Chiswickite - formerly The Croydonian

Croydonian,

Your points are so well taken that it is difficult to add anything.

Your most important point is liberty!

Islam will as long be incompatible with liberal Western culture as young boys are educated in their families to control and punish their sisters for not obeying the demands of their male masters, e.g. to wear a veil. It's a form of slavery and the beliefs and interests of the owners of slaves are incompatible with the values of a society founded on individual liberty.

Hence, the freedom of Islamic women is a measure of Islam's compatibility with the values of Western society. The West and especially the Western Left should support feminism in the Islamic world instead of claiming that all cultures are equal aka multiculturalism.

(BTW, all cultures are supposedly equal with the exception of anti-socialist cultures such as USA, modern China etc.)  

Colin - liberty /has/ to come first as far as I'm concerned.

There's a cracking piece by a Tunisian feminist translated by Memri here  

A well argued piece, Croydonian. I can't find much to add. Turks have argued about the permissibility of veiling for over a decade. About 30% of the female population wear a head scarf, when going out to public places to satisfy the Islamic admonition about modest dress. From what I have observed, the veil is a political statement. By way of example, Aliye Cetinkaya, a journalist from the Turkish daily Sabah newspaper, who was reporting on the recent protests over the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, was stoned for reasons demonstrators said were provocative – as she did not cover her head. The female journalist was attacked for being ‘sexually provocative’ for not wearing a head scarf at the demonstration entitled ‘Loyalty to the Prophet’. Islamists later filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor against Cetinkaya the same day, accusing her of disturbing the demonstration!!!

There are many Muslim women who don't want to wear it- they shouldn't be forced, as now happens in the New and Improved Free Iraq and many other places besides. Like Bradford or Bethnal Gren.  

Brilliant post.  

Godalming is one of my historic stomping grounds, and I have frequently cracked the same joke about seeing more women wearing headscarves there than in Tower Hamlets.

Perhaps tellingly a lot of Muslim girls / women in London wear headscarves with a very, very dark grey recurrent Calvin Klein etc logo printed on black cloth. This is only obvious at very close range, and I've wondered A - are these licenced products? ( I doubt it), and B - whether they are acts of rebellion or inducements by more religious relatives to get them to wear them?  

excellent post Croydonian  

What y'all said, but something almost everyone misses - veils are an aggressive denial of the West and everything our advanced societies stand for.

These women are saying: "I do not have to reveal myself to you. You cannot see me or read my face, but I can read yours."

The veil, chador, whatever, is also used aggressively to try to put Western women into an inferior position. For example, these women in their ambulatory little prisons use their anonymity to try to knock Western women off the kerb. They intentionally - it happens too often to be an accident - jab their elbows into one as they pass one. They put an arm out and cut to cut one off from entering a doorway before them (dhimmis are supposed to give way to the cult followers). They are very nasty and vicious to other women - and probably would be to men as well, except they're not allowed to touch any man outside their family.

This anonymity is unassailable. Even if there were a police constable nearby, one couldn't report an assault, because he would ask "Are you sure it was that woman? How do you know?" - and of course, you couldn't swear it was that particular ambulatory black sack.

For this reason - the attempted enforcement of dhimmitude on our female population contrary to our laws (the law of assault)the veil should be outlawed in public places. It is used as a weapon in their ridiculous holy war.

In addition, of course, to allow them to have their passport photos and drivers' licence photos taken with their veils on is not only a grotesque perversion of our laws, but again, it is a triumph for the aggressors. The dhimmis have to obey the laws, but we don't.

I am heartily opposed to the veil both for the reasons of patriarchal subjugation of 50% of the human race, but also because these women are aggressive, and they are just as involved in advancing the cause of their cult as are the jihadis.  

Verity I have noticed the same thing , the creature tends to be about 5 feet tall and 4 feet wide and prone to waddling down the pavement in groups pushing future benefit cheats in push chairs.
Croydonian I accept your point as to lierty, however, what about the British people having the Liberty to say that we do not want thse people living amongst us?
Nobody has ever asked me if I want this scum in my country.  

