Just Right: Those "lefty, liberal, multicultural appeasement monkeys"

Monday, October 12, 2009

Those "lefty, liberal, multicultural appeasement monkeys"

Pat Condell:

[h/t:The Canadian Republic]

6 comments:

hunter said...: Excellent rant! As a female I feel sickened by the feminists who support the wearing of the burka. Such hypocrites, such surrender monkeys, such a disgrace to women everywhere.; October 12, 2009 at 3:45:00 PM PDT
Anonymous said...: I totally agree, Hunter.; October 12, 2009 at 4:32:00 PM PDT
Anonymous said...: I am not a female, nor do I consider myself an "ultra tolerant, self hating, multicultural lemming."

Well. Self-hating, certainly. But not for any of those other reasons.

I am largely sympathetic to the "pro-woman" stance expressed here, if the burka/nikab/etc are (at least mostly) as you say...

But... is a "ban" on the Burka the most appropriate way to deal with the problems you highlight? How is it that the best way to show women that they should not be told what they can and cannot wear is... to tell them what they can and cannot wear?; October 12, 2009 at 9:17:00 PM PDT
JR said...: I saw Condell's rant primarily as a rant against the liberal multi-cult morons who support the promoters and enforcers of burka wearing among Islamic women.

I don't think banning it is a solution either. But ridiculing, publicly despising and otherwise condemning it, especially its coerced or otherwise forced use by patriarchal, mysogynist Islamists, is an appropriate response.

That being said, there are circumstances where it should be banned, such as in driver and other ID photos, voting venues as well as in banks and airport checkpoints where security is a concern.; October 13, 2009 at 12:59:00 PM PDT
Xanthippa said...: I would go further than that...

I would say that any garment which covers the face and thus hides the identity of the wearer ought not be allowed in public buildings and places of commerce. It's really not all that radical an idea: even if you wear a ski mask while walking down the street, you remove it once you enter the bank...if you get my drift.

There is a precedent - set by the Prophet Muhammad - for men to disguise themselves in women's clothing in order to escape their pursuers. Emulating this very prophet is the 'duty' of every 'good' Muslim - according to some Muslim scholars...

So, while I am uncomfortable (to say the least) legislating what (and how much - or how little) people can wear, I would support the extention of 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' to 'no shoes, no shirt, no-show-your-face, no service'.

By the way: Turkey - a Muslim democracy - has banned not just the burka and niqab, but even the hijab from all its public institutions. You cannot wear one of these to court, to the library, and so on. If this Muslim country considers these garments degrading to women - why don't we?; October 21, 2009 at 7:08:00 AM PDT
JR said...: As bad (and ridiculous) as I think the burka is I still think having the state dictating private behaviour is worse. And that goes for wearing bicycle helmets and seatbelts too. As discussed above there are obvious places where having one’s face covered (for any reason) is a security and/or public safety hazard in which case there oughta’ be a law (if there isn’t one already).

I’m also loathe to looking to Turkey (or most any European country) for guidance on how to run a democracy but in this case maybe their approach needs a closer look.; October 21, 2009 at 6:53:00 PM PDT