► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘burka ban’

Ban the Burqa

by 1389AD ( 39 Comments › )
Filed under Australia, Egypt, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism, Pakistan, September 11 at June 27th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

Wearing a burqa in any society where face masks and voluminous robes are not customarily worn is, indeed, a form of “reverse exhibitionism.”

It has nothing to do with modesty; it’s all about confrontation. The burqa draws a tremendous amount of attention and scrutiny regarding who, or what, is under that burqa. (“Who” being jihadis or other criminals, male or female. “What” being BOMBS or other deadly weapons.) Political correctness forbids the authorities from conducting proper security checks. The burqa grabs our attention; even if we try not to stare, we are compelled to WORRY. And that’s the whole point.

The burqa is a security risk even in Muslim countries:

Pakistan Taliban Use Husband, Wife Suicide Bombers

Says lobo91:

This can’t be true. Our own DHS secretary says that women in burqas are less of a threat than nuns and toddlers…

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — The Pakistani Taliban said Sunday the group had sent a husband and wife suicide squad to carry out an attack on a police station in northwestern Pakistan that killed 10 people, a rare instance of militants using a woman as a bomber.

The pair entered the police station in Kolachi on Saturday and said they were there to lodge a complaint, said Imtiaz Shah, a senior police official. Once inside, the two attacked with grenades and machine guns, triggering a five-hour standoff with police.

Both attackers, including the woman wearing an all-covering robe known as a burqa, eventually blew themselves up. They killed eight police officers and two civilians, said Mohammad Hussain, another police official.

“This shows how much we hate Pakistani security institutions,” Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Ahsan claimed it was the first time the militant group had used a female suicide bomber.

However, Pakistani officials said a female suicide bomber wearing a burqa attacked a World Food Program food distribution center in northwestern Pakistan late last year, killing 45 people.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack in Khar, the main city in the Bajur tribal area, but never claimed it was carried out by a female bomber. Still, that was believed to be the group’s first attack by a female suicide bomber.

Male suicide bombers often don the burqa as a disguise. [emphasis added] In 2007, officials initially claimed Pakistan’s first female suicide bomber had killed 14 people in the northwest town of Bannu. But the attacker was later identified as a man.

Islamic militants in Iraq have used female suicide bombers several times because women in their all-covering robes are seen as able to pass more easily through security. Male security officers are often hesitant to search women.

Also Sunday, a bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded near a police station in the central city of Multan, said Zahid Zaman, a senior government official.

The blast wounded eight people, including four police officials, said Wasim Hashmi, chief of the rescue squad in Multan. No group claimed responsibility.

More here.

The burqa is also a useful tool for attention-whoring in the service of expansionist Islam, as the Carnita Matthews case shows us:

Lift the burqa on cowardly extremism

Miranda Devine – The Daily Telegraph – June 23, 2011 12:00AM

THE preposterous excuses and Pythonesque theatrics of Carnita Matthews and her thuggish supporters outside the Downing Centre Courts this week would be comic, if they weren’t so threatening.

The 46-year-old mother of seven, wearing a full black niqab showing just her eyes, has successfully tied the justice system up in knots for the past year, simply to avoid paying a $197 traffic fine.

Described as being “deliberately malicious and … ruthless” by the magistrate who convicted her last November of falsely claiming a “racist” police officer tried to tear off her veil during a random breath test, Matthews escaped her six-month jail sentence on appeal before the District Court.

Ironically, appeal Judge Clive Jeffreys could not be certain beyond reasonable doubt it was Matthews who had lodged the complaint against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, because (drum roll) she was wearing the niqab when she arrived at Campbelltown police station last June.

“All we know is that a person with a black burqa came in with a man in a brown suit with an envelope and that’s it,” he said.

But somebody lied about Sen-Constable Fogarty, whose innocence and restraint in the face of Matthews’ screeching provocation were evident on the 20-minute in-car police video, without which his career would have been in jeopardy.

The prosecution was unable to satisfy Judge Jeffreys that the liar was Matthews, despite the fact her friend, former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib, alleged to radio 2GB’s Chris Smith on Tuesday that he had accompanied her to the police station to lodge the complaint. As well, Channel 7 has footage of Matthews allegedly signing a statutory declaration and driving to the police station.

Maybe the case was too hot to handle. It grew from a simple traffic fine for a woman with a string of driving offences, to a core test of political Islam: Whether a veiled Muslim woman has the right to refuse a police officer’s lawful request that she identify herself.

The answer is no.

That right does not exist under our law.

But that doesn’t stop Islamist activists pushing for it, as if it is their due.

Regardless of who signed the false complaint against Sen-Constable Fogarty, it was the intimidating behaviour of Matthews’ male supporters outside court this week which was most offensive.

The bearded men who chanted “Allah Akbar” (God is Great) as they marched roughshod on cameramen weren’t behaving normally.

Their theatrics were a declaration of war on Australia, on the media, on police.

Linking arms and striding down the street chanting the phrase we have heard again and again – often in the wake of other appalling crimes – was a show of power by people who put the authority of their God above the law of the land.

It is a direct challenge to Australian law and order.

