A Muslimah mother in France, wearing a hijab, and accompanying children on a school trip to a local council (parliament), was requested indirectly by a member of that parliament, Julien Odoul, to remove her hijab (he had asked the president of the council, Mme Dufay, to make the request), in order to respect the French principle of not wearing “ostentatious religious symbols” in schools and such other public places as government offices. The story is here.
The Muslim woman who experienced Islamophobic attacks from France’s National Rally party (RN) in mid-October “has spoken out about how the event at the Regional Council of Burgundy-Franche Comte affected her life and that of her son.
Fatima E. accompanied her son to a school activity to explore the mission of the general assembly at the regional council.
The school trip, however, did not go well for Fatima, who faced Islamophobic insults from the members of the RN in front of her son because of the hijab or the veil.
Fatima spoke to Le Parisien about the incident, emphasizing that what concerned her the most was the distress of the children.
“They were really shocked and traumatized.”
Photos of the woman trying to calm her son who was crying after hearing RN’s comments went viral. The move angered several public figures who strongly condemned the RN attack against Muslims.
During the meeting held on October 11, leader of RN Julien Odoul asked the president of the council to ask Fatima to remove her hijab or to leave the meeting.
He was merely asking for French law to be observed. The wearing of the hijab in schools has been prohibited in the law, and that prohibition has been extended to include the wearing of “ostentatious religious symbols” in government offices. The woman wearing her hijab knew where the school trip was going – a regional parliament – and that it was a government office. She chose, nonetheless, to wear the hijab.
Julien Odoul did not, as has been so widely reported, “demand” that she remove her veil. He asked the presiding officer to “ask” (“demander” in French) the Muslim lady either to remove her veil, or to leave the meeting.
“It’s the republic, it’s secularity. It’s the law of the Republic, no ostentatious [religious] symbols,” said Odoul, exploiting France’s secularity to promote his own agenda.
Odoul was not “exploiting France’s secularity to promote his own agenda.” He was “explaining” France’s secularity. The word “exploiting” puts a sinister twist on what is a straightforward matter. He was asking that French secularity, as enshrined in the law, be observed. That should have been the end of the matter.
The president of the council, Marie Guite Dufay, refused his request, emphasizing that no law allows her to ask the woman to leave for wearing hijab. The RN members then left the meeting.
Fatima said that the only thing she could do is to smile.
Marie Guite Dufay should have referred to the law banning the wearing of the hijab in schools which has, by extension, also been applied to government offices. Women in France do not wear the hijab in those offices. A regional assembly certainly qualifies as a government office.
Note that it was not the Muslim lady who left the parliamentary chambers, but the members of Odoul’s party, RN (Rassemblement National), who left, feeling they had to express their dismay at this violation of French secularism which was being upheld by Marie Guite Dufay. Yet it is the Muslim woman who remained, still hijabed, for a little while after the RN members had left; this was a victory for her, but she presents herself as the victim, whose “life has been destroyed.”
“I smiled first at his stupidity,” she said.
Her unpleasant condescension at the Kuffar’s request is palpable. Was Julien Odoul “stupid” for wanting to uphold the principle of laicity, central to the French state, against someone clearly determined to flout it? Much of the French media have found his behavior outrageous, but why? He was merely trying to prevent one more breach of that principle.
She added that she received support from several elected regional officials who wanted her to stay.
“When I saw my son crying, I told them that I will not be able to stay.”
It was not any consideration for French secularism, enshrined in law and custom, that led her to leave, but only the desire to keep her son from being upset. Had he not been upset, we can assume she would have remained, while Odoul and the entire RN delegation felt they had to leave, as a sign of their displeasure at this flouting of laicite.
She said that she also faced verbal attacks when she was leaving.
On her way out, she met right-wing regional elected member Karine Champy who told her “You will see, we’ll win.”
Does that constitute a “verbal attack” on her? There was no “verbal attack.” It was, rather, an expression of hope by Karine Champy — “you will see, we’ll win” — that Islam will not dominate France in the future.
She said that the RN member wanted to provoke her to react.
