Women Victims of Kuffarphobia Discussions - The 4 Freedoms Library
2024-03-29T14:22:10Z
http://4freedoms.com/group/women/forum?feed=yes&xn_auth=no
Talaq - Islamic Divorce by saying "I divorce you" three times
tag:4freedoms.com,2019-06-22:3766518:Topic:204016
2019-06-22T22:55:44.152Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<h1 class="article__heading">Fierce debate as Modi government reintroduces Muslim ‘triple talaq’ divorce bill</h1>
<div class="article__date"><span class="date date_article-header">Published time: 22 Jun, 2019 07:00</span></div>
<div class="article__short-url"><div class="short-url"><a class="short-url__link" href="https://on.rt.com/9wti">Get short URL…</a></div>
</div>
<div class="article__cover"><div class="media"></div>
</div>
<h1 class="article__heading">Fierce debate as Modi government reintroduces Muslim ‘triple talaq’ divorce bill</h1>
<div class="article__date"><span class="date date_article-header">Published time: 22 Jun, 2019 07:00</span></div>
<div class="article__short-url"><div class="short-url"><a class="short-url__link" href="https://on.rt.com/9wti">Get short URL</a></div>
</div>
<div class="article__cover"><div class="media"><a href="https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.06/xxs/5d0da7dedda4c8f97f8b4640.JPG" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://cdni.rt.com/files/2019.06/xxs/5d0da7dedda4c8f97f8b4640.JPG?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-left"/></a></div>
<div class="media__footer media__footer_bottom"><div class="media__title media__title_arcticle"><span>People shout slogans during a protest against the Indian cabinet's approval of instant Muslim divorce, or "triple talaq" making it a punishable offence, in Mumbai, India September 19, 2018. © REUTERS/Francis Mascarenhas</span></div>
<div class="media__title media__title_arcticle"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article__summary summary">The party of Indian PM Narendra Modi faced tough opposition as it made another attempt to push through a bill that would criminalize divorcing a woman by saying the word ‘talaq’ three times.</div>
<div class="article__text text"><p>The draft legislation, known as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, was tabled by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad at a session of the new parliament on Friday as lawmakers gathered for the first time since the BJP party claimed a landslide victory in May’s general elections, winning 303 seats in the 545-member lower house.</p>
<a class="read-more-big" href="https://www.rt.com/news/438839-triple-talaq-criminal-offence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="read-more-big__container"><span class="read-more-big__content"><span class="read-more-big__subtitle">ALSO ON RT.COM</span><span class="read-more-big__title">India makes Muslim ‘triple talaq’ divorce punishable by up to 3yrs in jail</span></span></span></a><br/>
<p><em>“This is not a question of religion but about justice to women. This is a question of dignity of women and we are committed to protect it,”</em><span> </span>the minister said, as he threw his weight behind the contentious legislation.</p>
<p>The bill envisions a jail sentence of up to three years and a fine for men who divorce their wives by invoking an Islamic practice known as the ‘triple talaq,’ which has been outlawed in India since August.</p>
<p>Despite being confirmed as illegal by the Supreme Court, the ‘triple talaq’ has remained widely used, with Prasad reporting on Friday that over 200 cases have been registered since it was banned.</p>
<p>The motion to introduce the bill drew scathing criticism from the Indian National Congress and other opposition parties, but was passed with 187 votes against 74 in the lower house, with many MPs abstaining.</p>
<p>The vote was preceded by heated exchanges among members, with Congress MP Shashi Tharoor calling the bill<span> </span><em>“discriminatory.”</em><span> </span>The lawmaker argued that it<span> </span><em>“does nothing to protect Muslim women but punishes Muslim men.”</em><span> </span>Tharoor said that he believed the law to be one-sided, as it exclusively focuses on Muslim husbands<span> </span><em>“but exempts other men who desert their families without taking responsibility.”</em></p>
<div class="rtcode"><center><div class="SandboxRoot env-bp-350"><div class="EmbeddedTweet EmbeddedTweet--cta js-clickToOpenTarget tweet-InformationCircle-widgetParent" id="twitter-widget-0" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="u-hiddenVisually js-aBScribingTarget"></div>
<div class="EmbeddedTweet-tweetContainer"><div class="EmbeddedTweet-tweet"><blockquote class="Tweet h-entry js-tweetIdInfo subject expanded" cite="https://twitter.com/ShashiTharoor/status/1142022144290803712"><div class="Tweet-header"><a class="TweetAuthor-avatar Identity-avatar u-linkBlend" href="https://twitter.com/ShashiTharoor"><img class="Avatar" alt="" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/928582848784633857/sX6E0-GB_bigger.jpg"/></a><div class="u-hiddenVisually js-aBScribingTarget"></div>
<div class="TweetAuthor js-inViewportScribingTarget"><div class="TweetAuthor-nameScreenNameContainer"><span class="TweetAuthor-decoratedName"><span class="TweetAuthor-name Identity-name customisable-highlight" title="Shashi Tharoor">Shashi Tharoor</span></span><div class="Icon Icon--verified" title="Verified Account"></div>
<span class="TweetAuthor-decoratedName"><span class="TweetAuthor-verifiedBadge"><b class="u-hiddenVisually">✔</b></span></span><span class="TweetAuthor-screenName Identity-screenName" title="@ShashiTharoor" dir="ltr">@ShashiTharoor</span></div>
</div>
<div class="Tweet-brand"><div class="Icon Icon--twitter" title="View on Twitter"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Tweet-body e-entry-content"><div class="Tweet-target js-inViewportScribingTarget"></div>
<p class="Tweet-text e-entry-title" lang="en" dir="ltr" xml:lang="en">That’s the point. We aren’t defending triple talaq. We are opposing a law that does nothing to protect Muslim women but punishes Muslim men. It criminalizes their divorces, but exempts other men who desert their families w’out taking responsibility. That’s discriminatory. <a href="https://t.co/4NpjaUIl02" rel="nofollow noopener" dir="ltr" class="link customisable" target="_blank" title="https://twitter.com/incindia/status/1141976623337627648"><span class="u-hiddenVisually">https://</span>twitter.com/incindia/statu<span class="u-hiddenVisually">s/1141976623337627648 </span>…</a></p>
<div class="Tweet-card"><div class="QuoteTweet"><div class="QuoteTweet-nonMediaContainer"><div class="u-hiddenVisually js-aBScribingTarget"></div>
<div class="TweetAuthor js-inViewportScribingTarget TweetAuthor--oneLine"><div class="TweetAuthor-nameScreenNameContainer"><span class="TweetAuthor-decoratedName"><span class="TweetAuthor-name Identity-name customisable-highlight" title="Congress">Congress</span></span><div class="Icon Icon--verified" title="Verified Account"></div>
<span class="TweetAuthor-decoratedName"><span class="TweetAuthor-verifiedBadge"><b class="u-hiddenVisually">✔</b></span></span><span class="TweetAuthor-screenName Identity-screenName" title="@INCIndia" dir="ltr">@INCIndia</span></div>
</div>
<p class="QuoteTweet-text e-entry-title" lang="en" dir="ltr" xml:lang="en">By framing a law criminalising only muslim husbands for a void Act, without having a universally applicable law for the act of desertion the bill is a text book example of a class legislation which violates Art. 14 & 15 of the Constitution: Dr <span class="PrettyLink-prefix">@</span><span class="PrettyLink-value">ShashiTharoor</span> on Triple Talaq Bill.</p>
</div>
<div class="QuotedTweet-media"><a class="QuoteTweet-link" href="https://twitter.com/INCIndia/status/1141976623337627648" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a> <a class="QuoteTweet-link" href="https://twitter.com/INCIndia/status/1141976623337627648" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a><div class="MediaCard-media"><a class="QuoteTweet-link" href="https://twitter.com/INCIndia/status/1141976623337627648" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a><div class="MediaCard-widthConstraint js-cspForcedStyle"><a class="QuoteTweet-link" href="https://twitter.com/INCIndia/status/1141976623337627648" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a><div class="MediaCard-mediaContainer MediaCard--roundedBottom js-cspForcedStyle"><div class="MediaCard-mediaAsset MediaCard-mediaPlaceholder NaturalImage NaturalImage--fill"><div class="NaturalImage-ctaOverlay PlayButton PlayButton--centered"><div class="Icon Icon--playCircle" title="Play Media"></div>
</div>
<img class="NaturalImage-image" alt="Embedded video" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/1141975572723195904/img/-y4dy3djIxOX01mE?format=jpg&name=medium"/></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="TweetInfo"><div class="TweetInfo-like"><div><div class="Icon Icon--heart" title="Like"></div>
</div>
<a class="TweetInfo-heart" title="Like" href="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1142022144290803712"><span class="TweetInfo-heartStat">5,520</span></a></div>
