presumably if someone went in naked because that was their religion's uniform that would be seen as offensive by the 80% moslem school and not allowed on those grounds.

anyway - the wearing of that headscarf, let alone a john simpson outfit, always causes me offense and should be banned because it incites religious hatred.

why am i offended you may ask?

simple - women have to wear that crap to "protect" them from lustful men. It even says on ask imam.com that a raped women is partly to blame if she didn't wear the head scarf.

I don't get much more offended than by being told that I am a rapist unable to control myself when I see a woman.

In fact I am so offended I might just have to burn some flags and blow up some civilians. ha ha.

Actually, i'm a moderate non-moslem and expect that that kind of dress will be banned in my society where women are meant to be respected.

Posted by: exposesithlords at February 8, 2006 1:21 PM

What's especially fascinating about this is that later in the article, it is revealed that the dispute was not about modesty, but about bigotry:

Mr McManus said that, to try to accommodate all faiths, the school had adopted the shalwar kameez, a sleeveless, smock-like dress worn with tapered trousers and a sweater or shirt to cover the arms. This was worn by Hindus and Sikhs as well as Muslims. A headscarf could also be worn by Muslim girls. "An important attraction for the school was that the kameez was worn by different faith groups and it hoped that would minimise the differences between them," Mr McManus said.

"Unfortunately, the reason for its appeal to the school is the same as one of the objections raised by Miss Begum's advisers, in that it is a dress worn by non-believers and not suitable for that reason."

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 8, 2006 1:29 PM

Ah yes, Cherie Blair, that champion of "human rights" and wife to the PM, rushing to defend -- at the taxpayer's expense -- a downtrodden but valiant Muslim child standing tall against the oppressive demand to dress like the kafirs.

And yesterday, for inciting mass murder, Abu Hamza receives a seven-year sentence, of which most British prisoners serve only half their term and as he has already been in prison for 18 months, will likely serve only another 2 years before being released. And during those 2 years, he will be provided 3 square meals a day (specially prepared to be halal), allowed to worship in a $3 million prison mosque, and fitted with a new hook -- all courtesy of the British taxpayer. At the same time, his wife and 8 children will continue to live comfortably in their taxpayer-funded $500,000 home and receive $1,800/week in benefits.

But politically-correct Britons will pat themselves on the back that they live in a great society with true "social justice".

Posted by: Charles Martel at February 8, 2006 1:31 PM

"When in Rome do as the Romans Do."

Islam demands acceptance while accepting nothing.  Islam demands tolerance while giving none.  This is their typical behavior once their population starts to get near a majority. Fear for your life once they get into political office......then you will really see how tolerant they are.

Posted by: rumoret at February 8, 2006 1:41 PM

Wasn't this a girls school? Is there a requirement to wear that even though there are no men or boys around?

It sounds like she was trying to show she was different. For sure.

Posted by: Borg at February 8, 2006 1:55 PM

WHY THE HELL IS THE PRIME MINISTERS WIFE SUPPORTING THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HIJAB INTO THE BRITISH EDUCATION SYSTEM?

does she not have a clue or has she lost her marbles?

school uniforms are there for a reason - discipline, and non-discrimination. and there is the prime ministers wive doing her level best to introduce utter chaos into the british education system.

if this case is won, mark my words , you'll have the burkha in the british school system.

Your 10 year old will have to put up with the intimidation and fear of other girls dressed as "terrorists".

( lets face it - kids aren't nuanced - a black hijab = muslims = bin laden= terrorism)

Posted by: archduke at February 8, 2006 1:56 PM

Even Cherie Blair's own daughter thinks she is wrong to argue this case as she does.
I believe that she is embittered by not rising as far in the judiciary as she wanted/expected/anticipated. But I could just be a cynic.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 8, 2006 2:09 PM

Granny, it is Cherie's daughter's generation that will be most affected by such decisions. I hope the law lords see sense on this one.

This case is also significant in that it demonstrates the increasing Arabisation of Islam. The following paragraph, from the Telegraph article, is significant:

Mr McManus said that, to try to accommodate all faiths, the school had adopted the shalwar kameez, a sleeveless, smock-like dress worn with tapered trousers and a sweater or shirt to cover the arms. This was worn by Hindus and Sikhs as well as Muslims. A headscarf could also be worn by Muslim girls. "An important attraction for the school was that the kameez was worn by different faith groups and it hoped that would minimise the differences between them," Mr McManus said.

