In Solidarity with Death before Burkas

Kyle-Anne Shiver lets it all out:

Before the current high-tech, news-around-the-world-in-the-blink-of-an-eye age, I doubt many Americans would even know how the proverbial other half of the planet lives; but now we do. We can read about it every day, 24/7. We have pictures, videos yet. Even in some of the most repressive regimes on earth, some brave soul with a laptop, internet access and a cell phone/camera/camcorder manages to get the word out, and blast it around the globe instantaneously.

And in my opinion, the ultimate oppression of our age, no matter how one cares to cut it, slice it, dice it, whatever, is hands-down the subjugation of females – from birth to the grave – in places ruled by this cockamamie Sharia law. Liberals may be scared to call a spade a spade, but I’m not.

NOW doesn’t have anything to say about burkas but I do. I think they are not only oppressive, which is bad enough, but they are also full-body disguises that no society that is the target of terrorists can allow on the streets any more than level IV tactical body armor is allowed for civilian wear.

Technorati Tags: Burka, Sharia, Women’s Rights

A Spur to Action: The Violent Oppression of Woman in Islam

The following video is not safe for work. It is not safe to watch with children. It is not safe to watch if you are easily sickened or horrified. What it is, is a true documentary depiction of what it means for girls and women to be subjugated and oppressed by barbaric and abusive practices associated with Islamic imperialism.

Narrated by ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish, its name is The Violent Oppression of Woman in Islam.

h/t: Michelle Malkin

Technorati Tags: Islamism, Women’s Rights, Tyranny, Video

Abortion is Killing the Child in the Womb

Some things are obvious. The title of this post is obviously factual because it is based on the plain meaning of words. Nobody could have a factual objection to it, only a political objection. Another obvious fact is that life begins at the beginning. All things begin at their beginning. That is what “beginning” means.

It should be possible to have a fairly straightforward measuring stick that a lot of people would agree on for when abortion should be illegal, nation-wide. Killing the child in the womb should be illegal (some form of conspiracy to commit murder or homicide) in all cases where the child is viable with medical help outside the womb. Once delivered, the child is clearly a human being. This would prevent any late term abortions, and not prevent RU486 or contraceptive methods like the pill that flush the rapidly developing embryo out of the body. It doesn’t depend on religious or moral stances or fine parsing of when life begins (for life begins at the beginning, obviously). And it is already aligned with the partial-birth abortion ban in the US.

Killing a child in the womb before that time is a tragedy, but I’m not sure that punishing the already disturbed women who make that choice by forcing them to seek out non-accredited doctors is a win for society. I am open to arguments on this. My religious conviction is that all abortion is killing, but murder is usually more closely parsed than killing, and that’s why the sixth commandment said “Thou shalt not murder” in Hebrew. Is abortion murder of a child in the womb? To answer that we need to know what murder is. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Thus to some extent murder can be defined however the powers that be (in the US, this would be the people and their legislature) want. I think that the powers that be should define murder and decide where abortion fits into that frame. Judges do not define crimes. They only apply the definitions that are in the law. And that is why I believe that Roe should be overthrown, because judges made new law where there was none before. Following that, the issue can be handled by the legislatures of the states or that of the federal government. This is a legalistic turn to a moral argument, and I am sorry if it seems wishy-washy. But I was led to this conclusion by reason in support of morality, not by leaping to conclusions.

On the other hand, the eugenicist aspect to abortion should be troubling to all who hope for a color-blind nation. Abortion is more easily available, and more widely used, in the mostly black inner cities of America than any other place in America. If you read the story of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, you will find this was PP’s intention from the start.

And just think about all the 40 million legal abortions that have been performed in the US since 1972. Would we need so many legal and illegal immigrants to do the jobs that need to be done if we hadn’t been killing off so many children who would have grown up, some of them who would have working-age children of their own by now? Instead of 12-20 million illegal immigrants, we could have 40 million American citizens who participate fully in our economy and society.

Imagine no abortion, it’s easy if you try.

Sparked by evanescent

Technorati Tags: Abortion, Moral Clarity, Crime and Punishment, Women’s Rights

This and That

Being a grab bag of things that Panglossians might find interesting.

