Burkas, bad. Stone Age toilets, good.

Time for me to get all Daily-Maily on you with these two stories:

Calls grow for burka ban in Britain as French outlaw Islamic ‘walking coffins’ and

Shopping centre bosses approve ‘Asian squat toilets’ following cultural awareness course

It’s all a game and once again this just proves it. On the one hand, a tiny number of Muslim women in France, around two thousand, cover themselves up from tip to toe with just a slit to see out of, and this is portrayed as something really awful, and calls go out in the UK for a ban here as well, meanwhile toilets for squatting over are being opened in a shopping centre in Rochdale thanks to silly people attending a course on “community cohesion”.

Politicians in France united yesterday to ban Islamic veils that cover a woman’s face, which some described as ‘walking coffins’.

Deputies in the country’s 557-seat lower house, the National Assembly, voted in favour of the ban by 335 votes to one. [Socialists and Greens abstained].

This leads to the conclusion that EU and UN charters which “guarantee” religious freedom are worthless. And not just for Christians!

Here in Britain,

Support for a ban… has come from Tory backbencher Philip Hollobone and the UK Independence Party.

Mr Hollobone has tabled a private members’ bill which would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public.

The Kettering MP, who has previously likened full face veils to ‘going round with a paper bag over your head’, said: ‘It is unnatural for someone to cover their face and it not a religious requirement.

‘We are never going to have a fully integrated society if an increasing proportion of the population cover their faces’.

His Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill is the first of its kind in Britain, and is one of only 20 private members’ bills drawn in a ballot for the chance to make it into the statute books.

The bill, which had its first reading in June, stands little chance of becoming law due to limited Parliamentary time and a lack of support from the main political parties.

Mr Hollobone has insisted that his bill has widespread public support: ‘People feel that something should be done about burkas, but so many are afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled a racist.

Well sorry, but if you are going to ban the burka because the face is covered, you’ll also have to ban these people…

Tomato Man

Tomato Man. Too saucy to be out in public?

Apparently, Tomatoman has been spotted in Berlin, “spreading the word about the goodness of tomatoes”. He made a brief stopover at Fruitlogística, where he “scared a few children into eating their veggies”. Sometimes, scary is good! Would the Righteous five-a-dayers really unmask this caped crusader?

Lord Buckethead

A scary man (presumably a fella, but how can we be sure?)

Lord Buckethead stood for election in Mrs Thatcher’s Finchley seat in 1987. It is too late for him to get involved in French politics.

Snorkel Parka

Could it be....Osama bin Laden?

Forget hoodies, this chap could be walking on very thin ice soon. I wore a snorkel parka like this to school in the Seventies, as did many of my schoolmates. If it becomes illegal for someone to cover his face, he’ll be a borderline case, and as some of today’s clueless coppers won’t know the law, he’ll probably be arrested for having “a suspected link to Al Qaeda”.

According to Mr Hollobone,

Part of the British way of life is walking down the street, smiling at people and saying hello, whether you know them or not. You cannot have this everyday human interaction if you cover your face.

Crocodile Dundee did that when he went to New York for the first time. Here in the real world – in today’s Britain – it still happens in friendly places, such as where I live, which has not yet been totally destroyed by the social engineers, but in many places it is a thing of the distant past and the burka is as much to blame as Tomato Man.

I’ll tell you what really irks some people about the burka. It is seen as a sign of oppression; of male domination. This is why the French are going to these extraordinary lengths,

Men caught forcing a woman to wear a burka or a niqab will face a year in prison or a £25,000 fine.

It is no longer the husband’s prerogative to decide how he wants his wife to dress, but the State’s. And why?

The garments are seen as undermining women’s rights and a threat to France’s secular status.

And we thought it was supposed to be about public safety!

On the other hand, what may threaten public (health and) safety, in Rochdale at least, is this,

From next week, shoppers in Rochdale who push open the cubicle door expecting the reassuring sight of a modern, clean lavatory could instead be faced with little more than a hole in the ground.

Bosses of the Greater Manchester town’s Exchange mall have installed two as part of an upgrade costing several thousand pounds after attending a cultural awareness course run by a local Muslim community activist.

It's not Ronnie Corbett's swimming pool, but a squat toilet, or a "Nile Pan."

Shopping centre managers decided to install these things after attending a cultural training course, which was

…hosted by Ghulam Rasul Shahzad, a retired Rochdale Council training officer who runs courses for the groups including the police on cultural understanding and community cohesion.

A former Labour council candidate, Mr Shahzad received the OBE from the Queen last month for his services to the community and social housing.

He was last year given a Community Crimefighter Award by the then Prime Minister, Mr Brown.

Mr Shahzad took shopping centre manager Lorenzo O’Reilly and his team on a tour around Rochdale’s Central Mosque, including a look at its toilets, as part of the course.

