The niqab is a completely unaccepable insult to every man. It makes a statement about men - gay and straight - which is completely and utterly insulting in every respect. Further, it says something entirely negative about the mindset, the psychology, of the woman who adopts this mode of dress.

The niqab is never acceptable - under any circumstances. I will not, as a Christian male (gay, in my case) stand by and be insulted -deliberately and with malice aforethought - in this uniquely provocative way. Moslem women who choose to adopt this mode of dress should be aware that we western males view it as totally insulting, as a slur upon our abilities to control ourselves, as a provocation aimed deliberately at our society and as a statement of moslem separatism, moslem uniqueness, moslem superiority, moslem supremacy and ultimately moslem terrorism.

There can be no doubt about it. The niqab is a weapon of jihad. It is deliberately adopted, and deliberately flaunted and worn in public by moslem women, in western society, in order to make a statement about the penetration and conquest of western societies by moslems. The practise of veiling is completely unnacceptable and no free western person should acknowledge, serve in a shop, speak to or with, help in any way, guide or offer assistance to, a woman wearing the niqab. To do so is a betrayal of everything which we hold dear and sacred. Such creatures should be completely and utterly ignored - always.

The veil - the niqab - is supposed to confer anonymity, privacy and invisibility. Let it do so - completely and utterly and on every occasion.

Sometime, somwhere, we have to fight back. Let's make it now and about this vile practice.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 12, 2006 11:39 PM

I remember the first time I saw women wearing the veil - in Whitechapel High Street in the early '90's. I thought at the time: 'Good grief! These are British citizens!" It was as though to be a British citizen had become meaningless and that Britain was on the way to becoming what the anti-nationalist Metternich once described Italy as: a mere geographical expression.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 13, 2006 12:09 AM

wallyUK/

Exactly.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 12:12 AM

Hi Robert,

Any news on the sale of your book ?
I've purchased through amazon (I'm in Sydney)along with :

Islamic Imperialism
The Rage and The Pride (already have The Force of Reason)
The Sword of the Prophet

Should make a nice collection of anti-RoP books. Also have your PIG and Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a Muslim.

Posted by: PAS at October 13, 2006 12:15 AM

For some reason I think of the word "kneecap(ping)" instead.

Posted by: disillusioned_german at October 13, 2006 12:18 AM

Mother Ecclesiastica/

Damnit, I'm such a smart-arsed idiot. I can never resist a pun once one has popped into my head. My apologies.

I agree with you. It's not just enough to ignore the niqab and burkha brigade - they have to be challenged as well.

I will try to find the courage to do so. Meanwhile, for your stance, you have my admiration.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 12:29 AM

The American people should demand that their government amend our immigration laws to forbid immigration from any Muslim country, unless they practice another faith. No other group came to this country for the purpose of underming its institutions and culture, except for Muslims. Why should we aid and abet them in achieving their purposes? I seriously doubt that most Muslim immigrants could take the oath of citizenship in good faith anyway.
It might be too late for Europe to save itself, but it's not too late for us.
And if Muslim countries protest, we shoud tell them that we're under no obligation to import their dysfunctions into country, and when they clean up their acts, we'll reconsider.

Posted by: rational at October 13, 2006 12:49 AM

Mother Ecclesiastica/

The use of the 'b' word in your post has probably resulted in our comments being pulled. Apparently the good folks in the US of A are particularly sensitive about that word. I feel that we should respect their sensitivities even though we come from a less mealy-mouthed and generally more verbally robust society than they do. After all this is an American site.

However, I regret the removal of a perfectly good (bad?) pun which had nothing to do with the 'b' word. 'Concur' and 'conquer'. Apart from the sheer punning awfulness what on earth is there to take exception to there?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 13, 2006 12:53 AM

There is a telling quotation in islamonline concerning the proposed outlawing of teachers wearing the hijab in public schools by individual german states:

The Central Council of Muslims in Germany blasted the decision as opening the door for states to issue blanket bans on teachers wearing hijab in schools, said AFP.

"That would be a severe action against Muslims," council chairman Nadim Elias told Deutschlandfunk radio, adding that women wearing hijab had become part of "everyday life" in Germany.

Posted by: wallyUK at October 13, 2006 1:26 AM

I must admit to being really tickled by Necessitas's post. Why don't more Western men view niqab as a brutal insult, putting them on the same level as Muslim males?

The other approach to niqab'd, hijabbed, abayahed, whatever'd women -- a blanket term, for convenience, might be Mo-bagged -- that might work would be disgust. I attended classes at a local community college which has recently shown a soaring number of Mo-bagged women students (and the associated Islamic aggressiveness). As is common in the area, the classrooms do not have AC.

I dreaded going to evening classes with the Mo-baggers. After a long, hot day in the bag, those women *smelled.* Sometimes it was enough to make your eyes water if you got near them. I can't imagine what their hair was like under those scarves, either. Perhaps looks of pity and wrinkled noses of disgust for their hygiene would be even more effective than shunning.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at October 13, 2006 1:35 AM

The hijab is not about humility or modesty.