We increasingly see the same challenge issued whenever a hardline Islamist appears in court, as the call goes out for “brothers” to run “protection” for the accused.
[…]
The burqa or niqab, as several Muslims have pointed out this week, is not a requirement of the Koran, which advises women only to dress modestly. But it has become a potent symbol of political Islam.

Gallacher has flagged a law change to allow Muslim women to use fingerprints to verify their identity as an alternative to lifting their veils, but he needs to avoid creating special laws for any particular group.

Australia is one of the most successful immigrant nations on Earth. It would therefore be a pity to follow the European path of banning Islamic face coverings, because the result would simply be more repression of women.

In order to safeguard freedoms – not least of Muslim women to wear the veil – then every challenge to this nation’s authority must be countered whenever it arises.

Giving an inch to the intimidation of political Islam is a mistake.

More here.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Devine’s conclusion that Muslim women, or anybody else, should have the right to disguise themselves with facial masks in public. Nor do I believe in allowing any Muslim immigration whatsoever to non-Muslim countries.

Andrew Bolt: Who was that masked woman?

VIDEO LINK: Burqa battle to continue

Andrew Bolt says:

I can’t be bothered with the legal tip-toe, so no comments. But Mamdouh Habib says it was indeed Carnita Matthews inside that burqa.

The involvement of former Gitmo inmate Mamdouh Habib is a dead giveaway that the Carnita Matthews contretemps has nothing to do with modesty, and everything to do with Muslim expansionism.

According to the article below, Mamdouh Habib’s wife, Maha, works as a private detective in Sydney. She wears a hijab, but not a niqab (face veil) or burqa. Mamdouh himself is a real piece of work:

Introducing Mrs Mamdouh Habib Female Private Eye, Her Husband Who Owned a Security Company Was Accused of Training 9/11 Hi-Jackers

Mamdouh and Maha Habib
[…]
JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA
APO AE 09360
Full Name: Mamdouh Habib his photo above with American flag upside down.
Citizenship: Egyptian
Nationality: Australian

Date of Birth: 06/03/1955..AGE 55
Family status: Married with four children

Occupation: Businessman – Cleaning company and Security Company.

Information: Mamdouh Habib immigrated to Australia in 1980. He married Lebanese born Maha Habib, and the couple have four children, Ahmed (19), Mustafa (16), Maryam (11) and Hager (4). The family lived in Sydney where Mamdouh set up and ran a contract cleaning firm and a security company.

On the 29 July 2001 he left to go to Pakistan on a three month visa. According to Maha Habib he “went searching for opportunities to set up a business to support the family and a suitable school to teach our children” , yeah sure he did.

In reality Mamdouh Habib, his photo above, went to two Al-Qaeda terror training camps in Afghanistan see http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/04/25/1226044/528311-mamdouh-habib-file.pdf

o In September 2001 Mamdouh Habib traveled to a military training base run by Abu Hafs aka Mohammed Atef. He was there only 3 or 4 days thent raveled to a Al-Qaeda guest house in Kabul and also to the Malik guest house. Upon returning to Kandahar he was told to leave because the US had began its bombing campaign in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

o October 5th, 2001, Pakistani authorities captured Mamdouh Habib as he traveled by bus from Quetta to Karachi, Pakistan (PK), with two Germans, Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi, who were suspected Al-Qaeda members from Hamburg, Germany.

Mamdouh Habib was linked to or connected to;

o He trained six of the 9/11 hi-jackers in the use of martial arts

o He also taught them how to use a knife disguised as a cigarette lighter

o He was en route to hi-jack a Qantas flight with his friend Jamal (LNU)

o His friend Rakim (LNU) was going to conduct a simultaneous operation from Thailand

o He had information on his home computer to be used to poison an unidentified river (Hudson NY) in the United States

o He fought in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan with Muslim terrorists.

Mamdouh Habib was arrested in Pakistan on 5 October 2001 in the town of Khuzdar, while on a bus to Karachi. Arrested alongside Mamdouh were two Germans from Hamburg, Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi, with whom he had eaten the previous evening. The day before his arrest, Mamdouh Habib, was in Quetta PK where he met Ibrahim Diab and Bekim Ademi and had dinner with them. They agreed to travel together and they were arrested along with him the next day.
[…]
More here.


An Excellent Letter from Canada

by 1389AD ( 51 Comments › )
Filed under Canada, History, immigration, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Supremacism, Patriotism at April 10th, 2011 - 5:30 pm

Note: We do not know who originally composed this letter, or whether it was ever published in any newspaper or magazine. If this letter is yours, please let us know!

Animated wooden email box From the 1389 Blog Mailbox:

Congratulations to our fellow Canadians in Quebec who had the courage and conviction to exhibit their common sense in officially banning the hijab for certain transactions where identity is mandatory…It’s a start.

Heart with flag of Canada

It’s a privilege to be allowed to immigrate and to live in this country…not a right. When this hit the e-news a few weeks ago, there was overwhelming support by the readers who AGREED with Quebec’s action. The letter below says it all…keep it going.

