Let's make stick-on burkhas for all the old passports and sell them on-line.

We'll be rich!!!!1

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 15, 2006 6:06 PM

What makes the Passport Office people think the Edwards' want to visit muslim countries?

Posted by: 3812Michelle at August 15, 2006 6:06 PM

That's outrageous! However given the Prophet's (PBUH)known proclivity for very young girls....

Posted by: MP at August 15, 2006 6:09 PM

It beats getting flogged for indescent exposure.

Posted by: baraka66 at August 15, 2006 6:15 PM

Absurd. What about Western sensibilities that are offended by the blatant lies and mistakes in the koran? The murder of innocent, unarmed civilians? The terror that is islam? When the Hell are they going to do something about that?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 15, 2006 6:18 PM

Is France an Islamic country already? I mean, I know they're infested over there, but is Shari'ah already implemented?

This is going to make a great addition to my collection of "Stupid Muslim tricks."

Posted by: DCWatson at August 15, 2006 6:20 PM

Shame on you, MP! Aisha was a full year older than Hannah when Mohammed (Pedophile Be Uswa Hasana) married her. Well, maybe not a full year, I guess we don't really know. Which calendar did they use?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 15, 2006 6:20 PM

Since it is the desire of Islam that all submit, I would say this just that, submission. What next female’s hair in passport photos must be “covered” lest we offend Islam showing a woman’s hair with no head covering?

Posted by: bondservant at August 15, 2006 6:22 PM

I think what they are really afraid of is that muslim men won't be able to control their sexual urges if they see a picture of a child partly dressed like that.
Remember, Mohammed married Aiesha when she was six and consummated the union (waited to rape her) until she was the ripe old age of nine......
On the bright side, in muslim countries they only need one generic passport photo for all the women because they all look alike in a black burkah.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 15, 2006 6:25 PM

I am highly offended by driver license pictures of mo's that only show a pair of eyes. Perhaps it is the same on passports from mo countries?

I expect to see an al jizeera lead story on rejection of mo passport photos for fear of offending kafirs.

Now, I'll go hold my breath.

Posted by: perpster at August 15, 2006 6:35 PM

I posted this the other day on Fark in response to a thread about this poor girl's passport photo. Thought that you all'd get a kick out of it...

---------------------------

Years ago I used to work in Minneapolis in the security department for a large bank. It was my job to photograph people for their company IDs. I'd never met a muslim before that job and soon one showed up for a company ID complete with a head scarf (hijab?). Anyway, our policy was that people couldn't wear anything on their head when taking their ID picture. Not realizing the significance of the scarf, I asked her to remove it. She didn't want to, but eventually took it off herself . Later, my boss asked me about it because she complained that I had forcibly grabbed it and "ripped" it off her head.

/Never trusted Muslims since.
/And yes, she did get a picture with her scarf and we had to delete the old one.

Posted by: redshirt at August 15, 2006 6:41 PM

Muslims are offended 24/7 anyway.

Posted by: freewoman at August 15, 2006 6:45 PM

I wonder about the religious identity of the clerk at the Passport Office. I wouldn't put it past a clerk with a Muslim agenda to impose sharia in their corner of some government office. Imagine the reverse; a little girl was forced to remove a hijab for the photo. Emflamed Muslims would be in the streets, shouting 'Death to the Passport Office.'

Posted by: Mary Rose at August 15, 2006 6:57 PM

Wow--the picture of this little girl in a sundress is really making me hot--wait, no it's not.

Sick bastards.

Posted by: gravenimage at August 15, 2006 7:48 PM

We are talking about guys who find the batting eyes of an untethered goat seductive.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 15, 2006 8:22 PM

redshirt wrote" "And yes, she did get a picture with her scarf and we had to delete the old one."

That was a mistake. You should have printed the first photo and plastered it in public places all around the bank.

Likewise, the Edwards should raise holy hell about this and demanded the government official show them a copy of any official regulation forbidding a small child's shoulders from being visible in a passport photo. If the official could not produce one (which he can't) then they should insist the passport be issued or threaten legal action.

Should all this fail, then simply announce loudly, that they will clip the "offending" photo to the front of the girl's passport and hope that they offend Muslims.

