Yet another endorsement of veiling as a feminist act.

It does no good to state the obvious to some people – quoting here from Christopher Hitchens –

[W]e have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way. Mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honor-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing that is mandated by their menfolk. This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states? The burqa and the veil, surely, are the most aggressive sign of a refusal to integrate or accommodate. Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair, and I defy anybody to find any authority in the Quran for the concealment of the face.

Some people will still enjoin us to “listen to women’s voices,” as if annihilating yourself as a presence in the world by wearing a burqa or niqab is a page out of Our Bodies Ourselves. They will assure us that banning the burqa makes the state into an “active instrument of patriarchy” – as if the burqa itself is not, for millions of people, the globe’s most eloquent expression of the most repressive patriarchy imaginable.

At least this writer is honest enough to note the huge, and growing, number of full or partial burqa/niqab bans, especially across Europe; but she’s not honest enough to note the absence in those countries of significant social problems arising from the bans. Or to note the enormous majorities – including, in many cases, among Muslims – for the bans.

Nuclear Shutdown

Absolute kleptocracy corrupts absolutely; and if you’re not careful, seventy percent of your population is going to vote for a clown who, as his first act, dissolves your parliament.

The anti-hijab heroines of Tehran…

… are at it again, bless them. The latest protest took place at Tehran University, where students have had it all the way up to here with the morality police threatening them unless they veil.

It takes unbelievable guts to go up against the enforcement fuckers – you can certainly go to jail, and the enforcement fuckers are also more than willing to beat you up.

‘Course around here, in the free west, you’ve got women holding Everyone Wear a Hijab in Solidarity with Hijab-Wearers rallies, and UD‘s got nothing against that; but she wonders why the same people never seem to hit the streets in support of women – seriously endangered women – who don’t want to veil themselves.

‘ The burqa will never cover the beautiful faces of my nieces. It will never cast a shadow on their hopes and dreams, their jokes, their secrets, and their positive attitude towards life, despite having to swim against very strong tides at times.’

The strongest loathing of the burqa is from within.

Baby, when the burqa bursts over India, look out.

My Google News feed for BURQA has gone mad. With Sri Lanka in mind (that country has now banned it) India is going there; and I don’t know if you’ve noticed but India is a very big very contentious place. Everybody’s screaming and threatening to cut everybody’s head off about the burqa.

As a dedicated burqa-banner, UD would like to state the following: There’s a reason – hundreds of reasons, really – why India is the number one worst place in the G20 to be a woman. Read the brief report at the link to get a sense of just how grotesque it is to dare to be a female fetus, let alone a girl/woman/widow there. Franchement, much as UD applauds worldwide efforts to ban burqas, all such efforts in India are gonna do is make the numerous men there who want to abort, prostitute, or assault their women even more bloodthirsty. Fuggedaboutit.

On female genital mutilation:

Take heart. For two reasons.

1.) Johns Hopkins University med school grad Jumana Nagarwala will not, it’s true, be convicted on FGM itself – because a judge concluded the federal law against it is too weakly written. However:

The [Nagarwala] case … isn’t dead without the female genital mutilation charges. The defendants still face conspiracy and obstruction charges that could send them to prison for 20-30 years, if convicted, though more appeals are in the pipeline.

UD takes further comfort in the thought that Nagarwala’s life, with years and years of appeals, and her name entirely besmirched, is as ruined as the lives of the hundred-plus seven-year-old girls her slash-happy ways ruined.

2.) And even with passionate clit-cutting defenders like Alan Dershowitz supporting her, there’s the business of the United States Congress intervening in the whole disgusting mess.

In a move that could revive Detroit’s historic female genital mutilation prosecution, Congress has intervened in the case, saying the Department of Justice gave up too easily on the law that makes the cutting practice illegal.

… “The Trump Administration’s sudden refusal to advance legal arguments to defend a long-standing federal statute criminalizing this horrific act disrespects the health and futures of vulnerable women and girls,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday. “Once again, the House is called upon to defend the constitutionality of a duly enacted law and to protect people’s lives.”