No, Karine Champy was merely proclaiming her hope, and her belief, that Islam would not “win” and dominate France. The Muslim mother is reading things into Champy’s statement that are not there.
“They destroyed my life,” the mother said. She added that she feels a “rejection that I had not felt before and that will have consequences.”
“They destroyed my life.” What can one respond to this kind of hysterical victimization? She was merely being asked to remove her hijab while in the assembly (“le hemicycle” — “benches” – are mentioned in the French reports). How has her life been destroyed? She will continue to wear the hijab. She is being hailed as a victim, a martyr for her faith, by much of the French media, while Julien Odoul is the one having his life made miserable, declared – without the slightest evidence – to be a “racist.” Ninety French celebrities have signed a letter to Macron decrying her treatment, and asking him to intervene.
She said that she now understands why women with hijabs refuse to participate in school trips.
Women wearing hijabs in France who accompany children on field trips are not bothered in any way, unless those trips are to government offices. The French Senate did pass a bill banning the wearing of the hijab by mothers on school trips, but it has not been adopted by the National Assembly. Perhaps after this contretemps the National Assembly will pass that bill after all.
The RN’s move divided public opinion about the hijab in public spaces.
While some denounced the move, others seized the opportunity to attack Muslims.
The deputy editor of France’s Le Figaro publicly stated that he “hates the Muslim religion,” and that he believes it is his “right” to openly criticize a religion on national television.
The deputy editor of Le Figaro did not “seize the opportunity to attack Muslims.” He stated clearly that he “hates the Muslim religion.” He restated, for the benefit of the French public, that he, and everyone else, has a right under French law to criticize any and all religions. This right is not something new, concocted by “islamophobes.” It has long been recognized as protected by the freedom of speech.
However, public figures, including actors, called on France President Emmanuel Macron to intervene.
“How long will we keep tolerating hatred against Muslims,” the French public figures asked in a collective statement published by Le Monde.
Shouldn’t the question be reversed? How long will the French tolerate the imams all over France preaching hatred of Infidels? How long will the French tolerate the antisemitic messages by such Muslim preachers as Youssef al-Qaradawi, before they jam his radio broadcasts? How long will the French tolerate the hate-filled atmosphere in mosques, prisons, and Muslim neighborhoods that have led to mass killings by Muslims that have taken place all over France – in Paris (many times), in Nice, in Toulouse, in Tours, in Magnanville, in St. Etienne du Rouvray, and many other places – and the hundreds of such attacks by Muslims that, thankfully, have been foiled in time? The islamocritics are not promoting hatred of Muslims, as those notable “public figures” asking Macron to intervene (to do what, exactly?) seem to think; they are promoting the examination of Islam, seeking to understand what is contained in the Qur’an and Hadith that explains the observable behavior of Muslims toward Infidels both now, and over the past 1,400 years.
The alacrity with which so many of France’s Great and Good – actors, writers, journalists — rallied around the Muslim woman, as if she had suffered some terrible ineradicable injury, and chose to vilify Julien Odoul for standing up for the French state’s principle of laicity, has been disheartening.
And few seem to have minded the preposterous claim of this Muslim woman, who plays the inoffensive and innocent victim – she seemingly unaware that wearing the hijab in a local parliament might violate French secular principles – that her “life has been destroyed.”
She’s now well-known and has been made much of, for the supposed calvary she had to endure, which lasted all of a few minutes, as Odoul made his request of Mme Dufay to ask Fatima to remove her veil; Dufay refused; then Odoul left the chamber with other RN members. Fatima has already been interviewed respectfully, even admiringly, in print, and on the radio. Television comes next. The photograph of her comforting her crying son — who was apparently so shaken by that unspeakably cruel suggestion that his maman should remove her hijab — has gone viral. She is planning to sue for “racism.” Does anyone doubt that in the current climate, she will win? And how large and comforting that settlement will likely turn out to be.