<div class="TweetInfo-timeGeo"><a class="u-linkBlend u-url customisable-highlight long-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/ShashiTharoor/status/1142022144290803712">11:51 AM - Jun 21, 2019</a></div>
<div class="tweet-InformationCircle"><a href="https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256" class="Icon Icon--informationCircleWhite js-inViewportScribingTarget" title="Twitter Ads info and privacy"><span class="u-hiddenVisually">Twitter Ads info and privacy</span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="CallToAction-icon"><div class="Icon Icon--replyCTA" title="View conversation on Twitter"></div>
</div>
<div class="CallToAction-text">2,356 people are talking about this</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="resize-sensor"><div class="resize-sensor-expand"></div>
<div class="resize-sensor-shrink"></div>
</div>
</div>
</center>
</div>
<p>Asaduddin Owaisi, leader of the All India Majlis Ittehad ul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party, echoed the criticism and similarly denounced the bill as<em><span> </span>“discriminatory.”</em></p>
<p><em>“I would like to ask the government [why] they have all the love for Muslim women. Why don't they have the same sentiment for Hindu women of Kerala? Why are you against Sabrimala?”</em><span> </span>he<span> </span><a href="https://twitter.com/aimim_national/status/1142005095858462720" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said.</a></p>
<p>Owaisi<span> </span><a href="https://twitter.com/aimim_national/status/1142003046672564224" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">argued</a><span> </span>that by jailing the men, the bill would only leave women penniless.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong><em>The husband will be three years in jail then who is going to pay for the maintenance? Are you going to give money for the maintenance? This is against rational nexus.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Modi’s party introduced the bill in December last year and it was passed by the lower chamber of the parliament, the Lok Sabha, but was met by fervent opposition in the Rajya Sabha, the upper chamber. However, the law has been enforced through two executive orders, in September last year and in February, while it awaits approval by the legislature.</p>
</div>
Desecrated Western women, forgotten in order to protect Islam/illegals
tag:4freedoms.com,2018-11-20:3766518:Topic:198721
2018-11-20T02:09:19.035Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>The characteristics of this category is of a young woman that is murdered or desecrated by a Muslim or illegal immigrant, but the death is covered up because we must not risk causing hatred or resentment against the latter 2 groups. Her death has to be disappeared and she becomes a non-person. What makes these crimes even more striking is that the woman is often beautiful - a product of our modern technologically protected and post-industrial…</em></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>The characteristics of this category is of a young woman that is murdered or desecrated by a Muslim or illegal immigrant, but the death is covered up because we must not risk causing hatred or resentment against the latter 2 groups. Her death has to be disappeared and she becomes a non-person. What makes these crimes even more striking is that the woman is often beautiful - a product of our modern technologically protected and post-industrial lifestyle.</em></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>If its a white man making the crime though, you can generate as much hate as you want! You'll never hear the end of it. So here's the list of victims to never be forgotten. People get accused of hating illegal immigrants. But when you see this, why shouldn't you hate?</em></span></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Kate Steinle (USA)</strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Pamela Mastropietro (Italy)</strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Jenny Noname (France)</strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Mollie Tibbetts (USA)</strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>Karina Vetrano (USA)</strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span>Maren Ueland, 28 (Norway)</span></strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span>Louisa Vesterager Jespersen, 24 (Denmark)</span></strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span>Marrisa Shen, 13 (Canada)</span></strong></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span>Cristina Ortiz-Lozano, 28 (Southampton, UK)</span></strong></span></li>
</ul>
<p><em style="font-size: 12pt;">__________________________________________________________________</em></p>
<h1>Kate Steinle's death at the hands of a Mexican national became a flashpoint in the immigration debate — here's the story behind her killing</h1>
<div id="content" class="content"><div class="post-top"><div class="flex byline"><div class="flex-item"><div class="list-pipes no-pipe"><ul>
<li style="list-style-type: none;"><ul>
<li class="author-byline ks-author-byline"><a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/author/michelle-mark">Michelle Mark</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="list-pipes no-pipe"><ul>
<li class="river-post__date"><span>Dec. 1, 2017, 9:24 PM</span></li>
<li class="pageviews"><span class="warm" title="Engagement">536</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="share"><div class="rrssb-baseline share-container ks-share-top clearfix"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear-both"><div class="KonaBody post-content"><div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image on-image"><img src="http://static1.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5a21ca17ec1ade562a344b52-480/jose-ines-garcia-zarate.jpg" alt="jose ines garcia zarate" width="480"/><span class="caption-source"><span class="caption">In this July 7, 2015 file photo, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, right, is led into the courtroom by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, left, and Assistant District Attorney Diana Garciaor, center, for his arraignment at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco.</span><span class="source"><span>San Francisco Chronicle/Michael Macor via Associated Press</span></span></span></div>
</div>
<ul>
<li><strong>The unauthorized immigrant who killed Kate Steinle in 2015 was acquitted by a jury on Thursday of murder and manslaughter charges.</strong></li>
<li><strong>The verdict sparked outrage among immigration hardliners and critics of so-called "sanctuary cities," who argued that Steinle's death could have been prevented if the city of San Francisco had not released Garcia Zarate from jail shortly before the shooting.</strong></li>
<li><strong>But the facts of Garcia Zarate's case are more complicated — San Francisco officials and federal authorities have each blamed the other for Garcia Zarate's release.</strong></li>
</ul>
<hr/><p><br/> The<span> </span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/garcia-zarate-shooting-kate-steinle-not-guilty-verdict-san-francisco-2017-11" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surprise acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate</a><span> </span>in the shooting death of San Francisco woman Kate Steinle set off a<span> </span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/kate-steinle-garcia-zarate-trump-verdict-2017-11" target="_blank" rel="noopener">firestorm of outrage</a><span> </span>Thursday night, as top conservatives and critics of so-called "sanctuary cities" pinned blame for Steinle's death on illegal immigration and insufficiently aggressive deportation policies.</p>
<p>Garcia Zarate, a 45-year-old Mexican national who was homeless and living in the US illegally when he fired the shot that killed Steinle, was acquitted by a jury on murder and manslaughter charges. The jury convicted him of the lesser charge of being a felon in possession of a gun, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in state prison.</p>
<p>Steinle, 32, was fatally shot while she walked along Pier 14 of the San Francisco Bay with her father in July 2015. The bullet that pierced her back had ricocheted off the concrete ground after it was fired by Garcia Zarate from a handgun belonging to a federal ranger that had been stolen four days earlier.</p>
<p>Garcia Zarate's defense attorneys argued that the shooting was an accident — they said he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt or cloth under a pier bench and unintentionally discharged it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/guns-history-accidental-discharges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lead attorney Matt Gonzalez has argued</a><span> </span>that the weapon was a SIG Sauer with a "hair trigger in single-action mode" — a model well-known for accidental discharges even among experienced shooters. Gonzalez told the jury,<span> </span><a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Jury-reaches-verdict-in-killing-of-Kate-Steinle-12396509.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to the San Francisco Chronicle</a>, that Garcia Zarate had never handled a firearm before, was frightened by the noise of the gunshot, then flung the weapon into the bay where it was later found by a diver.</p>
