Swedes Don Hijab to Support Muslims

0

An attack on a pregnant veiled Muslim woman last week in Stockholm has triggered calls on Swedish women of all religious affiliations to don hijab on Monday, August 19, in a show of support to Muslim rights.


“We want people to wear a headscarf on Monday. Primarily because we want to normalize the headscarves,” said Bilan Osman, one of the initiators, to P4 Göteborg, Goteborg Daily reported.

“People view headscarves and Muslims as something alien. This could be a good opportunity to acknowledge what Muslim women go currently through.”

Reportedly, the attack was provoked by her wearing a hijab.The attack occurred last Friday when a pregnant woman was attacked in Farsta outside Stockholm

According to a friend of the attacked woman, who spoke to Sveriges Radio, the woman’s headscarf was first torn off, before the attackers proceeded to beat her head against a car until she passed out. The incident also involved racist taunts.


continue to source article at onislam.net

NO COMMENTS

  1. The Muslamification of Sweden is almost complete. Sweden is now pretty much an Islamic Republic thanks to the politically correct pandering of the Swedish left-wing liberal cultural Marxist intelligentsia to Muslamo-fascism.

    • In reply to #1 by The Grapes of Roth:

      The Muslamification of Sweden is almost complete. Sweden is now pretty much an Islamic Republic thanks to the politically correct pandering of the Swedish left-wing liberal cultural Marxist intelligentsia to Muslamo-fascism.

      Ha ha. Your comment has now received its second like. And this time from someone who has an understanding of what irony is.

    • In reply to #2 by Fouad Boussetta:

      I feel sick.

      Would you care to elaborate? If you’re just feeling poorly in general then I’m sorry and hope you get better soon, but I think your comment may be off-topic.

    • In reply to #2 by Fouad Boussetta:

      I feel sick.

      This is what compounded my nausea when i submitted this item for publication. In order of importance:

      1. A pregnant woman was beaten senseless.
      2. A woman was beaten senseless.
      3. A human being was beaten senseless.
      4. A mindless expression of solidarity that focused NOT on the 3 facts listed above (which are what truly matters) but on the victim’s religious affiliation thereby turning this into a cause célèbre for THAT reason. Ironically, thereby ending up promoting precisely a religion that has the violent subjugation of women baked into its medieval “holy” scriptures. Which prescribes beatings and stonings for transgressions that see a woman straying from her role as devoutly obedient wholly owned breed mare (among three others – Mohamed (LUIP)* had nine “wives” including a 9 year old child).

      Would all these overeager cultural relativists, fact deprived knee jerk apologists for and enablers of a medieval desert cult ideology that has metastasized itself onto Swedish culture, have orchestrated a solidarity campaign AT ALL had the victim been a Swedish woman not a Muslim?

      *Leave Us In Peace

        • In reply to #44 by Fouad Boussetta:

          In reply to #39 by godsbuster:

          Exactly what I just thinking reading this: Three teens kill a jogger because they’re bored

          That one was like a punch in the gut when I heard it earlier today on the radio. It actually literally stopped me dead in my tracks and had me shaking my head in consternation.

          Confirms what studies show about how we respond. While you read this we know that exact same thing is happening perhaps to at least 10 people in Syria. Ok, different motivations but the same end result and just as senseless. Yet the larger the numbers the greater the anonymity the less engaged our reaction.

          Perhaps it is in part this gut over mind reaction that drove the otherwise rugged Swedish feminists to wanting to express their solidarity with the victimized woman at all cost even if it meant inadvertently showing support for something that should normally and rationally be even more repugnant to them: an ideology that deprives millions of women and thereby men of their full humanity, the Mecca of misogyny: Religion.

        • In reply to #46 by The Grapes of Roth:

          In reply to #39 by godsbuster:

          In reply to #2 by Fouad Boussetta:

          had the victim been a Swedish woman not a Muslim

          Well this is an interesting one. So Muslims can’t be Swedish?

          What IS interesting is that you consider this grammar pettifoggery (a close cousin to spelling correction) a worthwhile contribution to a discussion on the brutalization of a pregnant woman. Must be a slow day over on youtube.

          • In reply to #48 by godsbuster:

            In reply to #46 by The Grapes of Roth:

            In reply to #39 by godsbuster:

            In reply to #2 by Fouad Boussetta:

            had the victim been a Swedish woman not a Muslim

            Well this is an interesting one. So Muslims can’t be Swedish?

            What IS interesting is that you consider this grammar pettifoggery (a close cou…

            Oh now come come, there’s no need to get all upset. But let’s not pretend that you have any real sympathy for this woman. After all, it’s evident from your own words that you don’t even consider her Swedish because she is a Muslim. Now, tell the truth, what do you mean when you say Swedish woman?