When this dozy bint, or the brothers/Hizb ut Tahrir members who are pulling her strings, talk about "unbelievers" they mean Hindus, who, apart from the headscarf, wear the same clothes as Muslims.

Most Muslims in Britain are from the Indian sub continent, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. This girl is from Bangladesh. The shalwar kameez is a traditional dress worn by Hindus and Muslims alike in these countries. The jilbab, on the other hand, is Arab. Basically, this girl doesn't want to look like a Hindu.

When I was growing up in Lancashire, Muslim girls dressed, if not in Western clothes, in the colourful shalwar kameez. Increasingly now, they are wearing black sacks with slits. Not good.

Posted by: Interested at February 8, 2006 2:25 PM

Granny:

From what I recall reading about Cherie Booth-Blair's taste in clothing, perhaps she's longing for a jilbab herself.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 8, 2006 2:27 PM

Charles Martel:

It gets worse - the Brits have to pay a nurse about $60,000 per year to wipe his arse.

"TERROR suspect Abu Hamza has been given new hooks on the NHS - and a £30,000-a-year nurse to wipe his backside in jail."

"He is unable to clean himself as he could do himself an injury. So prison officials have hired a male nurse named Harry to perform the task."

"A prison source said: "He's known as 'Dirty Harry'. This guy has got one of the worst jobs in the world. His main reason for being there is to clean Hamza's backside. Everyone's having a laugh about it. But Hamza can't be left unclean. It would be a health hazard."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14385572&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=hamza-gets--30-000-nurse---to-wipe-his-bum-name_page.html

FWIW - in most cases I don't give a damn what dress people wear to confrom to their beliefs. I'm not offended by an Amish woman's bonnet but as Shinolite stated, this isn't about dress codes, it's a pissing match between Islam and the rest of us. The rest of us includes Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc.

Posted by: johnb at February 8, 2006 2:31 PM

He's known as 'Dirty Harry'. This guy has got one of the worst jobs in the world. His main reason for being there is to clean Hamza's backside.

He might screw up and go for his face instead. Easy mistake to make.

Posted by: Interested at February 8, 2006 2:34 PM

Belmarsh -the jail run by Al Qaeda

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16643308&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive—the-jail-run-by-al-qaeda-name_page.html

Posted by: archduke at February 8, 2006 2:47 PM

from the belmarsh link above:

"We can't even tape the service and get it translated because it is against Human Rights. It's frightening."

Posted by: archduke at February 8, 2006 2:50 PM

We are talking about a 17 year old, right? i.e. in the 12th grade? In India, most girls wear western clothes to school, few wears salwar kameez (e.g. in government schools w/o uniforms). That is only worn once they are adults - as kids, they either wear skirts, or pants/shirts. If they are in colleges that don't have school uniforms, then it's either western clothes or salwar/kameez.

One simple question : in a school, why is this even a choice? And I'm no longer talking about just Muslims - why should anyone have the option of wearing a salwar kameez? If someone was from Papua New Guinea or a NZ Maori, would you allow grass skirts? If a school has an uniform, simply enforce it across the board. If it doesn't, that's not even an issue. What's next - saris on campus?

In India, you have women trying to be more western, and in Britain? Sheesh!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 8, 2006 3:27 PM

The old example of zeugma or was it syllepsis was the line from Pope about "Thou, Great Anna" who "doth sometimes counsel take, and sometimes tea." Perhaps one should now retain the controlling verb, but change the subject to Cherie -- and the last one hopes of Cherie --Blair, who "first took silk, and then leave of her senses."

Posted by: Hugh at February 8, 2006 4:04 PM

What's next - saris on campus?
Very rare to see a sari around London these days, unless it's a wedding. The only person I can think off who still wears one is my GP, and I saw her yesterday for the first time in two years. Which is what reminded me of the lack of saris.
My Hindu colleagues wear western office dress. When the banks brought uniforms in 20 years ago they did include a corporate sari (I remember Midland Bank was navy chiffon with the funny round logo in gold, yuk) but they didn't catch on. What you see now is either, as Interested says black sacks with slits or, which is quite bizaare, the shalwar kameeze in a pretty fabric, but instead of the gauzy scarf my schol friends wore, it is topped with a grim black hijab.

