“The decisions are not directed against the notion of secularity (laïcité), nor are they an endorsement of a custom which many on the Committee, including myself, regard as a form of oppression of women,” said Yuval Shany, Chair of the Committee.
Yes, the decisions most certainly are an endorsement of the oppression of women, insofar as they try to prevent the French from acting against that oppression. These decisions are insults to the memory of Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. They are an insult to Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? The UN has shown no concern for the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or for Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or for Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or for the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or for the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or for the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or for the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or for the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or for the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprising, by daring to take off their hijabs; or for the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or for the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or for the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or for the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or for all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.
Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them? Not the UN Human Rights Committee.
“France: Banning the niqab violated two Muslim women’s freedom of religion – UN experts,” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, October 23, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
GENEVA (23 October 2018) — In two landmark decisions, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that France violated the human rights of two women by fining them for wearing the niqab, a full-body Islamic veil.
The two decisions, which were considered concurrently since they posed identical legal questions, are available to read in full (in French): 1 and 2.
The Human Rights Committee received the two complaints in 2016, after two French women were prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for wearing articles of clothing intended to conceal their faces in public. France in 2010 adopted a law stipulating that “No one may, in a public space, wear any article of clothing intended to conceal the face.” The law has the effect of banning the wearing of the full Islamic veil in public, which covers the whole body including the face, leaving just a narrow slit for the eyes.
The Committee found that the general criminal ban on the wearing of the niqab in public introduced by the French law disproportionately harmed the petitioners’ right to manifest their religious beliefs, and that France had not adequately explained why it was necessary to prohibit this clothing. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by France’s claim that a ban on face covering was necessary and proportionate from a security standpoint or for attaining the goal of “living together” in society. The Committee acknowledged that States could require that individuals show their faces in specific circumstances for identification purposes, but considered that a general ban on the niqab was too sweeping for this purpose. The Committee also concluded that the ban, rather than protecting fully veiled women, could have the opposite effect of confining them to their homes, impeding their access to public services and marginalizing them.
“The decisions are not directed against the notion of secularity (laïcité), nor are they an endorsement of a custom which many on the Committee, including myself, regard as a form of oppression of women,” said Yuval Shany, Chair of the Committee. Rather, he explained, the decisions represented the position of the Committee that a general criminal ban did not allow for a reasonable balance between public interests and individual rights….
Naima Alexander says
Send them to Iran so they can enjoy the oppression of women
mortimer says
If you have studied the hadithic description, then you know (and are not guessing) that the Islamic veil is OPPRESSION.
The purpose of the veil is diminish the independence of women by declaring them the absolute property of a man. The idea of the veil comes from a culture of JEALOUS POSSESSION … from the Bedouin culture in which only the husband and family members have a right to see a woman’s face.
A number of scholars also believe that the veil protects an unmarried woman from being viewed and having someone ask her hand, so that the FIRST COUSIN may have the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
The Islamic veil is actually about MONEY and how to keep the money in the family. The veil is a defense of FIRST COUSIN MARRIAGE.
mortimer says
The UN Human Rights Committee does NOTHING for women who DO NOT WANT TO WEAR THE VEIL, but are forced with death threats to do so.
The UN Human Rights Committee has turned into a Sharia law ENFORCEMENT committee.
Renate says
That’s because the U.N. elected Saudi Arabia to the Commission on the Status of Women 2018 – 2022. That commission is supposedly “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.” One could be excused for thinking it was a bad joke.
Anjuli Pandavar says
The Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, an international body that exists expressly to get the Universal Declaration of Human Rights abolished, has permanent representation at the United Nations (and at the European Union). This is worse than the Muslim Brotherhood inside the US Government, serious as that is.
Renate says
Anjuli, thanks for that gem of information. Whether it’s terrorism or stealth jihad or hijrah, or whatever, they’re covering all their bases and the Left is helping them.
gravenimage says
True, Renate–this is a bad joke.
Older Canadian says
And it is not a human right to know who might be underneath, a male perhaps in disguise to perform a deed not ideal, or if a deed is done total protection of the perp to not be identified. Lovely.
If it is religious thing, fine, but freedom of religious practices in a western democracy does not supersede the laws of the country. When it does then it is a theorcratic country not a democratic country.
Renate says
This is like just about every other issue. When we say “human rights”, we have one concept of what that means. When any Islamic country says it, they have another concept of what it means. They think human rights are already in Sharia law and those are the only rights you’re ever going to get when Sharia law prevails. They don’t accept our concept of human rights. Their only concept of human rights is à la Sharia.
Benedict says
I live in a country where tax funded television promotes public nudity.
(If JW permits it here is the link that proves it: https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/dr2-tema-bryster-baller-og-blufaerdighed/bryster-baller-og-blufaerdighed/temaloerdag-bryster-baller-og-blufaerdighed-2 )
It’s the promulgation of the degrading religion that man is made in the image of animals in defiant opposition to the belief that man is made in the image of God. Until this abominable philosophy is protested in my country – which it is not – I will delight in seeing Muslim women wearing niqab and will even defend their right to do so and also encourage other women to wear niqab.
gravenimage says
Benedict wrote:
It’s the promulgation of the degrading religion that man is made in the image of animals in defiant opposition to the belief that man is made in the image of God. Until this abominable philosophy is protested in my country – which it is not – I will delight in seeing Muslim women wearing niqab and will even defend their right to do so and also encourage other women to wear niqab.
…………………………….