In Saudi Arabia and other "conservative" , i.e. without connection to reality, states, a woman cannot leave the house unless in the company of a male relative - even a small boy.

This whole religion is such a perversion of human nature. In no other culture in the world do people cover up their faces. Nor ever has! That was the excitement of masked balls, for example.

But make no mistake, those women who wear burqas/chadors/niqabs in the West are doing it as an act of aggression. They think it elevates them above the natives, and certainly, it does give them unfair, and illegal, advantages. They are players in the game, just as are the jihadi nutjobs.

And while I'm on a roll, two weeks ago in Iran, a woman was sentenced to stoning for "adultery" because she was raped, and could not produce FOUR MALE WITNESSES.

The judge who found her guilty of "adultery" involved himself in how deep she should be buried - almost up to the neck - and how large should be the stones for passers-by to hurl at her. Not too small or they wouldn't hurt enough. Not so large that they would kill her too quickly.

That we are adjusting our behavioural norms for these primitives is absolutely outrageous. I am of the opinion that islam should be downgraded to cult status until it has reformed itself and can be re-admitted into civilisation.  

Peter Hitchens - even the young, unfat ones are physically aggressive to indigenous women. They are nasty pieces of work. People think because they're wearing a veil, they're submissive; but they're not. They use their anonymity aggressively.

And yes, none of them, including the fat ones, will step aside to let one pass. These women who choose to veil themselves are the distaff jihadis and they are just as maniacal as the self-detonating mass murderers.

Croydonian, I too don't care how other people dress. I've seen a couple of blacks - I assume tribal chiefs - in London wearing full regalia and thought them rather splendid.

But covering one's face - hiding one's identity - is an act of aggression and they are using it to mark up points against us as they triumph against our laws by getting special concessions. I would like to see the veil outlawed in public places.  

Verity,

You interestingly observed that "these women are aggressive , and they are just as involved in advancing the cause of their cult as are the jihadis."

They identify with the justification for their enslavement in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. If they would accept unveiled women as another variation of female clothing, they would feel silly for anxiously obeying Islamic laws. Seeing other women to enjoy a life without their own anxieties makes them aggressive towards unveiled women because they induce the unpleasant feeling of cognitive dissocance which must be eliminated at all costs. Therefore, they are fighting against the cause of their cognitive dissonance, i.e. unveiled women  

Peter,

You said " what about the British people having the Liberty to say that we do not want thse people"

Where is the contradiction with liberty? The fact that the British people don't have the right to decide for themselves who may enter their country is a sign for lack of liberty and democracy because those in power made the decision and force them to pay the costs.

By analogy, it's as if you are not allowed to decide who may live in your home. Maybe the famous British saying "My home is my castle" should be changed into "My home is a hotel for unpaying permanent guests".  

Colin - Your post of 5:22.

Sorry, but you're wrong and I don't know what you think qualifies you to diagnose muslim women as having "cognitive dissodence" because this a perception of a western man and I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

You write: If they would accept unveiled women as another variation of female clothing, they would feel silly for anxiously obeying Islamic laws.

No. They wouldn't. They think Western women are sluts and they hate us, hate us, hate us because their men look at us on the street.

In addition, it is a tool of power, as I said in two posts above that you clearly didn't read before commenting. What wearing niqabs and similar screwball face-hiding headgear says to the host society is: "I am the watcher; you are the observed. You cannot see me, but I can see you. Therefore, I am the more powerful." These women are very aggressive. They use their niqabs as weapons.

At the same time, they are swathed in self-righteousness because they are obeying allah. Mohammad, who was a paedophile, did not say women had to wear veils. All the koran says is, women should dress modestly. That does not mean walking around in a mobile black prison.

The muslim women who don't want to wear a veil, Colin, do not wear a veil (in all but SA and similar). Those wearing veils are, in the main, doing it because it makes them feel powerful among the infidel, aka 'normal people'.

Your post tells me you know nothing about islam.

But I liked your analogy in your following post.  

BTW, guys and ... uh, guys - there don't seem to be any women posting here today - I see that the Religion of Perpetual Seething is in training for a new Seeth-o-rama.

