Nov. 3, 2006: Do we really believe that ...

These minds are capable of being changed?

Leftists are urging acceptance of people from the terrorist-sponsoring countries, people who think as do the imams and men in articles mentioned today. Do they really think that they will rehabilitate these minds? That they are capable of reason? Of tolerance? Of treating women as equals? Where do the feminists of the Status of Women (SOW) stand on the following?


Egyptians are horrified by the news that women have been assaulted by hordes of young men in the centre of the capital, Cairo., timwest 11/01/2006 22:57:48

www.canoe.ca/mb2/messages/cnewsf/13090.html

Blogs broke the story that has scandalised Egyptians.

The incidents were first reported online by Egyptian bloggers, some of whom saw large number of men harassing the women and ripping off their clothes.

It all happened over the Eid al-Fitr period starting on 23 October, as thousands of young men thronged the streets of central Cairo to celebrate the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.

[....] A psychologist, Amr Abu Khaleel, attributed the predatory behaviour to the possible use of drugs and the breakdown of traditional values.

One prominent writer and journalist, Nabeel Sharaf al-Deen, said that such behaviour was the symptom of a deeper malaise in Egyptian society and warned that such incidents were the first stirrings of much bigger social unrest. [....]

I do not believe this is a recent phenomenon. Despicable treatment of women has been a problem for women for years; e.g. female travellers in the North Africa area. It is just now being reported more, particularly since men with these attitudes have moved to the West. Do you really want to support No One Is Illegal? More "refugees" mouthing lies in order to stay? A refugee appeal system that allows even the worst to stay and to fight deportation using taxpayer money? Keep reading.




Women not meat: men not animals , The Gazette, October 30, 2006

www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=
1a24bbd0-4bde-4e44-9dbe-0451d3871e3e

Australia's most senior Muslim cleric has been barred from preaching for three months, time enough, the Australian mosque association believes, for Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali to reconsider the error of his thinking.

A lifetime ban is what is required. Hilali apologized but has shown little real understanding of why his remarks raised such controversy around the world. The failure of the Australian Muslim community to remove him permanently, and his intransigence about his suspension, reveal the problem which views such as his create for all Muslims.

[....] In a sermon to 500 people in Sydney, marking the end of Ramadan, Hilali, 65, spoke of women who appear in public without a hijab (which is not in fact a religious requirement) this way: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street ... and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it? The cats or the uncovered meat?" [....]

Another imam reveals a barbaric attitudes toward women. Why would the countries of the West allow people like this to enter, to instruct?



Background: Muslim Rape, Feminist Silence, By Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com , Nov. 1, 2006

frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25226

Unveiled women who get raped deserve it.

That’s the pedagogy preached by the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who recently sparked an international stir by pronouncing that women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be “uncovered meat”, are at fault if they are raped.

This is nothing new, of course, and it is somewhat mysterious why the Sheikh’s comments have caused any shock at all, since his view is legitimized by various Islamic texts and numerous social and legal Islamic structures. And that is why back in September 2004 in Denmark, al-Hilali’s Australian counterpart, the Mufti Shahid Mehdi, declared exactly the same thing, stating that unveiled women are “asking for rape.”

All of this, in turn, explains the skyrocketing epidemic of Muslim rape in non-Islamic countries. Muslim newcomers are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects throughout European nations such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. [....]

Search: smiley [This is NOT funny, though you should know what it is.]

Just read it. It is unbelievable that a Western country would allow people like this to immigrate or to enter as imams, to preach. It is time for that to change.



Where do Canadian feminists, the Status of Women (SOW) stand on this subject?

Yesterday I read that, finally, a Muslim father in Florida was being punished for mutilating the clitoris of his 2 year old with scissors; he got 10 years in jail.

Ethiopian immigrant convicted in daughter's genital mutilation gets 10 years

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/11/01/2198075-ap.html

In a case in Canada, St. Catherines, I believe, the parents sent a girl "home" (perhaps with or to grandparents) and a cliterectomy was performed -- so they actually got away with it -- no jail time.

If we bring barbarism here, our homeland will become barbaric. Reconsider immigration from those Muslim countries still performing clitorectomies, still treating girls like this and their women as though they were occasions of sin. Already, as detailed in the article mentioned above, Europe is reaping the fruits of its Muslim immigration. Should we not learn from it and act accordingly? Comments?



An Unveiling: Separate, but acceptable? An NRO Symposium , National Review Online, October 25, 2006

article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=
NDNkNjE0ODBkMDNiYjk4OGIyNjJhYTk4MzdlNjJmZTg

“Muslim women veiling has become the subject of intense controversy in Britain in recent days, with Prime Minister Tony Blair calling the veil a “mark of separation.” National Review Online asked a group of commentators — including Bill Bennett, Mona Charen, Phyllis Chesler, Andrew McCarthy, Emanuele Ottolenghi, and Daniel Pipes, to weigh in on the questions: Should the nikab be banned? CAN it be?” [nikab / niqab]

The full range of answers can be read at

http://
article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=
NDNkNjE0ODBkMDNiYjk4OGIyNjJhYTk4MzdlNjJmZTg .

Here is mine [Daniel Pipes]:

The nikab, which leaves only a woman’s eyes showing, is the second most extreme Muslim covering of women after the burka (which covers the entire head, including the eyes). Both garments have become the topic of debate in Europe in recent years; in “Europe’s Burqa Wars,” for example, I catalogue some efforts to penalize or render illegal the burka. Thanks to a statement by Labour politician Jack Straw, the nikab has in recent weeks become the center of furious dispute in Great Britain. To a lesser extent, it is already debated in the United States, such as the case of Sultaana Freeman, who wanted to wear a nikab for her driving license picture, or Ginnnah Muhammad, who had her lawsuit thrown out of court because she refused to take off her nikab.

I see the nikab or burka doing immense damage to male/female and Muslim/non-Muslim relations, but in those areas an American’s right to freedom-of-expression prevails. On grounds of security, however, I believe that both coverings should be banned, as one cannot have face-less persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces. [....]

Comment from a correspondent ... drawing attention to who fund the left: Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left, Ben Johnson, FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2004

Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry's Charitable Giving

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

Perhaps this circular rotation of cash and endorsements should not surprise anyone. The grant-making institutions of the Left and their feverish recipients ultimately form an amorphous, leftist entity. One never needs to search very far to find connections between a leftist foundation and extreme advocacy groups. Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center; Tides funds the National Lawyers Guild, CAIR, MoveOn.org and United for Peace and Justice; those organizations then unite in fluid coalitions to protest against their common political enemies (Republicans). Ultimately, their representatives end up on Bill Moyers' PBS programs or active within the Democratic campaigns of their fundraisers. [....]

The writer suggested that the same thing is occurring on in Canada, except, instead of private donations supporting these radical groups, it's taxpayers' money, the CCP, Gays, the anti-poverty coalition -- all sucking off the taxpayer teat. The writer also suggested that immigration is the most troubling; leftists are urging acceptance of people from the terrorist-sponsoring countries, people who think as do the imams and men in articles mentioned today. Do they really think that they will rehabilitate these minds? That they are capable of reason? Their inability to see any view but their own does not render them fit to live in the West.

More on this topic later.

Comment if you wish. No, I cannot tell who writes from comments. I do get to choose whether the writer is sensibly commenting or just spewing vitriol at me, in which case, it won't be published. Google/Blogger has made it that simple.