      • In reply to #39 by godsbuster:

        In reply to #2 by Fouad Boussetta:

        1. A pregnant woman was beaten senseless.
        2. A woman was beaten senseless.
        3. A human being was beaten senseless.
        4. A mindless expression of solidarity that focused NOT on the 3 facts listed above (which are what truly matters) but on the victim’s religious affiliation thereby turning this into a cause célèbre for THAT reason. Ironically, thereby ending up promoting precisely a religion that has the violent subjugation of women baked into its medieval “holy” scriptures. Which prescribes beatings and stonings for transgressions that see a woman straying from her role as devoutly obedient wholly owned breed mare (among three others – Mohamed (LUIP)* had nine “wives” including a 9 year old child).

        If I may,

        1. A pregnant woman was beaten senseless because of her religion.
        2. A woman was beaten senselsess for wearing a symbol of her faith.
        3. A human being was beaten senseless in the latest of what may be a series of assaults on Swedish Muslims.
        4. A mindless expression of solidarity that focused NOT on the 3 facts listed above (which are what truly matters) but on the victim’s religious affiliation thereby turning this into a cause célèbre for THAT reason…

        But she was assaulted because of her religious affiliation. The Swedish feminists didn’t make this about religion; the attackers did. When did the motivation behind a crime become an irrelevance?

        I’m loath to be a pedant, but since it seems to be the main thrust of your argument, the ‘three facts’ on your list are technically only one fact. If we break it down it becomes, “a pregnant human was beaten up.”

        Would all these overeager cultural relativists, fact deprived knee jerk apologists for and enablers of a medieval desert cult ideology that has metastasized itself onto Swedish culture, have orchestrated a solidarity campaign AT ALL had the victim been a Swedish woman not a Muslim?

        I’m with Grapey on this one. I’ve seen you like a comment on another thread which advocated the forced deportations of all Muslims from the UK, so the notion that you don’t consider them part of Western society isn’t new, godsbuster. Suggesting their presence represents a cancer on Western nations as you seem to be doing here does nothing to dispel this impression.

        I think it’s just as likely these feminists would mobilize if there were a spate of attacks on pregnant women which had nothing to do with the victims’ religious affiliation. If you have evidence to the contrary I’m all ears.

        I find it a little ironic that you accuse the women who have chosen to show their support of being “fact deprived” when you yourself are determined not to acknowledge the reason this assault took place.

  2. Attacking a pregnant woman,or anyone at all is utterly reprehensible. The perpetrators I hope, are caught and punished.

    About donning the headscarf…well…I think it’s wonderful showing support to the women being attacked but under no circumstance will I ever don one.

  3. Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.

    This is false. Hijab is a Muslim uniform that provides certain information and one thing it definitely communicates is religious affiliation. It is not obligatory and not discussed in the Koran. Women who wear the Hijab are suffering from severe brainwashing, coercion, and internalized misogyny. From one American feminist to the Swedish feminists, shame on you for encouraging this. The beating is a disgusting act and I hope her assailants are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    • In reply to #4 by LaurieB:

      Women who wear the Hijab are suffering from severe brainwashing, coercion, and internalized misogyny. From one American feminist to the Swedish feminists, shame on you for encouraging this.

      I think it’s a little presumptuous to claim that all hijab wearers are mindless drones, Laurie. I’m not really sure what internalized misogyny means neither. Do you mean that women who choose to be Muslim are themselves misogynists and are directing their contempt for our gender inwards?

      I consider myself a feminist too, and If I were in Sweden right now I would definitely be joining those women who wish to show their solidarity with this pregnant lady by donning the item of clothing which apparently led to her being attacked.

      There are plenty of reasons to wear a headscarf. My granny used to wear one on the way back from the hairdressers if it was raining. Clothing is neutral. Its meaning, other than covering our nekkidness and keeping us warm, is fluid and open to interpretation. If someone is forced to wear a scarlet letter A which identifies her as an adulteress, that’s entirely different from someone else wearing this as a symbol of lack of religious faith. Same grapheme, in the same color, but oceans apart in meaning.

      The Swedish feminists, in their display of support for this woman who was attacked because of what she wore, are appropriating that bit of apparel and claiming it, even if it’s only for a little while, for women. It isn’t tantamount to an endorsement of Islam; nor should it be interpreted as tacit approval of the wretched treatment Muslim women often receive. All those of you who think it is… well, you just don’t get it, fellas.

      • In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #4 by LaurieB:

        Women who wear the Hijab are suffering from severe brainwashing, coercion, and internalized misogyny. From one American feminist to the Swedish feminists, shame on you for encouraging this.

        I think it’s a little presumptuous to claim that all hijab wearers are mindless d…

        Perhaps the hijab could be appropriated by designers and worn, as a fashion statement, by anyone at anytime. I think that would take all the power out of the garment. (I’m not talking about the full burqa, just the headwear.) I’ve seen many young Muslim women in the headscarf and I actually think it looks quite fetching. If it became an option for any person and was no longer viewed as specifically Islamic dress, reactions against it would be lessened.