‘The management at the centre were very committed to improving the service they offered to the community and were very responsive,’ he said.

Isn’t it odd how one person can speak, even one with no authority, and everyone jumps to attention. I call that misplaced respect. Or fear?

A spokeswoman for the centre said: ‘We regularly receive cultural awareness training from Ghulam and when we were planning the toilets this was something that cropped up.’

Of course, at no time will our own culture be preserved or valued if there is a culture clash.

As a result, when the facilities reopen next Monday, both the ladies’ and gents’ will have a cubicle containing a squat toilet.

Turkish or squat toilets are favoured over flush toilets in many parts of Asia as they don’t require expensive modern plumbing systems.

Erm, is this a problem in Rochdale? I never realised that “The North” is so deprived.

Mike Bone, of the British Toilet Association, warned the washing facilities associated with squat toilets could pose a hygiene hazard.

‘Space for public toilets in places like shopping centres is already at a premium, and if this is meant to cater for Muslims we would point out that the vast majority use normal toilets in their own homes.’

So when the other cubicles are engaged, someone will have to squat against their will and probably also to their disgust and that includes most Muslims.

I expect managers are even now planning to install these unhygenic holes in NHS hospitals.

This entry was posted in Islam, Politics, Proud to be British?, Religion, Social Engineering, Taking the Mickey, Tolerance, Traitors and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Burkas, bad. Stone Age toilets, good.

  1. English Viking says:

    Sorry, don’t agree with the first part of your post. People dressed as super-heroes, wrapped up against the cold or just plain anti-social with hoodies are not covering up for religious reasons, and this is a crucial distintion between the two cases. Because hoody-boy is not dressed according to his religion, he can be refused entry to a shopping-centre or a cinema, for example, should he refuse to remove the facial covering, whereas you would be liable to arrest if you refused a muslim in the same way. There are also not very large numbers of chavs with hoodies employed as schoolteachers, Dr’s, councillors, MP’s, etc, while on the other hand, thanks to positive discrimination, (racism) there are large amounts of muslims employed in these positions. If we equate the two things, muslim schoolteachers will be allowed to teach whilst dressed as Darth Vader and the chav kids will have the equal right to conceal their own features with hoodies. We will have to take the BBC’s word for it (not a sensible thing to do) when they tell us which MP is speaking from inside their portable tent. I want to see the expression on my Dr’s face when she tells me ‘It’s nothing to worry about, but we need to do some more tests’. My Councillor is supposed to be my representative, and I resent having one whose name I cannot pronounce, let alone one whose face I cannot see.

    This is not about fashion, nor religious freedom. This is an ‘in your face’ statement from an occupying and colonising force wearing a uniform. A uniform which represents oppression in all its forms. A uniform which says ‘We will not integrate, we are not like you, nor do we wish to be’.

    For me the question of banning the burkha is a petty distraction. The question should be ‘How can we rid ourselves of Islam?’

    PS. A toilet that is designed and used according to Islamic law will instantly become ‘unclean’ the moment a ‘kuffar’ (non-muslim) uses it, so expect to see ‘Muslim Only’ signs on these toilets, just like we do with certain swimming pools at certain times.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    I agree with you in many ways and indeed all this stuff is a distraction. The real danger of Islam is not a handful of women in burkas. It’s like when a magician makes you concentrate on one hand when he doesn’t want you to notice what he’s doing with the other.

    The Tory MP said that the burka is nothing to do with Islam, so who decides what is religious and what isn’t and what are the dangers to freedom in general when documents relating to religious freedom aren’t worth the paper they are written on?

    Good point about Muslim-only khazis and swimming pool segregation. That’s “social cohesion” for you!

  3. faulksd says:

    Is this move to ban these veils a blind ‘monkey see, monkey do’ emulation by obtuse and unimaginative politicians desperate for acclaim by the unreflective – or is it (as I suspect) part of a global agenda which cascades from one country to another?
    As for the squat bogs – I would be glad to make an eloquent contribution ;-)

  4. Rosewing says:

    Disagree with the superhero stuff & although I wouldn’t support a full ban,there is a need in public places to socially interact. The burka deprives one of social interaction and encourages social exclusion. This is the main reason I would support a ban in public places there are three other minor reasons
    1.The terrorist situation, recently a man was arrested at Bham Airport dressed in a burka.
    2.Equality :why should a motor cyclist have to remove his helmet when he enters public buildings, but a Moslem woman can keep her head totally covered.
    3.Road Safety: three accidents locally have been attributed to women drivers wearing full head coverings , you lack peripheral vision.
    Having said all that I worry that libertarianism and freedom from religious oppression can quite easily be interpreted as xenophobia
    Of course in principle people should be allowed to wear what they like but there is too much talk these days about Rights and not enough about Responsibility.In my view the latter outweighs the former we all have an ultimate responsibility to society as a whole to work towards a cohesive, inclusive ,safe society for everyone

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    faulksd,

    It surely is a global agenda. All this “international law” and these UN and intergovernmental charters setting out what constitutes ‘human rights’ help to ensure that all western countries are going in the same rotten direction.

