Sunday, May 16, 2010
From the always interesting pen of George Handlery we have these notes on the wearing of the burqa in Europe.
4. Legislation that forbids the public use of burqas and other garbs that cover the entire body and the face, are becoming trendy in Europe. Three very different arguments are used to justify such bans. One is that the veil discriminates against women. Therefore, it is an expression of their subservience. Second, the wrap is considered to be an outward expression of a fundamentalist variety of Islamism. That is of an “ism” that intends to infringe upon the order and way of life of the host nation. Given this danger, the process by which pressure is applied on the majority needs to be disrupted. Third, there is a security argument. A head-to-toe camouflaged person’s identity cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, the tent worn hides the intentions of the wearer and is a potential cover for instruments that might harm bystanders. The burqa’s defenders’ best argument addresses itself to the first objection. They claim that the wearers do so voluntarily. The claim tends to be supported by a wearer or two. These tell reporters that they feel comfortable because they are protected from the perverted observers of their curves. In the interest of that, they wear the veil voluntarily.
This allegation of acting of their own volition reminds the writer of his own youth. He used to march on May 1st, November 7, and write letters to Stalin to congratulate him on his birthday. You either did this voluntarily while shouting enthusiastically and smiling ear-to-ear. Or you –and your family-experienced the crushing blows of the “fist” of the “toilers,” that is of the State Security. So it was voluntary. Totally. To avoid something that was assuredly worse.
Truth is often shocking to many of the admirers of unlimited immigration into the US. They have little understanding of the strains that such activities can place on the host culture and even less understanding of the security problems of having completely covered people moving through crowds in this age of terrorism.
Truth be known, most of these non-Muslim people who argue that being able to conceal your intent to do harm to others is a Right operate under the theory that all harm happens to others and they are quite willing to let others suffer that harm, just as they are willing to not use all necessary force to defend ourselves quickly and with the least possible loss. Instead all responses must be proportionate designed to do the last possible harm yet somehow convince those willing to commit suicide that they should talk with us.
How utterly stupid.
On Twitter I am Lesabre1