<p>Prosecutors, however, alleged that Garcia Zarate brought the weapon to the pier deliberately to do harm, and intentionally aimed and shot Steinle after firmly pulling the trigger. They said Garcia Zarate then threw the weapon into the bay and fled the scene.</p>
<h2>San Francisco's 'sanctuary' policies were closely scrutinized after Steinle's death</h2>
<p><span class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><span><span class="image on-image"><a href="http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5a21ca18ec1ade562a344b53-2400/ap17305786262609.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5a21ca18ec1ade562a344b53-2400/ap17305786262609.jpg?width=300" width="300" class="align-right"/></a><span class="caption-source"><span class="caption">This undated file booking photo provided by the San Francisco Police Department shows Jose Ines Garcia Zarate.</span><span class="source">San Francisco Police Department via Associated Press</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Beyond the shooting itself, perhaps the most controversial aspect of Garcia Zarate's case involves his previous criminal activity and history of deportations, and how San Francisco and federal authorities handled his custody before he ever picked up the gun and shot Steinle.</p>
<p>At the time of Steinle's death, Garcia Zarate had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and deported five times since the early 1990s.</p>
<p>He faced a sixth deportation in 2015, and was in Justice Department (DOJ) custody that March after serving 46 months in prison for a felony re-entry into the US, but instead of transferring him into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, the department transferred him to the San Francisco County Jail for prosecution of a 1995 marijuana charge.</p>
<p>San Francisco prosecutors, who had long ago deprioritized marijuana charges, <a href="http://www.sfsheriff.com/files/SFSD_PR_RM_07_03_15.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dismissed the decades-old charge</a><span> </span>and released Garcia Zarate on April 15, 2015. Due to San Francisco's policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — which some refer to as a "sanctuary" policy — the city did not inform ICE when they released Garcia Zarate.</p>
<p>As a result of the case, both the DOJ and the city of San Francisco have changed several policies. The DOJ announced in 2016 it would no longer release potentially deportable detainees to local jails without first allowing ICE to take custody. San Francisco, meanwhile, has adjusted its policy to notify ICE if they are releasing suspected undocumented immigrants who face charges of serious or violent felonies.</p>
<p>"This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had simply turned the alien over to ICE as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets," ICE Director Thomas Homan said in a statement on Thursday. "It is unconscionable that politicians across this country continue to endanger the lives of Americans with sanctuary policies while ignoring the harm inflicted on their constituents."</p>
<p>But ICE has faced<span> </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-villagra-detainers-arent-constitutional-20150713-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism of its own</a><span> </span>over not seeking a judicial warrant to legally obtain custody of Garcia Zarate when it discovered he had been transferred into San Francisco's custody. The agency has argued that obtaining judicial warrants are unnecessary and would place too much burden on ICE officials and federal courts.</p>
<p>Though the agency did issue a request to the city to detain Garcia Zarate until ICE officials could pick him up, their detainer requests are not signed by a judge and are therefore not legally binding. San Francisco's policy is to ignore such requests if they are not accompanied by judge-signed warrants, and the city has cited federal court cases concluding that such detentions violate inmates' Fourth Amendment rights.</p>
<h2>The right has used Steinle's death as evidence of the perils of illegal immigration</h2>
<p><span class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><span><span class="image on-image"><img src="http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5a21ca19ec1ade562a344b54-565/screen%20shot%202017-11-30%20at%2091104%20pm.png" alt="Kate Steinle"/><span class="caption-source"><span class="caption">Kate Steinle.</span><span class="source">Fox News</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Garcia Zarate's deportation and criminal history made him an effective target for immigration hardliners, who argued that Steinle would still be alive were it not for an insecure border and lenient treatment toward suspected undocumented immigrants in local jails.</p>
<p>President Donald Trump immediately<span> </span><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936437372706836480" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seized on the verdict</a><span> </span>on Thursday as evidence of the perils of "Illegal Immigration." Trump frequently villainized Garcia Zarate and cited Steinle's death during his presidential campaign, using the case to bolster his argument for a border wall and aid his crusade against "sanctuary cities."</p>
<p>Early on Friday,<span> </span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-weak-on-crime-democrats-will-pay-zarate-acquitted-murder-2017-12" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump also falsely claimed on Twitter</a><span> </span>that Garcia Zarate had previously committed violent crimes and had illegally entered the US six times due to lax border security under the Obama administration.</p>
<p>"The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!" Trump<span> </span><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936551346299338752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, Garcia Zarate had never been convicted of a violent crime before Steinle's shooting — his previous convictions were for nonviolent drug crimes and illegal entry. Lax border security, too,<span> </span><a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/kate-steinle-san-franciscos-sanctuary-city-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">does not appear to be a factor</a><span> </span>since Garcia Zarate was caught by border patrol agents each time he entered the country under the Obama administration.</p>
<p>In contrast, Steinle's family has expressed<span> </span><a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/Kate-s-relatives-in-their-own-words-6499189.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nuanced views</a><span> </span>on immigration and "sanctuary" policies. They have both<span> </span><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/donald-trump-kate-steinle-san-francisco/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">condemned Trump</a><span> </span>for "sensationalizing" Steinle's death to advance anti-immigration policies, and expressed frustration with San Francisco officials, who they believe went too far in refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.</p>
<p><a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/who-is-kate-steinle-murder-immigration-2017-12">http://uk.businessinsider.com/who-is-kate-steinle-murder-immigration-2017-12</a></p>
<p><em>Her parents still support the sanctuary city idea, but just want it better regulated!</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Mohammed's Wives and Islams Permitted Polygamy
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-08-19:3766518:Topic:182265
2016-08-19T02:13:23.527Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">WHEN TEDDY ROOSEVELT <b>BANNED MUSLIMS </b>FROM AMERICA</h1>
<div class="region region-content"><div class="block block-system" id="block-system-main"><h3 class="field-subhead">The bill would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world.” </h3>
<div class="field-post-date">August 18, 2016 </div>
<br></br>
<div class="field-author"><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/daniel-greenfield">Daniel Greenfield</a></div>
…<br></br>
</div>
</div>
<h1 class="title" id="page-title">WHEN TEDDY ROOSEVELT <b>BANNED MUSLIMS </b>FROM AMERICA</h1>
<div class="region region-content"><div id="block-system-main" class="block block-system"><h3 class="field-subhead">The bill would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world.” </h3>
<div class="field-post-date">August 18, 2016 </div>
<br/>
<div class="field-author"><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/daniel-greenfield">Daniel Greenfield</a></div>
<br/>
<div class="field-disqus-comment-count"><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield#disqus_thread">166</a></div>
<div class="field-addthis-article-top"><div class="addthis_sharing_toolbox"><div id="atstbx" class="at-share-tbx-element addthis_32x32_style addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show"><div id="atstbx-share-label" class="at4-visually-hidden">AddThis Sharing Buttons</div>
