British Security Going to the Dogs?
Due to their ability to detect explosives and illegal drugs, specially trained dogs provide essential services to a range of security and law enforcement agencies. Moreover, canines could not care less about a person's race or religion, thus limiting claims of bias against the organizations that employ them.
But what if a religious group objects to the use of dogs on the grounds that they are unclean animals? Must the whole of society be placed at risk in deference to the customs of a few? The answers should be obvious, but the questions are all too real in Britain:
Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers — after complaints that it is against the suspects' religion.
A report for the Transport Department has raised the prospect that the animals should only touch passengers' luggage because it is considered "more acceptable."
[…]
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said even dogs touching baggage would be an issue for a Muslim preparing to pray.
The report is based on tests of various security measures put in place after the 2005 London bombings. Incidentally, Muslims also balked at body scanning technology during the trials. "Sometimes I wear clothing which is not so tight," one woman noted. "It will be shown on [the monitor] and somebody is looking at it. It defeats the whole purpose of me covering up."
The British Transport Police have wisely rejected these demands and pledged to continue using dogs in security checks. "The legislation applies to everyone. It's not a case for exemptions," an agency spokesman said. "Officers will be sensitive where appropriate but obviously there are practical implications."
These "practical implications" are rarely of concern to Islamists, who fight frequent battles against man's best friend. Among the recent lowlights: Muslim taxi drivers declining to carry passengers with seeing-eye dogs and a Minnesota student threatening to kill his classmate's medical assistance dog.
The above stories have two aspects in common: the use of animals to protect or improve people's lives, and attempts by a minority to grossly violate the rights of others. While every dog has its day, we must ensure that such brazen infringements never have theirs.
By David J. Rusin | Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink
Virginity Restoration on the European Taxpayer's Dime
"The summer months are a big time for new hymens," notes a recent story from Denmark, one of many European countries that see more Muslims undergoing "virginity restoration" prior to marriage. A French woman of Moroccan descent illuminates the typical motive: "In my culture, not to be a virgin is to be dirt."
Take, for example, a controversial annulment ruling that has gripped French society:
The case … involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr. X, who married Ms. Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the family's home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride's "purity."
Their marriage was annulled on the grounds that the bride had deceived the groom, but a court just overturned the order and will issue a new decision.
Many cultures place a strong emphasis on virginity. That is acceptable. Enforcing it through violence, or the threat of violence, is not. Consider one Muslim woman who chose the operation after an eight-year relationship with a boyfriend had come to an end:
"I was afraid that my father would take me to a doctor and see whether I was still a virgin," said the woman. … "He told me, ‘I will forgive everything, but not if you have thrown dirt on my honor.' I wasn't afraid he would kill me, but I was sure he would have beaten me."
Worse, European taxpayers increasingly foot the bill for these procedures. Last year it was revealed that Britain's publicly funded National Health Service performs hymenoplasties. Some local governments in Denmark are now paying for them as well:
Flemming Sommer, in charge of welfare [for Furesø], … says that if social workers think that an operation is needed for security reasons — for example, if the girl might be otherwise expelled from her family or killed — then the municipality will pay for it.
The conservative Danish People's Party has pointed out the obvious: why not focus on the real source of the "security" problem by punishing the families that threaten these women?
As any doctor can testify, proper treatment begins with addressing the disease, not merely the symptoms.
By David J. Rusin | Sat, 28 Jun 2008 at 11:33 AM | Permalink
The Non-Handshake That Shook Ireland
Shaking hands is a centuries-old custom that conveys greetings and respect. For this reason, refusing an extended hand will likely be interpreted as an insult. Such was the case when a Muslim asylum seeker set to receive an award for volunteer work in Ireland informed the committee that he would not shake hands with the woman presenting it. As a result, they gave the certificate to someone else:
Alinoor Ahmed Sheikh, a Somali based in an asylum hostel in Tralee, was to have been honored for his work raising funds for Amnesty International at a ceremony last Thursday organized by the Africa Centre in Dublin. The event was designed to highlight the positive work done by refugees and asylum seekers in Irish communities.
