[ April 15, 2024 ]
"The Supreme Court must decide whether women may keep their faces covered in court. Or rather whether Muslim women can, but other women can’t."
"The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) – a bastion of feminist activists – argued that the alleged victim should be allowed to wear the veil if her religion demands it, stating that forcing a Muslim woman to uncover her face while testifying “could very well be seen and experienced as an act of racial, religious and gendered domination.” But wearing the burka isn't gendered domination?
Story continues below advertisement
The imposition of the sharia advances in the West at warped speed, and the Canadian Supreme Court is deciding whether women may keep their faces covered in court. Or rather whether Muslim women can, but other women can’t.
Ah, here we go. One set of rules for Muslims, another for for non-Muslims. That's the sharia. It may be tangential, but it needs pointing out that Muhammad himself never called for the face covering. Muhammad called for full coverage except face and hands, so the full face mask is a political statement.
Oh, the irony: this is not about "religious freedom." Wrapping a women in a cloth coffin under the guise of freedom best illustrates how subjugated and morally bankrupt the West has become, and timid. The war is so fiercely being waged in the information battle-space that most people have become inured or blind to these absurd and anti-real arguments.
Feminists fighting for the full face veil also unmasks the fraudulent movement for what it really is. It is ridiculous on its face that feminists laughably claim to be pursuing justice and equality for women, while in fact, their true goal is the obliteration of justice. I am profoundly anti-feminist because it is a phony movement. It is rooted in Marxism-Leninism, and does not genuinely represent women. It clings to its dogma of multiculturalism, and embraces the leftist ideology du jour, which in our own day is Islam.
The feminist abandonment of women in Islam — the honor killing victims, the subjugation and oppression of women, forced marriage, child marriage, clitorectomies, the misogyny of sharia law — should be absolute cause for all women to reject, repudiate the long dead and destructive feminist movement.
Barbara Kay: Feminists back women as possessions in Supreme Court case National Post (hat tip Norman)
They are frauds and liars. High minded leftopathic feminists cloak themselves in self- righteousness and scorn genuine feminists like Sarah Palin. These women call themselves feminists and stand on the mall in DC, righteous in their indignation in defense of late term abortion and the right to kill viable babies (btw, I am pro-choice — early that is), while turning the other cheek in the face of Islam's misogyny. Rifqa Bary's case is just the latest example of this myopia.
Barbara Kay: Feminists back women as possessions in Supreme Court case National Post
The Supreme Court must decide whether women may keep their faces covered in court. Or rather whether Muslim women can, but other women can’t.
A young Muslim woman in her thirties, known as N.S., claims that the psychological distress of testifying with her face uncovered against two male defendants, relatives she has accused of sexually assaulting her as a child, trumps the long-honoured right of the defendants’ lawyers to see her expression under cross-examination.
The case went to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June of 2010. There, irony was heaped on irony in the presentations of two intervening groups whose perspectives sum up the conflict – the ideology of multiculturalism versus the sacred tenets of democracy – that sits at the heart of this case.
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) – a bastion of feminist activists – argued that the alleged victim should be allowed to wear the veil if her religion demands it, stating that forcing a Muslim woman to uncover her face while testifying “could very well be seen and experienced as an act of racial, religious and gendered domination.”
Opposing LEAF’s viewpoint was the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC). MCC spokesman Tarek Fatah maintained that religious freedoms are not absolute. They must be balanced against the right of a criminal defendant and his advocate to look his accuser in the face and assess her expression: “[Muslim women] should be treated like any other woman and receive the same protections.” Fatah also objected to the Charter being a vehicle for gender inequality: “The covered female face is a reminder to the wearer that she is not free and to the observer, that she is a possession.”
LEAF got it wrong and the MCC got it right.
The “religious” argument does not hold. Islam does not “demand” face coverage, even if some Muslims do. Over the years we have heard from hundreds of imams and scholars on this subject. In 2009 Sheikh Muhammed Sayyid Tantawi, the grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s highest institution of religious learning, scolded a Cairo high school girl for wearing a face-veil: “The niqab is a tradition,” he said. “It has no connection to religion.”
But even if Islam did demand it – in which case women in Islamic countries like Pakistan would be covered, but aren’t – that is still no reason to offer N.S. special treatment. When a religious tradition or rite conflicts with our democratic values, democratic values must hold sway, as we just saw in the polygamy decision, another so-called religious demand.
In Europe more and more Muslim women have taken up the veil as a political statement of Islamist triumphalism. Which is why the niqab and burka have been proscribed in France and Belgium as a socially menacing statement that is incompatible with democracy, and in particular with gender equality. Multiculturalists and libertarians denounced the ban, but again it was a democratic Muslim, not a feminist, who came to the rescue of logic and democratic values. Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, wrote in England’s Daily Mail: “The decision by the French government to outlaw all forms of public face-masking, including the burka and niqab, is welcomed by all thinking Muslims around the world.”
N.S. herself had a photo taken for her driver’s licence, which shows us that the issue is not one of religion, but of situational convenience. N.S. did not mind her face being uncovered so that she could drive a car. So clearly it is not the religion that is the problem, it is the claimant’s unwillingness to face her abusers without the psychological protection of the veil.
If N.S. is permitted to cover her face under the guise of religion, why shouldn’t all victims of sexual assault have that privilege under the guise of their freedom to “dress” as they choose? Fear is fear for all women. Why stop at women, though? Why not all fearful witnesses?
Legal minds should not allow multicultural correctness to blind them to potent symbols of inequality. No rhetorical legerdemain in the world can turn the dhimmitude of women represented by that dehumanizing mask into a charming mantilla of sexual modesty.