<a class="at-share-btn at-svc-facebook"><span class="at4-visually-hidden">Share to Facebook</span></a><span class="at_flat_counter">2.9K</span><a class="at-share-btn at-svc-twitter"><span class="at4-visually-hidden">Share to Twitter</span></a><a class="at-share-btn at-svc-compact"><span class="at4-visually-hidden">More AddThis Share options</span></a><span class="at_flat_counter">469</span><a class="at-share-btn at-svc-print"><span class="at4-visually-hidden">Share to Print</span></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field-image"><img src="http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2016/08/yh.jpg?itok=6uKRoxuw" width="804" height="452.5"/></div>
<div class="field-body"><p><em>Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.</em></p>
<p>A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.</p>
<p>The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”</p>
<p>This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.</p>
<p>And indeed it would.</p>
<p>The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”</p>
<p>It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.</p>
<p>The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.</p>
<p>The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.</p>
<p>These amazing facts, uncovered by <a href="https://twitter.com/rushetteny">@rushetteny</a> reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.</p>
<p>Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.</p>
<p>And Muslims would not.</p>
<p>In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”</p>
<p>Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. <a href="http://pamelageller.com/2007/08/teddy-roosevelt.html/">Instead he had described</a> Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."</p>
<p>While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."</p>
<p>In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.</p>
<p>Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.</p>
<p>The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.</p>
<p>Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.</p>
<p>Though the law today is seldom enforced.</p>
<p>American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the <em>Los Angeles Herald</em> had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.</p>
<div class="entity entity-bean bean-advertisment clearfix"><div class="content"><div class="field-code"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.</p>
<p>A <em>New York Times</em> story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”</p>
<p>To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.</p>
<p>In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.</p>
<p>“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.</p>
<p>"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.</p>
<p>“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.</p>
<p>"Blessed be Allah, it does!"</p>
<p>"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.</p>
<p>"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.</p>
<p>"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."</p>
<p>President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.</p>
<p>None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.</p>
<p>Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.</p>
<p>Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.</p>
<p>A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.</p>
<p>Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.</p>
<p>American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.</p>
<p>Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield">http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Austrian politician shows migrants ‘how to interact with our women’
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-06-28:3766518:Topic:180049
2016-06-28T16:19:12.790Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<h1 class="article__heading">Austrian far-right politician shows migrants ‘how to interact with our women’ (VIDEO)</h1>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 7 Jun, 2016 13:58Edited time: 7 Jun, 2016 14:33</div>
<div class="article__short-url"><div class="short-url"><a class="short-url__link" href="http://on.rt.com/7eqv">Get short URL…</a></div>
</div>
<div class="article__cover"><div class="media"><img alt="Austrian Freedom Party politician Armin Sippel shows asylum seekers how not to interact with women in public in a controversial video posted on YouTube. © Hans Wurst" class="media__item" src="https://img.rt.com/files/2016.06/original/5756cc55c46188fe788b4578.jpg"></img></div>
<div class="media__footer media__footer_bottom"></div>
</div>
<h1 class="article__heading">Austrian far-right politician shows migrants ‘how to interact with our women’ (VIDEO)</h1>
<div class="article__date">Published time: 7 Jun, 2016 13:58Edited time: 7 Jun, 2016 14:33</div>
<div class="article__short-url"><div class="short-url"><a class="short-url__link" href="http://on.rt.com/7eqv">Get short URL</a></div>
</div>
<div class="article__cover"><div class="media"><img class="media__item" src="https://img.rt.com/files/2016.06/original/5756cc55c46188fe788b4578.jpg" alt="Austrian Freedom Party politician Armin Sippel shows asylum seekers how not to interact with women in public in a controversial video posted on YouTube. © Hans Wurst"/></div>
<div class="media__footer media__footer_bottom"><div class="media__title media__title_arcticle">Austrian Freedom Party politician Armin Sippel shows asylum seekers how not to interact with women in public in a controversial video posted on YouTube. © Hans Wurst / YouTube</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article__share"><div class="addthis_sharing_toolbox"><div id="atstbx2" class="at-share-tbx-element addthis_32x32_style addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show"><div id="atstbx-share-label" class="at4-visually-hidden">AddThis Sharing ButtonsA provocative video in which an Austrian far-right politician explains to asylum seekers, using a blonde mannequin and posters in Arabic, that European women generally don’t like being groped in public by strangers has stirred controversy.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article__text text"><div class="rtcode"><iframe width="900" height="506" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/smwsVwplyDc?list=PLb6sqD01O5IoL008KOFkK4SgBqshBv2Wq&enablejsapi=1&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>
<p>The video has sparked a lot of negative comments and a series of video responses, forcing Freedom Party politician Armin Sippel to take the video down due to <em>“extremely aggressive personal attacks,”</em> reports the Local.</p>
<p><em>“A debate on this unpleasant topic of sexual assaults is essential, but should be good mannered,”</em>Sippel said on Facebook.</p>
<p>Very soon, however, the video reemerged on YouTube uploaded by others.</p>
<p>Sippel appears on the screen and addresses the viewers: <em>“Dear … Asylum Seekers.”</em> Then a blonde mannequin dressed in an open blouse and a low-cut skirt comes into shot.</p>
<p>The politician asks migrants not to look at women provocatively, whistle or harass them. Sippel physically demonstrates on the mannequin that groping women, <em>“grabbing a woman by the butt or bosom”</em> is unacceptable.</p>
<p>At the end of the video, Sippel shows a sign reading: <em>“Keep your fingers off our women”.</em></p>
<div class="rtcode"><div class="SandboxRoot env-bp-350"><div class="EmbeddedTweet EmbeddedTweet--mediaForward media-forward js-clickToOpenTarget js-tweetIdInfo" id="twitter-widget-0" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<div class="MediaCard-media"><a class="MediaCard-borderOverlay" href="http://twitter.com/RT_com/status/729336348163723264/photo/1" title="View image on Twitter"><span class="u-hiddenVisually">View image on Twitter</span></a><div class="MediaCard-widthConstraint js-cspForcedStyle"><div class="MediaCard-mediaContainer js-cspForcedStyle"><a class="MediaCard-mediaAsset NaturalImage" href="http://twitter.com/RT_com/status/729336348163723264/photo/1"><img class="NaturalImage-image" width="600" height="333" title="View image on Twitter" alt="View image on Twitter" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch8dV8jWEAASSqs.jpg:large"/></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="EmbeddedTweet-tweet"><blockquote class="Tweet h-entry js-tweetIdInfo subject expanded is-deciderHtmlWhitespace" cite="https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/729336348163723264"><div class="Tweet-header u-cf"><div class="Tweet-brand u-floatRight"><div class="Icon Icon--twitter" title=""></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>The anti-immigration and Euroskeptic party nearly won the presidential post in a recent poll with candidate Norbert Hofer, who was even ahead of the Green Party candidate Alexander van der Bellen while ballots were being counted.</p>
<p>The FPÖ says the making of the video was spurred by a string of sex harassment scandals in neighboring Germany involving asylum seekers.</p>
