Funny how accommodations related to Islamic practices are so often the only "human rights" Islamic groups seem to be concerned with. Fortunately, the European Court of Human Rights grasped in this case that Muslims' "right" to display religious symbols does not outweigh that of any other groups, which would have set a disastrous precedent in light of sharia restrictions on the use of non-Islamic religious symbols. Moreover, the "right" to go excessively above and beyond the accepted norms of "modesty" in a society is just not in the same league with actual human rights issues where life, limb, and freedom of thought and speech are at risk -- which, of course, is the case in so many instances under Islamic law.
An update on this story. "French Muslim girls lose veil case in European court," from Reuters, December 4:
Europe's human rights court today threw out a complaint by two French Muslim girls who were expelled from their school for refusing to remove their headscarves during sports lessons.
France, which takes secularism in state schools very seriously, passed a law in 2004 banning pupils from wearing conspicuous signs of their religion at school after a decade of bitter debate about Muslim girls wearing headscarves in class.
"The court observed that the purpose of the restriction on the applicants' right to manifest their religious convictions was to adhere to the requirements of secularism in state schools," the European Court of Human Rights said.
The two girls were 11 and 12 when they were expelled in 1999. After French courts ruled against them, they complained to the European court that their school had violated their freedom of religion and their right to an education.
The court, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, rejected both complaints by a unanimous ruling of seven judges.
It said the school had done its best to balance the interests of the girls with respect for France's secular model, and their expulsion was a consequence of their refusal to respect rules of which they had been properly informed.
It also said they had been able to continue their education by correspondence classes.
Interesting word choice:
The French veil debate divided a nation torn between its deep attachment to secularism and the need to accommodate Europe's largest Muslim minority. It also raised questions about how the influence of Islam was changing Europe.
"the need to accommodate Europe's largest Muslim minority"
This is a misleading translation.
It is undoubtedly necessary to integrate the Muslims who are here. What other choice is there?
Viva la France! Lafayette, we are here! Mademoiselle from A..........
Wait, don't want to be Politically French Incorrect.......
Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic again.
When the demographics kick in, they'll do what they like.
The hijab VIOLATES human rights, plain and simple. Its express purpose is to deprive women and little girls of 100% of their freedom, their dignity, their identity, and their humanity. They serve to remind them of the Mohammedan dogma which declares them to be filthy, genetically inferior, and unfit for anything but being chained to a stove, crapping out babies like rats, and getting raped by their much older cousins to whom their parents pimped them away at age 5 for a pack of gum.
The hijab violates OOUR HUMAN RIGHTS, since nobody should have to stare at that disgusting, explicit death threat, let alone py to do so. It's infinitely more offensive than any swastika or Confederate flag. The message to infidels is: get ready for the rape, enslavement, torture, plunder, extortion, and/or mass murder of every Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Confucian, Animist, agnostic, atheist, apostate, homosexual, scientist, legitimate journalist, poet, artist, musician, cinematographer, person who snaps pictures of living beings, feminist, independent thinker, person who values human rights or democracy or human dignity, dog, and individual who engages in romantic relationships consensually and independently of incestuous Sharia sex slavery.
There are two reasons for wearingthose disgusting Dark-Age Nazi slave rags:
1) Because their slave owners are violating their human rights by foring them into those them.
2) To creep out infidels and get away with explicitly threatening us every day.
Nobody should tolerate them. Women should be persecuted for wearing those things, if even just through nasty glares and otherwise being ignored.
"It is undoubtedly necessary to integrate the Muslims who are here. What other choice is there?"
-- from a poster above
It may be "undoubtedly necessary" to "integrate" those Muslims who happen to have, in a fit of criminal negligence, been admitted in large numbers into the advanced, entirely too generous, countries of Western Europe, some of which have made a fetish, an Idol of the Age, out of ill-thought-through Diversity and Tolerance, including the toleration of the murderously and immutably intolerant.
But what if those Muslims who have been allowed to settle, in such great and ever-increasing numbers, deep behind what they themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, cannot -- because of the very nature of Islam, the immutability of its texts, the slamming-shut more than a millennium ago of the Gates to Ijtihad, the effect, the hold, on the minds of the primitive (and most men are primitive, which is why their belief-system had better be a largely innocuous or even conceivably an ennobling one, to begin with) Muslim masses, who may learn French, and acquire a suave Western veneer -- see Tariq Ramadan, notre Frere Tariq, that respectable Euro-Islamic prud'homme -- but remain deeply and disturbingly hostile to the legal and political institutions, and to the artistic expression, and free and skeptical inquiry, and solicitude for the individual (for Islam is incurably collectivist, and the individual "slave of Allah" is as nothing, he is merely part of the Army of Islam, and any attempts to jettison Islam by an individual are consequently treated as treasonm, deserving of death).
