Why is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on issues in Turkey? Turkey is not (yet) a member of the EU. And why is Turkey banning headscarves, when according to the self-righteous hypocrite Erdogan, banning them caused riots in France?
From the BBC, with thanks to Uajeg:
Turkey can ban Islamic headscarves in universities, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.The court rejected an appeal by a Turkish woman who argued that the state ban violated her right to an education and discriminated against her.
Leyla Sahin had brought the case in 1998 after being excluded from class at Istanbul University.
But the judges ruled that the ban was justified to maintain order and avoid giving preference to any religion.
Although overwhelmingly Muslim, Turkey is a secular republic and the Islamic headscarf is banned in all universities and official buildings.
The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul says the verdict will have a major impact as more than 1,000 other women from Turkey have filed similar applications.
'Extremist movements'
According to the court's ruling, which is final, the headscarf ban is based on the Turkish constitution's principles of secularism and equality.
In a society where men and women are equal, it said, a ban on religious attire such as the headscarf was justified on university premises.
"The court did not lose sight of the fact that there were extremist political movements in Turkey which sought to impose on society as a whole their religious symbols and conception of a society founded on religious precepts," the court's ruling added.
Robert, the ECHR functions under the auspices of the Council of Europe, not the EU. And Turkey is, for reasons that elude me, a member of the Council of Europe.
"Why is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on issues in Turkey?"
Robert: The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational European court, and its rulings are binding for member states, I believe. Turkey is using it to spread its will throughout Europe:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/european-court-of-human-rights-kneels.html
The European Court of Human Rights Kneels to Islam
The European Court of Human Rights has just ruled in favor of the Turkish state, which sentenced a man for publishing a book that "insulted the Prophet and religion". I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this ruling is binding for all EU nations:
The applicant was prosecuted under Article 175 §§ 33 and 4 of the Criminal Code for publishing insults against “God, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book”. The applicant alleged that his conviction and sentence had infringed his right to freedom of expression. The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. The present case concerned not only comments that were disturbing or shocking or a “provocative” opinion but an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam. Believers could legitimately feel that certain passages of the book in question constituted an unwarranted and offensive attack on them. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the measure in question had been intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and had therefore met a “pressing social need”.
The head scarf has taken on a life of its own.
A religious symbol to some, but to others it's become a hideous, distorted symbol of female oppression. I ascribe to the latter view.
Although I think of myself as tolerant, the head scarf has become so much an "in-your-face" symbol, donned with unconscious sheep-like acquiescence, and worn with smug pride by those who seem to prefer a less than free status for themselves, that I feel anger, justified anger, now whenever I see one worn.
Wake-up! I want to shout at them. Give your heads a shake! Look at what the damn thing means - - not female honour, modesty and so on, but female, submission, blind acceptance of antiquated misogynist codes of behaviour. Don't let your dress be dictated by those who oppress you.
I can't conceive that a free being would choose to cover her head with a restricting, hot, clinging fabric. I live in Canada, but unless it's minus 20 Celsius, no hat for me.
For Islamic fundamentalists too, the head scarf symbolizes validation of their religious principles: the maintenance of family harmony and honour by obedient, meek females who don't invite the male gaze.
Never to feel the breeze through your hair or the warmth of the sun on the back of your neck -- this is the legacy of Muhammad to women.
As for Erdogan, he has recanted a bit. He now blames the press for getting it wrong! The head scarf ban in France was only part of what is a very complex set of reasons for the French riots, he now says.
The student, Leyla Sahin, has obviously been brainwashed into thinking that what's on her head is more important than what's in it. She needs to take a course in Critical Thinking.
aaah -- Here we see it -- These high priests of the new religion -- the Zealots of the "EU Project" -- Now we see the same buffoons who want to haul Rumsfeld and Bush into their court for "war crimes" -- the same crowd who wants to yank the WWW from the capable hands of the Yanks and turn it into an "ALL ONE WORLD FORUM" -- These robed hot-dog-magoos of fascist mediocrity, these "no borders, no religion" post modernist filth, these pious self-righteous fanatical believers in There-is-no-objective-truth-ism, hypocrites, hijackers, these HITLERS, are arrogating world jurisprudence unto their loathesome selves. Thank GOD America stands in their way -- George Bush may be a marginal US President, but I thank my lucky stars that he had the balls and the wits to REJECT the false constructs of Kyoto -- to REJECT world court jurisdiction -- to REJECT in TOTO the European World Project --
Look what these deluded European poseurs have unleashed in their European homeland! Look at the civilizational suicide they've brought about -- look how their self-satisfied smugness has doomed them!