“They’ve destroyed my life,” she claims. Not at all. Her life – as a victim of islamophobia, a celebrity sufferer, a maternal martyr – is just beginning. And can a book deal – “Can One Still Be Muslim In France?” – be far behind? These days, nothing is too absurd to be contemplated.
mortimer says
Islamic Melodrama 101. Class will read sub-sections on exaggeration, distraction, victimology and deniability. Object of this section is to call anyone who doesn’t submit to Sharia a ‘racist’. The classes next lesson is called ‘Exploiting the dirty kufaar’s ignorance of Islamic teachings’. The next section ties in with the deniability component and expands on it. Remember: ‘Why use taqiyya, when you can use kitman?’
Anjuli Pandavar says
+1
“Photos of the woman trying to calm her son who was crying after hearing RN’s comments went viral,” which is exactly why she instructed her children beforehand to react this way when she’s confronted.
It worked. When will we ever learn?
mgoldberg says
There is a TV show, Grey’s anatomy, which has a cast member the last two years, and she’s a pretty young woman, an intern, with a hijab, along with the gay guy, the transgender guy etc. The hijab lady is shown in one episode taking off her hijab to tie off a gushing bleeding leg. What bravery. Later her attending presents her with a freshly washed hijab to maintain her dignity once again…. And all was right with the world, subliminal message, if we would just all hold hands, it’d all be peaceful.
Except…. outside of the ‘matrix’ the reality is that almost all the people who get harassed, who get scolded, who get smacked, who get beaten, who get disfigured, who get slaughtered, by not merely strangers, but their own families are those who don’t wear the hijab, not those who wear a hijab. That’s the real world, outside of the matrix.
And there are no stories written about all of those thousands upon thousands who’ve suffered for this.
gravenimage says
Good comments.
Save Europe says
Those at the Batsclan, Nice and many other places – THEIR lives were destroyed.
Typical Muslim hyperbole and victimhood.
gravenimage says
+1
Jayell says
Asked to remove her hijab and ‘her life is destroyed’? Really? For those us in the West harbouring very unkind thoughts about the presence islam in our societies this lady (sic) seems to have provided a remarkably simple solution. Yes, that is indeed a very unkind thought, but not quite as unkind as the deliberate murder of hundreds of our people on public transport vehicles, at music concerts or the the systematic rape of thousands of underage girls in our cities. Let’s ban the hijab as soon as possible.
abad says
According to Islam her life is destroyed.
Don’t forget, unlike Christianity, in Islam there is no overcoming anything (Jesus Christ overcoming death) nor letting go and let God (allowing your sins to be borne by Jesus Christ).
Human resiliency is non-existent in Islam.
Why do you think Islam is the religion of Jihad and suicide bombing?
Goofy says
A natural consequence of Muslim superiority attitude. To be told to obey the law does not ruin any lives, but to be blown up by a devout Muslim does. If she cannot live under French law she must leave the country. As simple as that and that is how it works for Christians in Muslim countries.
Christopher Watson says
There is an easy answer, isn’t there? Just go back to your country of origin and leave us in peace.
Robert Crawford says
There are plenty of countries that enforce her barbarity — she should move to one of them.
Michael Copeland says
She is planning to sue for “racism.”
“Islam is an ideology: it is not a race.” – Ibrahim Cooper, CAIR
John says
Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion.
FYI says
Let us all SMIRK at islam…here we have a woman complaining about being asked to remove her hijab{a man-made,koranically promoted tool for dominating and oppressing women as many Iranian and Saudi women know all too well}…worn in honor of a misogynistic Arab god al lah and a woman-beating polygamous “prophet” muhammed ,who teach that women are stupid and inferior to men …and she doesn’t get the IRONY of it!
Let us SMIRK..too at the lazy feminists and the silly female converts to islam..
Martin says
video – France’s Islamic Headscarf War Heats Up After Parliament Provocation!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXhXjRkRe8Y
Honest Ali says
Beautiful! 🙂
Westman says
Book deal? Yes, the extortion by the “offended” has no bounds. But what is the “underdog” to do when faced with the dreaded COMPLIANCE to law? Find a “victim” and exploit.
