Crickets

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Rachel Johnson. Where I agree is fairly straightforward, it is that the full veil is offensive in the extreme in a civilised modern society. Despite claims to the contrary, it is a style adopted because the ideology behind it is deeply misogynistic.

This is pure unadulterated bollocks on gold-plated, diamond encrusted stilts:

It’s not about showing or not showing my beauty, it’s about submission to God and being devoted to him and its part of my spiritual duty.

Bullshit! If this stupid woman actually read up on the religion she is so devoted to, she will find no reference to the face veil as being a means of worshipping her preferred fictional entity. None, nil, zilch, nada. It is a cultural affectation being peddled by the Saudi Wahhabists in an attempt to sell their particularly extreme version of Islam and idiots such as Sahar Al-Faifa have swallowed it whole. And the left? Those who argue the feminist cause? Those who argue that the patriarchy – aka white middle-aged men – are suppressing women? Where are they shouting their outrage at this imposition being sold as “free choice”?

Crickets…

Meanwhile, in Malaysia we are reminded just why Sharia has no place in the modern world.

Malaysia has caned two women for breaking its strict religious laws by attempting to have consensual sex with each other.

Islam is not just a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology that uses brute force to impose its way on those who fall under its jurisdiction. And the justification?

A member of the Terengganu state executive council, Satiful Bahri Mamat, defended the punishment, telling the agency it had not been intended to “torture or injure” and had been carried out in public to “serve as a lesson to society”.

Oh, it serves as a lesson alright – a lesson in just how medieval and barbaric is this particular society and the beliefs it holds. At least Malaysian MPs are waking up to the matter and calling for reform. The only viable reform is a complete eradication of Sharia law, so good luck with that one.

That these two were punished for engaging in a same-sex activity should, of course, get the likes of Owen Jones riled up – for, in an Islamic hell-hole, he would be first to be invited to do a cordless bungee jump, as Islam is intolerant of teh gayers, so is deeply homophobic. And he’s opposed to homophobia. So he’ll be right along, along with the cohorts of the right-on, virtue-signalling left to condemn such barbarity…

Any moment now…

Crickets…

Yeah, I thought as much. While white Christians refusing to bake a cake is homophobic persecution – actual, real live persecution involving brutal assault is all okay if it’s done by brown people who follow a specific cult. I know it’s an old meme, but if the left didn’t have double standards, it would have none at all. Actually, it has none at all, let’s be brutally frank here.

And the reason I disagree with Rachel Johnson? Like her brother, I would not wish to see Islamic dress of any sort banned, for I do not believe that what people wear should be within the bounds of the state to dictate. I oppose a ban for the same reason that I oppose hate speech laws. Repeal all of those and allow us to manage the matter ourselves, by actively refusing to engage with those who wear such dress, by ridiculing and shunning, by demonstrating that it is out of place in a modern, civilised society. Allow society itself to manage the matter.

7 Comments

  1. Like you Longrider I have an instinctive loathing of banning things. It brings out the worst in people. It also encourages the bansturbators. As you suggest; leave it to the people and ensure the state keeps its nose out

    • I do not believe there should be a blanket ban, but I do believe that where identity and security are important, e.g. courts, airports, etc., then removal of the full face veil should be enforced. If you are not willing to comply then you cannot enter those areas. If you are the defendant in court, you should be held in contempt if you refuse to remove your veil.

  2. Sadly the state already has its nose firmly entrenched. Like you I prefer to leave it to people in society to sort it, but we can’t because of laws and censorship of what we say.

  3. …If this stupid woman actually read up on the religion she is so devoted to, she will find no reference to the face veil as being a means of worshipping…

    +1

    Agree that ban is not ideal. Problem: society can’t fix as asking for removal to converse is de-facto banned. Thus, Ban it on security grounds, apply to Antifa thugs too.

    btw Rachel has been sacked by MoS

    • Battle of Tours. Charles Martel defeated the Muslim army and kicked it out of the West. Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the Muslim armies and the lot out of Spain. Jan Sobietsky defeated the Turks at the Gates of Vienna battle and kicked them out of Europe. Now our useless politicians invited a load of them to come and live in Europe and more and more come here. What is the matter with us for voting these bastards in to office?

  4. After following the link, I have to say that the woman in the burkarette looks utterly ridiculous. I would add that religious people who know sod all about their own religion are very common.

Comments are closed.