A woman (or man) wearing a burqa, or chador, or abaya, could rob a bank, and no-one would know what they looked like.

You could commit any crime, including murder, and no-one would be the wiser about who did it.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 7, 2005 6:53 AM

Mr.Castelli is correct that Italian law forbids full-facemasks - I have actually been stopped and checked by police when wearing a clown mask at Carnival time. (Though they apologized for the absurdity.)

Otherwise he is talking the usual kind of excrement to be expected from the racist and violent Northern League - a party that is to the right of Fascism. He may appeal to the more macho readers of this blog; to them I say, don't be taken in. Castelli and his party colleagues are hollow, ignorant little freaks with no support in the country except from the dregs of provincial Northern Italy, and in fact their opposition to Islam is bad news - it is associating opposition to the Religion of War with their kind of racist, ignorant scum. For those of you who do not know it, the Northern League treats Italy's own citizens from the Centre and South roughly as the old National Party treated blacks in South Africa. Racism, for them, begins at home. The Italian government has had to change Italy's car number plate design, because League members would try to drive cars from central and southern Italy off the road. This is the kind of party that has its own illegal militia (the "green shirts"). Anyone who takes Castelli and his likes for allies will regret it; it is largely thanks to their disastrous performances as ministers and members of the majority that Mr. Berlusconi is facing certain defeat at the next national polls.

We certainly want to resist Islam, and much of Italy regards both religion and religionists with distrust and contempt. But the League's attempt to take advantage of this distrust is actually bad for anti-Islamism. As the Italian proverb says, "meglio soli che male accompagnati"; better alone than in the wrong kind of company.

Posted by: Paolo at June 7, 2005 7:23 AM

Paolo

It is the same with the British National Party in Britain, jack-booted racists and anti-semites to a man.

Posted by: Zico at June 7, 2005 7:36 AM

lol Zico u call BNP a party! They're just a gang of murderous racist thugs masquerading as political party...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at June 7, 2005 8:40 AM

Paolo:

Sheikh Palazzi of Italy, who appears to be a bona fide Muslim moderate, offered very sharp criticism of Oriana Fallaci in a recent interview on Israpundit.com. See http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/05/an_israpundit_e.php

This is what the Sheikh had to say about Ms. Fallaci:

Sheikh Palazzi: According to my knowledge, Oriana Fallaci has not been sued in Italy for “defaming the Koran” (a penal offence which does not exist in Italian legislation) but for “defaming religion”.

The act which considers “defaming religion”, a penal offence, was passed in the ’30’s, after the Agreement between the Italian government and the Vatican which ended the conflict between Italy and the Catholic Church and permitted the foundation of the Vatican City State. That agreement declared Catholicism to be “the only religion of the State”, and the legislation was upgraded to make defamation of religion a penal offence.

“Defamation of religion” was consequently understood as meaning “defamation of the State religion”. The same Italy-Vatican Agreement was revised in the ’80’s, and Catholicism ceased to be “the State religion”. Italy became a non-confessional State wherein – as our Constitution states – “all religions are equally free in front of the law”. The Anti Religion Defamation Act, however, was not abolished. On the contrary, our Supreme Court stated that “the act must be understood as referring to defamation of any religion which is believed by Italian citizens”.

Criticizing existing religions from the point of another religion, from the point of view of secularism, etc., is obviously part of freedom of speech and legal, but slandering religions, insulting their representatives and especially instigating hatred toward their believers is a crime. I am convinced that Ms. Fallaci is violating Italian law in her articles and books, is circulating false and slandering information about Islam, is instigating hatred against Italian citizens on the base of their religious identity, and consequently I hope she will be tried and duly punished. She openly writes that any Italian Muslim is a fifth column of terrorism and a potential Bin Laden, and I think this is a kind of hate crime no civil society should permit.

I regret that the one who sued her, a certain Adel Smith, is a psychopathologic subject, who is himself guilty of defaming Catholicism and instigating hatred against Catholics and against the Catholic Church. That person likes getting publicity at all costs, and has no right to claim he represents Muslims. However, Ms. Fallaci was already sued in European courts. In France she was absolved and in Switzerland she was found guilty.