        • In reply to #23 by Nitya:

          In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

          Perhaps the hijab could be appropriated by designers and worn, as a fashion statement, by anyone at anytime. I think that would take all the power out of the garment. (I’m not talking about the full burqa, just the headwear.) I’ve seen many young Muslim women in the headscarf and I actually think it looks quite fetching. If it became an option for any person and was no longer viewed as specifically Islamic dress, reactions against it would be lessened.

          Yeah, it’s like the words nigger and queer. The black and gay communities took these insults for themselves and in doing so robbed them of their potency. That’s what it’s all about. If you divest something, be it a term of abuse or an item of clothing of its original meaning, it becomes your property. Let the hijab become a symbol of feminism. I hope that if Malala Yousafzai is awarded a certain prize, not a single pascal of pressure is exerted upon her to conform to Western conventions on clothing when she rocks up to receive it.

          The headscarf can indeed be quite fetching, and I have no time for those who insist that young women who wear it are automatically brain-dead religious zombies. I have a bit of a liking for girls who convert to Islam of their own volition. Heck, I love anyone who tilts at windmills. I’ve reached the grand old age of 31, but I like to think that were I ten or fifteen years younger and under pressure to become part of the shallow, tits oot for the lads, Bacardi and red bull saturated Belieber generation, I might rebel against such expectations.

          • In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #23 by Nitya:

            In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

            Perhaps the hijab could be appropriated by designers and worn, as a fashion statement, by anyone at anytime. I think that would take all the power out of the garment. (I’m not talking about the full burqa, just the headwear.) I’ve seen man…

            Umm, not so sure I agree with converting to Islam though. Ha ha! That would entail believing in a whole lot of fanciful stuff.

          • In reply to #28 by Nitya:

            Umm, not so sure I agree with converting to Islam though. Ha ha! That would entail believing in a whole lot of fanciful stuff.

            And also maybe having your throat cut if you change your mind, since death is the penalty for apostasy in Islam. [lol]

          • In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

            I like to think that were I ten or fifteen years younger and under pressure to become part of the shallow, tits oot for the lads, Bacardi and red bull saturated Belieber generation, I might rebel against such expectations.

            Sure Katy, don’t be T&A for the lads but that doesn’t mean ricochet over to the mind slavery of Islam! It’s not binary! There’s no need to sell your soul to the Devil. Or in this case should I say to Shaytaan….. :-D

      • In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

        I think it’s a little presumptuous to claim that all hijab wearers are mindless drones,

        I don’t think that they’re all “mindless drones”. There are plenty of Muslim women who are, as I said, coerced into wearing hijab and various other Muslim uniforms. These women are happy to express their disgust and opposition to these garments of forced anonymity if they feel safe to do so. That’s a big IF. In their own countries it can be very dangerous for progressive women to argue on any number of issues. Let’s not forget that if a Muslim woman acts or speaks in rebellious, disrespectful or provocative ways then the Koran gives her husband permission to beat her. Various other members of her family will join in if they take the notion. If she has children then she must always worry that she’ll lose custody of them in a divorce. An unmarried woman/girl will simply be ordered to wear it or face a beating. She won’t have a choice. These are the excruciatingly sad stories that cause the cutting bitter resentment that I feel and that no doubt come through in my comments. Many women and girls in this situation are bearing the brunt of the shallow analysis of our liberal Swedes in this article. While these people defend the right of women to “wear what they want” they have completely overlooked the role of coercion by family, friends, mosque, neighborhood fundamentalist gangs and cultural-political leaders who are happy to throw women’s rights and in fact, human rights under the bus in the pursuit of their goal.

        As for “internalized misogyny” here is the Wiki explanation. Skip down to “definitions”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

        Do you mean that women who choose to be Muslim are themselves misogynists and are directing their contempt for our gender inwards?

        Plenty of women, Muslim or otherwise have been indoctrinated to believe that men are superior beings who have the right to dominate them in all ways and that it’s women’s purpose in this life to please them and serve them as domestic and reproductive slaves. When women internalize and accept this happy-horse-shit then all manner of human rights atrocities follow. In the context of this article that would include women who explain to us that a vulgar display of too much feminine anatomy causes the testosterone addled brains of men to drive them into a state of uncontrollable lust. They can’t help it. It’s not their fault when they come to their senses and discover that they’ve gone and raped the hussy. Why was she dressed like that? Why was she out after dark? What did she expect? It’s her fault, of course. Punishment will follow. The only way I can think of to combat this aggravating mind set is to reform and strengthen rape / sexual assault laws and at the same time to mount an intensive program of feminist consciousness raising in that community.

        As for my accusation of “severe brainwashing”, would it be more palatable if I used the term “severe indoctrination”? While I can actually accomodate the two previous categories of Hijab wearers in a productive discussion, I”m afraid I can hardly keep my temper in check when in conversation with the rigid, frothing at the mouth fundamentalist hijab wearing women. They’re intractable. So I think I’ll stick with my original description of “severely brainwashed” and you know the saying, if the shoe fits then by all means they can wear it and I won’t feel one bit bad about this at all!

