Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Their gaff, their rules

The blog title refers to a general understanding as to basic civil rights, so long as the rules themselves don't breach criminal or (some) civil laws. There are those however who see their right to do what the hell they like in someone else's property as a god given right... that god being the false one of islam.
Birmingham Metropolitan College ordered all students, staff and visitors to remove any face coverings so individuals are "easily identifiable at all times".
The move led to claims that Muslim students were being discriminated against after women were told they could not wear the niqab, a veil that leaves only a slot for the eyes.
The disclosure comes as proposals to ban face coverings in public places are being debated in Parliament.
A private members bill proposed by Philip Hollobone, the Conservative MP for Kettering, would make it an offence for someone to wear “a garment or other object” intended primarily to obscure their face, in public.
Jack Straw, the Labour former foreign secretary, is among MPs who have drawn criticism by asking women visiting their constituency surgeries to consider removing their veils.
Yes, the members of the religion of permanent offence despite the fact that the niqab is not mentioned in their battle manual are up in arms that someone who isn't a family member might see the face of a woman. Which says a lot more about the utter insecurity and sexual depravity of muslim males than anything else. No doubt there are some who think it is genuine discrimination, however were I to try to enter any premises wearing a full cover motorcycle helmet I'd be asked to remove it or prevented from entering it by staff. Try the same in a cylon outfit as worn by some muslim females and you're the one who is in the wrong...

Yup... cylon
Frankly this move has been on the cards for a while now as muslims have used the niqab to force their views on others as well as being a definite health hazard in northern climates as the need for desert wear simply doesn't make sense here.
No doubt there will be outrage both faux and genuine, but frankly well done Birmingham Metropolitan College for having the balls to say no more.

9 annotations:

Anonymous said...

About time, too, & let's hope Parliament decides to back a ban on the Ninja Black Widows. Far from being about a muslim woman's 'modesty', the wearing of the niquab is an aggressive statement of identity. 'Look at me! I'm different. I'm in your country (availing myself of every perk going) but separate & superior.' The niquab is one of the clearest indicators of mental illness to be seen in contemporary society. I've seen muslim women protestors waving placards that proclaim THE NIQUAB SETS US FREE FROM MANMADE LAWS. Us infidels aren't islamophobic, no. We're suffering from islamonausea: sick of seeing muslims, hearing the neurotoxic bores whining on about their self-inflicted problems, & sick of the BBC telling us how sweet & normal they all are. Yeah, sure. In those swirling, funereal, dementer shrouds, they look as normal as a tarantula walking over your bacon sandwich.

Anonymous said...

The telegraph article says the college has also banned hats scarves and hoodies. If the college is privately owned, fair enough, their gaff etc. But in public? Abolutely not. I would rather see Muslims dressed in their stupid attire than contemplate the possibility that someone has had the brass neck to tell -force -another human being what to wear. How can it possibly be against the law to wear a binbag, how much power do we want our public servsnts to have? Plus it's probably a stalking horse to stop people wearing scarves ar protests.

Anonymous said...

I do not have a problem with people wearing what ever the hell they like - its a free country. But in countries where this kind of dress is the norm, freedom of choice is in very short supply.

The problem we have in this country as I see it, is that we have people who do not, and wish not to integrate into our society. That does not mean that they must forget their roots, abandon their religion or adopt every facet of Western culture. Not all facets of western culture are wonderful, particularly American culture. But we live in a society that requires that we are able to see the persons face for a whole host of reasons too numerous to go into.

As this article indicates, this style of dress is very divisive, even amounts Muslims. It is a form of dress more suited to countries whose cultures are medieval and who view women as property rather than as people.

The women, by comparison, view men, and that is ALL men, as some sought of sexual deviant and that this dress will somehow protect them. Something that is false and I find offensive.

To the men of a certain religion, they view women who do not dress 'modestly' as available and deserving of abuse. This is unacceptable !

We need to break down barriers. And if those barriers come from a certain minority, then so be it. If they cannot and will not live peacefully amongst us, than we need to be brave, firm and polite. We need to tell them that we wish to live our way of life and if they wish to live their way of life, then they can go and live in a country that best suits their needs.

I think that that kind of approach may lead in the long term to a win win for all concerned.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9.14 replying - what if someone doesn't want to integrate, or show their face? Are we meant to force them to do so? You are missing the problem which is as follows; people think that State force is OK when applied to someone else. A Japanese man who buys a house in Scotland shouldn't be forced to wear a kilt, say Och Aye or dance the highland fling. I don't care what happens in Muslim countries, I only care how I treat my fellow human being. I personally would not rip away a woman's veil, and therefore I have no moral grounds for wanting the "State" to do it for me. Remember, if it wasn't for the State - especially the Welfare State - we wouldn't have so much immigration anyway. Muslims might well feel more at home in Islamic countries, but given that Britain has helped to devastate Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly soon Syria, I think we can do more as individuals than visit indignity on those we haven't managed to kill yet.
Wear what you like, Missis, because it's none of my business.

Quiet_Man said...

Actually I believe that it's a health problem leading to rickets due to lack of sunshine. Which when they do it to their kids is tantamount to child abuse.
That said if muslim women want to walk around in public wearing bin bags that's fine by me. However when they want to do it on someone else's property and that person objects then their religion should never trump that persons or organisations objections.

DerekP said...

"what if someone doesn't want to integrate, or show their face? Are we meant to force them to do so?"

How do you know 'she' is a woman? We do have areas which are sex-segregated. How is that to be enforced? Your answer is that their wish over-rides our expectation of normal behaviour.

What if you need to check/confirm identity for legal requirements such as passport control, prison visits, driving test etc?

What if this person commits an offence - how are you going to know who it is?

What if you regard seeing the person's face as a necessary part of dealing with them?

If you are conducting your normal business here in the West, the historical and established norm is to not be masked.

If I want to live in a society where the 'woman' can go around masked all the time then I'll go there. And so can they.

Anonymous said...

Quiet man, yes, on private property the owner makes the rules. In public, though, if I want to wear full armour including a helmet, and clank about the place, my business.
Courts, prisons, airports, banks - tough, take the veil off. Again, the public own public spaces so their right to look grotesque trumps your right to wish they didn't. As for rickets, people's health is their own responsibility.

Anonymous said...

The first comment nails it completely.
I'm suffering from islamonausea too - a great word that.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Annon 3:03PM

" . . but given that Britain has helped to devastate Iraq and Afghanistan . . . "

First off, who is 'we' ? I never wanted us to go to those places in the first place, our Government did. That is a failing of our so called democracy, not the sheeple who pay over the odds for little in return.

Secondly, they were medieval ****holes long before we got there, and shall remain so! Only Iraq, strangely under Saddam Hussein, were free of a lot of this non-sense.

Thirdly, Syria. Saudia Arabia and Qatar are the ones supplying money, arms and men to fight this war, NOT the west. We want to stay well out. This is a religious war, not just a civil one.

And the religious those two nut jobs, sorry 'Allies' (sic), love their gals to dress in black.

The problem is that they want the freedoms that come with living in a Western Liberal 'Democracy' (sic) but as soon as they are the ones in ascendance, they will impose their will and their laws on us.

Do not believe me, look at what has happened in Egypt, Palestine, Libya, Iraq and especially Sudan.

We need to start to draw some lines here. I am not asking Muslims to wear little yellow crescents on their garments. Just 'respect' that I, like you, choose to live differently, and whilst we are still in the majority, we choose to live this way.

Deal with it !!!