Muslims Next Fight: The Right to Wear Ski Masks?
The latest Muslim “outrage” against the West was announced last week. Their most recent attempt to stop any semblance of free speech, if anything whatsoever is said about Islam, swirls cacophonously around innocuous statements made by UK Senior British Cabinet Minister and leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw.
Straw had the audacity to voice his opinion that, in face to face meetings with Muslim women, he would prefer to actually see their faces. So, in a recent meeting with a Muslim women’s group, he asked that they remove their niqabs (veils that cover the entire face). Straw told an interviewer: “I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone face-to-face’ who I could not see.” Muslims in the UK hit the proverbial roof over this and, as is their proclivity, are continuing their “fury” over Straw’s comments and have even threatened violence. The UK’s Lancashire Council of Mosques spokesman Abdul Hamid Qureshi warned the United Kingdom: “What is he really concerned about? This is not helpful. It has got the potential to cause anger!” Nazreen Nawaz, another spokesman, added: “He [Straw] has once again shown that for Cabinet ministers it is open season on Muslims and Islam!”
Note: It now appears that it is only acceptable for Muslims to offer their opinions — on anything. “Westerners”, even leaders of their countries, may not. And, as was witnessed a few weeks ago, 14th century Byzantine emperors may not be quoted either–even by the pope, if their quotes go against the Islamic agenda, which (by the way and just as an aside) also includes world domination.
The increasingly unstable worldwide leftist media, ever fighting their war against the continuance of civilization, is (as might be expected) siding with Islam. The left-wing Observer.co.uk even asks of Straw’s statement: “Did he have the right to say it?” The mere fact that this question was asked speaks volumes. Although the publication eventually states that Straw did have the right, it also states that there should be a “national debate about an informal code of civility for a diverse society.” A national debate over whether or not one is allowed to see to whom they are speaking? EGADS! This takes insanity to a new and, as yet, uncharted level—if that’s even possible.
With this markedly growing mindless movement it appears that Islam, radical or otherwise, is to be coddled—not stirred. Instead, rational, civilized comments and behaviors are to be shunned—if not banned altogether.
This created “controversy” leads me to the next logical question: “Will the next Muslim itching-for-a-fight action be taken over [their] wearing ski masks?” Heck, terrorists are already “allowed” to do so—and they do so on a regular basis. Isn’t it “discriminatory” not to allow everyone to wear them everywhere and anywhere they want? And what about bans against wearing ski masks while carrying knives and guns? As the most prominent groups currently “wearing and carrying” are Islamo-fascists, doesn’t the barring of these garments and their accessories show a clear-cut “Western bias”? Defending this “right” may be something that is right up Ramsey Clark’s alley!
So, the next time you see anyone wearing a ski mask and carrying weapons of any kind, be very careful what you say or do. This may be the next in a long line of Muslim “civil rights’” cases. And, if you’re not careful, you may just end up sitting in court behind the defendant’s table looking at a completely covered up plaintiff—who is, of course, armed to his or her not visible teeth.
References:
http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html
Guardian UK
Washington Times
RELATED:
Muslims Gearing Up for Rioting: Phase II?
—
Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)
Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, Staff Writer and Program Director for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve’s Op/Ed columns are widely carried by multiple Internet Journals and sites and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in International news publications and on multiple University websites.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
As a young man with a relatively high libido, in the interests of “community relations” I would love it if all women wore … nothing. I think if we can get a law passed requiring women to remove all clothes in the interest of community relationtions I think it would greatly enhance my relationships with the female community. Well maybe not all women. There are some body types that I would rather not see. I would like to be appointed minister in charge of deciding which women should be forced to walk around naked and which ones should be forced to wear the baggiest clothing possible. And while we are on the issue, perhaps there are some faces which should be forced under a veil.
Some women feel insecure about their bodies and wear baggy clothes. Some wear much more revealing clothing. I find interesting that western society which has always argued that when a woman wears revealing clothing it is her perogative, suddenly wants to take issue with women who go to the other extreme. Jack Straw has a right to his opinion. Just like I have a right to think his opinion is stupid.
October 11th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
…perogative…
You hit the nail on the head. In the 21st century, should any civilized nation require that its women dress a certain way?
When females in Muslim nations are free to burn their burkhas (not to mention their bras - e.g. win equality, for those uninformed of the phrase), then Jack Straw won’t have anything to criticize.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Why is Straw’s opinion stupid? He didn’t say that muslim women should be required to have their faces uncovered. All he said was that he is personally uncomfortable speaking to someone whose face he cannot see. He is doing the islamo-fascists a favor by meeting with them; therefore, he has the right to decide the setting.