        I will note that I object to your use of the word “choose” in reference to being a Muslim woman unless you were referring only to adult women converts to that religion.

        There are plenty of reasons to wear a headscarf. My granny used to wear one on the way back from the hairdressers if it was raining. Clothing is neutral.

        Well, that’s all well and good about your nice granny’s headscarf being neutral and all, but I’m going to assume it didn’t have a KKK motif all over it or that cute little Playboy bunny motif in a delightfully random pattern. Then it wouldn’t be so neutral I guess. It would take on a weird and disturbing symbolic significance, wouldn’t it? The former would scare the crap out of me and the latter would crack me up I guess. But either way I’d assume she was making a public statement of some sort. Plenty of clothing is a public expression of personal conviction or tribal affiliation.

        In the arena of international human rights law, and this incudes certain past legal decisions having to do with burka and hijab, what is called the “Contextual approach” is our best hope for a deep, detailed, egalitarian decision on these matters.

        From the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law [45:367]

        Under the contextual approach proposed here, human rights advocates weighing restrictions on “modest” garments for Muslim women and girls in public schools would look carefully at the meanings and impact of the symbols in context. In doing so, they should consider the following factors: the impact of the garments on other women (or girls) in the same environment; coercion of women in the context, including activities of religious extremist organizations; gender discrimination; related violence against women in the location; the motivation of those imposing the restriction; Islamophobia, if relevant or religious discrimination in the context;…

        This section was reproduced from a copy of an article by Karima Bennoune titled Secularism and Human Rights: A Contextual Analysis of Headscarves, Religious Expression, and Women’s Equality Under International Law I love her work. She has a new book out.

        • In reply to #24 by LaurieB:

          In reply to #15 by Katy Cordeth:

          I think it’s a little presumptuous to claim that all hijab wearers are mindless drones,

          I don’t think that they’re all “mindless drones”. There are plenty of Muslim women who are, as I said, coerced into wearing hijab and various other Muslim uniforms. These women…

          Although I agree in principle with everything you’re saying here, I think Islam is interpreted differently by those with different cultural backgrounds. In some Sydney suburbs there is a majority of Muslim residents. The local university is full of young Muslim women and they are fully covered though often with skin tight jeans and more make-up than a western woman would wear. They really look great! …..very exotic, emphasising their best features. So these women embody all the things we value, smart,well educated and attractive.

          But, it’s not a good idea to generalise as there are plenty of the downtrodden, full burqa wearing varieties as well. It’s a pity that a dress code can be used to mark out different segments of the community. We liberated western women are the ones with the luxury of choice. I think if all forms of religious garb, such as the hijab, those quaint Amish outfits etc, were to be worn at our discretion with no religious baggage to go with it the power of the obvious differences would be taken away. It would be good for us and good for them.

          • In reply to #30 by LaurieB:

            In reply to #26 by Nitya:

            Well hey there Nitya, looky here, it’s me and you “taking back” Amish lady fashion statements. Looks like we’re on the way to the Atheist convention. Meanwhile, Susan B. Anthony is rolling in her grave.

            http://images.travelpod.com/tripwow/photos2/ta-0775-4d08-8fb8/two-ami

            I’m not quite sure what you’ve said here, was Susan B Anthony Amish? I’ll have to investigate. The point I’m trying to make is that together with words such as “queer” or “nigger”, religious clothing could be neutralised if it were to be adopted at will, by the mainstream. You know, bikini or miniskirt one day, quaint little bonnets or hijabs the next. If this were the case there would be fewer incidents of bonnets being ripped off etc. The practice would lose its significance and be reduced to personal taste.

            Actually, I’d like to add that appropriate and subvert the garments that cause offense. Perhaps the hijab with loopy earrings or the Amish apron with a miniskirt. I think that is the most effective way to distance the clothing from the attitude.

          • In reply to #35 by Nitya:

            No. She’s not Amish. Don’t waste your time looking. I’m aware of the concept of “taking back” words, etc. to water down the offensive impact. I’m not a fan. I was being snarky and, well, just never mind. I don’t want to take back any of those bad old words and not any old puritanical domestic slavery dresses either. Let them fade into obscurity where they belong. No matter how often I hear the word “bitch” I still remember the way it was/is used to keep ambitious women in their place. Let the hijab, burkas, etc fade away into the trash heaps of time along with the bad old days of misogyny and sexism.

            From the book Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

            page 16

            The Muslim veil, the different sorts of masks and beaks and burkas, are all gradations of mental slavery. You must ask permission to leave the house, and when you do go out you must always hide yourself behind thick drapery. Ashamed of your body, suppressing your desires – what small space in your life can you call your own?

            The veil deliberately marks women as private and restricted property, nonpersons. The vell sets women apart from men and apart from the world; it restrains them, confines them, grooms them for docility. A mind can be cramped just as a body may be, and a Muslim veil blinkers both your vision and your destiny. It is the mark of a kind of apartheid, not the domination of a race but of a sex.

