Thursday, 17 February 2011

A Primer For the EDL Demo in Blackburn






When Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary in the then New Labour Government, he publicly apologised to Muslims for remarks he made four years ago, in 2006, about Muslim women constituents who wear burkas. He said that he had asked them to remove their burkas or veils because they made him feel ‘uncomfortable’. Actually, he apologised to the Muslim organisation, Engage, which is concerned with Muslim/Non-Muslim interaction, etc.

Hadn't Jack Straw got any sense of self-respect? Was he a complete coward? Perhaps it was all just a Muslim-vote thing for Straw. But what if what he said was true? What if Straw himself thought it was true but he still went ahead a made a demeaning apology? Is it not the case that many of us would also feel ‘uncomfortable’ when talking to people with their faces completely covered? The same would be true if it were a balaclava worn by a non-Muslim man or woman.

How can you apologise for ‘feeling uncomfortable’? It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like apologising for being nervous or even having a big nose. I would be made to feel uncomfortable by these things. Is becoming uncomfortable itself ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ or is it only such a thing if a Muslim brings that feeling on? -

You must never feel uncomfortable when in the company of a Muslim otherwise the Muslim Council of Britain will be on your case!

Yet the unease brought on by the burka is partly the point of the burka. That is, it is a symbol of the Muslim woman’s separation and distance from non-Muslims. It is also a statement of the woman’s commitment not just to Islam, but also to Islamism or militant Islam (even to Islamoterrorism!). So the burka was actually designed, as it were, to make infidels feel uncomfortable; just as Doctor Martin boots were designed for that (or at least the wearers thought so).

I personally will not have a conversation with a Muslim woman in a full burka. (Not that she’d have a conversation with an infidel man anyway.) Is that Islamophobic? No. I wouldn’t have a conversation with a man with a box on his head either or even with a man who wore a t-shirt which says, ‘I will kill you.’ Again, that’s the point of the burka – the separation and distance from the kuffar. Thus Straw’s feeling uncomfortable is a fully understandable reaction.

Yet Straw displayed a volt face on this, just like Gordon Brown did after that conversation with 'the Rochdale bigot’. Straw told the truth about his feelings. But the truth doesn’t matter to the Islamists and their far-leftist defenders.

In any case, Straw did not apologise to the Muslim women who made him feel uncomfortable. He really said sorry to his Muslim constituents, as well as to the Islamists and far leftists who milked this infinitesimal misdemeanour. They demanded that Straw eat a lot of humble pie. They demanded yet another victim of Islamism.

Straw now says that ‘he still regularly sees women in the full veil’. How does he know that he’s really seeing different Muslim women and not the same woman dressed in different clothes? How does he know these Muslim women aren’t pulling faces at him or grimacing? How can he tell when these Muslim women haven’t fallen asleep at one of his constituency meetings?

Straw, in theory, could have been in favour of the burka yet still admit to himself and others that they still made him feel uncomfortable. That’s possible. But that acceptance of the burka was not enough for Muslims and Engage (the Muslim group that’s kicked up a fuss about this) because Straw’s not banning the burka was not enough. They wanted more of his blood. They wanted him to change the way he thinks about Muslims. Thus they wanted to stop him feeling uncomfortable in the first place. They demanded that he actually thinks and feels as Muslims think and feel. They wanted him to ritually apologise for this affront to Islam itself. They wanted to rub his infidel face in the shit.

And to think that Muslims scared Jack Straw so much that he did indeed promise to think and feel differently about the burka and Muslims generally. Yes. It was yet another small victory for Islam and Muslims! Another one to add to an already-existing large heap of concessions, accommodations and rationalisations which nevertheless never seem to be quite enough for these demanding Muslims. And if Muslims can teach Straw a lesson, then they can certainly teach smaller fry like you and I a lesson.

Is feeling uncomfortable some kind of offence, or insult, to Islam and Muslims? Or is it even seen as some kind of physiological display of Islamophobia? Then think about all the things non-Muslims do each day which would make Muslims unhappy, or feel offended or insulted. Straw’s apology is but the latest in a long series of infidel defeats at the hands of Islamists and their far-left enablers or helpers.