Perhaps this is another common superior, arrogant, attitude between the Lefties and Islam. There is a (hilarious) current news story of 500(now claimed to be 800) musicians we never head of, wearing tatoos for skin, pierced by enough metal to attract lightning, who are threatening(extortion) to boycott an Amazon sponsored music festival unless Amazon refuses to sell to ICE and certain other government agencies. Jeff Bezos must be quivering in fear of losing his business.
What kind of mentality cuts the branch on which it rests and expects a reward?
FYI says
“I smiled first at his stupidity” she said.
Always remember that the hijab is worn in honor of a misogynistic Arab god al lah and his chauvinistic “prophet” muhammed who said that the reason the koran insists a woman’s testimony is HALF that of a man k2:282 is due to “the DEFICIENCY of a woman’s mind”{sahih bukhari 2658}
A god who hates women so much he sends them to hell on the charge of being TAKFURNA{“ungrateful”}Sahih muslim 241
A god who is OK with muslims raping captured women{Abu Dawud vol 2 hadith #2155} and beating their wives.
A god who gets human Biology wrong{see “scientific mistakes in the koran”}meaning the hijab is worn in honor of a god who knows LESS BIOLOGY than any modern woman
{please ponder that for a moment..}
Let us SMIRK at her stupidity in honoring an arab god al lah,a god who hates women so much he insists they are not equal to men and must hide away.
“Women are compared to slaves and camels with regard to the EVIL in them”
Abu Dawud 2155
“Aisha said to muhammed ‘you have made us equal to the dogs and asses”
Sahih muslim 4:1039
“Women-like domestic animals to you”
Tabari 9:1754
“..if they do that{wear the hijab} it will be known that they are free and that they are not slaves or whores”
Tafsir ibn kathir 33:59
So no hijab means a woman is a whore or a slave:how misogynistic is THAT?
And if you research the origins of the hijab you will find it is a MAN MADE rule..
Emilie Green says
“My Life Has Been Destroyed”
True enough, honey, but that happened at birth when your father whispered the shaddah into your ear and then forced Islam upon you.
Terry sullivan says
Deport
Proscribe islam and destroy all mosques in france
abad says
+1
MikeyParks says
Now there’s a first-world problem! How will she survive!
OREN WYSOCKI says
Considering the tens of millions of women forced to wear the hijab, who get beaten by tyrannical muslim parents for protesting wearing the hijab, who get arrested and raped by horrible muslim police, her displeasure at having to remove her hijab is the opposite of moral.
islam is in the process of conquering multiple nations, reducing their nonmuslim citizens into little more than slaves to be taxed to fund their muslim masters, and rapped at will to please their muslim masters. To pretend that to lift A finger in opposition against such an immoral fascist, discriminatory regime is some sort of moral outrage is insanity. It is akin to screaming at Jews in nazi death camps over their inconsideration towards nazis at breaking camp rules and standards.
We live under total inversion of reality, mostly maintained by the media. The weak opinions of the white leftists can be altered with the infusion of knowledge. There bravery is there own glory, but unjustified in stunting the progress of the Jewish people and the whole world. In G-d I trust.
Tremendous respect to the women of iran who take the rapes and the prison to stand up for freedom.
OREN WYSOCKI says
This paralysis is currently caused by removing the knowledge of when war like actions are appropriate, and when peace and discourse is appropriate.
An understanding that A temporary reduction of moral standards of behavior is A substantial portion of the definition of war, when profiled mass murder is temporarily legalized, until after an identified unaccommodating enemy is defeated.
That definition describes islam, which means to oppress non muslims without necessity or morality. I am not sure Judaism promotes going out and oppressing gentiles at all. It may only champion the merit of each people in entitling resources and leaving it to the people and their leaders to decide what level of freedom and wealth inequality is preferable to them. It probably is not the case though. There are probably committees, but I am sure they are heavily staffed by Jews, and currently visible committees try not to be to Jewish, and hire several token gentiles. In time the pretense will be discarded. They say without affirmative action, there would be almost no blacks on American campuses.