<p>Only a month ago, a German education center was reportedly hired by the German government to teach migrants how to approach and get acquainted with local women at specially organized classes.</p>
<p>Bayerischer Rundfunk television filmed one of the classes teaching migrants how to get along better with women. The majority of comments on the video were negative.</p>
<div class="rtcode"><iframe width="900" height="506" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_C--olgLsQE?rel=0&enablejsapi=1&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
Jemima Khan: from Jewish dreams to Muslim reality
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-04-07:3766518:Topic:177281
2016-04-07T13:28:24.191Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>I came across this article from 1998.</p>
<p class="p1"><b>Why I Chose Islam ........................ by Haiqa Khan (Jemina Goldsmith) </b></p>
<p class="p1"><b>From: InfoTimes</b></p>
<p class="p2">When Jemima Goldsmith, the 21-year-old daughter of billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, married Imran Khan she embraced not only the world's most handsome sportsman but also the Muslim faith, taking the name Haiqa. Here, in an exclusive account, she tells how she journeyed from the glamorous society…</p>
<p>I came across this article from 1998.</p>
<p class="p1"><b>Why I Chose Islam ........................ by Haiqa Khan (Jemina Goldsmith) </b></p>
<p class="p1"><b>From: InfoTimes</b></p>
<p class="p2">When Jemima Goldsmith, the 21-year-old daughter of billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, married Imran Khan she embraced not only the world's most handsome sportsman but also the Muslim faith, taking the name Haiqa. Here, in an exclusive account, she tells how she journeyed from the glamorous society of London to the austere religion of Lahore. __________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p class="p3">NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - The media present me as a naive, besotted 21-year-old who has made a hasty decision without really considering the consequences - thus effectively condemning herself to a life of interminable subservience, misery and isolation. Although I must confess I have rather enjoyed the various depictions of a veiled and miserable "Haiqa Khan" incarcerated in chains, the reality is somewhat different. Contrary to current opinion, my decision to convert to Islam was entirely my own choice and in no way hurried. Whilst the act of conversion itself is surprisingly quick - entailing the simple assertion that "there is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet" - the preparation is not necessarily so speedy a process. In my case, this began last July, whilst the actual conversion took place in early February - three months before the Nikkah in Paris. During that time, I studied in depth both the Quran and the works of various Islamic scholars (Gai Eaton, the Bosnian president Alia Izetbegovic, Muhammad Asad), thus giving me ample time to reflect before making my decision. What began as intellectual curiosity slowly ripened into a dawning realisation of the universal and eternal truth that is Islam. In the statement given out a week ago, I particularly stressed that I had converted to Islam entirely "through my own convictions". The significance of this has been largely ignored by the press. The point is that my conversion was not, as so many have assumed, a pre-requisite to my marriage. It was entirely my own choice. Religiously speaking, there was absolutely no compulsion for me to convert prior to my marriage. As it explicitly states in the Quran, a Muslim is permitted to marry from "the People of the Book" - in other words, either a Christian or a Jew. Indeed, the Sunnah - which describes the life of the Prophet - shows that the messenger of Islam himself married both a Christian and a Jew during his lifetime. I believe that much of this hostility towards my marriage and conversion stems from widespread misconceptions about an alien culture and religion. Not only is there a huge gulf between the Western view of Islam and the reality, but there is in some cases also a significant distinction between Islam based directly on the Quran and the Sunnah and that practised by some Islamic societies. During the last year I have had the opportunity to visit Pakistan on three separate occasions and have observed Islamic family life in practice. Thus, to some extent I now feel qualified to judge for myself the true role and position of women in the religion. At the risk of sounding defensive, I would like to point out that Islam is not a religion which subjugates women whilst elevating men to the status of mini-dictators in their own homes. I was able to see this first-hand when I met Imran's sisters in Lahore: they are all highly educated professional women. His oldest sister, Robina, is an alumnus of the LSE and holds a senior position in the United Nations in New York. Another sister, Aleema, has a master's degree in business administration and runs a successful business; Uzma is a highly qualified surgeon working in a Lahore hospital, whilst Rani is a university graduate who co-ordinates charity work. They can hardly be seen as "women in chains" dominated by tyrannical husbands. On the contrary, they are strong-minded independent women - yet at the same time they remain deeply committed both to their families and their religion. Thus, I was able to see - in theory and in practice - how Islam promotes the essential notion of the family unit without subjugating its female members. I am nevertheless fully aware that women are sometimes exploited and oppressed in Islamic societies, as in other parts of the world. Judging by some of the articles which have appeared in the press, it would seem that a Western woman's happiness hinges largely upon her access to nightclubs, alcohol and revealing clothes; and the absence of such apparent freedom and luxuries in Islamic societies is seen as an infringement of her basic rights. However, as we all know, such superficialities have very little to do with true happiness. Besides, without in any way wishing to disparage the culture of the Western world, into which I was born, I am more than willing to forego the transient pleasures derived from alcohol and nightclubs; and as for the clothes I will be wearing, I find the traditional shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) worn by most Pakistani women far more elegant and feminine than anything in my wardrobe. Finally, it seems futile to speculate on my chances of marital success. Marriage, as Imran's father has been quoted as saying, is indeed "a gamble". However, when I see that in a society based on family life the divorce rate is just a fraction of that in European or American society, I cannot see that my chances of success are any less than if I had chosen to marry a Westerner. I am all too aware of the enormous task of adapting to a new and radically different culture. But with the love of my husband and the support of his family I look forward to the challenge wholeheartedly, and would like to feel that people wish me well. Whilst I do appreciate the genuine concerns of many, I must confess to feeling somewhat bewildered by all of the commotion.<br/> __________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p class="p3">OK, so how did that work out? Well, according to the<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3829383.stm" target="_blank">BBC</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p class="p3"><span>"While Jemima tried her best to settle here, my political life made it difficult for her to adapt to life in Pakistan," Mr Khan said in the statement issued in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p3">I don't understand. Surely a woman will fit perfectly into the political landscape of Pakistan, especially a Jewish one, we all know that Muslims are an open minded, tolerant, non-discriminatory people. Also, it being a free country and all, there is no risk associated with political activism, we assume? Its not as if they gun people down over there for rejecting Islam, or even for being the lawyer that defends such people. Oh hang about, they do though, but the fascist left don't tell people so effectively it doesn't exist does it? Oh, its such a mystery.</p>
<p class="p3">So now Imran has married a cousin instead, quelle surprise. The two women look really similar to me, I can't see why they both don't fit in the same.</p>
<h1>Jemima Goldsmith accused of trying to ruin Imran Khan's new marriage: New bride's family claim socialite is behind 'smear campaign'</h1>
<ul class="mol-bullets-with-font">
<li><font><strong>Imran Khan married former BBC presenter Reham some eight months ago</strong></font></li>
<li><font><strong>One of Reham's cousins has made allegations about his ex-wife, Jemima</strong></font></li>
<li><font><strong>Claims Jemima is behind negative stories that have appeared about Reham</strong></font></li>
</ul>
<p class="author-section byline-plain">By <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/columnist-1092116/Sebastian-Shakespeare-for-the-Daily-Mail.html" class="author" rel="nofollow">SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE FOR THE DAILY MAIL</a></p>