The poster seems to have a limited historical knowledge, and limited imagination. It was within living memory that one of the most advanced and liberal countries in the Western world, Czechoslovakia, then led by those European statesmen, Masaryk (son of the famous Tomas, founder of modern Czechoslovakia), and Benes, decided that for security reasons, based on evidence of past behavior but not on any present threat, the Sudeten Germans, three million of them, should be expelled from Czechoslovakia to Deutschtum -- mainly Germany (Austria was still playing the role of "first victim of the Nazis" for all those willing to listen). Not a single advanced Czech, then or since -- not the poet Jaroslav Seifert, not General Ludovik Svoboda, not sad-eyed sweet Aleksandr Dubcek, not Milan Kundera or Milos Forman, or Vaclav Havel (who did on a state trip to Austria admit that the "execution" of the relevant Benes Decree, left something to be desired, something to be regretted). And when those ethnic Germans were expelled -- many had enthusiastically collaborated with the Hitler regime, both before the outbreak of war (allowing themselves to be used for the purposes of propaganda, as they staged riots that would, they knew, be put down by Czech police and these reported scenes would be used to justify taking sides with the "Sudeteners" and their "legitimate rights" by such fools as Sir Basil Runciman, who undertook the Runciman Mission in 1938 to establish, as Runciman said, a "comprehensive and a lasting peace." Connoisseurs of Carter and Brzezinski and others who have been pressuring Israel unbearably for the past several decades will not fail to note the echo.
All over the world, all through history and even in the past decades and past centuries, transfers of populations have been deemed necessary or advisable, by one side, or another, or sometimes both. Think of the Greeks and Turks in the 1920s, Hindus and Muslims at the time of Partition -- have taken place. The Muslim Arabs have not hesitated even to expel huge numbers of other Muslim Arabs -- Libya expelled Egyptians, Kuwait expelled, overnight, 400,000 "Palestinians" after the aid and comfort they gave Saddam Hussein's invaders, Saudi Arabia from time to time expels hundreds of thousands of Yemeni workers at a time, Iraq has expelled Egyptians, Algeria has expelled Moroccans and Morocco Algerians, and so on, by the tens and hundreds of thousands.
The Western world has generally not done so, but it did when it had to, or when a justifiable case was made, and it was made, by little Czechoslovakia, in 1946.
"What else can we do?" says that poster above. If you have to ask, you can't afford it. What's "it"? Oh, "it" to begin with is that continuing, and permanently dangerous, Muslim immigration to Western countries. "It" is permitting Saudi and other outside Arab money to come in to pay for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa. "It" is anything that allows Muslims, as Muslims, to become deeply and seemingly permanently settled into the land, but not into the society, that was once so securely Infidel.
No, I must repeat: If you have to ask "what else can we do?" then you can't afford... "it."
For once, a sensible decision by the Human Rights court. Let's hope the UK follows the French example soon so every religious dingbat who wants to throw his or her toys out of the pram when schools make rules about uniforms won't be able to waste taxpayers' time and money with their pernicious human rights cases.
An Islamic school here in Australia has been in the news for its refusal to sing the national anthem at assembly. No big deal in one way (a peurile and uninspiring anthem) but the teacher who reported this - and then left the country! - also said the place was run like a military establishment.
The primary school children were shown on TV dutifuuly singing the anthem and the school staff protesting they were being picked on, etc, the usual stuff.
But what caught my eye was the veils on these little kids. Why do even pre-pubescent kids need veils? In Sudan, which is a Muslim country with Sharia law, the young girls don't wear veils, they have pigtails and ribbons and all the styles our western kids do.
What is it with these immigrants that they must choose the more radical expression of their culture and religion? Or maybe all the kids in that school are from Saudi Arabia? But then, why so many here from there?
Actually, can anyone tell me which Islamic countries put their little girls in headscarves?
Saudi Arabia, for one. And if the school catches on fire and they're not veiled and their owners aren't outside they go up with the building. I know that in Afghanistan they wear veils, but it's more of a safety measure and not the law if they're prepubescent. Most South Asian Muslim girls wear veils. That 12 year-old whom that Indonesian imam "married" was veiled. It depends on the degree of Islamization, but in the West those parents force their girls into them so as to freak out us infidels and make the kids not want anything to do with them so that they don't associate with naji kafirs. Most Muslim nations associate veiling with sexualization, so 6-7 is usually the age, but some nations are more lax than others and in many veiling isn't the law, just more of a status thing, like Egypt and Jordan.
This decision is a step forward in the right direction
No country has to accommodate the Muslims because they cannot integrate. It is a fact.
One question is Who paid for the legal expenses of the 2 Mademoiselles?
Islamic clothing is violence to women.
Can muslimas be referred to as 'mademoiselles?' 'Mademoiselle,' to me, implies freedom, independence, as in not being tied to any one person, or having one's whole life ahead of her and every option open. Muslimas are always someone's property/slave and they have no control over their lives or their futures. They don't even own their own flesh or have any control over what happens to it. I don't think 'mademoiselles' fits muslimas. Yet another way in which they can't integrate: they don't fit into our lexicon.