The point is unescapable, it is not A thing like discrimination that is evil, it is who is doing it against who and under what justifications. If I discriminate against you because I do not like you, that is immoral, antithetical to the justice and integrity of our system. We cannot have everyone choosing to deny services based on who they like. But if you have A history of violence and crime, and I discriminate against you working in my bank, then that is morally acceptable. The fact of the matter is that the history of the muslims, their writings, their religion, their actions in the past, statistics where available about muslim crime rates in Europe over different years before the Europeans began censoring the information, altering it and releasing criminals in A desperate attempt to defend the notion that we were all equal and would soon forget differences that separated us in the past. All of these measurements of A people point to A people that Jews and white gentiles and Christians and others should discriminate against, in immigration policy, in marriage choices, in who we send our children to school with, because they are to violent and hateful of non muslims.
When we speak about what the real situation is, we will then have the confidence in order to implement the appropriate policies. We must establish the moral high ground, and this foolish argument about discriminating against Europeans in the same manner that you judge muslims is A dysfunctional policy, because the issue is not if to discriminate in the first place, the question is who should be discriminated against. The left can claim hysteria, due to their sacred muslim and africans being criticized, but it cannot hold up against logic or morality or debate. It is easy to show that if you had to treat nazis equal to pro democracy and freedom forces, that the war against the nazis would have never been possible to initiate, and the nazis would have won, being able to attack whenever they desired, declare A peace timeout whenever they were loosing or desired, etc. Simply, repeatedly comparing the muslims to the nazis shows that the left has one set of rules for africans and half africans and another rule for everyone else. The justifications for war with germans due to their discriminatory and authoritarian policies, would easily apply to muslims, but don’t because the left is biased against whites and Jews and for muslims and africans. This is not A small bending of the rules either. It is an absolute bending of the rules for the privilege of the muslims and the africans, and the complete negation of all standards, security and rights for the non africans and non muslims. This means that they will be able to conquer all the nations of the west that are under this undeclared state of policy and law. No resistance will ever be possible, the muslims and africans are not controllable or persuadable by discourse, and no violent defense is possible, because our government will send the police and swat teams after us who defend ourselves. The nazi analogy applies again, if our governments defended violent expansionist nazis, we would not be able to defend ourselves nearly well enough to protect our freedoms. You can blame the white Jewish and gentile people, as committed self haters, but once you know that all the nations of the world are accurately described as racist and supremacist, that they all support discriminating against those less fortunate than themselves, that they oppose anyone discriminating against them as clearly hypocritical rules, then you realize that the opinions of the whites and the Jews can be changed massively. Whites and Jews were the only ones to support civil rights movements, or end slavery, or fight wars world wide to end slavery. They introduced the idea that expansion through genocide was wrong not the Indians. All the leaders of the Indians, the latinos, the muslims, the africans, the orientals and the others were all conquering, might makes right, enslavers, who committed genocide in mass. My point is this case can be made, how much it changes people is up to them. I am not sure what qualifies dissemination of the truth, I will leave that to G-d. In G-d I trust.
Good questions to change the tone, do you think that all the anti white discourse is destructive to the aim of achieving peaceful coexistence? Do you really think that most whites will agree to take whatever abuse any random leftist or non white wishes to dish out against whites? Or will they become angry and lash out against those who attack them, escalating the situation? Do you think there is to much anti white comments out of the left and some non whites?
S baker says
Agree!
Rarely says
Everyone seems to have overreacted here. Some sensitivity and flexibility should be displayed when people are with their children. It doesn’t matter that she may have been orchestrating a confrontation although I doubt that. Of course she will continue her overreaction until it pays dividends.
Please note the word “seems”.
x says
So, if a police man pulls a woman over for an illegal left turn and it just so happens there is an eight year old crying in the back seat, he doesn’t give her a ticket? Is that how the law works in your world?
We have too many people ruled by emotion. The media shows a drowned child, Europe cries and thus allows millions of military aged men/jihadists into their countries. Yeah, that works.
If you are ruled by emotion, than you can be controlled by others. They use your emotion to control you.
This is why the propaganda is so successful these days.
Are the people here overreacting? No, in fact nobody is reacting enough. We should be at war.
But I don’t see it happening. The west has become pathetically weak and every time I am reminded of it, I get sick to my stomach.
abad says
Islam is a religion of emotion. There is no allowance for logical thinking at all in Islam; in fact, logical thinking is diametrically opposed to “submitting to the will of Allah”.