<p class="byline-section"><span class="article-timestamp article-timestamp-published"><span class="article-timestamp-label">PUBLISHED:</span> 22:03, 2 September 2015 </span>| <span class="article-timestamp article-timestamp-updated"><span class="article-timestamp-label">UPDATED:</span> 00:14, 3 September 2015</span></p>
<div><p class="mol-para-with-font"><font>Cricket legend Imran Khan has been married for scarcely eight months, but the family of his wife Reham, a former BBC presenter, are already at war with his ex, Jemima Goldsmith.</font></p>
<p class="mol-para-with-font"><font>One of Reham's cousins has taken the extraordinary step of contacting me to make a string of allegations about heiress Jemima, who has two sons with Imran.</font></p>
<p class="mol-para-with-font"><font>The cousin, who does not want to be named publicly, claims Jemima is behind the negative stories that have appeared about Reham, 42, since I revealed in January that she had secretly tied the knot with Imran.</font></p>
<p class="mol-para-with-font"><font><span class="mol-style-bold">Scroll down for video </span></font></p>
<div class="artSplitter mol-img-group"><div class="splitLeft"><div class="mol-img"><div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/21/0B32FC2600000514-3220185-image-m-45_1441227321811.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/21/0B32FC2600000514-3220185-image-m-45_1441227321811.jpg?width=306" width="306" class="align-left"/></a><div class="share-pictures-overlay" id="share-pictures-1"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="splitRight"><div class="mol-img"><div class="image-wrap fff-pic"><a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/21/00A271FF00000514-3220185-image-a-46_1441227331286.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/02/21/00A271FF00000514-3220185-image-a-46_1441227331286.jpg?width=306" width="306" class="align-right"/></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear"></div>
<p class="imageCaption">Jealousy? Imran and Reham Khan, left, and the cricket legend's ex-wife, Jemima Goldsmith, right</p>
</div>
<p class="mol-para-with-font"></p>
</div>
<p class="p3"><span><br/> <br/> Read more: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220185/Jemima-Goldsmith-accused-trying-ruin-Imran-Khan-s-new-marriage-New-bride-s-family-claim-socialite-smear-campaign.html#ixzz459DDA8Be">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220185/Jemima-Goldsmith-accused-trying-ruin-Imran-Khan-s-new-marriage-New-bride-s-family-claim-socialite-smear-campaign.html#ixzz459DDA8Be</a> <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail" target="_blank"><br/></a></span></p>
Why I no longer identify as a Feminist - by Helen Pluckrose
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-03-02:3766518:Topic:176331
2016-03-02T03:06:31.236Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>This article is an excellent summary of what is wrong with current Feminist movements. It is relevant to 4F inasmuch as the current Feminist movements obsess of the tiny actions of polite well behaved white men, and remain silent over the despicable abuse of women and young girls by thuggish, Islamic fascists. They exemplify cowardice and virtue signalling at its most nauseating.<br></br> __________________________________________________________________________________________…</p>
<p>This article is an excellent summary of what is wrong with current Feminist movements. It is relevant to 4F inasmuch as the current Feminist movements obsess of the tiny actions of polite well behaved white men, and remain silent over the despicable abuse of women and young girls by thuggish, Islamic fascists. They exemplify cowardice and virtue signalling at its most nauseating.<br/> __________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<div class="article-header"><h1 class="title entry-title"><a href="http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-feminist.html" rel="bookmark">Why I No Longer Identify as a Feminist.</a></h1>
</div>
<div class="article-content entry-content">I don't remember ever not being a feminist. I toddled in marches of the 1970s with my mother. She became a second wave feminist in the 1960s after being denied a mortgage without a male guarantor and being told by her employer that she could not study for accountancy exams because "There's no accounting for women." . Briefly flirting with radical feminism, she found their views extreme and unreasonable and was berated for her heterosexual relationships and love of feminine clothing (see her poem <a href="http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/woman-barricades-poem-by-mo-woods.html">'Woman the Barricades</a>.) She found her home in liberal feminism and from there was active in writing, marching and protesting for legal changes which would give her the same opportunities as men. By the late 1980s, she felt the main legal battles had been won, and largely retired from active campaigning though she continues to identify as a feminist and study women's history.<br/> <br/> Given this influence, of course I was a feminist, a liberal feminist. Growing up, I spoke angrily about the legality of rape within marriage (criminalised in 1990,) and won a personal battle to take woodwork at school rather than cookery (I was terrible at it but not noticeably worse than I am at cooking.) I criticised sexist attitudes at work, which were still quite unapologetic in the 90s, informing my boss that he was a 'good boy' when he called me a 'good girl' and refusing to say anything apart from 'cheep' to any man who referred to me as a 'bird.' Liberal feminism was aggressive then, but a quite different quality of aggression to the spiteful malevolence we see now. It was optimistic, almost playful. We were confident that we were winning. It was fun seeing how we could disconcert the perpetrators of sexist stereotypes and challenge casual sexism, often humorously. We did not think older men (or women) with sexist assumptions were terrible people or want them punished. We simply wanted them to realise the times had changed and catch up. Women are everywhere now. Get used to it.<br/> <br/> At times, we needed to work with the radical feminists. Rape victims were still being dismissed or disbelieved. People still blamed victims for their clothing quite respectably. This needed to become routinely frowned upon. RadFems, who insisted that patriarchy was evident in everything, that the idea of gender needed to be destroyed and that men as a whole were dangerous and violent, were regarded as the biggest internal problem the movement had to contend with by liberal feminists. Mostly, their extreme input into feminist discussion was met with eye-rolling and "Perhaps we don't need to go quite that far." We were unprepared for the problem rising in our own liberal branch. <br/> <br/> From the 1980s, some internal criticisms of liberal feminism began to be made. Liberal feminism as a whole was charged with not recognising the additional problems faced by black and Asian women and lesbians, and being largely centred on middle-class problems. These were valid criticisms which needed addressing and prioritising. All women must have equality. Many liberal feminists began to dedicate more time to LGBT rights and highlight the particular vulnerability of women living in communities which adhered to oppressive patriarchal religion, particularly Islam, and subjected women and girls to 'honour' violence and genital mutilation. They did this within universal liberal feminism and some still do but in this decade, the academic shift in the humanities and social sciences towards postmodernism began, and gradually filtered through to feminism in praxis. Intersectionality was forming.<br/> <br/> People are often confused about what postmodernism is and what it has to do with feminism. Very simplistically, it was an academic shift pioneered by Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard which denied that reliable knowledge could ever be attained and claimed that meaning and reality themselves had broken down. It rejected large, overarching explanations (metanarratives) which included religion but also science, and replaced them with subjective, relative accounts (mininarratives) of the experiences of an individual or sub-cultural group. These ideas gained great currency in the humanities and social sciences and so became both an artistic movement and a social 'theory.' They rejected the values of universal liberalism, the methods of science and the use of reason and critical thinking as the way to determine truth and form ethics. Individuals could now have not only their own moral truths but their own epistemological ones. The expression 'It's true for me' encapsulates the ethos of postmodernism. To claim to know anything to be objectively true (no matter how well-evidenced) is to assert a metanarrative and to 'disrespect' the contrary views of others which is oppressive (even if those views are clearly nonsense.) The word 'scientism' was created for the view that evidence and testing are the best way to establish truths.