I like black, but preferably velvet,silk or leather. I visited the street market near where I spent the later part of my childhood last year. I wandered into the fabric shop where I bought most of what became my teen wardrobe, pleased that it was still a fabric shop. Until I was greeted with silence, because I obviously didn't want black, black or black for a burka.

Cherie Blair is an insecure woman, probably due to her childhood, which has made her greedy and a frustrated one for reasons I have already given.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 8, 2006 4:15 PM

Interested,
Thanks for the commentary about the shalwar kameez and the jiljab. I would never have known what the distinction was for not wanted to wear the shalwar kameez. Now it makes sense to me. At the bottom of the original article in the Telegraph it mentions her brother was not prepared to let her attend school unless she wore the jilbab. I am surprised that he let her attend at all. Education of females seems to have little importance in the Islamic world. Better that they live in a sack and stay pregnant.

Posted by: Caratacus at February 8, 2006 4:18 PM

Granny:

Any of my frieds would tell you that I am very well disposed toward wearing black myself, but not to the extent of wearing a drape over my head with only a slit for my eyes so I can see where I'm walking. That it's really all about male control became stunningly clear to me one very hot summer day in downtown Toronto (about 38 C!) where I espied a Muslim male walking with his two children. He himself wore white cotton clothing and a kulfi on his head, with an embroidered vest over his shirt. His little boy -- about 4 years old I would say -- was wearing a pair of shorts and short sleeved shirt, but the daughter, who I took to be 11 or 12 by her height and slight build was clad from head to toe in black, her face concealed but for her eyes. I guess it was her summer outfit because her dress came to midcalf and not to her ankles.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 8, 2006 4:25 PM

Hmm... grasskirts, hehehe -- they will be popular.

Then again, say I claim I'm a Pastafarian, do I get to go to school in a pirate uniform?

And now the UK muslims want yet another blasphemy law, as to be one par with Sikhs and Jews.

I agree, but only if atheists also get their version, which will make it 'blasphemy' to claim that there is a, or more deities ;)

Posted by: Imli at February 8, 2006 4:28 PM

Education of females seems to have little importance in the Islamic world.

It has been said elsewhere that this girl's ambition is to study law. Hook Hamza's solicitor is a woman, Muddassar Arani of Arani and Co. Sister Muddassar is said (by those who use her) to be the best Muslim human rights lawyer in the business.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 8, 2006 4:28 PM

At that time, nearly 80 per cent of the school's pupils were Muslim.

Posted by: Beagle at February 8, 2006 4:29 PM

Waterdragon
As she was that young let us hope she was his daughter.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 8, 2006 4:31 PM

ROBERT!!!!

the most crucial bit is in the last paragraph

"When Mr Moore telephoned Miss Begum's home, her BROTHER told him that HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO LET HER ATTEND SCHOOL unless she wore the jilbab, said Mr McManus."

Remember, according to the barrister, the girl attended school for 2 years without complaint and then suddenly - out of the blue - turned up in a hijab.

Posted by: archduke at February 8, 2006 4:49 PM

After the Denmark incidence,Western countries should take a tough stand with these people. What ever we do in the name of equality,and justice,is taken for granted.Not long ago,one Muslim policeman refused to wear an uniform,as it contained a cross in the monograme. But,the Uk government exempted him to wear that cap,which contained a British crown with a cross.But will that cop be greatful to the British? Never!- He will consider it as a victory over'infedals'.His community will be plesed with him. Similarly,this girl,who refused to wear the school uniform will be considered as a heroin amoung Muslims. The Muslim owned shops in Canada,and in muslim countries are boycotting the products of Danish,and other countries,which took part in that cartoon publishing . We in the west,should also counter boycot all the businesses of Muslims in our countries. From the Curry shops of Bangladeshies,to the corner shops of Pakies.in Uk,and un Canada and Europe. That will teach them a lession..

Posted by: rafia at February 8, 2006 5:20 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, the class of civilizations is inevitable! We are living in interesting times.