            As we drove down Whitechapel Road I felt anger that this subjugation is silently tolerated, if not endorsed, not just by the British but by so many Western societies where the equality of the sexes is legally enshrined.

            page 164

            When well-meaning Westerners, eager to promote respect for minority religions and cultures, ignore practices like forced marriage and confinement in order to “stop society from stigmatizing Muslims”, they deny countless Muslim girls their right to wrest their freedom from their parents’ culture. They fail to live up to the ideals and values of our democratic society and they harm the very same vulnerable minority whom they seek to protect.

            Those “attractive” young women who go swishing along in their expensive, designer YSL hijabs on the college campuses are either strangely oblivious to the silent suffering of their abused and oppressed Muslim sisters or else they know about it and just don’t have the brain power to understand how they are supporting that oppression. Either way, they’re gender traitors.

          • In reply to #36 by LaurieB:

            In reply to #35 by Nitya:

            No. She’s not Amish. Don’t waste your time looking. I’m aware of the concept of “taking back” words, etc. to water down the offensive impact. I’m not a fan. I was being snarky and, well, just never mind. I don’t want to take back any of those bad old words and not any ol…

            We’re possibly at cross purposes due to cultural differences of our own! Sometime it’s hard to interpret the mood of the User when different grammatical constructions are employed. Of course I agree with you regarding the negative feelings than rise to the surface when I see a woman imprisoned in this all covering garb! But….not all Muslim clothing is the same, just as there are extreme expressions of Christian clothing. Look at Amish men, for instance. Those beards!!

            The reason I’m being so generous in my acceptance of the Muslim gear, is because I recently shopped at a mall in outer Sydney where the patrons and service staff were frequently young Muslim women. They looked attractive and they were pleasant and courteous. The thought ran through my mind, that we should withhold our judgement.

          • In reply to #36 by LaurieB:

            From the book Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

            I read that book and the one preceding it, “Infidel”. Both excellent and bullshit-free. Hirsi Ali is a true feminist who has put her ass (and her head) on the line by telling it like it is. Must-reads!

  4. Orthodox Christian women wear headscarves too. Mennonite women also wear small head coverings. Should we be equally disgusted by that?

    If people want to wear them, then they should be able to wear them. If they don’t want to wear them, then nobody should force them. They shouldn’t be pressured not to wear them because it’s perceived as having ties to religion. I’m sure I have many behaviors that were tied to my Christian upbringing, but I shouldn’t be shamed into dressing in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable (say a short dress) simply because somebody perceives it as a result of how I was raised.

    • In reply to #5 by Kim Probable:

      Orthodox Christian women wear headscarves too. Mennonite women also wear small head coverings. Should we be equally disgusted by that?

      If people want to wear them, then they should be able to wear them. If they don’t want to wear them, then nobody should force them. They shouldn’t be pressured not…

      yes, but orthodox christian women do not belong to a group who use violence and cruelty to get their way. so their wearing of a head scarf does not fill me with dread and anger.

      • In reply to #33 by Net:

        yes, but orthodox christian women do not belong to a group who use violence and cruelty to get their way. so their wearing of a head scarf does not fill me with dread and anger.

        Perhaps you should learn more about Christianity. There are many Christians who do exactly that to get their way.

    • Actually, as understanding as you seem to be, I think you’ve missed the point a bit…the pressure being exerted on these body-bag wearing muslims has zero to do with any idea of anti-religious or anti-muslim sentiment, directly anyway. It does however have everything to do with misogyny, something I find to be ferociously offensive. I find it incredibly frustrating how naive and unsophisticated some of the liberal defenders of the body-baggers can be…when they try to distill the argument down to free choice or religious freedom…as if anyone has ever had an issue with the body-bags for any of these reasons.

      Muslim women wear the body-bag because muslim men fundamentally, perceive them as chattel, that should be covered so as to protect men from their evil influence and temptation. The tradition began (according to a prominent Hadith), when mo’s lieutenant caught a glimpse of one one of mo’s women-stock heading out of the stock tent to do her ablutions, and was ‘aroused’. So now [removed by moderator] muslim women have been culturally condemned to become victims of vitamin D deficiencies amongst a plethora of other medical and anti-social injuries.

      Sorry, but no one gives a hoot about the turbaned Sikh, or the Sari’d Hindu as their attire does not symbolise the vilification and stigmatisation of those that only have two purposes on earth; to seed more muslims; and tempt men from god! As for the Mennonites et. al…actually…I put them in the exact same category as the body-bag ninja’s I refer to above. Nuns, however, represent a special case of this plague of intentional female deprecation, they have to go through a pretty rigorous process to qualify to be so silly.

      Frankly, I put these idiot Swedes in the same category as the ‘harmless’ liberals who stood with righteous indignation against the handful of suffragette supporters under the slogan, ‘most Victorian women would chose not to vote’. INDOCTRINATION feeds off of subtleties like watching your mother and elder sisters cower from public gaze, and even though you wouldn’t say they are uneducated, timid and subservient because they wear a body-bag, the fact is we enable this crippling influence to be accepted as normal when we buy into lame arguments that no one has ever really made, and thereby stand FOR the misogynist.