<br/> <br/> <br/> At its height, postmodernism as an artistic movement produced non-chronological, plotless literature and presented urinals as art. In social theory, postmodernists 'deconstructed' everything considered true and presented all as meaningless. However, having done this, there was nowhere else to go and nothing more to say. In the realm of social justice, nothing can be accomplished unless we accept that certain people in a certain place experience certain disadvantages. For this, a system of reality needs to exist, and so new theories of gender and race and sexuality began to emerge comprised of mininarratives. These categories were held to be culturally constructed and constructed hierarchically to the detriment of women, people of colour and LGBTs. Identity was paramount. <br/> <br/> Liberal feminist aims gradually shifted from the position: <br/> <br/> "Everyone deserves human rights and equality, and feminism focuses on achieving them for women."<br/> <br/> to<br/> <br/> "Individuals and groups of all sexes, races, religions and sexualities have their own truths, norms and values. All truths, cultural norms and moral values are equal. Those of white, western, heterosexual men have unfairly dominated in the past so now they and all their ideas must be set aside for marginalised groups." <br/> <br/> Liberal feminism had shifted from the universality of equal human rights to identity politics. No longer were ideas valued on their merit but on the identity of the speaker and this was multifaceted, incorporating sex, gender identity, race, religion, sexuality and physical ability. The value of an identity in social justice terms is dependent on its degree of marginalisation, and these stack up and vie for primacy. This is where liberal feminism went so badly wrong. When post-colonial guilt fought with feminism, feminism lost. When it fought with LGBT rights, they lost too. <br/> <br/> So aware of Western imperialism having trampled on other cultures historically, western liberal feminism now embraced their most patriarchal aspects. A western liberal feminist can, on the same day, take part in a slut walk to protest western women being judged by their clothing and accuse anyone criticising the niqab of Islamophobia. She can demand the prosecution of a Christian baker for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex-couple, and condemn the planning of a Gay Pride march through a heavily Muslim area as racist. Many intersectional feminists do not limit themselves to the criticism of other white, western feminists but pour vitriolic, racist abuse on liberal Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and LGBT activists. The misogyny and homophobia of Christianity may be criticised by all (quite rightly) but the misogyny and homophobia of Islam by none, not even Muslims. The right to criticise one's own culture and religion is seemingly restricted to white westerners. (The best analysis of 'The <a href="https://tomowolade.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/the-racism-of-some-anti-racists/">Racism of Some Anti-racists</a>' is by Tom Owolade.) <br/> <br/> Universal liberal feminists were horrified by this development. Our old adversaries, the Radical Feminists, looked positively rational in comparison. They might tell us we are culturally conditioned into internalised misogyny, and they certainly had a pessimistic and paranoid worldview but at least it was coherent. The Intersectional Feminists were not even internally consistent. In addition to the cultural relativity, the rules change day by day as new sins against social justice are invented. We opposed the Radical Feminists for their extreme antipathy towards men but at least they shared a bond of sisterhood with each other. The Intersectional Feminists not only exhibit great prejudice against men but also turn on each other at the slightest imagined infraction of the rules. Having not the slightest regard for reason or evidence, they vilify and harass those imagined to have transgressed.<br/> <br/> In addition to their failure to support the most vulnerable women in society, intersectional feminism cultivated a culture of victimhood, negatively impacting all women in society but particularly young women. Women are oppressed, we are told, by men explaining anything, spreading their legs on a train and committing vague sins like 'expecting unequal amounts of emotional labour.' If they call out to us or proposition us, we should be terrified. If obnoxious men attempt to grope us or succeed, we have experienced an appalling sexual assault from which we may never recover. Not only are we oppressed by seemingly all men but by anyone expressing anti-feminist ideas or feminist ones we don't like. More than this, we are rendered 'unsafe' by them, particularly those women who are trans and may have to hear that a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist has said something in a place they don't have to go to. It is hard to imagine how women manage to survive leaving the house at all.<br/> <br/> Even in the house, we cannot be entirely sure of 'safety.' Men might say mean things to us on the internet, and we couldn't possibly cope with that. In reality, I find the opposite problem more concerning. Recently, in a disagreement with an intersectional feminist man, he began to change his mind! Much encouraged, I continued the discussion. After some time, I checked his bio and spotted that he was carrying on a parallel conversation with another man in which he was expressing exactly the same views he had since changed in our conversation. Challenging him on this, I was informed that he did not feel he should disrespect my lived experience as a woman by contradicting it with his own views as a man. However, he still disagreed with me and felt able to say so to another man. I could not get him to see that all this had achieved was excluding me from the conversation and wasting my time. I might as well have been made to withdraw to the drawing room to let the men talk. <br/> <br/> Perhaps men might criticise our academic writing or blogs? Richard Dawkins was accused of misogyny for mocking a postmodernist sociology essay that happened to have been written by a woman. (He'd mocked one written by a man a few days earlier.) He was asked, by numerous people, why he hated intelligent women or why he had to criticise women's writing? Surely, it should be clear to everyone that not doing so excludes women from academic discussion? If we want to be taken seriously as academics (or as bloggers,) we need people to be able to criticise our work. <br/> <br/> Like many universal liberal feminists of my generation and above, I decided to hang on and try to tackle, from the inside, the problems of cultural relativity, science denialism, raging incivility and the disempowerment of women by feminists. This resulted in my being blocked by feminists, told I am not a feminist, called an 'anti-feminist,' an 'MRA', a 'misogynist' and even a 'rape apologist' (I had suggested that the men who invented date-rape drug detecting nail polish were well-intentioned.)I have been told to fuck myself with a rusty chainsaw, and that I am a confused middle-aged woman who does not understand society. Following one encounter with a feminist in which I said I did not get death and rape threats from men, a new account with a male name was suddenly set up which began sending me some.<br/> <br/> At the same time, non-feminists were telling me that I was not what they understood by 'feminist' or even asserting that I was not a feminist. I assured them I was because I was concerned about female genital mutilation, 'honour' violence and forced marriage affecting British women today and rarely prosecuted. I am opposed to the disempowerment of young women who are being told that they cannot cope with different ideas and that criticism is abusive by feminists in universities and schools. Are these not pressing issues affecting women? My friend, Kath, a recovering RadFem, helped clarify my thoughts on this.<br/> <br/><div class="separator"></div>
<br/> <br/> <br/>
<div class="separator"></div>
<br/>
<div class="separator"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qkXHIYUtVrg/VsY-C8BXjYI/AAAAAAAAAbQ/PwjQbd0612s/s1600/Kath%2Bone.png"><img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qkXHIYUtVrg/VsY-C8BXjYI/AAAAAAAAAbQ/PwjQbd0612s/s400/Kath%2Bone.png" height="190" border="0" width="400"/></a></div>
<br/>
<div class="separator"></div>
<div class="separator"></div>
<br/> <br/>
<div class="separator"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vmeqb55690U/VsY-aUPSBYI/AAAAAAAAAbU/D9McoohhfBg/s1600/Kath%2Btwo.png"><img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vmeqb55690U/VsY-aUPSBYI/AAAAAAAAAbU/D9McoohhfBg/s400/Kath%2Btwo.png" height="191" border="0" width="400"/></a></div>