Five minutes before Benedicta Attoh, a member of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, was due to present the award she was told not to call out Sheikh's name. "The judges had decided that someone else should get the award," said Attoh, chairwoman of the Africa Centre's board.
Attoh did not find out the reason why until she read in Metro Eireann on Friday that his name had been removed because of his refusal to shake hands with women. Sheikh told the newspaper that he had been assured his request not to shake a female presenter's hand would be accommodated because it was based on his religious beliefs.
Another Africa Centre official argued that the group had no problem with Sheikh's request and that the very public debacle was simply a "mistake." However, the incident left Attoh in a less-than-understanding mood. "I don't think I would have presented his prize if he wouldn't shake my hand because I'm a woman," the chairwoman countered.
The Irish case is merely the latest handshake controversy. Last year, a female Muslim officer was exempted from shaking hands with the London police chief at a graduation ceremony. In 2006, an employment commission in the Netherlands ruled that a Muslim woman could not be barred from a teacher-training program because she refused to shake hands with men. Most ironic of all, that same year the Dutch immigration minister was snubbed as she presented diplomas to imams completing an "assimilation course."
Inter-gender handshakes are also restricted by some other religious groups, so why should the above stories be of concern? Because only among lawful Islamists is there a prominent push to institutionalize aspects of Shari'a-grounded gender segregation in the public square. Any accommodation must be viewed in this broader context.
With Shari'a on the march, Western society cannot afford to sit on its hands.
By David J. Rusin | Thu, 26 Jun 2008 at 11:58 AM | Permalink
Salon Owner Stunned by Hair-Raising Discrimination Fine
When Bushra Noah interviewed for a job as a hair stylist at Wedge, a trendy salon in central London, owner Sarah Desrosiers quickly determined that she was not right for the post. Wedge specializes in "funky, urban" cuts, which Desrosiers expects her employees to sport as a kind of walking advertisement. However, Noah wears a headscarf and insisted that she would not be removing it, at work or otherwise.
Soon after being turned down, Noah sued Desrosiers for discrimination. Noah testified that "I was so depressed after my interview with Miss Desrosiers that I decided to try a different career. Having dreamed of being a hairdresser since an early age, this was a big decision for me." Last week the court ordered Desrosiers to pay Noah £4,000 — roughly $8,000 — for "hurt feelings":
Yesterday the central London employment tribunal backed [Ms. Noah's] complaint of indirect discrimination.
Ms. Desrosiers, 32, said: "I feel it is a bit steep for what actually happened. It's really scary for a small business.
"I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it."
The panel found Desrosiers not guilty of direct discrimination, satisfied that "Bushra was not treated less favorably than Sarah would have treated any woman who, whether Muslim or not, wears a hair covering at all times when at work." But while she pursued legitimate aims in attempting to advance the salon's image, Desrosiers failed to prove that her actions were proportionate — that an employee who wears a headscarf would negatively impact a business focused on hair.
It could have been worse: Noah filed a compensation claim of £15,000 and quickly upped it to £34,000. Still, a reduced fine is of little comfort to Desrosiers, who already struggles to pay her bills and has lost considerable income preparing for the case. More broadly, she recognizes that the judgment against her has opened a Pandora's Box of litigation that she and other business owners must navigate:
As for the notion that I've injured her feelings — well, people's feelings get injured every day. I dread to think the sorts of things that people will try to claim injured feelings for now that this precedent has been set.
To Islamists, such dread is worth considerably more than £4,000.
By David J. Rusin | Mon, 23 Jun 2008 at 11:20 AM | Permalink
Television Viewers Tuning in to More Islam
If television programming reflects the society that produces and consumes it, then Islam's increased presence on the small screen underscores the growing impact of — and fascination with — Muslims in the West. Three news items highlight this trend.
