France against the veil

France is doing something that the U.S. and Britain wouldn’t dream of doing. It is banning the burka—the frightful inhuman Islamic garment that covers the entire body and the entire face. The law takes effect this week. There was a protest against it in Paris yesterday, and 61 persons were arrested. Several British-based Muslim extremists tried to attend the rally but were prevented from entering France.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda, as reported in the same story in the Mail, has announced that it will attack France for banning the burka. How does this fit with ex-CIA officer Michael Sheuer’s thesis that Islamic extremism is solely a function of U.S. interference in Muslim countries? How does it fit with the belief system of most of the European continent that Islamic extremism is solely a function of Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian territories? Just wondering.

Oh, and by the way, since the banning of the burka is resulting in Muslim terrorist threats against France, does this mean that France is a “moron” nation, to use Andy McCarthy’s description of Terry Jones? And if al Qaeda succeeds in carrying out an attack and killing people in retaliation for the ban, will that mean that France has “blood on its hands,” to use Bill O’Reilly’s phrase about Jones? Just wondering.

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

My office is in Jersey City, so I occasionally see a woman wearing the burqa. I just feel sorry for the person, especially during the summer.

LA replies:

You should not feel sorry for them. They are not being forced into this. They believe in it. They are into it. They are the enemy of everything we are.

Jim C. writes:

We need to be careful here: I do not perceive burqa wearers per se as my enemy. When I was in high school in Crown Heights I recall thugs who would beat up the Hassidim because of their peculiar garb.

LA replies:

Well, then according to you people who are carrying sharia into the West and thus seeking to subject the West to that anti-human religion are not our enemies. Do you have a better word?

Tiberge, the author of the Galliawatch blog, writes:

The French government is not banning the burka in an act of courage to demonstrate that nobody, not even Muslims, are above the laws of the Republic, although this is how it may be perceived by some. In reality, they are banning the burka in an attempt to hide from the eyes of the people the number of Muslims in France. If you don’t see any burkas, that means there are no unassimilated Muslims. Assimilation has worked! Multiculturalism has worked! We are all dressed like Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, and we all obey the French Constitution.

But everybody knows this is a lie.

Now what will happen when women disobey the law? Will they be put in jail? Fined? This remains to be seen, but it will be interesting to watch.

There are laws in France against building religious buildings and financing religion in any way. Which has not stopped the government from breaking its own law and building at least 2,500 mosques over the past three decades. There are laws against breaking into someone’s home, but when two gypsy girls broke into a sick man’s home last year and were shot (not killed) by him, he was put in jail and they were never prosecuted. There is a law against slaughtering animals for food without first stunning them. The law from 1986 has been completely disregarded by many meatpackers who refuse to produce two or three different kinds of meat—Halal, Kosher and regular. Instead of obeying the law they simply slaughter without stunning. Much of the meat thus produced ends up in the general market, NOT labeled. And nobody, least of all the government, shows any concern.

Now it’s the burka. The prefect of Paris banned a demonstration yesterday (Saturday) by a salafist group whose goal is to install sharia in France. The group was protesting the law on the burka. While many regard the ban on the demonstration as a positive act on the part of the government, others see through it as being completely hypocritical. You may be interested in the following article, along with the comments from “unfrench Frenchman” and my responses.

Unfortunately, some Frenchmen will always regard the presence of Israel as the cause of all of France’s problems. If Dominique Strauss-Kahn becomes president in 2012, as he well may, the anti-Semitism will increase as will anti-Americanism, since a large segment of the French population (from all parties) sees the two countries as partners in crime.

On the “mandatory” stunning of animals you may be interested in this. The final paragraph deals with one Israeli’s point of view about a potential law in the Netherlands.

John McNeil writes:

I congratulate Tiberge for her perceptive insight into the ulterior motives of Sarkozy and his right-liberal regime. Indeed, if you look up Sarkozy’s record, you will see him making militant calls for “assimilation,” such as native French marrying foreigners. His agenda ties into the right-liberalism that you have warned against, and I think we of the more traditional right should regard the liberal right as more dangerous than the multicultural left. At least the multicultural leftists are open in their hatred for native Western civilization, and their paradigm sets up an inevitable trap where, in order to be fair, they must permit the existence of a white culture and identity. I have found such to be the case when I confront my liberal friends on why I can’t be proud of my ethnic identity while blacks and Hispanics can, and they don’t have a good answer that logically fits into their worldview.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 10, 2011 10:36 AM | Send