Posted by: Provoslavni at August 15, 2006 8:31 PM

Why would Moslems be offended? After all, they worship the Sunnah which has the 50-yr old Mohammed thighing himself to orgasm all over his lovely bride the 6 yr old Aisha. The white girl in the photo above is almost old enough for Moslem Masturbation, is she not?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at August 15, 2006 9:19 PM

Their basically admitting the first impression these assholes will have of that picture is one of perversion. As one poster noted above,who says they will be visiting islamic countries? Regardless, of any country, it is the job of the passport control to stamp the document,not provide a critique of the quality of the photos. Just further evidence these people have no self control whatsoever. What's next? Drivers licenses, library cards? And look out grocery store owners and clerks- we now know how the perps feel about "suggestive" arrangements of produce.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at August 15, 2006 10:01 PM

I don't know which is the most offensive, that photo of bare shoulders or not diapering your goats or arranging your vegetables provocatively:

"Listen to this NPR report and learn how shepherds are being killed when they don't diaper their goats (clerics think people will be turned on otherwise) - apparently this sort of punishment happens regularly in Nazaria, a suburb of western Baghdad. Are you a grocer who arranges your vegetables in a way that some mullah might find suggestive? You get the death penalty too, or at least your store will be firebombed. Shiite clerics wrote up a flyer telling you how to display your food and, if you don't obey, it's two in the hat!

http://agitprop.typepad.com/agitprop/2006/08/that_old_time_r.html

Posted by: Silvester at August 15, 2006 10:07 PM

This, folks, sums it ALL up. This is why Islam is taking over the West. This right here.

Posted by: Matt at August 15, 2006 10:13 PM

Bare shoulders. This is offensive in some muslim countries.

he..hehe..hehehe..heHA..HAHA..HAHAHAHA..HAHAHAHAHA..
BWAAAAHAHAHA...BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-wipes away tears-

And we are supposed to take these people seriously, we are to try and find a moral and ethical common ground to understand these folks? Seriously?

Its like trying to find common understanding between a caveman and an astronaut; the gulf that separates them is simply too wide.

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at August 15, 2006 10:21 PM

How does it effect the rest of us poor infidels when we want to travel to Mexico or (heaven forbid) Canada? Are the Canadian Customers Officials say we are insensitive to their Muslim residents' feelings (like the one who'd been caught flashing people in the mall and then slaughtered a lady at the local Jewish Federation.)? Mark my words, put up one of those stinking call-to-prayer speakers in my area and I WILL see just what my sound systems is worth. Cowboys from Hell seems appropriate.

Posted by: InfidelProud at August 15, 2006 10:46 PM

This, folks, sums it ALL up. This is why Islam is taking over the West. This right here.

Posted by: Matt at August 15, 2006 10:13 PM

Islam is not "taking over the West." Muslims want to take over the world, that's nothing new, but they will not succeed. Muslims are aggressive, loudmouthed, pushy, and arrogant. Their strategy is so obvious--scream, whine, accuse, lament, demand, play the race/victim card, day after miserable day. Go on TV and radio and broadcast lies of profiling, discrimination, racism, hate crimes. Generate pity and compassion by conning the stupid infidels.

It's amazing that one of the smallest minority groups in America makes such huge waves that it is in the news every day of the year, incessantly complaining about America and the way we do things. They are so mistreated, so unhappy, so outraged, and it's the same everywhere muslims rear their hideous heads. All other immigrants do just fine, mind their own business, and go about the business of assimilating. Only muslims always stand out like a sore thumb, constantly bitching and moaning like professional malcontents. Who do these clever subversives think they're fooling?

Posted by: Susanp at August 15, 2006 10:51 PM

They find the shoulders of an innocent child "offensive" but they do not find offensive the hacking off of people's head, raising the detached head in the air an yelling Allah Akbar! nor do they find it offensive to "honor" kill ones sister by stabbing her repeatedly in front of her mother and then sit down and have dinner of chicken and rice with bloody hands. Nor do they find it offensive to sew up a young girls genitals because no "pleasure" of sex should be afforded women only men who see them as objects only anyway. Rats who crawl the sewers of New York are better creatures.

Posted by: bondservant at August 15, 2006 11:09 PM

I find women dressed like upholstered furniture offensive. There. Now we have the basis for making Mo women take off their head coverings for i.d.
Ooops! I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon, American Christian male. My values don't count in the multi-cultural world.
I also find it offensive to hear wailing being broadcast out of minarets. Better not move to Dearborn.

Posted by: Sansantiago at August 16, 2006 12:26 AM

Hey, all you Muslims:
Want to see something REALLY offensive to your culture?
Here's a girl posing TOPLESS!
http://tinyurl.com/h8cn7

(Of course, she's even younger than Jane.)

Posted by: Steven L. at August 16, 2006 1:46 AM

Do not blame the Passport Office as I read it the incident happened at a local Post Office. It would be interesting to know where, because smaller Post Offices are licenced (franchised) to grocers, newsagents etc. More and more of these are Muslim owned.