The war to keep the United States free of barbaric practices (Dershowitz is also way keen on the mutilation of infant boys’ genitals and woe betide the evil anti-semites who’d try to ban that) is a war, not a battle. Congress will do its part; increasingly strong state laws against FGM will do theirs, etc. The drawn-out appeals process in Michigan will keep Nagarwala’s name and her crimes in the news. We’ll get there.

News Bulletin: Burqa

The burqa has been a background story for awhile. To be sure, one country after another around the world has been restricting or outright banning this grotesque garment, and when each new law gets passed, there’s some press attention. But now that Sri Lanka, in the wake of the latest extremist atrocity, has banned them, the burqa’s on the front page again.

And what UD has long predicted – vanishingly few people and organizations are objecting to the ban – does seem to be underway, in Sri Lanka and around the world. So far, in all the articles and opinion pieces about it, UD has only found one attack on Sri Lanka’s new policy. More common has been acceptance without comment, or enthusiastic approval.

I’m not sure what’s taken the wind out of burqa-defenders’ sails – and maybe they’ll regain their energy – but I’m thinking the 2017 decision of the European Court of Human Rights not only to uphold but rather eloquently to defend Belgium’s burqa ban began the discouragement. Defenders were always up against large majorities of pro-ban citizens (85% of Swedes; 66% of Brits, for instance) in all countries in which the burqa is an issue, so… you know… democracy and all… And for all their talk of so few women wear it (not true; in England, which still allows them, numbers are going up) and it has nothing to do with national security and it’s perfectly possible to assimilate these women into our country as full citizens and it’s a religious obligation, a personal choice, and I don’t want to talk about the eight year old girls you see wearing them … for all of that, opponents just don’t seem to be making their case at all.

You can see the problem if you look more closely at Megara Tegal’s attack on the policy. Of course she shouts islamophobia, but given the sort of countries that now have bans – Denmark, for instance – it’s very very difficult to throw that one against the wall and make it stick. Eventually Tegal will have to call virtually every European country, along with increasing numbers of Muslim countries, islamophobic (Morocco; Algeria; Egypt’s close to banning them). So let’s see what else she’s got.

Muslim women who have covered their faces for over 20 years, are now afraid to leave their homes.

Think of it – there are women in the world who have never gone outside without entirely covering themselves in black. Even their digits; even their eyes (you’ve seen the get-ups that only give the wearer one eye-hole)! I’m afraid I don’t respond to this statement as an argument; I respond to it as a horror. Nor does what Tegal fails to mention – these women are very likely afraid to leave their homes because their husbands will beat them if they go outside uncovered – help her case. She’s up against the obvious – the burqa is an insanely blatant mark of the worthlessness of women within certain tribes.

La Tricoteuse de la Guillotine

Begum allegedly … stitched IS fighters into suicide bomb vests so that they could not remove them …

Those allegations are believed to come from the interrogation of other Western IS members by the CIA and Dutch Military Intelligence, but have not been verified.

*********************

Some Brits are unhappy about having to pay for her legal representation.

Tory MP Philip Davies [said] the decision was “absolutely disgusting“.

He said: “How she has been allowed to sponge off taxpayers’ money to get back into a country that she hates is absolutely ridiculous.”

*********************

Here’s the right way to look at it. England should be willing to spend large sums to keep this woman and others like her out. Think of it as part of the defense budget. And don’t forget:

Both [violent Islam and fascism] evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well.

More support for an international tribunal.

The German Minister [of the interior] said it would be a “good move” to set up an international court that would try foreign jihadists rather than have Germany and other nations repatriate fighters and their families back to their home countries, especially since “terrorism is an international issue,” according to Die Zeit.

“That’s always better, for me, than bringing all ISIS fighters of German nationality [back] to Germany,” before trial, he noted.

“If several states have a prosecution claim, the trials should be conducted there. Trials should be conducted where ISIS fighters are now in detention, for example in Iraq,” the official said.

‘Western countries have largely refused to take back their detained citizens, fearing they would not be able to convict them in civilian courts and that they could pose a security risk.’