Barely over Pope Rage, we are now entering the era of Olympics Rage. The 2012 Olympics in London takes place during ramadan. It puts the seethers at an unfair disadvantage, because they have to fast all day!

(Actually, this is a lie. People who are engaged in travelling, as the Olympics athletes will be, do not have to fast. This is a lie for political purposes and another step to power.)

The muslims are jumping up and down - don't they ever get tired of jumping up and down and just veg out in front of the TV with a tub of Haagen-Das? - at the insult. "They wouldn't have scheduled this during Christmas" they spit angrily.

Well, no, mohammad. This is the summer olympics and Christmas falls in December - technically a winter month. I thought you people were supposed to be so good at astronomy?  

V - I was mulling on checking whether previous Olympiads had clashed with religious holy days, which they doubtless must have done, but decided life was just way too short.

And please bear in mind that Colin is not writing in his first language.  

Verity at 7.19,
I'm with you all the way. And I'm not a woman by the way.It would seem that you speak with the knowledge of one who has lived among the Mohammedans. The aggressive tendencies and self-righteousness of the veiled ones are very familiar to us. They are a force to be reckoned with...  

These are the best posts I have seen on this subject by far. It saddens me to compare them to some ministerial whining s that I have seen on TV today.

One thing that unfortunately does not help the Liberty case Croydonian is that there has been a sharp increase in people wearing all sorts of muslim dress since 9/11 and 7/7.

This can only mean they are doing it out of a sense of provacation to us natives; if they meant to be conciallatory they would have chosen the other line of approach.

Therefore we are in a different place to the 1970's and 1980's when lack of jobs and ghetto's were at the heart of racial tensions. This is not race, but culture and the Muslims wish to be at odds, even at war with Western values and citizens whether we want to or not.

So this is more likethe 1930's and appeasement is not an option.  

Croydonian, I didn't know that Colin wasn't writing in his first language and I thought he expressed himself with perfect clarity. It was his conclusions, not his use of the language, with which I strongly disagree. He is ignorant of islam, a very dangerous position to be in at this time. I was not criticising the manner in which he expressed himself. It was the thoughts he was expressing which I found alarming.

Well, you clever old thing, Istanbul Tory, yes I have lived in an islamic country. Thanks for the endorsement. And I read about islam because it is the most profound threat our Western democratic civilisation has ever encountered.

I am shocked at how ill-informed the British choose to be about the aggressors in their midst and their religion. Yes, the veiled ones are not passive. They are vicious and the British have yet to wake up to this.

You, too, City Slicker - well said! These women are wearing the veil as an act of political provocation - and it also allows them to be physically violent to indigenous women (as I stated above) anonymously.

But most important, it is a way of imposing their presence on our consciousness, and, by the drip drip drip method, imposing their will on us.

You are correct in saying the muslims wish to be at war with the West, no matter how conciliatory the stance adopted by the West (which is,in any event, a very big mistake). Now they are having a giant seethe that the Olympics, a Greek tradition the West revived, which has absolutely bugger all to do with islam or any other religion, will be taking place during one of their holy days. They say their athletes - who I don't believe ever win anything anyway - will be at a disadvantage from fasting all day.

This is a lie. It is a very big lie. It is taqqya. Muslims who are travelling - and that includes stopping at hotels on the trip - DO NOT HAVE TO FAST. THEY ARE EXCUSED FASTING. So this latest assault is - again - to bend the West to their will.

And they will win on this one. The Olympics committee obviously, no matter how corrupt they are, won't want another islamic massacre as in Munich.

The islamics have become encouraged in their ambitions by the passivity of the West. We are allowing these sly, scheming people to punch far, far above their weight.

From many posts here and elsewhere, I see that people have failed to become aware of the threat at the heart of our societies, to our freedoms.  

Verity,

You wrote "this a perception of a western man" and "They think Western women are sluts and they hate us, hate us, hate us because their men look at us".