It’s a strange world we live in when feminist legal minds side with gender inequality, and Muslim scholars side with separation of church and state. Would that we had more “thinking” non-Muslims amongst our intellectual class.
National Post
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
11 Comments
12 years ago
o/t
Pam, Andrew Gilligan’s latest article on the East London Mosque (ELM) is back online! So can we have it back on here pretty please x
[To The Telegraph: You should never have taken the article down in the first place fgs – why hide the truth? Andrew Gilligan is only doing his job. It’s a shame there aren’t more AG’s there!]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100122775/east-london-mosque-hosts-speaker-who-has-called-for-jewish-women-to-be-enslaved-and-pillaged/
Comments are open people, so don’t forget to give yours!
Andrew Gilligant – well done.
12 years ago
Oops, rushes back in, grabs that runaway ‘t’ and runs ——->
12 years ago
The Niqab is a Tradition, not a Religious Command. That should be the end of the argument. The defendant has the right to “Face their Accuser”.
12 years ago
If the woman’s face is completely covered why not just have them phone in their testimony? This is truly the most counter intelligent nonsense imaginable. Talk about a woman’s testimony being worth less than a man’s… it would be.
See Mehrabian’s communication research on verbal v. nonverbal communication: http://www.businessballs.com/mehrabiancommunications.htm
“Professor Albert Mehrabian has pioneered the understanding of communications since the 1960s… Mehrabian’s work featured strongly (mid-late 1900s) in establishing early understanding of body language and non-verbal communications.
Aside from his many and various other fascinating works, Mehrabian’s research provided the basis for the widely quoted and often much over-simplified statistic for the effectiveness of spoken communications.
Here is a more precise (and necessarily detailed) representation of Mehrabian’s findings than is typically cited or applied:
7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.”
So IOW if the face is covered you have less information to determine if the person is telling you the truth.
12 years ago
A counter-apologist can easily refute the modern translation of 33:59 by referencing
the verses of Al-Hijabi. Mohammad was well aware of the full heavy coverings allowing only 1 or 2 eyes to see. This does not make it right, in fact if Mohammad condoned it and did not abrogate it, it means it’s likely wrong and inhumane. This goes for every verse which is unabrogated.
Narrated ‘Aisha (Radhiallaahu Ánha): The wives of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Hadith # 148
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
I was ten years old when Allah’s Apostle arrived at Medina. My mother and aunts used to urge me to serve the Prophet regularly, and I served him for ten years. When the Prophet died I was twenty years old, and I knew about the order of Al-Hijab (veiling of ladies) more than any other person when it was revealed. It was revealed for the first time when Allah’s Apostle had consummated his marriage with Zainab bint Jahsh. When the day dawned, the Prophet was a bridegroom and he invited the people to a banquet, so they came, ate, and then all left except a few who remained with the Prophet for a long time..
The Prophet got up and went out, and I too went out with him so that those people might leave too. The Prophet proceeded and so did I, till he came to the threshold of ‘Aisha’s dwelling place. Then thinking that these people have left by then, he returned and so did I along with him till he entered upon Zainab and behold, they were still sitting and had not gone. So the Prophet again went away and I went away along with him. When we reached the threshold of ‘Aisha’s dwelling place, he thought that they had left, and so he returned and I too, returned along with him and found those people had left. Then the Prophet drew a curtain between me and him, and the Verses of Al-Hijab were revealed.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 95
12 years ago
So will her testimony also by only one half of his? We must respect tradition after all.
12 years ago
By shilling for Muslim fundamentalists so called Western feminists undermine their very position, and worse make it very difficult for Muslim women who have no desire what so ever to like under fundamentalism to break free. Fundamentalist families put a lot of pressure for women to conform. By giving free reign to fundamentalist expression, Western feminists take away a key avenue for Muslim women to safely reject aspects of fundamentalism. If the burka is allowed then Muslim women who have no desire to live life under a burka can say well secular society forbids the burka instead of having no excuse to reject the burka which is much more difficult. So called feminists undermine the most vulnerable Muslim women by shilling for fundamentalists.
12 years ago
I want to make one thing clear, the women today who call themselves feminists are NOT, they just use a banner that the real feminists fought long & hard to win. They have no right to use the term feminist and bring shame to the term. The only real feminist that I know of is Phyllis Chesler, so if you come across women who call themselves feminists and they preach the opposite of Phyllis them you know that they are actually feminazis. Think of the disgusting “Code PIink” group as an example of feminazis.. I used to hate that term, but I think it suits all of these posers very well.
12 years ago
There is no such thing as the Sisterhood either! It disgusts me that the women who say they are standing up for women’s rights would say that this woman should be allowed to hide her face behind a veil! If she could take it off for a photo…she can damn well take it off in court too! Matter of factly ….if Islam was not seen as a legit religion in Canada, then the Islamamentian women would not be able to get away with this. They could not say it was part and parcel of their religion and they would have to remove their face covering for voting, etcetera.
12 years ago
I haven’t read this article yet, but the picture is too funny. Its like “I’ll take this one. Its so much more colorful than the others.”
12 years ago
The “religious property” argument does hold. Islam does not “demand” face coverage for people, but this is a farm animal. Women are not human beings in Islam. Muslims say it is part of Islam, meaning women are as farm animal status.
If she covers her face, she is accepting farm animal breeding stock status. The accused should be set free. No exceptions. These people need to be re educated. She typically would be whipped and jailed for causing the man to do this act. Her being female property, like a goat, or cow.
Why is she not being helped out of Islam? Did you know people here have tried to adopt young boys brought up in Islam? They dispose of them soon after with the complaint that the wife is in fear of her life from them.
How do you help such a backward political system?
May be witness protection after testifying.