The reluctance of countries all over the world to repatriate the WE 🖤 DECAPITEES folks will almost certainly mean the creation of an on-site international tribunal for them. This article makes clear that there will be immense difficulties in putting such a thing together. But there is probably no alternative.

George Orwell does a lot of turning over in his grave.

And he just did it again.

In a 27-page memorandum, [Laith] Alebbini’s lawyers called what he did a “thought crime.

*************************

His lawyers explain that he just didn’t understand what he was reading. Stuff like this.


The clear difference between Muslims and the corrupt and deviant Jews and Christians is that Muslims are not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law. So if it were the Muslims, instead of the Crusaders, who had fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein. And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some “politically correct’ need to apologize years later. The Japanese, for example, would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways—and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind. The Vietnamese would likewise be offered Islam or beds of napalm. As for the Native Americans—after the slaughter of their men, those who favor small-pox to surrendering to their Lord—then the Muslims would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin. As for the treacherous Jews of Europe and elsewhere —those who would betray their covenant —then their post-pubescent males would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story, as their women would be made to serve their husbands’ and their fathers’ killers.

[Quoted here.]



For International Women’s Day…

here she is, a child immediately buried under a burqa, relieved of her clitoris, vagina, and existence, raped at eight years of age by a man she was married off to, snuffed out in an honor killing.

Since 1990, the estimated number of girls and women in the US who have undergone or are at risk of [FGM] has more than tripled.

Internationalist Ecstasy

A 2015 New Yorker review of jihadi poetry reminds us of crucial elements of ISIS ideology as the world begins to respond to thousands of applications for national repatriation from the defeated. Here’s the heart of the matter:

At the center of jihadist politics is a rejection of the nation-state. The map of much of the modern Middle East, established by Britain and France at the end of the First World War, is an enduring source of bitterness. One of ISIS’s most striking videos shows jihadis destroying the border crossing between Iraq and Syria, a line established by the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, in 1916. Other videos feature the burning of passports and national I.D.s. The “holy warriors” find a home only in failed states such as Afghanistan—or, now, eastern Syria—so the poetry of jihad promulgates a new political geography. This geography rejects the boundaries set by foreign powers and is, instead, organized around sites of militancy and Muslim suffering. … These moments of internationalist ecstasy are common in jihadi verse. 

If suffering and ecstasy seem to you at odds, you haven’t been paying attention. It pleases Allah and emotionally transports you for you to burn up inside a three-layer cloth coffin (and your three year old daughter! Look at the footage coming out of Baghouz.), for your husbands to be martyred, and for your children to be reared as martyrs-to-be. (Meet Umm.) Radical Muslims weren’t the first to discover masochism-unto-death-as-religion but they’ve certainly taken the concept and run with it. What they call the ecstasy of internationalism the rest of us would call the curse of statelessness; but it’s important to take suicide bombers at their word.

In March, 2014, the kingdom of Bahrain declared that all subjects fighting in Syria had two weeks to return home or be stripped of their citizenship. Turki al-Bin‘ali, a prominent ISIS ideologue and a former Bahraini subject, responded with “A Denunciation of Nationality,” a short poem that thumbs its nose at the royals and ridicules the very idea of the nation-state. “Tell them we put their nationality under our heel, just like their royal decrees,” he writes. For the jihadis, new frontiers beckon: “Do you really think we would return, when we are here in Syria, land of epic battles and the outposts of war?” … Having renounced their nationalities, the militants must invent an identity of their own. 

To ISIS women in particular has gone the task of promulgating and enforcing this ideology:

ISIS has made a point of putting women on the front lines of the propaganda war. It has also created a female morality police, a shadowy group called the al-Khansa’ Brigades, who insure proper deportment in ISIS-held towns. Although media accounts of ISIS’s female recruits typically cast them as naïfs signing up for sexual slavery, it is a fact that no other Islamist militant group has been as successful in attracting women.

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, ISIS’s English-language magazine, a female writer encourages women to emigrate to “the lands of the Islamic State” even if it means travelling without a male companion, a shocking breach of traditional Islamic law. This may be a cynical ploy—a lure for runaways. But it is in keeping with the jihadists’ attack on parental authority and its emphasis on individual empowerment, including the power of female believers to renounce families they do not view as authentically Muslim.