This suggests that Verity is a woman. And you are correct Mrs. Verity that some of them probably hate you because their men look at you. (BTW, the psychological mechanism is unlikely to be different from Western women hating a beautiful Western woman. It's about competition. Why would so many Turkish women color their hair blonde, if not because they know that Islamic men are attracted to it?) But you are wrong that I don't know anything about Islam. In addition, I know psychology and in regard to the latter it is certain that there is not a fundamental law of psychology called 'Islamic women hate Western women'. Hence, there must be a more fundamental psychological mechanism eliciting their hate. That's the reason for my attempt to apply the psychological law of 'cognitive dissonance' to the phenomenon so very well described by you.

Furthermore, you stated with vigor: "The muslim women who don't want to wear a veil, Colin, do not wear a veil (in all but SA and similar)."

This statement is hardly in agreement with the following reports.

(1) Croydonian reported somewhere that a survey of N African women in France in their 30s has found that over 70% approved the law banning the hijab.

(2) Furthermore, may I draw your attention to an article in Alice Schwarzer's feminist magazine "Emma". Unfortunately, it is in German but here the main message in English: ”In the past, they burned trash cans and cars - now they are burning girls." This sentence said Kahina Benziane, after her sister Sohane was raped, tortured and burned alive by schoolmates on the 4th of October 2002 in the Parisian Banlieue Vitry. ..”

And here an article in Wikipedia about the case: "Sohane Benziane (1984–October 4, 2002) was a French Muslim girl who was murdered at the age of 17. On October 4, 2002 in Vitry-sur-Seine, in a predominently Muslim satellite town of Paris, 17 year old Sohane Benziane, the daughter of Kabyle immigrants, was burned alive in front of her friends in a cellar by a gang leader after he had an argument with her former boyfriend. While a watch was kept outside, the aggressor, a local caid nicknamed Nono, who had bought the bottle of gasoline a day before, poured gasoline over Sohane and set her on fire with a lighter. As Sohanne, engulfed in flames, managed to run out screaming in agony her death was witnessed by a dozen other students that were coming out of class."

(3) And this wasn't the only killing of Islamic women in Europe. The BBC reports on 14 March, 2005 'Honour killing' shocks Germany. "In Islamic culture, the woman is the bearer of the family decency. She must maintain the honour of the family. Men must defend that honour." If the police are right, Mrs Surucu was the sixth victim of honour killings among Berlin's 200,000-strong Turkish community in as many months. But not everyone shares the outrage. On a school playground, just yards from where the killing occurred, children were heard praising it. The victim, they said, had lived like a German. And it was not the only response of its kind. "I heard a young Turkish lady said on a Turkish radio station 'she deserved it because she took off her headscarf'."

(4) In regard to Britain, let's hear what Saira Khan, a Muslim woman, has to say in The Times: "Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?

But a lot of women are not free to choose. Girls as young as three or four are wearing the hijab to school — that is not a freely made choice. Girls under 16 should certainly not have to wear it to school. And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls that are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to universities, they have little choice in who they marry, in many cases they are kept down by the threat of violence."  

Verity,

To avoid another useless accusation along the lines that I don't know anything about Islam and that I am too naive etc.

Yes, you are right that many of the Islamic women wearing a scarf are doing it as a sign of their will to subdue us. That's why I am against a banning of the scarf. The purpose of the ban is to deceive the Christian population about the magnitude of the threat.

And yes, you are right that mass immigration from Islamic countries is the greatest danger facing Western civilization, more than communism and national socialism because ethnic conflicts will not disappear by changes in ideology. Because in the case of conflicts, people always have a strong loyality to individuals showing evidence of genetic similiarity, i.e. in descending order, their children and parents, their extended family, their tribe, their group, their religion and culture.

And thanks for the compliment that you didn't realize that English is my second language.  

Colin, with respect, you are not following the argument. And you are making outrageous assumptions about Islamic psychology, which I can readily tell from your post, you have not studies. It is clear that you have studied the psychology of the Western mind, which has been shaped by 2,000 of the freedom to think and develop as we chose (given the constraints of serfdom and the economic situation of the times).

Again, I am afraid you misunderstood my argument in my previous post. I said that, with the exception of SA and some similarly weirdly conservative countries, if a women doesn't want to wear a veil, she doesn't wear a veil. Salman Rushdie, for example, said none of the women in his family, including his mother, had even considered wearing a veil.