Think about it.
x says
I concur.
gravenimage says
And mostly of ugly emotions. Islam is not a religion of love or good feelings, but of hatred and paranoia.
Rarely says
I am not suggesting ignoring a speeding ticket. The police invariably act differently towards the driver when young children are in the car.
Let’s just not make a mountain out of a molehill which SEEMS to be the case here.
It’s not a matter of whether to carry on the fight and whether to enforce minor infringements of the law it’s a matter of WHERE and WHEN. Pick your battles and don’t let the “enemy” do it for you.
Don’t fight the battles you can’t win and the presence of a young child likely puts this event in that category.
Even IF it was a set-up, which I doubt (perhaps naively) sometimes it’s a good idea to ignore it.
gravenimage says
What–allow Muslims to break the law so long as they have their spawn with them? Should Muslims be able to wage violent Jihad against us so long as they bring the family with them?
Naram-Sin says
“They destroyed my life,”
No, your life is destroyed when:
1. Your head is cut off by a jihadi.
2. You and your family are run over by a Muslim in a stolen lorry.
3. You are blown to bits by a Muslim in a suicide vest.
4. You are sold into sex slavery, raped, tortured, and eventually killed.
5. You are shot in the back of the head by the Caliphate.
6. You are burned to death by the Caliphate.
7. You are thrown from top of a tall building by pious Muslims.
8. You are stoned to death for marrying the wrong man.
9. You are stoned to death for talking to the wrong man.
10. You are murdered because your parents of male relative think you are seeing the wrong man.
11. You are murdered for wearing western clothing.
12. You are murdered for being to western.
13. You are murdered for refusing to wear the hijab.
14. You are murdered for wanting to go to school.
15. You are murdered for becoming a Christian.
16. You are murdered for not believing in Islam.
17. You are murdered for refusing to marry your 1st cousin, who is 40 years older than you, as directed by your parents.
18. You had your face and eyes burned off with acid.
19. You are stoned to death for being raped and not being able to come up with 4 male witnesses to prove you were innocent.
20. You are stoned to death for reporting you were raped and thereby admitting to adultery.
21. You are crushed to death when Muslims fly an airplane into the building where you work.
22. You are murdered for insulting the prophet by disagreeing.
23. You are murdered by a mob of pious Muslims after other pious Muslims falsely accuse you of blasphemy.
24. You are murdered for being Jewish.
25. You are murdered for being non-Muslim.
26. You are murdered for . . .
Well, I think you can see the pattern, but your life is not destroyed when someone asks you to take of your hijab.
Oldone says
Thank you for showing the truth to her…Obviously, she overlooked these small problems…
Wellington says
Excellent list.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Naram-Sin.
Anna Yelena says
She’s a typical Muslim. Go to any Western Country and complain about their laws and it’s despicable when some of these countries cave to those backwards Muslims who still live in the Middle Ages. The Cult-of-Mo has brainwashed billions of people to the detriment of others who suffer from their wrath s. Thank God for those brave souls who leave That evil cult for a better chance for the afterlife that doesn’t include the Prince of Darkness.
somehistory says
Her “life has been destroyed” and all she could do was “smile.” Isn’t that what most people do when he/she feels that his/her life has been destroyed…smile? She thinks he was “stupid” to try to enforce the law on her…a moslim…who considers herself above the law and not subject to it.
Her son “cried.” Most likely she had programmed him to cry when she was told to remove her rag or leave…knowing it was illegal to wear and expecting that someone might call her on it. Or perhaps she just pinched him to make him cry so she could pretend he was so upset by the request.
She said that there “will be consequences.” Everyone who knows ilsam should be asking: stabbing, shooting, bombing or driving-over “consequences:?
She lied when she said her concern was for the “children”. Her concern is only for islam and how she can help her fellow moslims take over and rule the entire earth.
somehistory says
My daughter read to me a headline on her news feed this morning about a woman in some kind of race in Ohio, and who was disqualified due to not having permission to wear her moslim scarf.
