Australian meat

Laer does a wonderful take down of the execrable views from Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly (left), the Mufti of Australia’s biggest mosque in Sydney, including the latter’s BDS defense. Hilaly is the one who opined that women who are not fully veiled deserve to be raped (and, judging by the rise in Muslim on non-Muslim rapes in Australia, he’s preaching to the converted). Here’s just part of what Laer has to say:

Christianity teaches women should dress modestly — a teaching that is shamefully ignored at most contemporary Christian churches — but it understands the difference between “modesty” and “using clothes as a weapon of abuse.” Islam does not. Moderate Muslim women who dress in even modest Western clothes are beaten, yelled at, shamed.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Lefty:”America is too powerful for the terroists to destroy our way of life. What do you mean they hate our freedoms, our freedoms can’t be taken by terroists nor is it a threat to them, only we can take away our freedoms”

    How little, they know. Yet their ignorance will not save them in the end. Nor the people they purport to be protecting.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    When Australia banned guns, bats, and mace (could be just lawsuits, not anti-mace legislation, but still), they thought they were going progressive compared to the hicks in America with our little willy popguns.

    Now we see that destiny isn’t beholden to human desires. They were going progressively into serfdom, most definitely.

    Don’t expect the police to protect you from crime, that is not what they are there for.

    Evil people target the weakest in a group, just because. Therefore if you belong to a group that is inherently percieved as weak and unable to defend themselves, like women, you have more of a responsibility to learn self-defense techniques. If you give up that power to the government, in order to remove this responsibility from your care, the end results might not be in your favor.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Where are all the people who said that banning handguns would make their families safer? Are they paying attention? Or maybe they just don’t care to have another duty to perform, so they give it unto the government. I’ve heard proclamations of banning handguns from Objectivists AND atheistic self-aggrandizers. Fools are not limited by their politics, I have learned.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    Speaking about Europe, Neo has up a very nice post about France and France 2’s court case.

    It places the burden of proof in defending against a libel suit unconscionably– almost ludicrously–high.

    Compare this to the American standard for defamation, particularly for public figures (and Charles Enderlin is nothing if not a public figure). The burden of proof in the US is entirely on the plaintiff to prove the statement was defamatory, false, and malicious. In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court established the standard: the First Amendment protected “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed “reckless disregard” for the truth.

    It turns out the US is serious—very very serious—about protecting First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It’s also less concerned than a country like France about the power of insults, or with the need to prevent slurs on one’s honor. “Whatever,” says the US, we can take it; what’s most important is the right to free speech. What’s most important to the French seems to be that society be courteous at all costs, even to public figures. And in making accusations against public figures, even a private citizen must make sure he has conducted a thorough investigation.

    Of course, the need for a thorough investigation doesn’t seem to apply to Charles Enderlin or France 2. He’s free to broadcast any charge he wants (at least, as long as it’s PC)—for example, that the IDF murdered Mohammed al-Durah. He needs neither to prove his assertion, nor to defend himself against the charges that he misrepresented the facts, nor to show that he was conscientious in his duty as a journalist when he jumped to that conclusion based on Talal’s tapes–which present a one-minute scene embedded in almost a half-hour of other scenes that are obviously faked, do not show either father or son being hit and bleeding, and give no indication that the gunfire making the bullet holes in the wall behind al-Durah was coming from the IDF position, much less that he was shot by them.

    http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/10/behind-facade-of-justice-french.html