      I am a male feminist with two gorgeous daughters who will not stand by at let them get indoctrinated into smuggling in this symbolism under the lofty, enlightenment guise of ‘tolerance’. When bearded men can show tolerance toward the objects of their desire & disdain then I will reciprocate by showing them and their misogynistic beliefs some tolerance.

      It’s a sore point with me as I’m sure you can tell!

      In reply to #5 by Kim Probable:

      Orthodox Christian women wear headscarves too. Mennonite women also wear small head coverings. Should we be equally disgusted by that?

      If people want to wear them, then they should be able to wear them. If they don’t want to wear them, then nobody should force them. They shouldn’t be pressured not…

      • Oh…and I guess I should be clear that I deplore for actions of the pumpkin heads who attacked the pregnant ninja…they too are misogynists!

        In reply to #57 by rob.desenelstun:

        Actually, as understanding as you seem to be, I think you’ve missed the point a bit…the pressure being exerted on these body-bag wearing muslims has zero to do with any idea of anti-religious or anti-muslim sentiment, directly anyway. It does however have everything to do with misogyny, something…

  5. This is maddening. The practice of donning hijabs is oppressive! And they’re supporting “Muslim rights?” Whose rights?

    I hope the perpetrators are caught and sentenced to the maximum. This was not about a hijab. That was an excuse to overpower a weaker human being.

  6. Quote Bilan Osman: [...because we want to normalize the headscarves...]

    Oh man… thats not really helping…

    People are strugling to get out of those things, and now we want to normalize it because a single nutcase assaulted a woman?

    wheres the logic?

  7. Since no one else is saying it, I will. Women wearing hijabs getting beaten up by a gang of complete strangers is still relatively rare. However, women who dress like that getting beaten up by their husbands is quite common. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty much the default setting.

    • In reply to #10 by IDLERACER:

      Since no one else is saying it, I will. Women wearing hijabs getting beaten up by a gang of complete strangers is still relatively rare. However, women who dress like that getting beaten up by their husbands is quite common. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty much the default setting.

      But the point is its wrong in both cases and it should be condemned in both cases. Its so typical of the Dawkiban to look at a nice story about people supporting women and end up condemning it. Like their estranged cousins the Taliban the Dawkiban view everything through the lens of religion, anyone that has different religious beliefs is automatically a Dawkiban enemy and anything that seems to support any kind of religious expression must be condemned by the Dawkiban regardless of other issues like the basic freedom of all women to dress as they choose.

      • In reply to #14 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #10 by IDLERACER:

        Since no one else is saying it, I will. Women wearing hijabs getting beaten up by a gang of complete strangers is still relatively rare. However, women who dress like that getting beaten up by their husbands is quite common. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty much the de…

        Actually, I’m kind of suprised there haven’t been any statements on here yet like “well, that woman brought in on herself really by wearing a headscarf in the first place”.

      • yup…I agree…the dawiban love to go after Sikhs for their disgusting turban wearing…thats just like the dawkiban, its nothing to do with misogyny with those lamos

        In reply to #14 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #10 by IDLERACER:

        Since no one else is saying it, I will. Women wearing hijabs getting beaten up by a gang of complete strangers is still relatively rare. However, women who dress like that getting beaten up by their husbands is quite common. As a matter of fact, it’s pretty much the de…

  8. “We want people to wear a headscarf on Monday. Primarily because we want to normalize the headscarves,” said Bilan Osman, one of the initiators, to P4 Göteborg, Goteborg Daily reported.

    There is no limit to the whimsical stupidity of self-publicising posturing do-gooders, or silly stories which will help to sell media rags!

    Perhaps they should try having a women’s rights parade in Saudi on behalf of wearers of hijabs – wearing shorts and tank-tops.

      • In reply to #19 by old-toy-boy:

        In reply to #17 by Sample:

        I’m a man. May I just kneel toward Mecca five times a day to show my support?

        Mike

        What difference will that make?

        My last few posts have had sarcasm or nuance and I’m going to have to stop that (or leave emoticons and footnotes).

        Mike

  9. The people of Stockholm need to stop messing about and get tough on all criminals.

    From the article,

    “We want people to wear a headscarf on Monday. Primarily because we want to normalize the headscarves,”

    Is that not, exactly what the islamlic terrorists want? I feel it would only make the problem worse.