They are filth -- FILTH! Fantasist FILTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's how I feel about it anyway.... my two cents...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
Scroll down.
"A woman is like a private part. When she goes out the devil casts a glance at her"
Al-Hadis, trans. Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim, vol. 2, p. 692, from Mishkat al-Masabih, by Waliuddin Abu Abdullah Mahmud Tabrizi
How sad that these women believe that the hair G-d gave them is somehow sexually suggestive , it's just hair.
Jen writes:
I can't conceive that a free being would choose to cover her head with a restricting, hot, clinging fabric. I live in Canada, but unless it's minus 20 Celsius, no hat for me.
I don't have a problem with anybody, of any religion, wearing just about anything. You see ultraorthodox Jews in New York with long curls, hats, etc. Christians wear crosses, etc. Thus, I don't have a problem with a Muslim wearing a headscarf.
That said, I do have a big problem with the fact that the woman wearing it may not have a choice in the matter, and that if she said, "forget it, I'm not doing this," she would actually be taking her life in her hands. Further, I have a big problem with the fact that ultimately the "religion" behind that headscarf has the intent to force my wife and daughter to do the same thing, probably after killing me in the process.
THAT is the big problem.
Carolyn2 writes:
How sad that these women believe that the hair G-d gave them is somehow sexually suggestive , it's just hair.
Hmmm... I'd have to disagree with you, sort of. That is, I don't disagree that it's a shame that these women believe they have to go around hiding themselves.
That said, if you're a Christian the Bible is actually pretty clear that a woman's hair is "her crowning glory," (I believe, can't find the quote right now) and it's part of her sexuality.
Finally, as a guy (who like all other guys responds to visual stimulation), I'd have to agree with the Good Book here. That is, to a guy hair may not be "just hair" but is definitely part of a womany's sexuality. I'm assuming that you're a woman from your nickname, so the fact that men are so visual may not make sense (my wife is constantly amazed when I tell her these things because to her, it's "just hair").
There was a time I had no problem with people wearing whatever religious attire they wanted. However the Muslim "headscraf" is different as it is no longer just a religious symbol but it is also a political one.Wearing the "headscraf" is also not always a choice but is sometime forced on women including non-Muslim women.Verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, rape and acid in the face are some of the techniques used to get women to "choose" to wear "headscrafs".That has been the case in places like Iraq and France.
"... but female, submission, blind acceptance of antiquated misogynist codes of behavior. Don't let your dress be dictated by those who oppress you."
Jen, I'm in agreement with you - Muslim women are oppressed. However, not for a moment do I forget that these 'oppressed women' are proudly offering their children up as martyrs for Islam (and the new housing and elevated social position accorded to Muslim moms who murder their children). In this horrific way (amongst many others) they perpetuate and condone oppression.
In the early days of Iran's regression to a complete theocracy, female college students were voluntarily drowning themselves in burkahs for reasons of political chic. Of course, before long these same women found they had sold themselves and their sisters into slavery. Whether or not they prefer their slave status over freedom might be an open question (and the less socially privileged Muslim women really didn't get a vote in the matter) but let's not forget how these women contributed to the cause of their own demise.
Never underestimate the power of the weak.
Hijab: the 'rape someone else' scarf.
Daisytoo:
I agree completely with you.
Oppressed, yes, they are -- but that's my point -- oppressed because, to some extent, they want to be. That's where the source of my anger lies. Not because they are oppressed, but because they go along with their own oppression.
I know, I know, they are powerless, victims, etc. etc., but that's only partly true. Look at this university student, protesting her own inability to wear the cloistering scrap of fabric which marks her as the polluted, inferior female. Here, she had a choice, a perfectly legal choice, not to wear the scarf, but she chose to fight this. She prefers slavery and gender apartheid, apparently. This is the mindset which I abhor. This is the mindset which is beyond cultural and religous explanations. This is the mindset of a brainwashed soul, who sees herself as she's been told to see herself.
Hijab: the 'rape someone else' scarf.
silvester - that sums it up perfectly for me. We've had enough examples, worldwide, of that being the message. Here in Oz, sheikhs saying you deserve rape if you don't wear one. Muslim men raping non-Muslim women because of this lack of submission to their dress code. French Muslim girls in Parisian banlieues raped and murdered because they look "too French" (read: not hijabbed up and invisible). Scandinavian women being raped by "immigrant" men who obviously have the same sick view of non-veiled women. Fjordman had an article on his site saying how even Muslim girls call their Muslim friends who don't wear the hijab "whores".