Surely you understood, by my reference to Saudi Arabia and similarly conservative countries, I was not including the West!

Yet you responded with a long stream of examples of niqab, hijab, burqa, chador-wearing women from immigrant families in the West. This was my whole argument. This is a movement that is growing in the West, and it is a militant statement against the freedoms enjoyed by the [unwilling] host nations.

(1) Croydonian reported somewhere that a survey of N African women in France in their 30s has found that over 70% approved the law banning the hijab. No. I reported it on Croydonian's site. I was living in France when the law was passed and I followed it carefully. The figure you have rounded UP to 70% was actually about 67%. This was in France, not in an Islamic countries.

Again, yes I am familiar with the fact that they are burning girls in Germany and in the banlieus of France for not wearing veils. They are also burning Christian girls who are unlucky enough to live in the banlieus, and they rape them as well, as punishment for not wearing a veil. Again, this isn't an islamic country. It is GERMANY and FRANCE.

I am also familiar with outrages you haven't mentioned. These are in the West and these are not what I was referring to. I was referring to people living in ISLAMIC countries, where women are not universally shrouded except, as I keep saying in ultra-conservative bonkers countries like SA.

I am also well aware of what Saira Khan has said and I have mentioned her elsewhere on this blog. Again, she is referring to Britain, not islamic countries.

The veil is being used not only as a weapon of submission in the West, but also is being adopted as an aggressive act by violent islamic females in the West. Yes, some are forced to wear the veil by their fathers and, for God's sake, their brothers, many of whom are years younger than they are.

But in Britain, and most Western countries, you will find that it is increasingly being adopted by girls who were never forced to wear it as children. These kids are at once more radical and at the same time more conservative, than their parents. They use the veil to intimidate. They know they can do this and they know they will get away with it, because they were born and brought up in Western countries and they know how tolerant we are, and how reluctant to condemn another's beliefs.

It is not my intention to appear discourteous, but that you have studied psychology is neither here nor there in this discussion. You do not understand the pyschology of islam.

We are talking about the use of the veil as a weapon in the conquest of the West. Which won't happen, but they're giving it the old college try.  

Colin, when my post appeared, I saw that you had posted above. I take your comments, although I still think you don't understand all the parameters of this war. But we agree on the grave danger. They will only win if we continue to be passive and tolerant.

We should not be tolerating a)the intolerable and b) a threat to our long and hard fought for freedoms and way of life.  

Verity,

"We should not be tolerating a)the intolerable and b) a threat to our long and hard fought for freedoms and way of life."

That's precisely my view!

"You do not understand the pyschology of islam."

That's not difficult to understand. It's simply an ideology of conquest. Everybody who studied only a small amount of Islamic history knows that.

"I still think you don't understand all the parameters of this war."

The parameters are also very simple. Limit and reduce the number of your potential enemies.

That's all common sense so that I don't see any need to endlessly repeat the sermon.  

Colin - I agree. Limit and reduce the number. And then be deemed a "racist", the cult of islam having acquired honorary "race" status to shut down the discussion.

Thus, according to the left/Trots/Marxists, many of whom work for the BBC and many of whom hold seats in the British cabinet (and probably the German cabinet such is the servile nature of our politicians just now), anything we do to defend our civilisation against these bizarre, primitive aggressors is wrong, inter alia.  

Istanbul Tory - Have you ever read "A Fez of The Heart"? It's a beguiling book about author Jeremy Seal's journey through Turkey in search of the origin of the fez. The people he meets are so well drawn, and some of them are so intriguing ... Picador publishers. Well worth getting sent out to you if not available in your local bookstore. Funny and intriguing. To everyone: one of those reads where you think, 'I'll just read the next page then turn off the light...".  

Verity,
I am, indeed, familiar with the book to which you alluded. The book is a very funny journey through Turkey's confusing political and cultural topography and does a very good job of depicting a country that doesn't know whether it should tilt East or West....  

Yes, it's a very funny book.