HUGH, your post re "it" reminds me that JW has more than one shrewd, keen-eyed person on board. If I haven't mentioned it recently, I am grateful for Robert and you - and everyone else who sees through and understands the enemy.
HA! The parents of the girls should thank the French government! Now the girls won't stand out and be selected for "racist" (actually sexist) harassment.
But seriously folks, does any right minded person believe that wearing symbols makes you truly Christian or Muslim or Jewish?
I married in Egypt to a muslim man. When I entered his house, his mother asked me to remove my cross. It was on the tip of my tongue to say "No," but I thought better of it and started to remove it. His mother, God bless her, realized what I had: Crosses don't make you Christian! Your heart does! And so, slightly shamed, she stopped me from doing so..
Another time, about 2 months later, she asked me to wear a scarf. I was dying inside, but to humor her I put one on and then she looked at my face and said, "Take it off, please... You're too beautiful with it on..." Beauty comes from within and cannot be hidden, EVER!! No scarf could hide that!
And so it is with these French girls, they probably have their self-worth and beauty diminished now because they've been told it's "all-important" to wear their hajibs... Shame on their parents and the ignorance they are propagating!!!
Lorfalcon, I would not go back to Egypt. You realize that if he says you can't leave, that's it, right? You're stuck in Cesspoolstan and forced to convert. Look forward to having your daughters genitally mutilated by him in your kitchen, and more than likely sodomized. Get out of that marriage toute de suite and buy yourself a copy of Cassandra's '33 Secrets Arab Men Never Tell American Woman' and 'Escape! From a Muslim Marriage.' Have you ever seen a marriage between an infidel and a Muslim that didn't end up with the woman in the cult, murdered, or abducted, along with her children? Heard of one? Read about one? He's using you for citizenship. He'll divorce you in 5 years max, just like the Ikhwan told him to, but not before genitally mutilating your children. He shaves, right? That means he's Shafi'i. There is zero - ZERO - chance that he won't genitally mutilate your daughters. Let me guess: you met at a state university? He told you he loved you within a month of beginning to date you? He told you that he had to marry you in order to have sex with you (a lie, since you're subhuman war booty to him)? He seemed really nice? He talks in a fake voice? He's incredibly jealous? Calls you a lesbian when you talk to your girlfriends? Checks the mileage on your car? Get a restraining order before you leave him, along with a handgun and a big, loud dog. Putting your hand in a blender and turning it on would have been a far wiser decision that marrying an Egyptian Muslim.
jdamn
You gave a pretty good description of the future.
You are right. This lady should be very careful. I don't trust the mother in law. She let her wear the cross, not for long .
You forgot to speak about the children. If they chose to follow Christ, they will be killed.
I feel sorry for this lady. She is blinded.
It's formulaic, except the bit about the fake voice, which comes from my own experiences with malignantly narcissistic Muslims. The ones who seem nice always talk in fake voices. That's exactly what the Ikhwan tells them to do and they all do it. That's why I want to work on the Sharia-state student visa racket. This woman got herself in a world of hurt. She's obviously only known him for a very short time. Egyptian Muslims are raised to be very sadistic, evil people who masquerade as decent people, usually quite unconvincingly. They learn from a very early age how to present themselves as decent human beings and to think in taqiyya. He came here looking for an idiot to dupe, probably made her feel like the queen on the world, and married her for citizenship. I just hope she's not stuck in Egypt.
Hey jdamn and tartine, don't worry I am happily here in San Diego. Our marriage lasted about 9 years and then I left him with OUR son. Worst time of my life ever! Half of what you wrote happened, the other half is laughable. My ex never ever went to the mosque! Hardly a bone in his body believed in God. Well maybe the boneless bone! (Sorry-had to say that because that's all he believed, the power of his genitals!)
It was a painful process of extrication and I KNEW how muslim men can be so I was very careful and exact about what I did.
The upshot is that I have my son with me 100Pct of the time in San Diego and he has moved to Houston and married an Egyptian woman he found on-line. The best part of it is that she makes him MISERABLE! She's just like him, materialistic and selfish and hot tempered and facetious. Every day I thank God for my freedom and my son.
AND DONT worry I know better than to go to Egypt for a visit with my 11 year old boy. That'll never ever happen!!! And my son did choose Christianity, which really ticked my ex off. I hold my breath when my son goes to visit in Houston. But I have a back-up, my brother the ex-82nd airbourner... lol...
I only found this site recently but I am so glad I have. Looks like you guys could use more gals in the fight for preservation of freedom of speech! I look forward to reading more postings!!!!
Thank God, lorfalcon. I was really worried. You should tell everyone your story...without making us worry and leaving us in suspense like that. I did appreciate your posts on some of the other threads, like the ones about the Albanian men (so true). I'm glad your ex is miserable, your son is Christian, you're safe, and you're brother has military training.