Posted by: US_infidel at February 8, 2006 5:28 PM

l have a word of advice for "Dirty Harry", use a hose to clean the dirty little imman! you stand him near some where outside like a horse or camel ifyour arab, and turn on the hose. that should clean his you know whats! lo.l

Posted by: Lulu at February 8, 2006 5:31 PM

Why do they need "Dirty Harry" to wipe this clowns arse for sixty grand a year?
Havent the authorities heard of a bidet?(sp)

Posted by: Buddy at February 8, 2006 8:17 PM

What's a bidet?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 8, 2006 8:50 PM

A bidet is a toilet or separate seat that has a jet of water that sprays your anus or vagina to clean it.

In the case of captain hook, all he need do then is sit on a towel to absorb any remaining water.

Posted by: Buddy at February 8, 2006 9:08 PM

What's a bidet?

An English bride, on honeymoon with her French husband, saw one for the first time in the ensuite bathroom of their hotel room, and asked, "What is that? Is it to wash babies in?"

"Au contraire", said her husband, "It is to wash babies out."

Posted by: Interested at February 8, 2006 9:30 PM

I lost all respect for Cherie Blair after she defended this woman's right to wear the potato sack to school against the advise of the Principal of this school. In any case, most of the women who were muslims in this school, are already wearing what is termed a Muslim dress (a tunic and trousers with a scarf), so what more does this woman want to conceal?
Its not her, its the radical muslims pushinig the buttons from behind to see how far they could push their agenda in the UK
Briatin is too dimmified by people like Mrs. Blair. I have not respect for her whatsoever.

Posted by: faqi at February 8, 2006 9:38 PM

Didn't Georges Bidet collaborate with PDQ Bach? ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 8, 2006 10:14 PM

Does Abu Hamza have only one hook, or are both of his hands gone with hooks in their place? I ask because of the story about his need for a male nurse to wipe his rear end: I'm wondering if it is his left arm that has a hook, and if he is perfectly capable of wiping his own rear end with his (uninjured) right hand, but will not do so because of the pathological hygiene of his Islamic tenets. This would make the government dole even more outrageous.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 8, 2006 11:36 PM

I wondered about that as well, Dr. Pepper, but it turns out he's sporting dual hooks.

This article, also posted above, describes how he was fitted with special hooks in prison-- ones that couldn't be used as easily as weapons:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14385572&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=hamza-gets--30-000-nurse---to-wipe-his-bum-name_page.html

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 9, 2006 12:01 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, the class of civilizations is inevitable! We are living in interesting times. Posted by: US_infidel

Glad to get the chance to question this, US_infidel. Nothing about you, but we've heard about this clash of civilizations several times. But for that to happen, both sides of the clash have to be civilizations.

Anybody willing to make the case that Islam is a civilization? Is this one more of those oxy-morons like jumbo-shrimp, pretty ugly, head butt (talking of Hamza), industrial park, et al?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 9, 2006 1:33 AM

Cherie Blair is well known as a hypocrite. When she came to Australia, supposedly for 'charity' (while reaping thousands of dollars for her 'talks') she and her equally greedy children grabbed so many freebies at one event that she had to be publically embarrassed into returning most of the things taken.

Why would anyone expect somebody like her to be loyal to Britain and stand up for British interests.

The burkha was invented for traitorous dhimmis like Cherie Blair.

Posted by: Deecha at February 9, 2006 1:47 AM

I'm with Indifel Pride on this.... The schools putting in Salwar Kameez's as uniforms to appease Muslim sensitivities. Even in urban India thesedays, young girls rarely wear salwar kameez whilst in Britain you'd only come across an odd granny wearing a sari!

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at February 9, 2006 4:20 AM

Well in India one Muslim girl has been excommunicated by her community for practising a Hindu dance form!

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060213&fname=Rubiya&sid=1

I sent in this link to Robert for inclusion, but i think he didnt notice it.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at February 9, 2006 4:21 AM

'He's known as 'Dirty Harry'. This guy has got one of the worst jobs in the world. His main reason for being there is to clean Hamza's backside.'