Idk what source was the news…possibly yahoo news. My head was throbbing too much to care at the moment, but this article caused me to recall the incident.
Westman says
Another “destroyed” life… for NOT complying with the rules. “Bu, bu, but those man-made rules don’t apply to us religious superiors! Just wait, I know lawyers who’ll CAIR!”
Wellington says
The pattern repeats, i.e., snowflakes about themselves all the while adhering to a belief system that considers non-believers the equivalent of human waste.
Islam is so disgusting.
Angemon says
Or, in other words, “I didn’t get my way therefore, time to go boom-boom.”
Merri-joy says
What about the “infidels” who are rejected by Muslim’s???
gravenimage says
Who cares about the filthy Infidels? Not the Muslims.
rubiconcrest says
She is merely doing her duty as a Muslim daring the French to uphold the law, an example of civil disobedience. She is appealing for sympathy which is no different than someone making a silly excuse like ‘I had to go to the bathroom’ for driving over the speed limit. We need to get a backbone people.
No Muzzies Here says
Many lives have been destroyed by the religion from the seventh century that is still back in the seventh century.
Bella says
She knew the rules and wore it anyways because they believe they are above our laws and when scolded they use sue jihad which usually works out in their favor. How stupid we’ve all become, dangerously stupid.
Clifford Fodor says
“My life has been destroyed.”
Her health has been jeopardized by wearing those rags. She and other like her are depriving themselves of vitamin d from the sun.
DHazard says
Muslim women have the right to make stupid choices. All attempts to demonize or romanticize the hijab are beside the point. The hijab does not hide the face so it is no more a security risk than a baseball cap. I think it was originally conceived as an theft deterrent, to protect the property of fathers and husbands and sometimes, sons. Pretty normal for when it was written. People become accustomed to limitations to their freedom, especially when everybody around you has the same limitations.
Nevertheless, secularist, democratic governments are better for all religious people than partial or total theocracies. The only way to make the most religious people happy is to make a few people unhappy, occasionally. It’s what grown-ups realize and live with. But Muslims see things differently.
Molly Brown says
Every Muslim woman knows the veil, hijab, burka, niqab & other head & face coverings are meant to protect them from the lusts & fondling behaviors of horny males.
Jesus put the responsibility for lustful, wicked thoughts solely on the perpetrator(s).
Matthew 18:9
New King James Version:
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.
As a secular dressed, Western woman…I am not “uncovered meat” that tempts men into sinful thoughts & behaviors. Muslim males should stay at home if they cannot contain their sexual urges! Don’t put that responsibility on women, who throughout history have been blamed for indiscreet human sexuality (i. e. affairs, unwanted pregnancies) and their children negatively labeled! Why are woman still called whores and not men? Why are male offspring born outside wedlock called bastards? No such label is given to their sisters. Because the male bloodline is held in higher esteem by most cultures. Women marry and leave behind their surnames & birth family to join their husbands clan.
It’s about time Islam be unmasked for being a totalitarian ideology hiding behind the guise of religion! Muslim male migrants always assert their “human rights” but seldom “equal rights”. Language & secular laws matter. Do not tolerate the intolerable!
gravenimage says
The only problem is Muslim males who believe they have the right to rape uncovered women.
abad says
Hm, the only time I saw an “ostentatious hijab” was back in college, one of the History of Islam students wore a spangled (sequined) light blue hijab, complete with spangled Arabian mule shoes.
Regardless, this is France, its Moslem population will never become French. I have no idea why Moslems are in France to begin with, but maybe this lady and her kids would be much happier living in Syria.
gravenimage says
Muslim Woman Asked to Remove Her Hijab: “My Life Has Been Destroyed”
………………..
She wasn’t allowed to impose Shari’ah norms on the Kuffar–this is what “destroyed her life”…
Demsci says
How does she perceive herself anyway? A French woman of the Muslim variety, being first and foremost loyal to France? Or a Muslima of the French variety, being first and foremost loyal to the Ummah?
elee says
Well, if you cant hide a suicide belt under you hijab, I guess you can still go spawn a thousand martuyrs.
