Women’s Rights? Will Tunisia Face Down Fanatics?

Just saw EuroNews reporting from Tunisia, where thousands of backward savages are raging against a plan to give daughters the same rights as sons, with a new inheritance law  that would end the sexist shariah rule which brands women as second-class.

Tunisian leader backs equal inheritance rights for women

=

=

Good that some in the Arab world are trying to introduce fair play, but ask yourselves – how many of the crimmigrants who have oozed into Europe in the past few years share the primitive demonstrators’ passion for iniquitous treatment of women?

More importantly, ask why no proper vetting system has even been proposed by anyone in Brussels to ensure no such nonsense is imported?

Why are arrivals not interrogated, to ensure those holding to such an ideology are excluded?

=

=

We know all too well that some of those who have reached European shores not only cling to such sexist ‘values’ but are determined to foist their alien beliefs on civilised countries.

=

000

Courses for ‘Clerics?’ Worthless, If No Tests Included!

OK!

One might wonder, if people are considered needful of instruction in the basic principles of democracy,  who vetted their entry into the country in the first place?

---

?

BUT anyway…  

Italy’s Interior Ministry is preparing a course in common constitutional decencies for  ‘clerics’ operating within their borders.

Participants will learn about Italy’s constitutional principles including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to have a place of worship and practise religion.

Italy’s imams to get training on the Constitution

That’s all well and good, but – apart from the fact that it’s only in some areas of Italy – …

‘Participants’ in our classes in high school were taught about such things as German/French grammar, how to use Bunsen Burners in science classes, historical events, and Shakespeare’s works.

[

• Or at least we studied them!
• —–

Whether we LEARNED them or not was established by tests and exams.

So the same should apply to these lessons set by the Italian Government. Clerics enrolled  in the course – it’s not clear if enrolment is compulsory, as it no doubt should be – should face assessment!

TESTS!

Simple questions, for example –

Do you reject as barbaric any suggestion that people who leave one religion to join another, or abandon religion altogether…

……………

——-

…should be subject to harm, threat of harm, or other anti-social victimisation?

=====

Do you understand that only retards would offer threats of violence or actual violence towards those who mock your own or any other religion?

———

–

——-

Do you agree that it is disgusting and iniquitous for anyone to suggest that men may have more than one wife…

————

———

…yet women should NOT have the right to enjoy more than one husband?

——

Do you agree that women should be free to dress as they please, subject to Italian law?

—–

• 
• ———

Do you agree that daughters should be entitled to the same share of inheritances as sons?

———

There are other questions that might be useful, but those, I think, make quite a good start! 

The new courses are part of a €90,000 plan from the Interior Ministry to improve integration of Muslims in Italy.

http://www.thelocal.it/20170111/italys-imams-to-get-training-on-the-constitution

———-

———-

All right.

But let’s be fair.

Not only Muslims should be registered for this learning process – the classes and the tests should be compulsory for all varieties of preachers, because, after all, there are unsavoury aspects to more than one creed.

And the ‘graduates’ should be required, as part of their subsequent license to preach, to stand up regularly in pulpits and advise, warn and exhort their congregations to heed the basic lessons in the course.

–

–

Refusal to do so ought to result in their exclusion from pulpits, in mosques, temples and churches.

And, one hopes, from Italy too.

PS I re-read the article, and the move is not aimed solely at any one religion but at all denominations not registered  in Italy

Breaking – English Cops To Nab Shariah Preachers?

So wolf-whistling is a hate crime…

Wolf whistling can now be reported as a hate crime

BBC News–20 Jul 2016

OR NOT?

00000000000000000000000000000000

Let’s look at The Guardian!

One police force (Nottinghamshire) has expanded its definition of hate crime to include misogyny and harassment of women.

Wolf-whistling is no crime – but it is part of our misogynist culture

Hate Crime to include misogyny?

If this were true, then it would mean that anyone advocating shariah law  would, ipso facto, be guilty of a ‘hate crime.’

Shariah is an iniquitous code that imposes mean-spirited and absurd misogynistic discrimination on women.

Not only the misogynistic ‘aurat’ stuff, whereby every woman is coerced into shrouding her God-given crowning glory, the lovely hair on her head, not to mention her knees, mid-riff, thighs and even those soft smooth shoulders on which her hair ideally cascades…

——-

‘Fathers and Husbands, their aurat (private parts) are your responsibility!’

………………………

…..a nonsense that would degrade all girls until they resemble the famous Michelin Man advert…

………

……..

…but also the grossly discriminatory inheritance laws, which denies daughters equal inheritance rights.

Utterly misogynistic.

And let’s not even discuss the grotesque concept of polygamy…

………

………..

….how can anyone seriously maintain that men can have multiple spouses while women may one have one?

As misogynistic as it gets!

Alas, I fear the PC Plods in Notts County lack the guts to go after shariah hate crimes.

——————

Of course the very idea of ‘hate crime’ is an affront to justice.

If you kill or injure somebody, whether in a fit of temper and/or jealousy, or during a bar-room brawl, or, most horrendous of all, surely, because he or she converts to another religion – ooops, that’s shariah law again…

……………..

……………

…then you are guilty of murder.

There’s neither fairness nor logic in making the penalty heavier if your crime was motivated by ‘hate.’

However, if the ruling PC ideology imposes such a nonsense as ‘hate crime’ on our legislation, then the Guardian scribbler whose link I’ve appended above, makes a fair point.

---

—

If the gigantic PC catch-all net includes ‘disability, gender identity, race, ethnicity or nationality, religion, faith or belief and sexual orientation. Is it really so shocking for sex to be included in that list?

---

————

And that’s what Nottinghamshire Police have done.

But here’s another curious extract from her article, a statement from Notts Police, which declares that a ‘hate crime’ is not a crime at all.

—

Madhouse England, yeah? Here’s the full quote – 

“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”

In other words, whether it’s a crime depends if the complainant or his or her pals or some agitprop pinko whiner have a big enough chip on their shoulders.

A charter for uptights.

The authoress ( that’ll wind her up nicely – I’m sure ‘authoress’ is as non-PC as ‘actress’ these days) is named Laura Bates, BTW.

Laura doesn’t like being whistled at!

0000000000000000000

Laura in fact began her article with the words wolf-whistling has been reclassified as a crime! But then she explains how that sentence, that ‘crime,’ wolf-whistling is not even mentioned in the police report.

She blames the Guardian’s media rivals for trivialising abuse of women by introducing the non-existent ‘wolf-whistling’ crime. Again, fair comment.

But then she exposes her own loopy libber mentality, by adding that wolf-whistles are the thin end of this wedge…

---

——-

I don’t walk around Jakarta whistling at girls – a friendly smile seems a more decorous approach, and is often reciprocated.  

And on my rare trips to the Wicked West I regret to admit that nobody has wolf-whistled me.

 Were it to happen, assuming the whistler wasn’t a poofter, I’d not be upset at all. It’s a compliment, albeit an unsophisticated one.

So why should it be cause  for complaint?