Actually there are promotion prospects. I am told that after six months Harry will be issued with HMS prison toilet paper and brush

(With apologies to Monty python)

Posted by: chevalier de st george at February 9, 2006 4:28 AM

Abu Hamza lost both his arms and one eye when a bomb he was preparing went off in Afghanistan in the 1980's. He then came back to Britain in 1993 for medical treatment and the hooks; but lied to the British that he lost his hands and one of his eyes during a demining project. After that he went to Bosnia 1n 1995 to help the Bosnain Muslims, with him went many UK Jihadis. He came back and took control of the Finsbury Park Mosque in 1997.
He has never worked, but lived off of benefits in the UK. He fathered 9 children in all, one by his first wife and 8 by his present wife who receives free housing and about $2000 per week in benefits.

Posted by: faqi at February 9, 2006 4:40 AM

faqi! she gets £2000 in benifits which is $4000!

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at February 9, 2006 4:46 AM

Vikrant

Thanks for the link

From the article you cited

Young Rubiya, though, shows a steadfast resolve. The obvious question is over her views on religion and dance. She reasons that "God is one. When I pay obeisance through mudras, I’m imploring not just the Hindu Bhagvan but the supreme creator. It just happens that we call him by different names." K.P. Raihemath, the teacher who takes her to competitions, says there’s nothing un-Islamic in Bharatanatyam. "If she were my own daughter, I would still want her to dance."

Technically, Rubiya is an infidel. In India, it is often that secular minded people take the above approach to a common god via multiple religions (although I question the wisdom of including Islam as one of them). However, anybody who thinks that one can get to Allah via mudras is lost - after all, Mr Md PBUH is totally bypassed in this exercise. Plus the rules are that if something is not mentioned in the Quran, the default is that it is un-islamic, not Islamic. Therefore, since Bharatnatyam is not mentioned in the Quran (any of you Quran citing guys know that it is?), it is un-Islamic.

That said, I'm glad that Rubiya's family is backing her, and not groveling before the mullahs/mahallus. If the lovely secular Mohammedan community in Kerela is not willing to accept her, she & her should consider switching. Or her other option, since she'll be denied the nikkah, is to marry, whenever she marries, a Hindu by Hindu rites, and practice her art freely. No need for her to belong to the Arab centric cult, when there is nothing Arabic about her or her family. And move out of there if the neighbors/community is a threat. And her family won't even need the graveyard space.

Wish Sania Mirza's parents had the same attitude. After all, they both are Indians, and have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. If the clerics in their "religion" treat them like dirt, then why stay there?

Also, from the article
But she and her family are treated as outcasts by the mahallu leaders. Membership of the mahallu is a basic right of Muslim families, entitling them to space in the graveyard and during the solemnisation of nikaahs. Besides, the head of the family has a vote in electing the mahallu committees. The mahallu endorsement is required for receiving various forms of assistance. Without these, one is a virtual pariah.

This from the community that gleefully lecutures us during its tu quoque sessions about the caste system. Granted that the caste system was/is retarded, but look who's talking.

Granny et al

If you go to Vikrant's link above, you'll see this "Muslim" girl decked in a sari. Unlike Mrs Blair's client, she has no qualms about looking like a Hindu (and it seems, from her actions, even acting as one.) Right country, wrong "faith".

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 9, 2006 5:21 AM

"in Britain you'd only come across an odd granny wearing a sari!"
I did mention my GP above, she is a grandmother, and she is a bit odd. So I think you are probably right Vikrant.

35 years ago, when I was at school it was not uncommon for Muslim girls to wear a sari on those occassions like prizegiving when smart non uniform was required. These were mostly East African Asians. After the Bangladesh floods of 1971 they organised a fund raising concert and fashion show for the victims. Several Moslem girls (of Pakistani origin) danced as well as the Hindu girls. One girl I know was definitely Muslim had won prizes for her prowess in traditional dance. There was a demonstration of sari draping on some English girl models, and other garments in beautiful fabric were shown off, as were bangles, bindis and those hand ornaments where the rings and bangle are linked by a back plate. I have not seen one of them for donkey's years.
There was not a black cloak, face veil, hood or shroud in sight.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 9, 2006 5:44 AM

