Aaron Hanscom tells the appalling story in FrontPage (news links in the original):
Europe’s transformation into Eurabia is still dismissed as absurd by many Europeans who choose to ignore the effects of unassimilated Muslim populations in their cities. But it’s the absurd””as seen in some recent accommodations to Muslims””that might finally force them to avert their eyes no more.
The wandering eyes of men will no longer be a concern for certain women in a popular Italian resort on the Adriatic Sea. The city council of Riccione has come up with a way to enable Muslim women to enjoy the sand and sea without being fully clothed: opening sections of the beach exclusively for their use. Muslim women will now be able to cast off their headscarves and robes because men will be banned from certain portions of the beach. These stretches of sand will also be fitted with tents and have only female lifeguards and waitresses in order to ensure that the Islamic law requiring women to be covered in the presence of men is not broken. Hotel owner Attillio Cenni wants to take things a step further and have female lifeguards””ala Pamela Anderson””keep a lookout for men while patrolling the sea in water scooters.
Everything didn’t go off without a hitch, however. Because the law states that the beach needs to be able to accommodate public passage””and not just Muslims””the partitions couldn’t extend all the way to the sea. But Muslim women need not worry. The city council of Riccione is already considering whether to authorize the construction of reserved seaside swimming pools.
Riccione councilwoman for urban planning, Loretta Villa, defended the city measure as a sound business decision: “We live on tourism and we can’t survive if we don’t satisfy the requests of our customers, especially the ones who have started coming here only recently.” Those requests would more accurately be described as demands from a group that is used to having them met. The truth is that Riccione “has become popular with Arabs, especially Saudis, who are increasingly demanding customized services, such as private jet charters.”
Villa found nothing newsworthy about the creation of sections of the beach for Muslim women only. Comparing the decision to other accommodations made for tourists she said, “When the Germans started coming here didn’t we learn the language and start providing German newspapers?” The fact that Germans would never demand the exclusive right to enjoy the beach is apparently lost on the councilwoman.
Muslim inmates in London prisons have recently benefited from an even more bizarre surrender to the tenets of multiculturalism. After Muslims complained that they had to face Mecca while sitting on the toilet, they weren’t told to think about the effects breaking the law would have on their ability to fulfill certain aspects of Islamic law. Personal responsibility was instead taken by the British government, with the Home Office agreeing to rebuild the toilets by turning them 90 degrees. Muslims reacted not with gratitude but by expressing a sense of entitlement. One former prisoner said, “The least the Prison Service can do is make sure people can practice their religion correctly in prison.”
As a way to lessen the public’s shock over the plan, the Home Office refused to reveal what the cost of the “on-going refurbishment” would be to taxpayers. But a British jailer spoke for many when he said, “If they didn’t get locked up for committing crime they would not have this problem. Yet we have to sort out their loos. If we weren’t paying for it as taxpayers I’d laugh my socks off.” Muslim criminals are the ones who are laughing now, content with the knowledge that even after breaking the law they can gain concessions because of their religion. The dangers of such a precedent were not lost on Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, who warned: “Some common sense needs to be applied.”
Indeed, the construction of Islamically-correct toilets is now spreading throughout England. The Manchester Methodist Housing Association has developed a housing estate in North England with “bathrooms that face away from Mecca.” One resident explained why the houses were being built exclusively for Muslims: “We”re all Muslims here so yes, it is important [to live exclusively among Muslims]. For myself I”m not really too bothered but to a lot of the Muslim people, yes it is important to them and yes it is a very good idea.” Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal correctly noted that “anyone in contemporary Britain who would dare to state (even in a private conversation) that “to a lot of non-Muslims people, yes it is important not to live among Muslims and yes it is a very good idea” might find themselves convicted in court for racism.” But in today”s multicultural Europe, Muslims are the only group of people who are allowed to be prejudiced.
European Muslims have clearly learned that Westerners are so scared of violence in the name of Islam that even the most outrageous requests will be granted. Last year Burger King pulled its ice cream cones from its British restaurants after Rashad Akhtar claimed that he read the word “Allah” in the creamy swirl on the lid. The Muslim man didn’t only urge a boycott of Burger King, he stated that “this is my jihad.” Another British Muslim’s complaints caused Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council to ban all pictures of pigs and “pig-related items” because pigs are considered “unclean” in Islam.
The reason why Muslims have such an easy time getting their way in Europe was best expressed by Professor Unni Wikan of the University of Oslo in her defense of a series of rapes committed by Muslim men against Norwegian women. According to the professor, Norwegian women “must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because rape is viewed as the woman’s fault in Muslim countries. In other words, European Muslims don’t have to stop raping women, but European women have to stop dressing provocatively.
Indeed, the real absurdity in Europe today is the defense of the indefensible.