    1. This is sickening. (Katy knows what.)
    2. People should maximally be able to wear what they want.
    3. Worried about women being coerced to wear stuff they don’t want, we shouldn’t manage this by more coercion of what is in acceptable taste.
    4. Bondage gear in public is in terrible taste. Having social workers check out women seen wearing the stuff and making sure they are given information about the law, their rights and helpline numbers in relation to domestic violence and its threat is the way to deal with this. Happy submissives in a sado-masochist relationship have the same rights as any of us but should be kept an eye on, in case they are, or become, unhappy. All bondage gear, burkas/niqabs included, should be discussed and treated in this way.
    5. I would like it to be known that wearing or forcing someone to wear submissive/masochist clothing in public is not something I would have wanted my kids to see when they were younger.
    6. Headscarves, in my opinion, are cool and…well…often very attractive. They do not constitute, could never constitute, bondage gear.
  10. normalising the head scarf? that’s just another way of islam taking root by stealth of misplaced guilt. in the case of islam, a head scarf is an outward sign of membership of a group that tolerates or practises misgoyny, homophobia, exclusiveness, cruelty to animals, and so on. physical violence is unacceptable, true, but the swedes, and their islamic guests should find another, more effective and less risky way of making their point.

  11. To my surprise my room mate said she wished she could wear a hijab. The idea is you can flip it over your head and head out. There is no need to do your hair, treat your skin, select clean clothes. Nobody would stop her to chat.

    At lot of people in our build wear them, but in the neighbourhood they would still get a second look.

  12. In reply to #42 by Fouad Boussetta:

    I read that book and the one preceding it, “Infidel”. Both excellent and bullshit-free. Hirsi Ali is a true feminist who has put her ass (and her head) on the line by telling it like it is. Must-reads!

    I agree. I read both Infidel and Nomad when they came out. It’s fantastic to read her powerful and articulate explanation of what Muslim women are dealing with. Excellent analysis of the problems of Muslim immigrants to the West, wouldn’t you say so?

    I wonder if she’ll do an opinion piece on this Swedish incident. I hope so.

  13. Have the perpetrators been found? I ask this because one of the comments implies that it was a cover up for her husband’s handiwork.
    Nevertheless, I would not be surprised that this type of incident happens from time-to-time. I find it interesting that people who are frustrated take it out on the easiest targets – women. Does that imply that these western men are OK with Muslim women/all women being mistreated, they just have other issues with the religion?

  14. The attack was a horrible, racist act.

    I’m not in favour of treating women differently from men which is what many religions do, and the head-scarf is part of this second class treatment. On the other hand I’m not in favour of banning head-scarves, or any other garb, if it doesn’t cover the face. Once you cover the face you are taking yourself out of society.

    I’m also not convinced that all these women are really wearing head-scarves of their own free will, that there is no coercion involved.

  15. No-one who is a human being, sane and / or socially aware, could possibly find any reason to say anything about a physical assault on another human being – whether female or male, pregnant or not, veiled or open-faced, except to express disgust and concern.

    I condemn all such criminal attacks outright.

    A person committing such a crime is ignorant – at best and, on the face of it, probably also stupid and almost certainly the subject of a consistent campaign of propaganda that has excited their fears, exercised their credulity and motivated their emotionally charged and unthinking reactions.

    I excuse nobody.

    Each of us is responsible for our own actions.

    Societies must recognise that, even with the best of intentions and the most strenuous of efforts, there will always be some who slip through the net of education, counter-propaganda and law. That includes Sweden – one of the most admirable nations on Earth in the 21st Century by any measure (assuming you think ticking boxes is a moral and rational way to judge) and a great place to live, work and visit besides.

    People view headscarves and Muslims as something alien.

    The habits and dress of a new minority rub up against the habits and dress of the majority. Presented this way, wearing hijab seems benign, even – in the sense of making a personal stand – courageous.

    This is, dear friends, brothers and sisters, what we are supposed to think. This is a prettily-written story indeed.

    Do not be so easily deceived.

    I request that you ask yourself this simple question: What is it that makes Sweden such a wonderful place?

    I further request that you then contrast your answer (for such is the obvious and natural result) with the fascist propaganda presented here.

    “Oh”, I hear some of you protest, “that is such a strong word“. Please, look at the simple unvarnished facts of this story; we are being asked to act, politically (that is to say: firmly and irrevocably), to normalize hijab on the basis of:

    … she thinks her faith is the reason she was assaulted …

    Clue: The Swedes, along with so many countries touched by the Enlightenment (i.e. most of the World – but don’t get cocky or complacent we’re losing ground daily), have a culture with facets that we ignore almost all the time – so ingrained, so common, so mundane do they seem to us in their ordinariness.

    This is, sad to say, a natural consequence of culture. Culture is a very tricky word – nebulous, at best. I describe it thus:

    Your culture is the way you live, the things you take for granted, the background scenery in the landscape of your life, the colour of the walls of your being (in the widest and most amorphous possible interpretation of being)

    We assume that the old sayings: “an open face”, “face the facts”, “faced up to the jury”, “she had to face up or get out”, ” he finally faced up to the problem”, “we did business face-to-face” and so many others are merely normative idioms.

    They are not. They are our culture.

    If that were all, it would clearly not be enough – I would merely be arguing semantics or even, perish the thought, vapid and vacuous relativism.

    But that is not all.

    Enlightenment thinking is so normal, so much a part of our culture, that we set it aside at our peril. Indeed, it would appear that a large number of people in Sweden have quite forgotten it.