Though in the West only grannies are wearing sarees, and the younger generations of Indians avoiding it(for obvious reasons,such as to asimilate with the main stream friends, the very cold weather, and one cannot run fast,or play any out door games,like tennies or cycling with a saree arround ). But, the saree is one of the most elegant,graceful,and colurful dress(if only you know how to tie it in a correct way).It is a modest dress,covering the most vital parats of a lady,and at the same time,give a chistled, visual beauty.
Muslims actually" borowed" these Indian Hindu sarees,as well as the Salwar kameez,traditionally worne by the Sikh people of Punjab. It is also known as 'Punjabi dress'. The Pakisthanis borrowed the 'salwar kameez.while the Bangla Desis borrowed the saries. In both of these countries,ladies were originally from the Hindu backgound.They were reluctant to use the traditional Islamic black'Burkha'brought by the Muslim conqurers,as the Hindus associate black with ill-omen. So the Muslims in the West now wrongly advertise it as a'Muslim Dress" ,which is far from truth.
Regarding the Muslim dancer,it is cutomary for these Muslim Mullas to find fault with any female muslims becoming famous,instead of sitting at home,pressing the legs of their husbands.These Mullas want all the Muslims to live in the seventh centry,and anyone comes out of it will be labelled as 'khafir','enemy of Islam-eligible for 'fathwa' and killing.

Posted by: rafia at February 9, 2006 10:40 AM

Vikrant_Camberleykar, and Infidel Pride,

Yes this beautiful and talented young woman is an infidel, and Rubiya should be supported and protected in her freedom of expression. This should be a clear sign to her family that it is past time to honour their anscestors and return to Hinduism or any faith other than Islam.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 9, 2006 11:12 AM

Translation from Paris: the ISLAMISATION OF FRANCE

Trappes, 35 km of Paris: an islamist city

Seen on television last month:
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/islam/video/34176
I decided to give you the link to this impressive video about Trappes, a little town not far from Paris. I hope those of you who understand French will watch it. For the others, I decided to translate the main moments of the video as it really shows how a country gets islamised. A lot of French people have seen it.

First, the journalist tries to film a Muslim prayer in Trappes. People warn him: “if you stay here you will have big problems”. He cannot attend the end of the prayer and he has to leave. Later, a guy in the street threatens him: “What, you want to film what, you want to film the Brothers ? Go away ” etc.

A guy explains to the journalist: “In 20 years, everything has changed here. One cannot buy alcohol anymore. One cannot buy pork. Almost all the whites have left. Amost all the women are veiled. It is a pity because diversity has disappeared”.

The journalist goes to a Muslim book shop... the book seller is a Catholic convert, a radical Muslim (wearing a beard etc.). He only sells religious books about Islam, and he also sells veils for the women. He does not answer when he is asked about lapidation. He says: “it is a complex issue and one would need more time to discuss it”.

Another guy explains he is a theater professor. He tries to give theater lessons to the youth of Trappes. He says: “There are less and less girls attending my improvisation and theater courses... sometimes I meet a girl I know in the street, who used to attend my theater courses, I can hardly recognise her: she wears a veil, she acts strangely and does not talk to me. I can’t believe how they changed, it makes me feel uncomfortable”.

A veiled girl says, very moved: “When I pray, I feel like I am soaring... I am facing God. It is as if I was under drugs, I cannot explain it”.

Then the journalist meets a group of Rap, one of the only ones which is male and female, and some singers are non Muslim. He asks the youth what they think about the veil, but the girls, even the non Muslim, are embarrassed and don’t seem to want to answer. Only the guys talk. But then the journalist asks the girls what they think about it. A non Muslim girl says “I am against the veil, but I don’t want to talk about it”. Another girl says: “I don’t wear a skirt here in Trappes, because in the street the guys would call me a whore. But outside Trappes, I like wearing a skirt”.

The journalist finally finds a laic place, it is a high school. There the girls are free to talk: “20 years ago, women were respected here. Now, there is no respect towards women, they are called WHORES by the men in the street”. Another girl: “the French State must do something... they know it happens, it is visible enough no ? “ Another girl: “When the girls wear trousers, they are more respected than if they wear skirts, but they are still inferior to the men”. “Men think we are sexual objects, and cooks”. A blond girl makes fun of the men saying “all they want is a hole” and all the girls laugh.

