ‘We knew about the law and I know that it’s not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can’t have other men looking at her.’

I wonder if the European Human Rights commission would have any rules about involuntary imprisonment and whether it would care about the fate of Novara? By the logic of the husband, the wearing of the burka by his wife must also be a form of “visual” imprisonment, because he “can’t have other men looking at her”. The dreary conclusion of the apologists, that this woman will not be allowed out of the home because of the burka ban, will be interpreted as an oppressive Italian law.

The heartening news is that some Muslim groups in Italy DO NOT agree.

‘We have always said we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed,’ said Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.