    But this is not merely a case of a people not recognising that their own culture is under attack – nor even a people’s misunderstanding that the actions of a tiny minority are being used to steer the political dialogue to the long-term detriment of every citizen. This is also about tolerance.

    We, in the West, have spent more than seven decades – two classical generations – pursuing greater equality in our polities. This most admirable goal is the response to the inequities and crimes against humanity of fascism, communism, colonialism and other isms. Our biggest concern has been bigotry (often mislabelled discrimination) and its elimination.

    Enlightenment thinking includes the basis on which we treat each and every citizen as equal partners in the social and political fabric. The war on ‘discrimination’ has taken us far beyond that foundation – in our efforts to recognise that past crimes have present-day, present-generation, consequences. I can see no reason not to continue that political fight to counter racism, sexism, equality of opportunity and progressive taxation.

    I do see, right here in this story, a reason not to include religion. Calling for favoritism of religion is merely a new ism for the benefit of the few over the many. Muslims are doing nothing less than requesting that Swedes excuse them from open-faced communication, to subjecting women to social pressures not applied to men and accepting that there is not ‘one culture for all’.

    This may seem a simple and mild subject to get overheated about. It certainly is if you read the mild request for appeasement by onislam.net. But is it – or is it the thin edge of the wedge, the horseshoe nail the absence of which will lead inexorably to the loss of a Kingdom?

    On the above basis, it seems clear to me, that the onislam.net call to “… don hijab … in a show of support to Muslim rights” is a call to undermine Swedish culture – even Enlightenment culture. The same culture that gave us humanism and feminism at the heart of government.

    • We each accept hijab as normal – as a revision of our cultural norms – at great personal cost.

    • We accept hijab as normal – as a revision of our cultural norms – at incalculable social, legal and political cost.

    I ask you, each and every reader, to accept my position as a challenge.

    If you think I am wrong please note:

    • It is not enough to tell me “you’re wrong”. Tell me why. Because, without that input, I cannot see an alternative view that is sane and socially aware.

    To me: Green Party Member of Parliament (MP) Åsa Romson is to be pitied. She has quite clearly not even understood the most basic elements of the political dialogue under discussion and has, thereby, disqualified herself from the job of MP in the Swedish Parliament by reason of egregious incompetence.

    To me: The so-called Feminist Initiative that issued a statement condemning the attacks on veiled Muslim women, stating:

    We stand up for … religious freedom in Sweden

    … are, to put it as charitably as I dare, moronic. To conflate favoring religion and feminism is so obviously oxymoronic I can see no alternative.

    I’m ready to listen.

    I do not pretend to have all the answers – only a perspective that seems to me, on the evidence and with logical thinking, to be coherent and true.

    Am I wrong? If so please reply.

    Peace.

  16. Perpertrating violence against Muslims is unforgivable and must be met with the full force of the law; they’ve had enough foist upon them already.

    But by the same token, being supportive of oppressed individuals who are unaware that they are oppressed because they’ve never known freedom and will interpret the support as oppression is a bouble bind which I submit Islamists will exploit to the full, further doing down individual grassroots Muslims.

    Religion really does poison everything!

    In London yesterday I saw a number of women – I presume that they were women – wearing the full monty and therefore only receiving a modicum of sunlight on their hands, feet and around there eyes, which apart from anything else it’s dangerously unhealthy, especially if you are dark skinned.

    To a greater or lesser extent our clothes express something about us, and in their case they were shouting at the top of their voices that they are not part of the culture within in which they live; why?

    Within the confines of a bus it made me feel very uncomfortable! But perhaps I’ve become too much of a delicate flower and am about to fade away.

    Religion really does poison everything!

  17. “Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.” A religion that says you must wear a hijab says it is not a religious symbol. They seem to be tied tightly together.

    Of course, the attack is deplorable. But I worry that they instead are suggesting that subjugation of women should be supported.

    • In reply to #55 by BananasForEveryone:

      “Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.” A religion that says you must wear a hijab says it is not a religious symbol. They seem to be tied tightly together.

      Of course, the attack is deplorable. But I worry that they instead are suggesting that subjugation of women should be supported.

      Relax. They’re not.

  18. That’s true but the women in jeans and tee-shirts are getting beaten because of an explicit religious prescription…they’re just dating/married to muppets.

    When you regard the fairer sex as a blight to mankind its a whole lot easier to smack them around…wouldn’t you say?

    In reply to #13 by Smill:

    In reply to post 10. Women get ‘beaten up by their husbands’ In jeans and t-shirts too.

    • oooops…should be not getting beaten

      In reply to #59 by rob.desenelstun:

      That’s true but the women in jeans and tee-shirts are getting beaten because of an explicit religious prescription…they’re just dating/married to muppets.

      When you regard the fairer sex as a blight to mankind its a whole lot easier to smack them around…wouldn’t you say?

      In reply to #13 by Smil…

Leave a Reply