Recent Comments
RSS feed
Tarek Fatah discusses the Burka
January 26, 2012 — xanthippa
I have a fundamental problem with giving the government – any government – the right to regulate clothing. From public nudity to the burqa – I am not owned by anyone else and therefore, I do not accept anyone else’s authority to dictate what I do or do not wear.
Having said this, I do agree with Mr. Fatah on just about all the important points: private businesses must retain the right to assert dress codes on their property, even if it is open to the public. In other words, ‘No shoes, No shirt, No face – No service’ must be at the discretion of the private business or individual (this would include taxis and private transportation firms as well as real property).
In addition, I also agree with Mr. Fatah that the government has the right – I would assert the responsibility – to ensure that people in publicly owned spaces, buildings and receiving publicly operated services (like, say, public transport) reveal their faces for ready identification, much as the Quebec government has asserted.
Perhaps some people think that this is ‘splitting hairs’, that ‘banning the burqa’ and ‘demanding facial visibility while on public property’ are the same thing.
I would beg to disagree: they may have the same effect in the sense that a person who wishes to partake in our society must show their face to do so. However, they are very different things because they are rooted in different principles. (And, contrary to popular belief, that does mean something.)
The banning of a particular piece or style of clothing sets up the precedent that the government has the right to tell us how to dress. I don’t happen to think it does. If my neighbour decides to start walking their dog in the buff, that is their own business – I might snigger or gossip, but I certainly do not have the right to demand they ‘cover up’, so I cannot delegate that right to my elected members of parliament: hence, the government does not have the right to tell us what to wear.
(Yes, I know, as shown in the above link, the Ontario courts of appeal have just recently upheld laws against public nudity: and I disagree with their belief they have the jurisdiction to rule on this subject.)
Because if we give the government the power to rule over what we may or may not wear, the chador is not far off….just wait for the demographics to change a little bit. No – we’d be much safer clearly setting the precedent that governments have no jurisdiction whatsoever over what we wear and how we wear it when we are on our own time, as private citizens.
However…
Governments do have a responsibility to deliver citizen and resident services safely and effectively. This cannot be done if the citizens receiving/delivering the services are not readily identifiable. Therefore, I recognize the governments’ right to demand that faces be visible for the purposes of receiving/delivering public services (and driving, voting, and so on).
In addition, governments have taken upon themselves the responsibility to deliver services without discrimination, especially without discrimination to disabled individuals. Many people with hearing impairments partially or fully read lips in order to understand what is being said to them. It is therefore essential that hearing disabled citizens, whether receiving or providing a government service, must be able to read the lips of all those around them – which is also a valid reason for accommodating the ‘uncovered face in public places’ policy.
So, rather than expanding government powers to cover clothing, we should use already existing laws made in order to have an inclusive society to achieve this end.
To me, there is a huge difference between the two approaches, because, after all, the means define the end!
“A Black Day for Austria”
December 26, 2011 — xanthippaDo you remember the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian woman who had the courage to speak truth about Islam?
Her criminal conviction for disrespecting Islam had just been upheld…
Europeans are increasingly legislating dhimmitude!
Where will this end?
Christopher Hitches: 1947-2011
December 16, 2011 — xanthippaWhat a bigger-than-life figure!
Love him or hate him, he certainly had an impact.
I’d say ‘Rest in Peace’ – but that would offend him: he is not ‘resting’, he is dead…and somehow, I suspect he would prefer the direct word over the euphemism.
His thought-provoking, piercing wit will be missed.
He will be remembered…
…for his unflinching honesty:
…and for his investigative work: even Pen and Teller love him!
When can raising charity money for orphans land you in a ‘re-education camp’?
December 14, 2011 — xanthippaWhen you live in a land ruled by Sharia!
Zilla of the Resistance has the story.
(Check it out and have a listen to the music: I rather like the tune I suspect is the ‘swing classic’ ‘Clementine’ done in Indonesian punk – a definite improvement over the original!)
Via: BCF
Quite apart from this story, it is important for us, Westerners, to understand that in lands ruled by Sharia, ‘charity’ does not work the same way it does in our part of the World.
This does not mean that Muslims are not charitable people: not at all!
And it does not mean that in countries with Muslim populations, people do not perform charitable acts for the sake of helping their fellow human beings, regardless of race or creed. They do – and we have many stories of Muslim women helping Westerners (men, women and children) who were in Japanese prison camps during WWII!
Rather, as Sharia rules every single aspect of life of those unfortunate to live under its oppression, so it has very specific and rigid rules for ‘charity’.
Let me illustrate this with an example: following the Tsunami a few years ago, people in Bengal (I refuse to use the new colonial name for the country) were upset that many Western charities got volunteers on the ground and started providing aid. The Bengali fear was that these aid groups were there trying to steal their children…
Many in the West were perplexed by this: why would the people there refuse aid, willingly provided without any strings attached?
Because right now, Bengal is under Sharia. And Sharia strictly differentiates between ‘Muslim charities’ and ‘non-Muslim charities’.
It is forbidden, under Sharia, for Muslim charities to help non-Muslims – and for non-Muslim charities to help Muslims (though, to be honest, non-Muslim charities do face a lot of regulatory interference under Sharia and are thus prevented from being as effective in providing aid as Muslim charities are). Therefore, when non-Muslim charities attempted to aid Muslims in Bengal, the response among the population was confusion and fear – and, ultimately, rejection of much help. The problem was finally resolved by the non-Muslim charities simply giving the money and aid materiel to Muslim charities, who then operated on the ground…
Another ‘perplexing’ example came even more recently, during the terrible flooding in Pakistan. Even as money poured into the county through Red Cross, there were appalling stories of whole non-Muslim families starving – even in regions where food aid was plentiful. Again, people in ‘The West’ could not make heads-or-tails of this and many wrote these stories off as propaganda.
Not so.
The primary channel for the aid funds was The International Red Cross.
In Sharia countries, the Red Cross partners with its affiliated Islamic charity, the Red Crescent, and channels all aid through it.
In Pakistan, which is for all practical purposes governed by Sharia, the Red Crescent operates as an Islamic charity under Sharia does. That means that Mosques are used as the centres from which the aid (from food on down) is distributed.
To most of us, this does not seem particularly odd: Mosques serve as community centres, so they are centrally located and accessible. Plus, they have the room to store the supplies to be distributed, so this would be a logical place to distribute aid from, right?
Plus, under Sharia, the Red Crescent is only permitted to distribute aid through a Mosque. So, it is not just the ‘logical’ course of action, it is the only permitted course of action. And the Red Crescent did make various statements to the effect that everyone who came to them for aid, received aid!
So, what was the problem that caused the non-Muslims to starve?
Under Sharia, a non-Muslim may not enter a Mosque!
Not being permitted to enter the place from which the aid from Western countries was being distributed, non-Muslims could either starve or convert to Islam…
I suspect there is a lot more about ‘charity under Sharia’ we just don’t know…
Clay and Water: Illustrated biography of Mohammad
December 13, 2011 — xanthippaClay and Water is running a special feature: an illustrated biography of Mohammad, with references from the Koran and the Hadith.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 