A Danish public television channel recently held a fashion competition to find Miss Headscarf 2008, a title eventually claimed by Iraqi-born 18-year-old Huda Falah, who noted that she had entered the contest to counter stereotypes and promote understanding among Denmark's youth. However, a Muslim advocacy group in Copenhagen advised young adults not to participate:
"The whole point of the headscarf is that it's a symbol of chastity," said spokeswoman Bettina Meisner. "We don't wish young women to expose themselves as objects."
Over in Belgium, controversy erupted this week after a regional broadcaster, as part of an ongoing promotion, invited a Muslim woman who shows only her eyes to deliver the weather forecast. The station's supervisor admits that the segment should not have been aired because it is "of the sort that shocks people." Now a question has arisen over whether ordinances were violated in the process:
Brussels parliament member and councillor Nathalie Gilson asked what supervision Télé Bruxelles has over broadcasts. She mentioned that wearing a burqa is not permitted in Brussels. According to the general manager of Télé Bruxelles, Marc De Haan, it is not a burqa, but "somebody with a veil on the head and in front of the face."
Finally, the Fox network has acquired the rights to develop an American version of the popular Canadian comedy Little Mosque on the Prairie, which follows a Muslim community in a fictional small town. Arguing that the show "defuses hate with humor," a previous New York Times profile offers a taste of its content:
A leader of the Muslim group is seen defending to a local person the plan to turn the parish hall into a mosque. "It's a pilot project," he says, leading the man to exclaim wide-eyed, "You're training pilots?!"
While the Belgian weather report clearly jumped the shark, the other two cases are reasonable outcomes of a free market in which Western television producers cater to the burgeoning influence of Muslims and the public's curiosity about their culture.
As always, broadcasters have the right to air what they believe will draw an audience — just as viewers have the right to change the channel.
By David J. Rusin | Sat, 21 Jun 2008 at 11:56 AM | Permalink
A Dutch Muslim Anonymously Appeals for Introspection
On June 10 the newspaper de Volkskrant published an intriguing essay (translation here) by a "highly educated Dutch Muslim woman" writing under the name Samira al-Onal. She challenges Muslims in the Netherlands to stop demanding special treatment, to reject religiously inspired violence, and to let go of "superiority, sanctimoniousness, and ignorance."
The broadsheet agreed to run the piece pseudonymously due to the author's fear of reprisals for sharing views such as these:
"We find it marvelous that Islam is growing. But there is a growth of blind belief. ... Take the beheading of non-Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan. The so-called heroic deeds are carried out in the name of Allah. What do we do? Do we condemn these? No, we look on silently. We do, however, take to the streets if there is an insulting cartoon in a newspaper and we threaten politicians with death."
"What do we say about ... Iran, where non-Muslims are not allowed to take a university course? About Afghanistan, where non-Muslims are spat at, insulted, and hunted by Taliban-like Muslims? Or about the Netherlands, where non-Muslims are pestered with similar tactics by Muslims and preferably hunted out of the district? Nothing."
"Why do we not take to the street against these and other actions of our fellow believers? Why do we behave without respect in the Netherlands, take few social rules or standards of decency into consideration, and commit senseless violence, while we make much use of medical provisions [and] complain a lot and say that others must take account of us?"
Al-Onal goes on to argue that European Muslims are largely to blame for the distrust, even animosity, directed at them by their neighbors. That also applies to a highly visible manifestation of such unease: the rise of populist politicians like the Netherlands' Geert Wilders, producer of the anti-Koran film Fitna. "He was not just dropped by a stork, was he?" she asks. "If we had given a bit more respect to others, he would never have sprung up."
Assuming that the author is who she claims to be, her letter underscores two important realities. First, moderate Muslims do exist and recognize the need to initiate a reform movement within the Islamic faith. Second, many of those moderates are fearful of openly speaking out against the radicals.
The former is good news for both Muslims and the West; the latter is good news for Islamists.
By David J. Rusin | Wed, 18 Jun 2008 at 11:08 AM | Permalink
Virginia's Islamic Saudi Academy Offers Lessons in Radicalism
Nelson Mandela has called education "the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." But such change need not be positive. Textbooks employed by the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), a K-12 school near Washington, DC, illustrate how Wahhabi educators seek to change the world — and it is certainly not for the better:
Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.