There is nudity in a great deal of Renaissance, Baroque, and Neo-Classical art–all part of Christian culture. Nudity in and of itself is not degrading.
For instance, here is Albrecht Durer’s Adam and Eve:
https://lakeimagesweb.artic.edu/iiif/2/867d2c94-74f4-95d9-eb23-9b808b6261f6/full/!800,800/0/default.jpg
And your “delighting” in seeing women immured in Niqabs is appalling, Do you really believe that God doesn’t want women to be allowed to show their faces in public?
And you should ask yourself what the Muslim veil *is for*–it is to identify Muslim women so that Muslim men will know not to rape them. Are you fine with Muslims raping unveiled women?
“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested.”
–Qur’an 33:59
“Molested” means sexually molested.
How is Muslims raping women in the streets in any way “modest”?
You should also know that Muslims “encouraging” women to wear the Niqab often takes the form of beating and murdering them? Is *this* what you want. as well? Good Lord…
Benedict says
G: Did you read the article by Dennis Prager?
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy in being offended by Muslim women covering themselves in their grotesque outfits and ignoring propaganda for public nudity as in the link to the tax funded television program above.
And I *am* capable of distinguishing between nudity in art and the vulgar display of it in media and commercials and everywhere else, thank you!
And as I have sad before: you often retreat to non sequiturs when you don’t agree with a commentator.
Renate says
I think there are a few ad hominem attacks going on there, too.
gravenimage says
Yes, I have read the article by Dennis Prager. He is *not* saying that women need to be immured in the Niqab, despite what Benedict pretends.
And no–there is no “non sequitur” involved in opposing the horrors of Purdah. Citations, please.
And here is more from Benedict, this time saying that it is hypocritical for Infidels to oppose the Niqab and Burqa in the West:
“I fully sympathizes with a fight against the burqa and niqab in the Muslim world. In the West, however, I suggest they are a justified ‘divine design’ or nemesis designed to expose the hypocrisy in condemning a full-body cloak for women while promoting and allowing vulgar, public nudity for both sexes.”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/algeria-mp-calls-burqa-ban-in-public-sector-a-declared-war-on-islam#comment-2004807
Of course, the Niqab and Burqa are *not* about modesty as Benedict would have us believe–they are a sign of Muslim supremacism and an indication of which women Muslim men are allowed to rape.
gravenimage says
Not at all, Renate–I am not against immuring women in Niqabs because Benedict defends this appalling practice. I am against it because it is repellent all by itself.
Surely you don’t think that Robert Spencer opposes it because of Benedict’s views here, as well?
Sun says
Some current members of the Human Rights Council are certainly not interested to ban the wearing of the full Islamic veil:
Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Pakistan.
It is terrifying that these countries can interfere with the law and human rights in our Western world.
Sun says
Oops, I forgot to mention some of the current members: Senegal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia
UN homepage on the new members and the Council seats:
“By secret ballot, the Assembly elected Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czechia, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay. All 18 members will serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2019.”
“Created by the General Assembly in March 2006 as the principal United Nations entity dealing with human rights, the Human Rights Council comprises 47 elected Member States. On the basis of equitable geographical distribution, Council seats are allocated to the five regional groups as follows: African States, 13 seats; Asia-Pacific States, 13 seats; Eastern European States, 6 seats; Latin American and Caribbean States, 8 seats; and Western European and other States, 7 seats.”
gravenimage says
Yes, Sun–the UN Human Rights Council is a sick joke.
Krishna says
Un is hijacked by Arab muslims
Cthulhu says
France had violated human right to be beaten, enslaved, treated worse than animals and murdered. UN HR Committee os a farce.
Almira says
I’m so sick of the buzzword “ Human Rights”. The word and meaning itself has been hijacked by Islam . Seems the only people with Human Rights are the Muslims. The rest of us can and will be trampled and violated in every imaginable way . As so Islam may dominate. Not co exist but Dominate. Personally I’m ready to chuck the words Human Rights from my entire vocabulary. It belongs exclusively to Muslims as a means of getting their way regardless of the safety and security of an entire nation. It’s time to shut it down !
gravenimage says
Genuine Human Rights *are* important. You don’t find this concept in Islam at all.
Ole Pederson says
Yes right. This is the same UN that is dominated by Islamic nations and dictators. Moreover that in 50 years released more resolutions against one state, Isreal, than against all other nations combined.
Same operation as other fake “human rights” organisations hijacked by Soros etc, such as “Human Rights Watch” which is a forefront for NATO interests.
gravenimage says
UN Human Rights Committee says France violated human rights of two Muslimas by fining them for wearing niqab
…………………….
Disgusting dhimmitude.
f c king says
Screw any organization that helps continue the spread of islam. UN is not worried about human rights. It wants to undo the white world.
Neil Ross says
But the UN is totally silent on the case of Asia Bibi…..who has spent 10 years in prison and is about to be hanged by her government for being a Christian, and drinking water from a well reserved for Muslims. Even though she was working in a field in the hot sun and there was plenty of water she was expected to die of thirst rather than drink. Now they want to kill her after locking her up for a decade. Apparently the UN thinks this isn’t a violation of her human rights. Unlike asking someone politely if they can remove a full face covering when entering a school or college.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
gravenimage says
Here’s more on how Muslims believe that unveiled women can be raped:
“Tariq Ramadan rape accuser says he told her he was raping her ‘because you don’t wear a hijab’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/04/tariq-ramadan-race-accuser-says-he-told-her-he-was-raping-her-because-you-dont-wear-a-hijab