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2006 1:53 AM

I see a cute like girl in a summer shirt.........not a seductive pose that is aimed at tempting the carnal lusts of boys/men.

It is absolutely ridiculous that UK Muslims in postal shops believe that exposing shoulders on a young girl equates to immodesty and moral decay.

How dare UK Muslims impose their backwards Muslim norms on British society.

To my European friends across the Atlantic, I have a message for you:

Wake up! Euro Muslims are well on their way to forming Europe into Euroabia, a place where your westen freedoms will soon become restricted throughout Europe and Muslim norms will become commonplace.

Posted by: Johnathan at August 16, 2006 2:22 AM

How come Muslims are not offended by the criminal actions of their immoral and sexually perverted leader, Muhammad????????

Please read below about how Muhammad treated a young girl named Aisha- his nine year old bride:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Here is how the Prophet used to have fun and sex with his child bride.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Posted by: Johnathan at August 16, 2006 2:32 AM

Hannah Edward's real problem was that she didn't look like this - if she did, Ms Edwards wouldn't have had any issues.

redshirt, it is disappointing that your bank caved.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 16, 2006 3:04 AM

Protect the sex-maniacs!

Posted by: FreeSpeech at August 16, 2006 3:12 AM

Jonathon

Just curious, was "his head" actually the one in the middle of his shoulders or...............?

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2006 4:40 AM

Could this explain the reason why the two brothers in Forest Gate had a large stash of banknotes in their bedroom. Our little temptress Liz appearing with those alabaster shoulders on ever fifty pound note? I'm not so sure, a quick search of their hard drives revealed that Her Majesty may be a little too far advanced in her years to arouse the passions of these particular men.

Posted by: western infidel at August 16, 2006 4:49 AM

They wanted to travel to FRANCE, so the request is probably reasonable.
Plenty of Sharia areas in France, where the womenfolk better cover up islamically, if they want to be safe.
Same in Belgium.

The passport office was acting in their own interest. Time to get used to our future.

Posted by: Derukugi at August 16, 2006 4:59 AM

So what next ? We make our kids wear burkas instead of frocks simply because some muslims are 'offended' by the bare shoulders and legs of a 5 year old girl ? What if the passport required a full length photo ? The muslims would be offended by the short frocks and demand that they should be ankle length at least. sharia is getting its way in the world.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 16, 2006 5:41 AM

This is a total outrage! Not just because she is the cutest, most innocent looking tiny girl, being sexualised by that line of thought. It's also an outrage to tell girls and women of any age that exposing their shoulders is necessarily a sexual statement or that being sexually attractive is wrong anyway.

I'll make sure I wear a sleeveless top for my next passport photo - which is what I always wear in summer anyway. For comfort. But if someone thinks it looks good and enjoys the view (quietly), nice for them.

These people desperately need to grow up and get some self-control!

Posted by: Lili at August 16, 2006 6:05 AM

Five years old is over the hill for many Muslims, wasn't it Ayatollah Khomeini who liked them even younger?

Posted by: IceDragon at August 16, 2006 6:11 AM

Reading the article more closely, it is obvious that the person behind the Post Office counter is solely responsible for this charming little example of idiocy. The Post Office in the UK naturally follow those same guidelines set out by the Passport Office, which can be found in the following link should anyone wish to peruse them:

http://www.passport.gov.uk/downloads/PLE_04Eng-Photo.pdf

There is absolutely no mention at all of the covering of shoulders in those guidelines.

I wouldn't be making such an issue of it just yet boys and girls. However I would be very interested, as a poster above points out, as to the ethnicity of the person that so misinformed the childs mother.

Posted by: Wishbone at August 16, 2006 7:45 AM

Johnathan:

I think you may be assuming a lot by assuming that the silly servant who rejected the photo was a Muslim. Last fall and winter saw many DW items out of the UK that saw a PC gone wild, including a directive to government workers not to have such items as coffee mugs with pigs on them in their offices, changing names of business establishments, celebrating Christian heroes of the Crusades, and, indeed even marking Christmas as a celebration of Christ's birth lest it give offence to Muslims.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 16, 2006 8:47 AM

Johnathan:

I think you may be assuming a lot by assuming that the silly servant who rejected the photo was a Muslim. Last fall and winter saw many DW items out of the UK that saw a Politically Correct culture gone wild, including a directive to government workers not to have such items as coffee mugs with pigs on them in their offices, changing names of business establishments, celebrating Christian heroes of the Crusades, and, indeed even marking Christmas as a celebration of Christ's birth lest it give offence to Muslims.