Words to O Canada

A Letter to the Editor (excellent letter)

So many letter writers have explained how this land is made up of immigrants. Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today’s Canadian is not willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to Canada, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in Halifax and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new Canadian households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new and better life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labour laws to protect them. All they had were the skills, craftsmanship and desire they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Canadians fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, Japan, China, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden, Poland and so many other places. None of these first generation Canadians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Canadians fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the Freedom as one people. When we liberated France , no one in those villages was looking for the Ukrainian-Canadian or the German-Canadian or the Irish-Canadian. The people of France saw only Canadians.

And we carried one flag that represented our country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be a Canadian. They stirred the melting pot into one red and white bowl.

And here we are in 2011 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes a Canadian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that’s not what being a Canadian is all about. Canadians have been very open-hearted and open-minded regarding immigrants, whether they were fleeing poverty, dictatorship, persecution, or whatever else makes us think of those aforementioned immigrants who truly did ADOPT our country, and our flag and our morals and our customs, and left their wars, hatred, and divisions behind. I believe that the immigrants who landed in Canada in the early 1900s deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags, fighting foreign battles on our soil, making Canadians change to suit their religions and cultures, and wanting to change our countries fabric by claiming discrimination when we do not give in to their demands.

It’s about time we get real and stand up for our forefathers rights, we are CANADIAN Lest we forget it I am a Native of this Country & proud of it!

NO MORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

NO MORE not saying CHRISTMAS in stores and our schools!

I Want my Canada of birth BACK Waving Canada flag

P.S. — Please pass this on to everyone you know!!!
KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!!
Hope this letter is read by millions of people all across Canada !!


Caturday at Chez Brick

by 1389AD ( 275 Comments › )
Filed under Afghanistan, Caturday, Open thread, Weapons at January 15th, 2011 - 6:30 pm

Brick's cat Odie, next to rifle: Arfcat iz fixin' ur sights!
Brick’s cat, Odie

Confesses Brick of 2.0: The Blogmocracy:

Kirly wrote:

the proper method for giving a cat, or multiple cats, actual baths with soap and water involves locking you, all the cats, and eveything you will need in the bathroom. no one comes out until each cat is clean. no exceptions.

This reminds me of a story…

Once upon a time, there was a little Brick. Actually he was a little prick Brick. Prick Brick had a little sister, let’s call her Prissy Brick. Anyhoo, one day for some reason or another Prissy Brick narc’d on Prick Brick and got Prick Brick grounded for something that probably deserved a good grounding.

Prick Brick probably all of 10 years old or so, true to his name, grabbed the household cat, (let’s call it Prick Brick’s evil Trick) while Prissy Brick was taking a shower, and tossed Prick Brick’s evil Trick into the mix.

Points of interest: the shower…had those semi-transparent, wavy glass doors on tracks.

the cat: a big tom with all his sharpy, clawy, fangy bits intact.

Results: pretty much as you can imagine. The only dry high ground for the kitteh was atop Prissy Brick’s head. To get there, the glass/tub surfaces lacked the necessary coefficient of friction, and porosity for any gription, so the most expedient route to safety, in the kitteh’s mind anyway was up Prissy Brick.

The caterwauling was immense. Cat and Prissy Brick. Each was louder than the other. Prissy Brick came out of the shower looking like a low-paid actress in a budget slasher film. (The cat was soaked, but largely unharmed.)

Contrary to popular belief, Prick Brick was NOT sold to the monkey house and is actually rumored to be on speaking terms with Prissy Brick to this day.


It’s lolcat time…

Lolcat: Afghani girl kitteh no want wear burka no mores

Image of tiny hat (h/t: BuddyG)

Phyllis Chesler offers plenty more reasons to ban the burqa.


Backing the burka ban

by Kafir ( 135 Comments › )
Filed under Europe, Islamic Invasion, Multiculturalism, Politics, Sharia (Islamic Law) at March 2nd, 2010 - 1:30 pm

It seems the majority of people in Europe have spoken. I wonder if their governments will listen (probably as well as ours). Personally, I see it as a public safety issue. Unidentifiable blobs walking around do not give a perception of safety, or equality.

via Drudge:

Five European states back burka ban

More than half of voters in four other major European states back a push by France’s Nicolas Sarkozy to ban women from wearing the burka, according to an opinion poll for the Financial Times.

As Mr Sarkozy presses ahead with plans to ban the wearing of the burka in public places, the FT’s latest Harris poll shows the move is not just strongly supported in France, but wins enthusiastic backing in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany.

The poll shows some 70 per cent of respondents in France said they supported plans to forbid the wearing of the garment which covers the female body from head to toe. There was similar sentiment in Spain and Italy, where 65 per cent and 63 per cent respectively favoured a ban.

Of course, they have to throw up an apples to oranges equivalency:

Asked if they would support the burka ban if it were accompanied by a clampdown on wearing all religious icons such as the Christian crucifix and the Jewish cappel, only 22 per cent of French people said they supported such a move. In Britain, just 9 per cent of people said they would back such a move.

No they didn’t try to equate the full body covering of a burka that hides a person’s identity with a crucifix or covering the head/hair (I believe that’s what they are talking about)? It is a shame that 22% would be ok with that in France.

(thank you to Rodan for the link tip)