It's not the same as other religious symbols. I don't look at someone wearing a crucifix or a yarmulke as a message that says "rape or degrade someone else".
Jen,
Thanks for elucidating your point. It was helpful since internalized oppression is an actual phenomena. It does not have to be completely crippling but the Muslim inferiority/superiority split horrifically exemplifies the phenomena in its completely crippling capacity.
I'm having difficulty placing Islam in the category of a religion, even though it identifies itself as a religion; it's really a totalitarian regime. Under Chairman Mao regime, about 70 million people were murdered. How many millions more have been slaughtered under Chairman Mohammed's?
You said it best Jen when you said: "This is the mindset of the brainwashed soul."
Jen and Daisy,
you're so right, it is internalized oppression; it is also assuming a negative identitity when no other is afforded you; it's a way to be "seen" (how ironic!) when everything else condemns you to invisibility in the public sphere.
Sad thing is that academic multi-cult is reinforcing the oppression; it teaches that western notions of the "veil" are biased and unsophisticated; there are many forms of "veiling", not grasped by Western colonialist minds, and not in tune with what Muslim women "really want."
This is how you get tenure in the academia nowadays. Just google "veil" or "hijab" or all the rest of Islamic fashion for women, and you'll see the depth of idiocy our institutions of "higher learning" have sunk into. Feminism is dead in this country, dearies, poor innocent American girls and boys. We just missed the funeral.
fealee, I can't claim originality for the remark, it was a comment I read aeons ago on LGF, but it does seem to sum things up. It says also, among other things, 'I support, among other things, 'my inferior position, easy divorce, no questions asked, for men, violence against me, polygamy etc.'. As a woman, I find the hijab a nd its many variations, grossly insulting.
Fatima Mernissi has a lot to say about the subject, it is a portable 'house' or private space. It is the woman's way of saying, or being made to say, 'I have no right to be in this public space, because public space belongs to men, this hijab symbolically says I actuallly have no right to be here, to be outside my house.' Women without hijab are literally 'naked' in the eyes of muslim males and are thus committing an act of aggression by appearing in public without one. They are thus literally 'asking for it'.
I waver in my support for muslim women. It's not easy for them to rebel, their menfolk would literally kill them, a risk Western women never had to run. Also, however, they must get something out of it, they are convinced by their religion that they are superior to infidel men, not to mention infidel women, and maybe that's how they get their kicks, an enforced Stockholm-syndrome and they make the best of it.
But the current hijab as liberation and freedom of choice business, the women who espouse this are just brainwashed and manipulated by their arch-manipulator men, methinks.
But the wearing of it is grossly insulting to other women.
"just google "veil" or "hijab" or all the rest of Islamic fashion for women, and you'll see the depth of idiocy our institutions of "higher learning" have sunk into"
This irrational pathology is not just in Academe. Millions of ordinary Westerners think that way too (if you can call it thinking).
Yeah, silvester, I've wondered about why Muslim women put up with it too. Stockholm Syndrome that they make the best of, sounds about right. But you'd think that living in the West, they'd have way more options to agitate for change, reform, progress, modernization? But no, it seems they've gone the other way. Everybody I talk to about the hijab say it was hardly present 10, 15 years ago. Even 5 years ago. And only amongst the older women. Now, it's even little girls, with some agitating to go against the school uniform rule to wear it.
I used to think that the solution to Islam lay with its women, but no longer. I think they're so brainwashed into this whole superiority complex, that they're just as far gone as their men. I think they all fantasize about some world where they're on top, lording it over subjugated infidels, living the life of Riley. Right now, Muslim women are under Muslim men. In their fantasy of worldwide caliphate, they'd be on top of somebody else for once - us.
"A woman is like a private part. When she goes out the devil casts a glance at her"
This is pathetic. Muslims seem to be from another planet..possibly Uranus (pronounced 'Your Anus').
KingTesticle:
If you haven't checked out faithfreedom.org, do so, and scroll down all the way to the bottom and enjoy Ali Sina's scathing commentary on the mindset of Muslim women who seem to think they are between 96% and 100% pudenda.