Regarding France, I appreciate the fact that she was sued by the League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), the same organization which sued Garaudy, Irving and other revisionist writers. I think racist and hate propaganda must be fought irrespective of which ethnic group is targeted. That Ms. Fallaci deprecates antisemitism cannot cover her role in promoting a Ku-Klux-Klan-like campaign targeting any individual who happened to be a Muslim. That is the reason why I appreciate that those European intellectuals who form LICRA sued her, and why I hope for an exemplar punishment and for the ban of the hate- literature she produces.

From a more general point of view, I must say that if terrorism is causing a person like Mr. Fallaci to become so popular, this is surely a point in favour of terrorism itself. Until ten years ago, no Italian newspaper and no Italian editor would have published articles and books which contain uncontrolled manifestations of the most trivial and hysterical racism. Bin Laden wants the Muslims to assimilate a black-and-white perspective: “we” against “them”. “We” represent “good” and “they” represent “evil”. Oriana Fallaci thinks exactly the same, and wants to misrepresent the war on terror as a new crusade, as a war between “Christianity” and “Islam” has she conceives them. Before 9/11, what Ms. Fallaci writes would be considered the fruit of hysteria of a sick mind, fond of crusades and new wars of religion. Now her positions are to some extent getting popular. The “strength of hysteria” which characterized Ms. Fallaci’s writings is actually replacing the real “strength of reason”, i.e. the ability to efface a threat through rational discourse..

Your thoughts?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 7, 2005 9:01 AM

My thoughts are that Palazzi and Adel Smith are Frick and Frack. Like that breed of "moderate" muslim we see so often on these blogs, Palazzi seems very adept at attacking the opposing party with a charming show of sincerity and even to criticize a few carefully chosen specimens of Muslim extremists, but not to say anything that even remotely comes close to suggesting that Islam as such may have problems. These are the people that left the Catholic Church because Catholic rationality and internal debate made their brain hurt. They have found refuge in a religion that demands unconditional submission - as Chesterton said, "And man no more a free knight/ That loves or hates his lord." For the freedom of man, even with regard to his Creator, is one of the core notions of Christianity; no Muslim could have painted, even if Islam allowed figure painting, Michelangelo's great scene of Adam (Man) and God reaching out to each other, both mighty, both free.

That was a bit OT. But when Palazzi wants my attention, he will have to deal with Oriana Fallaci's one thousand and one specific attacks on specific Muslim deeds, not just call her a racist because she dislikes Muslims en masse. He first has to show me that she is wrong in what she says, and wrong in ascribing the crimes she describes to Islam as such. And, brother, he would have a job.

As for the law against outraging religion, it is a piece of Fascist nonsense that had been ignored in Republican Italy even under Catholic-led government, and that has not been abolished long ago only because nobody except lawyers even remembered that it was still on the books.

Posted by: Paolo at June 7, 2005 10:10 AM

Voltaire: "You could commit any crime, including murder, and no-one would be the wiser about who did it"

King responds: So you are now saying that anyone wearing such religious body coverings is up to no good until proven otherwise? Paranoia.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 7, 2005 10:11 AM

No, KT, we are saying that Italian law does not allow them and never has. For the same reason why you are not allowed to wear a biker's helmet in a bank branch. Of course you may perfectly well be a nice, law-abiding biker - but if you are, you will remove your helmet.

Posted by: Paolo at June 7, 2005 10:28 AM

"You could commit any crime, including murder, and no-one would be the wiser about who did it"
...So you are now saying that anyone wearing such religious body coverings is up to no good until proven otherwise? Paranoia.

Voltaire,
I think the real point in restricting masking of the face is not in reaction to what a masked person "might do" but rather who and what the person may have already done. In other words everyone has the right to know who they are dealing with. And besides is just good manners.

KingT,
There is no legitimate reason why anyone should mask their face in public. The practice of making women hide themselves completely in public is based in paranoia over what men might do if they actually saw a women in public. What utter trash! Women aren't veiled to honor Allah. Far from it, they are veiled to show the shame of the Muslim male's lack of self control. Which I might add, is pretty telling about a lack of effectiveness in Islam in instilling decent behaviour in men.

f.g.

Posted by: f.g. at June 7, 2005 10:36 AM

Paolo:

Nice posts. Since I assume you are Italian I will ask you this question. Does the judiciary have the legal power to decide who will be charged as appears to the the case with Fallaci? In Canada and, I believe in the U.S., it is the crown prosecutor (or district attorney in the U.S.) who decide which cases to prosecute. The role of the judge is just that - to judge the evidence brought before the court.