Funny how nobody was concerned about offending the UK's large Hindu / Sikh community, never mind the all-powerful Jewish community of 300,000.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 16, 2006 8:51 AM

waterdragon52-

Here's a good one for you. First a brief explanation to set a background for those who may not get it:

I'm from Liverpool in the Northwest UK, on the banks of the River Mersey. Coming from this city, our people are known the length and breadth of Britain as "Scousers"; Named so after our local dish called "Scouse". We have a very distinctive accent and character, so we do get a bit of stick about it, but mostly it's just for laughs.

Now, I worked locally in a sorting centre for the Post Office for twelve years. There came a time some years ago when an opportunity arose for twenty or so lads to transfer out to an office over in Chester, which is close to North Wales and is one of those places where we come in for a bit of that stick I mentioned. So the lads transfer out and all goes well for six months or so.

One day the lads, the Scousers and the locals, are all called into a meeting. They are then informed that, so as not to cause offense, the word "Scousers" as a descriptive is no longer allowed. They were henceforth required to refer to "Scousers" as: "Our friends from across the river".

The Union official that announced this almost got lynched. By the "Scousers". We wear our label as a matter of pride you see, it's not a derogatory term.

That was a prime example of how officious little twerps like trade unionists and liberals take political correctness beyond all common sense. What's worse was that they decided to try to impose this ruling based on who knows what example, but it had nothing to do with the people that would have made the complaint had there been one to make. The "offense" status of our name was decided for us.

PC gone mad?.... You wouldn't believe the half of it!

Posted by: Wishbone at August 16, 2006 9:28 AM

waterdragon52-

Here's a good one for you. First a brief explanation to set a background for those who may not get it:

I'm from Liverpool in the Northwest UK, on the banks of the River Mersey. Coming from this city, our people are known the length and breadth of Britain as "Scousers"; Named so after our local dish called "Scouse". We have a very distinctive accent and character, so we do get a bit of stick about it, but mostly it's just for laughs.

Now, I worked locally in a sorting centre for the Post Office for twelve years. There came a time some years ago when an opportunity arose for twenty or so lads to transfer out to an office over in Chester, which is close to North Wales and is one of those places where we come in for a bit of that stick I mentioned. So the lads transfer out and all goes well for six months or so.

One day the lads, the Scousers and the locals, are all called into a meeting. They are then informed that, so as not to cause offense, the word "Scousers" as a descriptive is no longer allowed. They were henceforth required to refer to "Scousers" as: "Our friends from across the river".

The Union official that announced this almost got lynched. By the "Scousers". We wear our label as a matter of pride you see, it's not a derogatory term.

That was a prime example of how officious little twerps like trade unionists and liberals take political correctness beyond all common sense. What's worse was that they decided to try to impose this ruling based on who knows what example, but it had nothing to do with the people that would have made the complaint had there been one to make. The "offense" status of our name was decided for us.

PC gone mad?.... You wouldn't believe the half of it!

Posted by: Wishbone at August 16, 2006 9:28 AM

Wishbone

One of the veiled photos in the link that you provided showed the eye-peephole version being unacceptable. That eye-peephole is probably a metaphor for the minute possibility that exists of a British backlash coming to bear.

One can hope

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 16, 2006 12:47 PM

Wishbone - I like your take on "Scouser". I come from the city of Baltimore, like Liverpool, a gritty port city with attitude. Occasionally I'll refer to myself and my fellow citizens as "Baltimorons", a term in common useage in that city. PC victims never know how to react. By tahe way, what is in tahe food dish scouse? Cheers, MP

Posted by: MP at August 16, 2006 6:23 PM

MP-

Here you go mate:

http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/recipe2.htm

Scouse was derived from an old Norwegian sailors dish called Lob Scouse. The reason there are so many close variants of it is that family recipes depend on "How your Nanna used to make it". Every family has their own way, but mostly it ends up just like an Irish stew. Liverpool was heavily populated in the nineteenth century by Irish families trying to escape the potato famine.

There are only two narrowly definitive schools of Scouse and they're divided by these factors: A: Those who eat it with HP Brown Sauce, and B: Those who eat it with beetroot.

I'm a HP sauce chap meself.

Posted by: Wishbone at August 16, 2006 10:13 PM

Thanks Wishbone. When the temperature cools off a bit, I'll give scouse a try. One of my grannies was Glaswegian, so I know and approve of HP! All the best, MP

Posted by: MP at August 17, 2006 12:36 PM

Thanks Wishbone. When the temperature cools off a bit, I'll give scouse a try. One of my grannies was Glaswegian, so I know and approve of HP! All the best, MP

Posted by: MP at August 17, 2006 12:38 PM