Aussie Dave kicks it off with The Refugee Issue Examined

Around 820,000-850,000 Jews were either expelled from, or were otherwise forced to leave Arab countries after the 1948 War of Independence, a war started after the 5 Arab armies attacked the newly established State of Israel. Of these Jewish refugees, approximately 590,000-600,000 were absorbed into Israel, leaving behind their homes, businesses and possessions without receiving any compensation.

The War of Independence also produced some Arab refugees, totaling somewhere between 430,000-650,000. The vast majority of these refugees (approximately 68%) left without even seeing an Israeli soldier, but rather at the beckoning of the invading Arab armies, who were certain of a quick victory. [..]

So from my point of view, it is clear that the only just solution is for the Arab refugees to be absorbed into the Arab countries, rather than being kept in refugee camps as a pawn in the war against Israel. As for talk of compensation, Jewish refugees left behind assets in the Arab countries of greater worth than the Arab assets left behind in Israel, so if any side has a claim, it is us [Jews].

Next, Mirsulzhan Namazaliev is concerned about the Islamization of Kyrgyzstan

The citizens of Kyrgyzstan, a nominally Muslim country, have an interesting history with Islam: While the nomadic Kyrgyz haven’t really been introduced to the religion before the 18th century, Kyrgyzstani Uzbeks from the Ferghana Valley practice a more traditional form of Islam. During the Soviet era, religion was pushed to the sidelines of society, but Islam has seen some revival since Kyrgyzstan’s independence in 1991, again mostly in the southern rural parts of the country.

Last week, Kyrgyzstani bloggers were worried about the threat of Islamisation in their country. The debate was the result of an interdepartmental commission’s decision to allow Muslim women to wear hijabs for their passport photographs.

The decision of the commission was based on a claim that Islam prohibits women to uncover their heads and ears in front of unknown males. “We feel discomfort when we go through border control. The airport personnel demands us to take off our hijabs instead of introducing special rooms and having women personnel checking us”, Islamic representatives were quoted as saying.

Mong Palatino rounds up the separatist voices discussing the all-out war of secession in Basilan, Philippines.

War is raging in the island of Basilan, located in the southernmost part of the Philippines. An all-out war was recently declared by the government against the Abu Sayyaf bandit group accused of beheading 14 Marines last month. The military offensives have displaced thousands of families and imperiled the peace negotiations between the government and other Muslim rebel forces..

See what I mean about taking the side of the separatists against the legitimate government of the Philippines? The rest goes on like this, but is still a good overview of the ground.

Samir Khalil Samir writes about the issues raised by the case of Mohammed Ahmad Hegazi, an Egyptian who converted to Christianity and had to flee Egypt.

Islam protects itself against conversions by putting apostates in prison or by killing them. But its obsession with conversion includes a series of privileges it claims for itself. So much so that in many Muslim countries, even those that are supposedly secular, the right to promote the Islamic faith is taken for granted and is not enshrined in law. Conversely, the right to promote any other religion is considered de facto and de jure unacceptable.

Islamic propaganda is part of the state’s mandate. In Egypt for example public institutions disseminate songs, prayers, movies and written material that praise Islam and denigrate Christianity. Inevitably this favours conversions to Islam. By contrast, Christian propaganda (tabshīr) is banned by law.

Recently in Algeria, a new law was approved that condemns anyone promoting the Christian faith and anyone who converts to Christianity. Of course, some might say that this kind of law is directed only at Protestant proselytising. True! But Muslims proselytise as well? Should the law not be the same for everyone?

And finally, Steve Verdon explores the links between Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu, and Communist Chinese money going to a whole raft of Democrat candidates by way of Hong Kong and Mr. Hsu of the inscrutable business history.

Drudge has three links to the news about Norman Hsu apparently a big time donor to Democratic candidates, and Hillary Clinton in particular. Hsu has donated over $600,000 to various candidates, but what is interesting is that his income appears to be a complete mystery. Further, there is an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest in a fraud case, and that Hsu has now been taken into custody and held on $2 million bond.

Hsu appeared in court accompanied by a lawyer and publicist, both of whom declined to say whether the New York apparel executive would immediately post bail. A warrant was issued for his arrest after he skipped the sentencing for a 1991 grand theft charge.

Publicist? This is sure looking like it will be interesting to watch. Needless to say all the candidates that Hsu has donated to, either directly, or through what appears to be proxies, have been scrambling to hand the money over to charities.