Eur says
their society is theocracy, Muslims can never separate Islam from laws, politics, society, culture … and that is why there will always be conflict unless our society accepts submission. Because that is the key, what Muslims claim is not respect, it is submission.
underbed cat says
She got the reaction she was hoping for, to cause disruption between the kaffar in a government building while sitting quietly smiling enjoying the show of the situation or controversy she ignited…she is a sly cocky one and the smile is the trademark as much as the black veil. Destroyed life comment was the classic comment as she attempts and is pleased to destroy your life. She used her you will submit smile and knew a video would capture her gig, the child most likely was upset, that was the added touch.
Trick_or_Treat says
WE do NOT recognise, nor will we submit to your shit sharia. If you don’t happen to like that, then you have the freedom to F**K OFF back to your muslim sandpit shithole where nobody is ever going to ‘spoil your life’ by requesting you to take off your damned hijab where WE deem it is appropriate for security or whatever. Again – if you don’t like it, if you don’t feel comfortable with our laws customs and requirements, and you don’t really feel you have to comply or assimilate, then PLEASE F**K OFF!
Trick_or_Treat says
“MY LIFE HAS BEEN DESTROYED! HOW DARE YOU! …HOW DARE YOU!”
TheBuffster says
I’d like to comment on a different aspect of this story. I note that the secularity of France is different from that of the United States. In the US it is the government – the coercive authority – that is supposed to avoid imposing any particular religious view while the citizens are free to express their religion so long as they don’t violate anyone’s inalienable rights while doing so. Government is neutral on religion because government is to serve everyone equally with no favor or disfavor, and may not use its power to interfere in religion. But citizens are free to be religious or not and to express it publicly or not.
I remember a case in the US where some Christian students in a public high school engaged in a prayer circle within the school in the mornings before the first class of the day. But they were told they could not do this on school grounds.
Even as an atheist I thought this was a gross misunderstanding of the secularity of the school. Those kids were not requiring others to participate. They were not imposing anything on anyone. (Simply seeing someone pray does not harm me in the least.) They were simply using their free time in the morning to pray together and the school employee did exactly the thing that a government employee is NOT supposed to do – interfere in the religious expression of citizens.
Now, I understand very well all that is wrong with Islam and that the hijab represents Islam. But I also believe that a secular government is one that does not interfere in religious expression and practices unless those expressions and practices cause inconvenience or harm to others, such as clogging up a public street or pathway by congregating for prayer there, or mutilating the genitals of children, or forcing a woman or girl to wear hijab or niqab when she chooses not to.
Government should neither have the power to force people to wear hijab or to not wear hijab, to pray in the classroom under the direction of a teacher or to desist from prayer in school on one’s own free time.
When Muslims violate laws that protect individual rights, the law should crack down on them, not let them off the hook just because they’re a dangerous minority with a lot of “victim” clout in today’s screwy culture. But if Muslims women are forbidden to wear hijab in government buildings – which violates no one’s rights unless the woman is being forced to wear it – because it’s an ostentatious display of their religion, what does that mean for Amish people, for Sikhs, for orthodox Jews and others who have distinctive costumes that they wear all the time, but whose religions pose no threat to anyone? Does this mean that if they cannot bring themselves to put aside their religious clothing they cannot attend meetings in government buildings?
There are many Muslims who do things that *do* violate someone’s rights in the name of their religion, but governments are reluctant to do anything about it. That’s the proper focus for a secular government – going after rights violations regardless of who is doing those violations, with no favor or disfavor.
cfprcy says
She’s lying! On the video you can see clearly that she was laughing, and the kids with her were laughing too. She picked up her son and asked him to pretend to cry. Slumbag!
The unexpected voice says
Then just go back to your country of origin bacause Islam isn’t belong to Europe who value democracy and Freedom unlike Autocratic Islam.
The unexpected voice says
On the bright side this mean French people are seeing Islamic threats, and not submit to Islam yet. I hope majority of French people will soon realise this terrible truth, and fight against Islamic jihad.
myersmichelle22@gmail.com says
I think her life was destroyed the moment she was born a Muslim woman.