<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> This is true. I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali that western feminism needs to stop focusing on 'trivial bullshit.' I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for women who feel traumatised and excluded by scientists' shirts or video games. When it comes to the little things, the playing field becomes much more even. We all have gendered expectations we'd rather not comply with. I suggest not doing it. There is very little point in complaining about gender expectations whilst perpetuating them. The idea that women cannot defy such expectations because of fear of disapproval seems contrary to the entire ethos of feminist activism and those who have gone before us. <br/> <br/> I think it's time I accepted that 'feminism' no longer means 'the aim for equal rights for women' but is understood to refer to the current feminist movement which encompasses so much more and very little that I want to be associated with. I posted this on Twitter recently. <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>
<div class="separator"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_x7I5NwyRKA/VsZLyIF1dPI/AAAAAAAAAbw/42fDgaBNUmI/s1600/am%2BI%2Ba%2Bfeminist.jpg"><img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_x7I5NwyRKA/VsZLyIF1dPI/AAAAAAAAAbw/42fDgaBNUmI/s640/am%2BI%2Ba%2Bfeminist.jpg" height="448" border="0" width="640"/></a></div>
<div class="separator"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rIyQXnul0_c/VsZK5vAB11I/AAAAAAAAAbo/N9OsqyYk1aA/s1600/if%2Byou%2Bvalue%2Bequality.png"> </a></div>
<br/> <br/> <br/> The serious issues faced by British women that I want to be involved in are encompassed by human rights activism, and the disempowerment of young women can only be opposed, sadly, by opposing feminism itself.<br/> <br/> I used to be pleased when people told me that I had made them think more positively about feminism, but now I fear that this may simply have prevented that person from criticising a movement that really needs to be criticised. Feminism has lost its way and should not have public respectability until it remedies this. It seems that more and more people are realising this. A recent study showed that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/">only7% of Brits identify as feminist</a> although over two thirds support gender equality. My sadness at abandoning the identity bequeathed to me by my mother is mixed with anger when I consider that she too, a woman who was instrumental in getting banking qualifications opened to women, would now be regarded as deeply problematic.</div>
<div class="article-content entry-content"></div>
<div class="article-content entry-content"><a href="http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-feminist.html">http://helensatheistblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-feminist.html</a></div>
it never ends... never ever
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-01-20:3766518:Topic:173986
2016-01-20T03:41:46.421Z
Herman Van Keer
http://4freedoms.com/profile/HermanVanKeer
<p>38 'men' - honestly? Did you say 'men'<br/><a href="http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.1457/15-year-old-girl-gang-raped-by-38-muslim-men-for-several-hours.html" target="_blank">http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.1457/15-year-old-girl-gang-raped-by-38-muslim-men-for-several-hours.html</a></p>
<p>38 'men' - honestly? Did you say 'men'<br/><a href="http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.1457/15-year-old-girl-gang-raped-by-38-muslim-men-for-several-hours.html" target="_blank">http://www.siotw.org/news_english.item.1457/15-year-old-girl-gang-raped-by-38-muslim-men-for-several-hours.html</a></p>
A brave testimony from a woman
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-01-19:3766518:Topic:173979
2016-01-19T14:40:06.013Z
Herman Van Keer
http://4freedoms.com/profile/HermanVanKeer
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr0i8h3Pt2c" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr0i8h3Pt2c</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr0i8h3Pt2c" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr0i8h3Pt2c</a></p>
taharush - the 'respect' for women
tag:4freedoms.com,2016-01-16:3766518:Topic:173851
2016-01-16T05:22:30.830Z
Herman Van Keer
http://4freedoms.com/profile/HermanVanKeer
<p>As seen all over Europe during New Years eve.... this is islam. This is taharush:<br></br><strong><i>Taharrush</i> is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped.</strong><br></br><br></br><strong>Social media were also rife with excuses for men who had assembled for the sole purpose of sexually assaulting female passersby in a public square. It turns out this pastime -- gang-rape -- hails from the Arab-Muslim world, and…</strong></p>
<p>As seen all over Europe during New Years eve.... this is islam. This is taharush:<br/><strong><i>Taharrush</i> is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped.</strong><br/><br/><strong>Social media were also rife with excuses for men who had assembled for the sole purpose of sexually assaulting female passersby in a public square. It turns out this pastime -- gang-rape -- hails from the Arab-Muslim world, and has a specific name: "<a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7219/geert-wilders-taharrush-sexual-assault">Taharrush</a>."</strong><br/><br/><a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7219/geert-wilders-taharrush-sexual-assault">http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7219/geert-wilders-taharrush-sexual-assault</a><br/><a href="http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/europe-is-enabling-a-rape-culture/">http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/europe-is-enabling-a-rape-culture/</a><br/><a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7223/europe-self-destruction">http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7223/europe-self-destruction</a></p>
<h1 class="entry-title"><strong><span class="font-size-3">Van taharrush naar marocchinate slechts een kleine stap voor een moslim, een stap die het einde kan betekenen van onze westerse beschaving</span></strong></h1>
<p><a href="http://fenixx.org/2016/01/12/van-taharrush-naar-marocchinate-slechts-een-kleine-stap-voor-een-moslim-een-stap-die-het-einde-kan-betekenen-van-onze-westerse-beschaving/">http://fenixx.org/2016/01/12/van-taharrush-naar-marocchinate-slechts-een-kleine-stap-voor-een-moslim-een-stap-die-het-einde-kan-betekenen-van-onze-westerse-beschaving/</a><br/><br/><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate</a><br/><br/><b>Marocchinate</b> (<small>pronounced </small><span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Italian" title="Help:IPA for Italian">[marokkiˈnate]</a></span>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language" title="Italian language">Italian</a> for "those given the Moroccan treatment" i.e. "women raped by Moroccans") is a term applied to women who were victims of the mass <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape" title="Rape">rape</a> and killings committed during <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II" title="World War II">World War II</a> after the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino" title="Battle of Monte Cassino">Battle of Monte Cassino</a> in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy" title="Italy">Italy</a>. These were committed mainly by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Goumier" title="Moroccan Goumier">Moroccan Goumiers</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_troops" title="Colonial troops">colonial troops</a> of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Expeditionary_Corps_%281943-1944%29" title="French Expeditionary Corps (1943-1944)" class="mw-redirect">French Expeditionary Corps</a> (FEC),<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup> commanded by General <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonse_Juin" title="Alphonse Juin">Alphonse Juin</a>.</p>
The Killing of Farkhunda - NY Times, Afghanistan
tag:4freedoms.com,2015-12-31:3766518:Topic:173452
2015-12-31T04:54:43.819Z
Alan Lake
http://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<div class="data-heading data-content channel-id-1194811622205"><h1>The Killing of Farkhunda</h1>
</div>
<div class="data-content"><h5 id="byline"><span>By JOHN WOO, ADAM B. ELLICK and ALISSA J. RUBIN</span> <small>| Dec. 26, 2015</small> <span class="duration"><small>| 7:43</small></span></h5>
<p class="content-description">Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old Muslim woman falsely accused of burning a Quran, was killed by a mob in central Kabul as hundreds watched and filmed. This video contains…</p>
</div>
<div class="data-heading data-content channel-id-1194811622205"><h1>The Killing of Farkhunda</h1>
</div>
<div class="data-content"><h5 id="byline"><span>By JOHN WOO, ADAM B. ELLICK and ALISSA J. RUBIN</span> <small>| Dec. 26, 2015</small> <span class="duration"><small>| 7:43</small></span></h5>
<p class="content-description">Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old Muslim woman falsely accused of burning a Quran, was killed by a mob in central Kabul as hundreds watched and filmed. This video contains scenes of graphic violence.</p>
<p class="content-description"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000004108808/the-killing-of-farkhunda.html?smid=tw-share">http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000004108808/the-killing-of-farkhunda.html?smid=tw-share</a></p>
<p class="content-description">[Captured Video]</p>
</div>