Re the Olympics, which I loathe on every level, I think they should go ahead as planned. It is not beyond the ingenuity of Western nations to protect the games and the athletes and we cannot have such a huge (if moronic) international happening bend to the will of islam. That would be the worst outcome.

In addition, journalists and broadcasters - I won't include the BBC as they will be fasting right along with the muslims this month and may be a bit lighter headed than usual - must expose this manipulative phoniness.

islamic travellers do not have to fast while they're on a journey - meaning, until they get home again. Those on the trip to the Olympics will be exused for the duration. Mohammad, a paedophile, thought of everything. So this is a false means of bending the Olympics to the will of a bunch of oily imams of the type who ran up some fake cartoons that they found on the internet and mixed them in with the genuine Motoons for their added incendiary value.

This, boys and girls, is taqqya.  

V - I've done some checking. The Winter Olympics this year started the day after the Muslim festival of Ashura and clashed with the Jewish Tu B'Shevat.  

And this means what, Croydonian?  

That they could have made a song and dance about that, should they have wanted.

Looks like Ashura is a big one for Shi'ites, and guess which country with a name beginning with 'I' and ending with 'n' sent a team...  

Yes,Croydonian, but you said the games began the day after Ashura, so what's the big deal?

Also, Iran isn't as big on taqqya and kitman (they are a much more intelligent race) as the Arabs and Pakistanis.  

I suppose they would have travelled ahead of the opening day, so a fuss could have been made. OK, I'm clutching at straws.  

But even if they travelled ahead of time, they could eat! Those on journeys can eat during fasting periods - as the Arabs and Pakistanis well-know. It's no big deal.

This new seethe is just taqqya. Lying in the service of promoting their cult and trying to bend the knee of the world to islam. The islamic athletes won't be disadvantaged. And even if they couldn't eat - then don't take part. Who would miss them?  

It's strange that they're always talking about offending "over a billion muslims" - ooh, err! - yet they never win anything. A billion people and they cannot produce one winner. If I were them, I would stay very, very quiet at this point.

The Jews produce winners, though. Tee hee.  

I see Jessa Jowell has plunged into the veil debate. She's agin' it.

This is all passing strange. Twilight Zone, really.  

I think the long awaited cold day in Hell has arrived - TJ said something and I didn't start grinding my teeth.  

Croydonian, I have a challenge for you, why don't you extend your social observations by acquiring a veil and wearing it for 24 hours and judge the public reaction, does anyone stand to give you a seat on the tube or bus? Try going into your local and buying a drink? It should be quite revealing .....  

Ellee,

"why don't you extend your social observations by acquiring a veil and wearing it for 24 hours"

A most interesting idea, indeed.

Maybe we should donate money for buying the necessary equipment because he probably hasn't a veil in his closet, yet.

On the other hand, we all might have to invest in such apparel since the times are changing.  

Verity,

I totally agree with your statements and so probably does everyone on this and many other blogs.

But why should we all constantly preach to the choir on these blogs?

Some variations of the old theme is more fun, isn't it.  

Colin, there are people on this and other conservative/libertarian blogs who know very little about islam. This is dangerous. These people tend to believe everything they're told by islamic special pleading groups - especially as it is usually piously repeated by the unspeakable tony blair.

This blog,and a few others, are fun and we all join in, but the threat of islam to our societies is real and when Croydonian brings up an islamic topic, I try to make a contribution of facts.

The concessions already made by tony blair are mind-boggling and now they are asking for shariah law in certain areas. Our English Common Law has developed for 2,000 years and is the legal basis for all our former colonies. It is respected worldwide, and these primitives want their own barbaric law and blair has never said: "No. The law of this country is English Common Law. Live with it or leave."

People don't always agree with me, Colin, because many simply don't believe how aggressive and primitive islam is. They prefer the soft option of, "Well, they're just like us, really." No. They are not. They hang homosexuals, including young homosexual boys. They stone women to death. In islam, falling in love with the wrong man is a capital offence and a girl is likely to have the sentence carried out by her father and brothers, with the complicity of her own mother.

I do not think, Colin, I am preaching to the choir, judging by some of the arguments I get. People do not want to believe that their authority in their own country, under laws developed and fought for by their forefathers, is under assault.