Then the journalist films the preparation for the big demonstration against the Law against the veil (it had been a big controversy in France). The guys organise everything and tell the women what they must do. There are two buses to go to Paris (for the demonstration), one for men, one for women. A man climbs into the women’s bus and says to them: “do not talk to any journalist during the demonstration”.

But during the demonstration (in Paris), a veiled woman tells the journalist: “wearing a veil is not always easy, because when you have the veil, you cannot go out on evening anymore”.

Back to the high school. A philosophy teacher (white, non Muslim woman) says: “I had never had problems before but now, some pupils question my teachings in the name of Islam. Islam is superior to everything, it has the answer for everything. It is superior to Science. They say the Big Bang is explained in the Coran. I had some parents coming to the school to contest my teaching in the name of Islam. I was sued by the Muslim association of Trappes for “racial hatred” (NB: the journalist does not say who won).

The journalist films an anti Israel demonstration in Trappes.

The journalist then visits some mothers, first generation of immigrants, who cannot speak French (they speak Arabic). They explain that they are against the veil “because we want our daughters to find a job and with the veil it is not easy”. A white woman says “it is the fault of the successive French goverments because they have put all the Muslims together and hence they speak Arabic between them and have no chance to integrate, and now the radicals are here. It is ridiculous, some women are not even veiled in their coutnry and when they arrive here, after a few months they wear a veil”.

The daughters explain (in French): “We are more educated than our mothers, hence we are more religious because we understand Islam better”. One of them says: “They keep asking us to “integrate”... but they must stop now, they must understand that a Frenchwoman does not necessarily drink beer or eat pork... WE DO NOT WANT TO INTEGRATE. France is also Islamic”.

Some Muslims, in Trappes, disagree, it is the black community (from West Africa). A black guy explains: “We have been rejected by the Arab Muslim community. The Arab Muslims have become too political. We do not want that. We are for a tolerant Islam. We respect the laws of France. We African Blacks are not Arab, and we will never be Arab”. And also: “Now I hear some kids saying that Coca Cola is the drink of Satan...”

Back to the Catholic convert (the book seller): “Islam is for everybody... we just have to wait. Islam is a giant which will conquer everything. Everybody will be touched, the Europeans, the Americans, men and women, the lawyers and the workers, everybody”.

Dhimmi part: about the mayor of Trappes, a socialist. A guy explains that “the mayor of Trappes has given his soul for a mosquee”. He explains that the mayor promised the radicals to give them money for a mosquee and for a religious (coranic) school if they voted for him, which they did. The journalist visits the mayor of Trappes who says he will not comment about that.

Laic resistance in Trappes: some teachers have organised a conference about “women and laicity”. The radical Muslims are attending but they do not speak. A woman says “Islam has to renounce some of its principles to be integrated in Europe”. A veiled girl takes the micro: “Who are you to tell us what we must do, you so called laic people...” etc.

That’s all ! Sorry for my imperfect English... I felt I had to translate this video because it might be our future... I will post in on several threads.... (maybe Mr Spencer will argue with me but I take the risk, as long as he does not lapidate me, but I don’t think lapidation is part of his traditions).

Posted by: joiesauvage at February 9, 2006 7:41 PM

joiesauvage,

Where is the honor of French men? If one of these Muslim animals calls their sister or girlfriend a whore, then the muslim should be taught a lesson, even violently.

I don't know if France has trial by jury like in the US where a unanimous descision is needed to convict, but if it does, then Jury members should simply refuse to convict anyone who fights back against these Muslim creeps.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 10, 2006 12:07 PM

Also, If these Muslim creeps call European women "whores" then all Europeans should start calling every woman or girl in hijab a "whore" or "slave" as in "You must be one of those whores of Islam who lets your male pimps even control how you dress" or "look at the Muslim whores who are sold by them pimp father's that are so ashamed of them they have to cover them up. What a little slave to men you are!"

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 10, 2006 12:11 PM

Re: My immediate post above....

I'm not advocating lethal violence, but a woman has the right to slap a man who offends her honour and her boyfriend or relatives have the same right.

Posted by: Provoslavni at February 10, 2006 1:57 PM