Posted by: johnb at June 7, 2005 11:34 AM

johnb:
In Italy, as in other countries with a Roman/ Napoleonic legal system, the state investigator is a judge in rank. He supervises police activity and decides when a case can go before the courts. However, though his rank is that of judge, he does not take the judging role, and in effect is not very different from an American DA in his/her investigating role - and of an American Grand Jury, deciding whether a case exists. That is the role, for instance, of Judge Baltazar Garzon from Spain: he is called a Judge, but his role is not to judge but to investigate and make out cases.

Posted by: Paolo at June 7, 2005 12:25 PM

Palazzi's comments on Oriana Fallaci are revealing -- about him. They show that whatever "moderation" he is capable of, like so many "moderate" Muslims (self-described) in the end he cannot bear too much criticisim of Islam. It is fascinating to see how defensive even those who are essentially non-mosque goers, lapsed Muslims, yet coming out of an environment that causes them to think that 1) everyone must have a label or an identity and 2) if one is born a Muslim, one must forever not only identify oneself as a Muslim, but cannot conceivably throw off Islam altogether and 3) Islam in the end must be defended.

The more one studies Islam, the less attractive it seems as a belief-system. The more one studies the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, the more horrifying it seems. The more one studies the history of the supposedly great achievements of islamic civilization, the more one realizes how limited in time and scope they were, and how trivial -- compared to what was achieved in the Western world, or indeed in China or even in pre-Columbian America. In fact, if one takes away the role of non-Muslims whose fructifying presence pertains only to the first few hundred years after the initial Muslim conquest -- i.e., in the case of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, from about 750 to 1150 A.D. -- one realizes that the disappearance of those Christians and Jews as a major element corresponds to the otherwise inexplicable collapse of "Islamic" science, and there never was much art outside calligraphy and mosques built using the Byzantine squinch and often, Byzantine craftsmen as well (the Dome of the Rock is an entirely Byzantine structure, with non-Islamic though Arabic inscriptions -- it actually has nothing to do with Islam, save that it was after the fact used as part of the physical claim by Muslims to the Temple Mount, to Jerusalem, to the Holy Land of Jews and Christians).

I used to take Palazzi seriously. One wishes, after all, as one first encounters Islam, to seek out, to desperately cling to, the signs that Musims can be reasonable, can be sensible. Alas, one keeps coming up short -- and finally concludes, in melancholy fashion, that only the real defectors from Islam are, in the end, to be fully trusted not to exhibit, along the way, an astonishing relapse into dishonest defensiveness about Islam. Palazzi may have many virtues; the ability to allow no-holds-barred critcism of Islam and of Muslims prompted by its tenets is not one of them. Relatively he is to be applauded; absolutely he is to be, alas, treated with great reservations. In this respect he is one more example (think of the self-promoting Kamil or the self-deluding -- about reformation of Islam -- Mustafa Akyol, or the self-promoting and self-deluding Khaleel Muhamamd, or that comical convert who suffers from the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome and expresses his literary longings in excruciating prose, and about whom the less said, the better.

Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2005 2:06 PM

f.g. : "There is no legitimate reason why anyone should mask their face in public."

King: Look, I think the exact same way but if someone feels a religious reason to do it let them!

f.g. : "The practice of making women hide themselves completely in public is based in paranoia over what men might do if they actually saw a women in public. What utter trash!"

King: Your opinion entirely. If you feel this way then do not become a Muslim.

f.g. : "they are veiled to show the shame of the Muslim male's lack of self control. Which I might add, is pretty telling about a lack of effectiveness in Islam in instilling decent behaviour in men."

King: I rather agree with your observation that the super-conservative dogma that some extremists subscribe to, vis-a-vis covering of women creates what amounts to "boy-ish" behaviors in men. Again, this is not for me or you to decide.

Posted by: KingTolerance at June 7, 2005 2:06 PM

King Appeaser [aka King Tolerance]:

Why do you defend Muslims breaking the law and getting special treatment in Italy by having their women cover their faces in public?

(Anyone care to place a bet that KT will not give me a simple, clear, unambiguous answer to my question, but will only say something cleverly snake-like that could (if I had the patience) in turn spark an endless series of questions/assertions-and-responses?)

Posted by: metaxy at June 7, 2005 2:43 PM

Thank Allah that in the USA, a person has the freedom of expression to write a book in which they say that Muslims are "multiplying like rats" without being arraigned for a "hate crime".