    Then in the UK we have the government funding fake charities whose agenda is the same as the globalists’ and those groups in turn form the government’s “advisors”. E.g. Stonewall advises on tactics that will promote homosexuality and Brook and the FPA promote promiscuity and abortion.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Rosewing,

    I would prefer never to see a burka, but as E.V. states, it is a petty distraction. And yes, I agree with you that public buildings and being a GP and teacher are a different kettle of fish. I mean, I also wouldn’t want to see a doctor who was dressed as Tomato Man.

  7. len says:

    I find it somewhat puzzling that wearing a very small cross can bring about threats of dismissal from the workplace but to wear a religious symbol( the burka)which also conceals ones identity should be allowed.

  8. Hello, Stewart.

    Gardening is more interesting than blogging these days, so I’ve not posted for a while, but I did want to say “Good post!”

    It is no longer the husband’s prerogative to decide how he wants his wife to dress, but the State’s. And why?

    Surely because you can always trust the state, because it is always benevolent, whereas husbands are part and parcel of the sexist and patriarchal institution called marriage. :-)

    By they way, when UKIP came out in favour of a burka ban earlier this year, I wrote and told them how disappointed I was. They were kind enough to write back and explain themselves. I then wrote and explained why I thought their explanations were not convincing. However, I don’t seem to have convinced them

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello YMB,

    Thank you. Gardening’s not much fun here at the moment with all the rain. Can’t get a dry day even to mow the lawn. I’m also finding it hard to get enthused about blogging.

    Yes, the patriarch must be abolished for equality’s sake. Or in other words, to destroy what a family is and a community is. Even churches are now falling for it with their lady elders and priests.

    I was disturbed by UKIP’s statement. I still voted for them at the GE because of the limited choice of alternative candidates here.

    Enjoy the garden. :-)

  10. Leg-iron says:

    We have a British Toilet Association? Give me strength. Is there anything we don’t have a club for now?

    I wouldn’t use those hole-in the ground things. You just can’t get the resonance. As you say, they are favoured where modern plumbing is unavailable, not for any cultural or religious reasons, and therefore have no place in the UK, not even in Rochdale.

    Once, in France, I was faced with a hole in the ground surrounded by a big metal plate. I held it in until I reached the hotel where civilised plumbing was available. My aim just isn’t that good, especially from the end I can’t see out of.

    As for the Burqa or however it’s spelled, well my grandmother was Church of England and she never left the house without a headscarf. All her hoodie friends were the same and they all had blue hair and scoffed at punks. Not because they were punks, I suspect, but because they weren’t punk enough. If someone wants to wear a black tent and hood, their choice. If their husband forces them to do it, leave the swine and report him for well, whatever the law is now. There’s a law against everything these days so it shouldn’t be difficult.

    Likewise, if they want to wear the veil, fine with me. With the caveat that if motorcyclists have to show their faces in banks, so do the veiled women. Or they don’t get in. Either nobody can hide their face in those places or anyone can. It’s not the veil that has to be banned, it’s the discrimination that allows some people to do things that others will get arrested for.

    On the street, I would be very much against a ban on face coverings as would anyone looking at me. It would ruin Halloween for everyone but me.

    British Toilet Association. Still can’t believe that one.

  11. richard says:

    They’ll be telling us how to have a shit next.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Leggy,

    The British Toilet Association. Not sure if it’s for manufacturers, retailers or users.

    “My aim just isn’t that good, especially from the end I can’t see out of.”

    I’m the same. Funny how that works.

    I just used the Daily Mail’s spelling of burka. What’s with the ‘q’ in these Arabic words translated into their English equivalent anyway? We use a K or a CK to represent that sound.

    We don’t talk about Paqistanis living in Qarachi*.

    I agree with you though that if a woman wants to dress up as if permanently celebrating Hallowe’en dressed as a liquorice allsort, then that’s up to her, but she should expect to be treated the same as the other people I’ve pictured.

    *P.S. Before anyone points it out, I know they don’t speak Arabic in Paqistan.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard,

    Definitely NOT facing Mecca.

  14. English Viking says:

    Hey Stewart,

    If I was a potty-mouth, things like facQ off would come out!

    LucQy I am a good Christian man, don’t you thinQ?

    PS FaQ off.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    Yes, I typed in all manner of foul words so that comments containing them would be held for moderation.

    I was just thinking, if the KKK were Arabic, they’d be the QQQ – Qu Qlux Qlan.

  16. Darth Farquhar says:

    has anyone ever tried one of these ‘nile pans’, I have, its hard work without getting your troooosers covered in stuff

    NEVER do your gap year in India, or anything else for that matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>