Other passages in the school's textbooks state that "the Jews conspired against Islam and its people" and that Muslims are permitted to take the lives and property of those deemed "polytheists."
The passages were found in selected textbooks used during the 2007-08 school year by the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches 900 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax and receives much of its funding from the Saudi government.
According to the study by the congressionally mandated U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), ISA books also glorify the caliphate, urge Sunnis to turn against Shiites, and portray the Baha'i faith as an effort to undermine Islam from within. And this is after the texts had been edited for objectionable content.
Last October the commission asked that the ISA be shuttered, pending a full review of its curriculum. Not only did the school remain open, but the State Department refused to turn over the texts in use. USCIRF eventually obtained copies of seventeen books through alternate channels.
The secretary of state has authority under the Foreign Missions Act to close the school because it operates as an arm of the Saudi embassy. But that is not going to happen anytime soon. "They told us they would revise the textbooks by the 2008 school year," a State Department spokesman said. "We don't plan to take additional action apart from the discussions that have been going on with the Saudi government."
The Islamic Saudi Academy has found itself in the news before. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, valedictorian of his 1999 class, is serving a thirty-year prison sentence for providing material support to Al-Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President Bush. In addition, two ISA alumni were kept from entering Israel in December 2001 after being flagged as potential suicide bombers.
As the government wavers, will other ISA graduates make a name for themselves?
By David J. Rusin | Mon, 16 Jun 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink
Ontario in Denial over Polygamy Culture
On the lengthy register of Western accommodations to Shari'a law, none is more striking than the de facto acceptance of polygamy. A story from Toronto vividly demonstrates the human cost of this practice, the brazen efforts to transplant it to the West, and the limp-wristed response of government officials.
Two years ago Safa Rigby and her four children were enjoying an extended stay in Egypt when a phone call shattered her once-happy life with Hossny Ismail:
"You think you know your husband. You don't know him at all," said the man, a friend of her husband's. "His car is parked outside my house right now. He is with my ex-wife. They just got married last week," the man said.
Actually, Fouad Boutaya and his wife were still in the process of separating when he came home one night to surprise his children and found Ismail comfortably ensconced at the dinner table. "You should not be here alone with my wife when I am not here," said Boutaya to his friend. "What's the problem?" Ismail replied. "She is my wife."
The marriage was performed by Aly Hindy, a controversial Toronto imam who has "blessed" over thirty polygamous unions. Hindy offers only defiance:
"This is in our religion and nobody can force us to do anything against our religion," he said. "If the laws of the country conflict with Islamic law, if one goes against the other, then I am going to follow Islamic law, simple as that."
Unfortunately, Ontario exhibits no such enthusiasm for upholding Canadian law. Local police told Boutaya that he did not have much of a case because his wife's marriage to Ismail failed to generate the requisite paperwork. Ontario legislator Ted McMeekin used similar hairsplitting logic to deny the existence of polygamy altogether:
Our registrar general and our official reporting mechanisms have no evidence that that's happening. As you know, Mr. Speaker, marriage is a contract. A contract requires a license, and once a marriage occurs, it has to be registered. There are no multiple marriages being registered in the province of Ontario.
McMeekin should familiarize himself with the Criminal Code, which plainly states that anyone officiating or entering "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage," is guilty of an indictable offense. That description would seem to fit the Rigby saga to a tee.
Why should Islamists respect laws that enshrine Western values when governments show so little interest in enforcing them?
By David J. Rusin | Fri, 13 Jun 2008 at 11:03 AM | Permalink
The Inquisition of Mark Steyn and Maclean's
Two years ago Maclean's, the oldest newsweekly in Canada, published an excerpt of Mark Steyn's book America Alone, which sharply critiques the ascendancy of Islam in a Western world suffering from "civilizational exhaustion." Activists led by Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry filed complaints against both Steyn and Maclean's in multiple human rights courts last December, charging that the magazine "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt."