Posted by: metaxy at June 7, 2005 2:44 PM

Paolo:

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: johnb at June 7, 2005 2:51 PM

"Ms. Fallaci was already sued in European courts. In France she was absolved and in Switzerland she was found guilty."

Taken to court in Italy, France and Switzerland... wait a second, here. I thought only citizens of a specific country could be taken to court by that country. How is it that Ms. Fallaci can be sued by several different countries?

By logical extension, Robert Spencer could be sued by Belgium, or Germany, or Norway... no?

Posted by: metaxy at June 7, 2005 3:14 PM

Metaxy:
jurisdiction of any court is in general over acts committed in its territory. (In some cases, as with the Belgian laws on war crimes or the American laws against trading with Cuba, individual authorities have claimed jurisdiction beyond their territory; and there are crimes, such as piracy or smuggling, which are by their nature extra-territorial. But in general, the courts of a country only have jurisdiction over acts committed in that country.)

If, therefore, anyone publishes a book in a country, that is an act committed in that country's territory, and that book is subject to that country's laws. This is a principle of natural justice, whose reverse would mean that a book that advocated crime or the overthrow of a country's government by violence could escape condemnation because its author resides in a place where such things are not covered by the Penal Code. It also gives rise to interesting facts, such as that even American citizens prefer to sue for libel in British courts if it can be shown that the supposed libel has been published in Britain, since British laws on libel are much stricter, and British laws on free speech much looser, than the United States'.

Posted by: Paolo at June 7, 2005 3:30 PM

f.g. : "The practice of making women hide themselves completely in public is based in paranoia over what men might do if they actually saw a women in public. What utter trash!"

King: Your opinion entirely. If you feel this way then do not become a Muslim.

Well dang. I thought you were up on this stuff KT. It is not my opinion, it is common knowledge of an Islamic teaching. The covering is there just for the reason I said it is. Who are you trying to kid?

f.g.

Posted by: f.g. at June 7, 2005 4:13 PM

The comment above by Paolo strikes me as too strong. La Lega, il Carroccio, is lead by an unpleasant character named Umberto Bossi. But not everything the League supports is wrong, beginning with the Bossi-Fini bill. And Castelli, who is fixed in amber for us by the application of that Homeric epithet "right-wing" -- the same epithet that used to be applied, during the Lebanese Civil War, to the Maronites by Le Monde ("the right-wing Christians" was the fixed phrase, as Ionesco contemptuously pointed out in one interview), and it is now being used for Geert Wilders as it was used, previously, to describe Pim Fortuyn, whose politics were indistinguishable from most of the Dutch left except that he saw furthest, and first, the menace of Muslim migrants to the Dutch polity, and who was a relaxed libertine who could not remotely be described as "right-wing" though that is exactly the epithet that until recently was routinely applied. What made Pim Fortuny that terrible thing, "right-wing"? His opposition to Islam.

But what terms shall we use to describe Oriana Fallaci, helping partisans fight the Nazis in Florence at the age of 14, the descendant of a long line of anti-clerical Republicans, the people who placed, in every city in Italy, a Corso Cavour and a Piazza Matteotti? s she, too, "right-wing" -- or would we have to admit that the strongest and earliest Italian opponents of Islam in modern Italy (thus leaving aside Dante, and the Dominican friar Ricoldo da Montecroce, with his acute Confutatio Alchoran, written in the 1290s (and translated into German by Martin Luther -- by the way, if anyone with deep pockets is reading this, and wishes to buy as a birthday present for me the copy of Ricoldo da Montecroce still on sale at Quaritch's, I would be delighted to receive it) have been such people as Jacques Ellul, Pim Fortuyn, Bat Ye'or, Oriana Fallaci, and others, not one of whom could be described with that silly epithet "right-wing."

More on Italy, and on what's so tellingly wrong with this wilfully misleading little acount in Reuters, anon.

Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2005 4:48 PM

One mo' thing.

The law under which Fallaci is to be prosecuted is literally a fascist law, passed by a Fascist legislature during the Fascist Period, the infamous Ventennio. The law allows prosecution for a mere expression of opinion -- a reato d'opinione. And when the P.M. or magistrate in Bergamo reinstuted the suit against Fallaci by the sinister Adel Smith (the Muslim who tried to get the crucifix ripped down from every schoolhouse wall, and every public institution, in Italy -- which caused nearly everyone in Italy, including those who are of no religion whatsoever, to react with horror at this assault at this attempt on what is, for Italians, a cultural symbol -- something which I admit may be hard to take, or believe, for those of us raised up on the First Amendment but as that mid-60s song says -- "E la pura, sacrosancta verita."

Everyone in Italy, including people on the left who make a big show not of defending indefensible Islam, but of rushing to the defense of those who speak the truth about it -- people in La Margherita (the "Daisy" political coalition) and others in the "Olive Tree" and even some, though not I think Fausto Bertinotti himself, in the new-and-improved-because-refounded Communist group.

But you won't learn this from the idiotic reporter who supplied Reuters with this idiotic and viciously tendentious little report -- now would you?

A Fascist law is used to prosecute a truth-teller, and everyone of conceivable decency in Italy denounces the Bergamo pm's action, and the law itself. But you, dear reader of Reuters, would not learn any of this. You are being given a guide not to the reality of Italy today, but to nothing and nobody.

And Reuters is not alone. We are drowning in it -- not waving, but drowning.

Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2005 4:57 PM

Time for this to be posted here. Scroll down.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

"The practice of making women hide themselves completely in public is based in paranoia over what men might do if they actually saw a women in public. What utter trash!"

King: Your opinion entirely. If you feel this way then do not become a Muslim

Read the link, KT muslim

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 7, 2005 5:36 PM

"Again, this is not for me or you to decide."

It's for me to decide, if they want to impose their bullsh*t beliefs on western women.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 7, 2005 5:40 PM

Paolo,

Even granted your reasoning, it seems that the "act" involved with Oriana Fallaci's book with respect to a country of which she is NOT a citizen is not in her writing the words in a book, but in her publisher who is a citizen of said country publishing that book. I could understand that country taking an indigenous publisher of her book to court. I cannot see the sense of that country taking Mr. Fallaci herself to court.

By that senseless reasoning, any Muslim country could take anyone to court (or worse) whose writings that break Sharia law happen to be disseminated in any of those Muslim countries.

Posted by: metaxy at June 7, 2005 5:42 PM

Good points, Hugh. After I have heard and read countless apparently intelligent people dismiss Pim Fortuyn (and even Ayaan Hirsi Ali) as a "right wing fanatic", I now know that THAT particular label is not only worthless, but tends to disguise an intolerance for any reasonably serious criticisms of Islam.

Posted by: metaxy at June 7, 2005 10:26 PM

'This is not for you or me to decide'

Huh? It most certainly IS 'for me to decide'. Strange as it may seem, immigrants - even Muslim ones - should fit into the country they are living in, not vice versa. It is the prerogative of the host country to 'decide' on what is acceptable, it is not the prerogative of immigrants who have been in the country for 10 minutes and know nothing of its culture or history.

If you cant handle the culture in which you you are living, go home, where you will no doubt be more comfortable.

Veiled women make me both angry and uncomfortable. Angry because veiled women do not belong in Australia - Australian women fought for equality with males, for equal pay, the right to enter the professions, etc. Unconfortable because I simply dont feel that we should accept backward customs - not only accept them, but allow them to flourish.

Western countries have no obligation to accept either Islam or its bigotry.

Posted by: DianaC at June 7, 2005 11:55 PM

"This is not for me or you to decide." Posted by King Tolerance

I beg to differ! People who voluntarily immigrate to another country should be prepared to ASSIMILATE! They should abandon any peculiar cultural/religious eccentricities and attempt to blend into the new society. If they cannot do this, THEY SHOULD NOT IMMIGRATE.

Western women have fought long and hard for equal rights. I'm not a radical feminist by any means, but the sight of a woman in a hijab or abaya is repulsive to me. She might as well be wearing striped pajamas with numbers on her back and carrying a sign saying "I'm a free muslima, a proud supporter and member of the chain gang" on one side, and "Men respect me for my mind, not my body, not that I know any men outside my family", on the other side. Islamic garb looks ridiculous in America especially when worn by putative "Americans."

Multiculturalism sucks to the core; it is racist, divisive and just plain STUPID. I couldn't immigrate to an Islamic country without making some drastic adjustments to accomodate and respect THEIR CULTURE. They should do the same when they come to my country and if that's asking too much, they shouldn't come here. It's all about Islamic superiority, but you knew that, didn't you?

Posted by: Susanp at June 8, 2005 12:53 AM

King Tut Tut-

Italy wants to see the face in public for security reasons.

Comply, or return to religiously revolving in Mecca.

(If we could only put a treadmill around the Ka'aba, Iran wouldn't need any nuclear power- since their reactors could all be replaced by harnessed hadjis.)

A supernatural grist mill grinding exceedingly fine.

P.S. As an "American" (as you claim) you'll have to watch your lingo a tad -since "bollocks" is about as 'American' an expression as "in hospital" or "in future".

Posted by: BigSleep at June 8, 2005 1:44 AM

Hugh is correct over a number of things - including the universal distaste in Italy for "crimes of opinion" - but not about the League. It is worse, and not better, than I made it. This is a party that has methodically expelled every member who showed signs of a mind and an intellect. They are pure rabble. Their ministers are consistently the worst in a very undistinguished government coalition, making the Fascist and Christian Democrat allies shine by contrast; indeed, the Fascist and Christian Democrat groupings have come to form a genuine anti-League grouping, fighting to save the State and the honour of Italian institutions from Mr.Bossi and his followers.

Indeed, what set me off is Mr.Castelli's reaction, which is pure and typical League - if any law does not please us, we will change it, as if the laws of our Republic were putty to be everlastingly remoulded for the convenience of Mr.Bossi and Mr. Berlusconi. I agree that this is not a good law to have, of course; but a principle of citizenship and sound government is that laws are not changed for the mere convenience of the governing group - and the Bossi-Berlusconi gang seem to know no other reason to change them. It was simply a natural reaction for an Italian citizen: "Oh my God, there goes the bloody League up to their old tricks again."

We are all sick of the League. They are not and have never been a party fit to govern. If Berlusconi, an amateur politician, had had any sense at all, he would have left the innately trouble-making League out of his alliance; but he is by temperament closer to the League than to the older parties himself - a rabble-rouser, a windbag, with no understanding of or respect for institutions. As a result, the League's antics have disgusted many of his own supporters; he has lost all the recent local elections and is a lame duck waiting to be executed in the next national election.

(Interesting that messrs. Schroeder and Chirac should be in the same position, and that Mr.Blair should have been re-elected with a "majority" of about 25% of the total electorate. Are European electorates sick of their "representatives" for any reason, do you suppose? Eh? Eh?)

Posted by: Paolo at June 8, 2005 4:32 AM

Metaxy,
actually, I think that it was the publisher who was charged in both cases. "Oriana Fallaci charged" is journalistic shorthand that also makes for a catchier headline than "minor book publisher charged."

Posted by: Paolo at June 8, 2005 4:35 AM

Real modesty is a matter of deportment and demeanour rather than yards of cloth. I have seen a woman in full chadour groping her man, clinging to him and giving a graphic demonstration of the phrase "all over him like a rash" The fact that her face was hidden so that she had to stop short of the old tonsil sandwich didn't dampen her enthusiasim. Especially for that early in the morning.

If you cannot see a face, cannot see expression or a smile then that is not a modest person, that is not a person at all. I sat opposite such a woman yesterday. Facial recognition is implicit in our language. Such phrases as "Ashamed to show her face" "Don't you ever show your face in here again" Must attend a particular event and "show my face" "new face in town" "face the music", our contempt for "faceless bureaucrats" and the best of all in my opinion the blessing "...the Lord make his face to shine upon you" at Numbers 6:25

It would be a good disguise for any potential suicide bomber in a British city to wear western dress for the occasion to allay suspicion until she was in place. But one thing about the lack of human features is that it becomes easier to deal with that person, if self defence became necessary.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 8, 2005 4:47 AM

King: Look, I think the exact same way but if someone feels a religious reason to do it let them!

That would be the least of reasons to allow the practice of masking oneself in public. Please read the article, The burqa stripped bare by Karen Green who speaks from a position of authority on the hypocrisy and stupidity of the practice of women covering themselves in public.

Posted by: f.g. at June 8, 2005 10:53 AM

Paolo,

""Oriana Fallaci charged" is journalistic shorthand that also makes for a catchier headline than "minor book publisher charged." "

It would take only TWO extra words to have the headline read: "French Publisher of Oriana Fallaci's new book charged..."

Your explanation is silly.

Posted by: metaxy at June 8, 2005 7:28 PM