Just imagine the fact that Straw’s physiological reaction to - and thoughts about - burka-clad Muslim women have ‘triggered a ferocious public debate’. So try now to imagine what the debate would be like if Straw had flushed a Koran down the toilet or had actually dared to criticise even a tiny aspect of Islam. The response to that amongst Muslims would go far beyond ‘debate’. Straw would be assassinated within a week. Either that or he would have needed to go into hiding, just like Salman Rushdie 20 years ago. Theo Van Gogh was of course murdered for his offence against Islam. The Danish cartoonists were similarly fatwa-ed. And Straw effectively encouraged this Islamic extremism by apologising for his physiological reaction to burka-wearing women.

At other times this man has said how great he thinks the Koran and Islam are despite the fact that he has probably never studied or even read the Koran. (A politician like him simply wouldn’t have time to.) But this fakery doesn’t matter to Islamists. The infidel’s praise of Islam and the Koran is victory enough for Islam; even if in fact they knew or suspected that Straw secretly despises the Koran or has lied about reading it (as Tony Blair once did).

There’s more on Jack Straw the Islamophile. In a speech to British Muslims, in 2002, Straw castigated the West and told them about its evil deeds through the years. He even went-all-SWP and talked of the crimes of ‘British imperialism’. Later, in 2005, Straw also said that Muslims gave the world mathematics (wrong) and the ‘digital age’ (wrong again).

Blackburn and the Muslim Block Vote

Muslims make up a quarter of Jack Straw’s constituents in Blackburn. Think about that. Think about what it means. You can’t mess with that sizable chunk of voting-fodder. Especially since many or most Muslims react in the same way to such ‘insults’ or ‘offences’ against their religion. Many Muslims in the North West are even ordered by imams or ‘community leaders’ to vote in specific ways – the ‘Muslim block vote’. After all, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) more or less tells its readers which way to vote. And, quite obviously, Muslims are told to vote only for good dhimmis – the politicians who will do good business with Muslims. Indeed in 2005 MPACUK (VoteSmart) once indulged in a dirty tricks campaign to unseat Oona King. One fact about her which MPACUK focused upon was that she has a tiny bit of Jewish blood in her (I think her grandmother or something is Jewish). This is not to forget that her dad is black, or a ‘house negro’ as Hamas once called Condoleezza Rice.

Cliterodectomy (Genital Mutilation) is Only For Brown Exotics

Burkas are bad for Western non-Muslim women but OK for brown Muslims. That’s PC and leftist racism. It has even gone further than that. A few councils are reported to have ignored cases of domestic cliterodectomy operations in UK cities and towns. Social workers and others have ignored these cases because they didn’t want to be ‘culturally insensitive’ to ‘Islamic culture’. Yet if non-Muslim white women had had cliterodectomies, these women would be seen as victims and the act itself would be seen as an abomination. So it’s OK for brown Muslim women in other countries, and even in the UK, to suffer cliterodectomies because it is ‘part of their culture’ (like head hunting).

Yet cliterodectomy either is an abomination or it isn’t. It can’t be a case of its being an abomination in Islington’s lecturers’ district and yet be OK in Timbuktu or even in Sparkbrook or Blackburn. That would be racism.

Of course it is the same with the burka. Do some PC-ers and leftists think that the burka is a sexist and oppressive item of clothing when worn by white non-Muslim women, but it suddenly becomes non-sexist and non-oppressive if a brown Muslim wears it? Pure racism again. However, because of the obvious hypocrisy which would be involved in rejecting burkas for non-Muslim Western women but not brown Muslims, it would be hard to defend such a position. So instead imagine what would have happened if in the 1970s, before Islamophilia and Islamophobia took off, a non-Muslim white woman from Islington began to wear the burka for all the reasons that Muslim women wear them. Western feminists and non-feminists would have been outraged at that time by its sexism and oppressiveness because this would have been before they had to watch their words and thoughts just in case they came across as Islamophobic or ‘culturally insensitive’. Because they hadn’t come across or thought about the burka before, they would have seen it for what it is. But now, of course, after thirty years of political correctness and leftist indoctrination, even the sexist and oppressive can become non-sexist and non-oppressive. Such is the absurd and perverse logic of our PC age.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*) Blackburn, the Burka and Jack Straw MP:


No comments:

Post a Comment