Having been crushed, militants now toss empowerment, internationalism, and family/nation-state renunciation aside with the same ease they tossed decapitated heads into baskets. (It’s the rare jihadi woman who displays Dorothée Maquere’s sense of principle: “I don’t want to return to France because the French state used its arms to kill my children and my husband and I know if I return I’ll be put in prison.” As queen bee nihilist – her husband famously killed over a hundred Parisians – Maquere will presumably live out her life in the camp, lording it over lesser nihilists.) They present themselves at our borders as gullible patriots and daddy’s girls — girls for whom daddy now bankrupts the family as he litigates to get Baby back in the pink bedroom they’ve been keeping for her.

Were they playing at their bloody sport? Apparently so, or they’d be packing their bags for New ISIS, Libya.

It might all have been Outward Bound with mucho procreative bouncy bouncy for the caliphate for them; but for us their game is and remains an existential threat. For again the real name of the game, as Hosham Dawod argues, gazing at the ruins of a mosque ISIS destroyed, is world destruction, nihilism sans frontieres: ISIS is “a model of cultural and civilizational nihilism.” Olivier Roy elaborates:

Though Isis proclaims its mission to restore the caliphate, its nihilism makes it impossible to reach a political solution, engage in any form of negotiation, or achieve any stable society within recognised borders.

… The systematic association with death is one of the keys to understanding today’s radicalisation: the nihilist dimension is central. What seduces and fascinates is the idea of pure revolt. Violence is not a means. It is an end in itself. [‘(I)nstead of fighting imperial “crusaders,” the group spent most of its time killing other Muslims and local minority communities …’] [(Isis is) not like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or even Al Qaeda under bin Laden, but akin to “the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.”]

… [T]hose who volunteer to die – the disturbed, the vulnerable, the rebel without a cause – have little to do with the movement,but are prepared to declare allegiance to Isis so that their suicidal acts become part of a global narrative.

… [L]iving in an Islamic society does not interest jihadis: they do not go to the Middle East to live, but to die. That is the paradox: these young radicals are not utopians, they are nihilists. [As in, you know, what the hell… When you run out of other people to kill…]


It is a huge fantasy, like all millenarian ideologies.


 … Isis’s pretension to establish a global caliphate is a delusion – that is why it draws in violent youngsters who have delusions of grandeur.

*********************

Look at these

hooded hordes swarming
Over endless plains, stumbling in cracked earth
Ringed by the flat horizon only

and marvel at the nihilism they have achieved, and that many of them will go on achieving, wherever they move or are moved in their placeless world.

‘The government informed Muthana more than three years ago that she is not a citizen and canceled her erroneously issued passport… Muthana — who was at the time a member of ISIS — failed to act timely in response to that notification, [and] remained in a war zone through hostilities for a period of years. Plaintiff should not now be permitted to turn Muthana’s own delay and acquiescence — not to mention her decision to join a foreign terrorist organization in Syria — into an emergency requiring special solicitude for granting her a speedy hearing and speedy relief.’

This is from the government’s response to Hoda Muthana’s father’s lawsuit.

************************

It’s kind of funny picturing her telling her husband Hey I need to try to renew my passport…

***********************

Judge denies her request to expedite her case. So no meatloaf with the folks this Sunday.

I know lawyers have to say all sorts of dumb shit on behalf of their clients, but..

… does it have to be this dumb?

Charles Swift, Muthana’s lawyer … [said the withdrawal of her citizenship is] “incredibly terrifying. .. If they can do this to Hoda, they can do it to anyone.

Yes! Beware! For any of us could fall in love with these men and their cause:

Research centres such as the one I lead at King’s College London (the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation) archived millions of pieces of output from foreign fighters who cheered attacks in the West. When one occurred, they agitated for more. They celebrated the beheadings of Western hostages such as the American journalist James Foley. His death followed months of agonising torture, which included beatings and waterboarding. Foreign fighters mocked and belittled the sexual slavery of Yazidi women, the detention of their children, and murder of their menfolk.

Hoda Is Us!

Next Page »

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories