Mr. Berke provides an update over at FD To clarify, I acknowledge this act as an assault. No question. You don't go up and physically touch or handle anyone. That said, these symbols of oppression, ownership and control should be banned IMO. They are not required by that faith (cult) and serve no purpose whatsoever aside to demonstrate beholdenment to a male.
In the future, can I ask that you please refer to me as RedDog? Thank you. (FD)
20 March 2012 at 07:37
We posted an article concerning the assault of a Muslim woman in Kingston, Ontario.
On Saturday, January 28, 2012 at approximately 5:00pm the female victim was shopping at the Food Basics located at the Frontenac Mall at 1300 Bath Rd. She had paid the cashier and was loading her groceries when the female suspect, from an adjacent checkout came from behind her and roughly pulled on the victim’s hijab (head covering), causing her head to be forcefully bent backwards. The female suspect let go of the hijab and without saying a word to the victim exited the store with her male associate.
In most people's minds, this act would constitute an assault. However, it looks like, in Duane's view, this was actually an act of liberation:
[Image]
Our ever so faithful terrier Ogopogo dutifully reported back what one of our readers wrote in response:
[Image]
We then can only assume that Duane is also equally alarmed by the plight of Hutterite women in Alberta:
[Image]
[Image]
But you know, it's just sort of hard to take Duane seriously here in his defence of Muslim women when he says stuff like this about women....
[Image]
.... or this about Muslims:
[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
But then to be fair it isn't exactly hard to find examples of misogyny and Islamaphobia on Free Dominion:
[Image]
[Image]
[Image][Image]
And these are truly only a few examples.
But we'll bite on this and say tearing off the hijab of the woman was not assault (it was, of course, but let's go with it for a while). It might then be instructive to look at examples on the other side to see if we at least have some modicum of consistency.
But where, oh were, could we find anything to help us in that effort?
Ah! How about this case:
Fury as judge dismisses charges against Muslim who 'attacked' man wearing 'Zombie Muhammad' Halloween costumeLong story short, Talaag Elbayomy was accused of assaulting Ernest Pierce who was dressed as "Zombie Muhammed" during a Halloween parade and carrying a sign identifying him as such. Elbayomy is alleged to have tried to tear away the sign from Pierce. The judge ruled that is was a case of, "he said/he said" and that there wasn't enough evidence either way to render a verdict, though as a Muslim convert he was accused of applying Sharia law in the case (despite any actual evidence to support this claim except that the Muslim dude wasn't convicted). So how might our Free Dominion friends look at this? [Image]
[Image] Sooooo, if you believe Elbayomy was guilty of assault for what he did to Mr. Pierce (and in all honesty, we think the judge likely erred in his judgment given the evidence and witness and that Elbayomy should have been convicted), why not the woman who violently pulled off the other woman's hijab?
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formMr. Berke provides an update over at FD To clarify, I acknowledge this act as an assault. No question. You don't go up and physically touch or handle anyone. That said, these symbols of oppression, ownership and control should be banned IMO. They are not required by that faith (cult) and serve no purpose whatsoever aside to demonstrate beholdenment to a male.
In the future, can I ask that you please refer to me as RedDog? Thank you. (FD)
20 March 2012 at 07:37