The hijab is about the repression of women in society.

Remember the bra burning on the streets in the 1960's by the American feminists.

Muslim women should spend some time with those 60's American feminists and burn their hijabs on our streets today.

I will be there to hand them my lighter.

Posted by: Johnathan at October 13, 2006 2:02 AM

“Obsession” is I think, one of the most important political films ever made.

The film is available in it’s entirety here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-692071627799119020&q=obsession+islam

You will need broadband to watch this.

Posted by: Odyessus at October 13, 2006 4:26 AM

Another important video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciOGS6r97oE&NR

Posted by: Odyessus at October 13, 2006 5:07 AM

Re: “shouldn’t be allowed to comment on these kind of issues, this is a Muslim issue”

This apartheid of the mind is the result of treating a belief-system as if it is a fact. We don't see the mental illness in this because it is called "religion". We are conditioned to be "tolerant" re religious beliefs. But it is mental-illness. The-Islamic-belief-system mental-illness is a serious threat to bold creativity in the mind. This belief-system chains the mind and literally makes martyrs of creative minds. It's no accident that Muslims use the cell-phone (invented at Motorola-Israel) to kill people, but do not invent such things.

Posted by: Frank at October 13, 2006 6:54 AM

If a person claimed that Unicorns exist as per dictation from God and that those who do not submit to the belief should be the subject of rage, violence or even killed, we would see clearly that we are dealing with mental illness. Our conditioning re "religion" has caused "tolerance" to this mental illness. I would strongly suggest that clerics in Britain and elsewhere who advocate violence against unbelievers be placed under psychiatric observation. Many of these "clerics" are really mentally ill people in costume, but others are simply using the belief-system to gain power over people. Many should be placed in mental hospitals.

Posted by: Frank at October 13, 2006 7:12 AM

The niqab is a completely unaccepable insult to every man. It makes a statement about men - gay and straight - which is completely and utterly insulting in every respect. Further, it says something entirely negative about the mindset, the psychology, of the woman who adopts this mode of dress.

The niqab is never acceptable - under any circumstances. I will not, as a Christian male (gay, in my case) stand by and be insulted -deliberately and with malice aforethought - in this uniquely provocative way. Moslem women who choose to adopt this mode of dress should be aware that we western males view it as totally insulting, as a slur upon our abilities to control ourselves, as a provocation aimed deliberately at our society and as a statement of moslem separatism, moslem uniqueness, moslem superiority, moslem supremacy and ultimately moslem terrorism.

There can be no doubt about it. The niqab is a weapon of jihad. It is deliberately adopted, and deliberately flaunted and worn in public by moslem women, in western society, in order to make a statement about the penetration and conquest of western societies by moslems. The practise of veiling is completely unnacceptable and no free western person should acknowledge, serve in a shop, speak to or with, help in any way, guide or offer assistance to, a woman wearing the niqab. To do so is a betrayal of everything which we hold dear and sacred. Such creatures should be completely and utterly ignored - always.

The veil - the niqab - is supposed to confer anonymity, privacy and invisibility. Let it do so - completely and utterly and on every occasion.

[...]

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 12, 2006 11:39 PM

Actually, Dominic, more than other articles of Islamic garb like the jilbab being portable cloisters for females, the niqab is an outright declaration that a woman is no more than a possession of her husband, that he alone has the right to see anything more than her eyes.

One of the most offensive sights I've ever seen on the streets of Toronto occurred a few summers ago on an extremely hot day -- 40 C, a man in his 30s, dressed as an imam -- longsleeved white cotton shirt, decorative vest, kulfi and loose trousers, walking with his toddler son who was dressed as a normal child -- t-shirt, shorts and sandals -- but the girl with them, probably no more than twelve, dressed from head to toe in black, and fully veiled. And one of the most idiotic sights -- a niqabbed Muslima shopping at The Bay for cosmetics, escorted by her husband of course, and the saleswoman trying to apply lipstick to the Muslima's lips without completely exposing the Muslima's face.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 13, 2006 8:14 AM

Robert,

Production quality is improving every week. Very effective.

Waterdragon52,

I think your sympathies are misplaced (re: pre-teen burkha bake). You don't need that many brain cells to manifest Stockholm syndrome. (BTW, she was one of his wives and the toddler was her son).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 13, 2006 9:42 AM

You know thoughs tests phycologists do with pictures? What do you see? When I saw those two woman,? center of Robert, I immediatly though of "trick or treat?"

Posted by: mustang65 at October 14, 2006 5:00 AM

GO JACK STRAW! And by the way Dominic, we can say (write) bitch.

Posted by: mustang65 at October 14, 2006 5:16 AM

Toronto Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui wrote about this. I'm going to write to him as soon as I can stop spitting.

http://tinyurl.com/yj5atw

Our skewed priorities
It's obscene to hound powerless Muslim women while Muslim world is under siege, says Haroon Siddiqui
Oct. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
hsiddiq@thestar.ca

Posted by: Josephine at October 15, 2006 9:53 AM