"Right now, Muslim women are under Muslim men. In their fantasy of worldwide caliphate, they'd be on top of somebody else for once - us."
feralee,
Exactly. I'll repeat, never underestimate the power of the weak. But we also ought not to overestimate the fundamental feebleness of the manipulations of the weak (instead of forthrightness) that stems from a sense of powerlessness.
On purpose, and with vigilance and the willingness to fight for the sake of freedom, the truth shall, indeed, set us and keep us free.
Do you all share of sense of more people "getting" it lately? What do you think?
Do you all share a sense of more people "getting" it lately? What do you think?
Definitely. In my own family, it's gone from the lone cry in the wilderness (me), to everybody knowing it's Islam. Not "radical" or "extreme" or "hijacked" or "perverted" Islam, but Islam. And in my circle of friends and acquaintances, the proportion of the 'clued-in' has increased dramatically.
It takes time and patience. You have to talk to people, in a non-confronting way, feeling your way around their headspace to get the right tone. As each attack occurs, & media reports reveal, what you've told them starts to make sense. Much more sense than the whitewash BS they've got all along. That just doesn't fit anymore, no matter how much the PC BS-artists scream and rant, no matter how often the government says "Islam is Peace". People aren't stupid.
feralee,
Same here. You have to educate people about islam, one person at a time.
I certainly don't hate muslims and I don't even hate islam, per se. I only want islam to actually live in peace with the rest of the world - mostly, it would seem, by making islam leave the rest of us the hell alone. My children, nor my children's children, will not be given the choice of death, islam or dhimmitude. Muslims want the same thing? Good. Then stop with the da'wa, accept that your religion is NOT the end-all-be-all of all things, and cease with the triumphalist doctrine.
Or, things will get much, much worse for you. That's our 'invitation'.
Geoff
Actually, some of the posters are right when they say that the women represent the point of change for islam - I've already helped three leave islam. None had an easy time of it, but all are happier now.
Geoff
Something I haven't heard in the threads before this...Does God really want women, who he made the fairer sex, to be hidden under a tablecloth. No! He made them beautiful for a reason. To cover them up because some Moslem man can't control himself or doesn't want to is pathetic. But really, what good does it do to cover them up if Moslem men can rape women without the slightest worry of any reprecussions because there have to be several witnesses to the rape in order for the woman to prove she was assaulted. (See Robert's PC book about Islam and the Crusades for that reference.)
It is the sickest form of self delusion to insist it's okay to beat a woman who doesn't wrap herself and hide herself in one of those ridiculously ugly get ups. And it's ridiculous that any self respecting man wouldn't like to see a pretty woman strolling down the street dressed to the nines.
This is not about religion, modesty or what's good for women. It's about control, and using tyranny to get it.
Do you all share a sense of more people "getting" it lately? What do you think?
Definitely. I was talking t oan aquaintance the other day, an elderly lady. We spoke of foreworks and how she can see the council display from her window. She remarked about how bonfire night covers a longer period these days, partly because fireworks are a traditional way to celebrate Diwali. She mentioned how nice her Indian neighbours celebration was to watch from her window.
Then said why don't Moslems mix ? And went on to give her theory that they have come to take over, unlike other ethnic groups who retain their religions and customs but have integrated nicely. A year ago people were too nervous to speak that freely for fear of being thought racist. At work, in a PC environment, conversation is more reticent but the most forthright and outspoken people are black. They, or their parents, have seen evil up close and personal and don't want to have it again.
'"Why is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on issues in Turkey?"
Robert: The European Court of Human Rights is a supranational European court, and its rulings are binding for member states, I believe.'
Not quite. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, and in fact pre-exists it. It simply rules on and enforces the European Convention of Human Rights, of which Turkey is a signatory.
Plz read out the article given below.
For the most of the non muslims,the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude is the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,"
It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."
Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". 77 Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78
The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81
What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10)
St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..." Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. 82 Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is that "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God", which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament. 83
From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (24:30,31).
The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear:
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (33:59).
This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:
"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" (24:4)
Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deut. 22:28-30)
One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?
Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: fine but not enough. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen's has a 'walk home service' mainly for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States! I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women's office at Queen's University:
In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes,
1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives,
1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime,
1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain that they wouldn't get caught
Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society's life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all suffer but as K. Gibran has said,
"...for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them." 84
Therefore, a society like France which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.
It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of 'holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of 'oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women.
(extracted from http://www.load-islam.com/C/Women/Islam_Vs_Women_In_The_Judaeo-Christian/#16)