From June 2 to 6, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard arguments in the case. National Post correspondent Brian Hutchinson compiled daily summaries (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) of what he called a "bizarre and frightening spectacle." Kathy Shaidle has offered a more succinct overview.
Perhaps the Tribunal's most disturbing aspect is the plaintiff-friendly landscape that has allowed such courts to become instruments for silencing critics of Islamism. "Strict rules of evidence do not apply," the chairwoman noted at the outset. According to Hutchinson, "the complainants were under no obligation to prove harm, or malicious intent; all that is required … is a reasonable determination that the excerpt did express hatred and contempt toward Muslims, and likely caused it to spread. That's the test."
Entered into evidence were reams of internet posts "inspired" by Steyn's excerpt. Then Faiza Hirji, a university lecturer whose thin CV highlights deconstructionist research on rapper Queen Latifah and television's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was permitted to testify as "an expert in analyzing stereotypes in the media." She proceeded to dissect Steyn's article, claiming evidence of negative stereotypes in paragraph after paragraph.
Co-complainant Naiyer Habib described how the aforementioned internet posts had caused him pain. "It's humiliating, dishonoring, questioning our morals in Western society where we live," he said. Habib insisted that Maclean's is partly to blame, as the posts "were influenced by the article." Finally, Habib's lawyer asked that the Tribunal order Maclean's to publish a "counterview article … [or] a summary of at least the Tribunal's judgments and findings and a declaration [that the excerpt] was hatred and contemptuous."
Steyn, who expects to be found guilty, was characteristically defiant:
We want to lose so we can take it to a real court and if necessary up to the Supreme Court of Canada and we can get the ancient liberties of freeborn Canadian citizens that have been taken away from them by tribunals like this.
Yes, Canadians may be freeborn. But faced with a coordinated assault from Islamists and multicultural do-gooders pushing censorship, how long will they remain that way?
By David J. Rusin | Wed, 11 Jun 2008 at 11:18 AM | Permalink
CAIR's ‘Islam 101' Assembly Earns a Failing Grade
Students at Friendswood Junior High, a public school near Houston, TX, were recently subjected to a forty-minute assembly led by members of a controversial Islamist pressure group. Ensuing outrage over the "Islam 101" event — which pupils attended without the prior consent of either parents or the administration — has cost the principal her post:
The news drew relief from some who were incensed by the May 22 presentation and concern from others who considered the assembly a good way for students in the predominantly Anglo Christian school to learn about other cultures.
About 875 seventh- and eighth-grade students attended the presentation given by two women with the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Houston, according to the school district.
Superintendent Trish Hanks sent parents a letter apologizing for the assembly, which she attributed to a bureaucratic snafu. Yet she noted, "My concern for our community and for our students is not as much with the content of the presentation as explained to me."
No doubt some might take issue with that judgment. CAIR's PowerPoint slide show, titled "Islam: Respecting Diversity," can be viewed here. After declaring that "Allah is God for all human beings" and describing both the Torah and Gospels as "books of Allah," it goes on to outline the five pillars of Islam as well as Muslim dietary requirements, traditional dress, and gender relations.
The Houston branch of CAIR — a group with a long track record of Islamist agendas and indicted officials — approached the school "about conducting an educational presentation after hearing from a father who said his son was physically attacked at the school because he is Muslim." Chapter president Tarek Hussein said, "It was physical harassment. I believe the boy has a medical report." However, he declined to provide any specifics.
CAIR has a history of falsely portraying incidents as hate crimes against Muslims. What occurred at Friendswood is anybody's guess, but one board member offered this interesting take on CAIR's remedy:
"There's a personal incident between two students and as a result of that we're going to yank everyone out of class?" he said. "I got beat up in junior high. Did my dad go down and force all the kids to sit through sensitivity training? … No, that's absurd. The coach gave us licks and sent us home."
When it comes to exploiting unfortunate happenings to gain a new audience, CAIR is clearly at the head of the class.
By David J. Rusin | Fri, 6 Jun 2008 at 11:12 AM | Permalink
© 2007 - 2008 The Middle East Forum.