The Clinton campaign has said it will give to charity $23,000 that Mr. Hsu contributed, and yesterday representatives of Mr. Spitzer and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, who received $50,000 from Mr. Hsu, said they would do the same. A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who is a rival of Mrs. Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination, said Mr. Obama intended to give away $7,000 that Mr. Hsu contributed to his committees.

The Clinton-Gore campaign donation case, wherein Johnny Chung funneled money from Chinese intelligence services to the 1996 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign, suddenly doesn’t look so closed.

I hope you find these to be as fascinating as I do.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Refugees, Palestinians, Kyrgyzstan, Islamization, Basilan, Philippines, Jihad, Islam, Ex-Muslim, Religious Freedom, Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu,

Women are the first to fall under the Tyrant’s Thumb

No Pasaran! has been reading Emily Parker’s recent interview with Mario Vargas Llosa and notes that the Rafael Trujillo (of the Dominican Republic) and Saddam Hussein dictatorships had similar tastes in women.

Mr. Vargas Llosa describes traveling to the Dominican Republic and being stunned to hear stories of peasants offering their own daughters as “gifts” to the lustful tyrant. Trujillo and his sons, he tells me, could abuse any woman of any social class with absolute impunity. The situation in the Dominican Republic, which he refers to as a “laboratory of horrors,” may have tended toward the extreme, but it underscores a larger trend: “The woman is almost always the first victim of a dictatorship.”

Vargas Llosa continues

Mr. Vargas Llosa discovered that this phenomenon was hardly limited to Latin America. “I went to Iraq after the invasion,” he tells me. “When I heard stories about the sons of Saddam Hussein, it seemed like I was in the Dominican Republic, hearing stories about the sons of Trujillo! That women would be taken from the street, put in automobiles and simply presented like objects. . . . The phenomenon was very similar, even with such different cultures and religions.” He concludes: “Brutality takes the same form in dictatorial regimes.”

Did this mean that Mr. Vargas Llosa supported the invasion of Iraq? “I was against it at the beginning,” he says. But then he went to Iraq and heard accounts of life under Saddam Hussein. “Because there has been so much opposition to the war, already one forgets that this was one of the most monstrous dictatorships that humanity has ever seen, comparable to that of Hitler, or Stalin.” He changed his mind about the invasion: “Iraq is better without Saddam Hussein than with Saddam Hussein. Without a doubt.” [link]

Technorati Tags: Tyranny, Women’s Rights, Iraq, Moral Clarity

Pakistan’s Stepford Wives of Jihad

Girl students of a seminary attached to a prominent mosque in Pakistan were being groomed as wives and mothers for jehadis and suicide bombers, a US-based Pakistani research scholar has claimed.

“The students and teachers told me the madrassa is grooming wives and mothers for jehadis, female suicide bombers and female foot-soldiers who will clash with the law enforcement agencies of Pakistan, if necessary,” Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the Centre for Women and Gender Studies, University of Oslo wrote in Daily Times.

Taj recently visited the Lal Mosque and the Jamia Hifsa seminary here before the Capital Development Authority served notice for its demolition on the ground that it was unauthorised construction. (source)

Interesting.

Note one correction. Ms. Taj is not based in the U.S., but in Norway.

Technorati Tags: pakistan, jihad, islamism, women’s rights

Divorce, Pakistani Style

In 2002, an amendment to the Pakistani 1964 Civil and Family Court Act reduced the mandatory reconciliation period for divorces requested by women to three months. Now, almost 50% of civil cases in Rawalpindi district are related to women seeking divorce.

Advocate Nasreen Akhtar, who specialises in family cases, says the amended law has made it easy for women to obtain divorce.

“It has made their life safer and more secure. Now women are more confident and their spouses more careful in their married life,” she remarks. She, nonetheless, stressed that women sought help from courts only after exhausting all means of reconciliation.

Iftikharun Nisa Hassan, director of the Women’s Research and Resource Centre, Fatima Jinnah Women’s University, sees the rise in divorce cases as the “awakening of women”.

“Today women are getting educated and securing jobs and are less inclined to put up with inhuman treatment by their husbands. They are financially viable and seek second marriages for a comfortable life,” she says. (source)

Muslim men can divorce their wives by saying “I divorce you” three times. The amendment is a step towards fairness that will provide some civilizing influence on Pakistan, and is already having beneficial effects.

Technorati Tags: sharia, pakistan, human rights, women