At Front Page today, Jamie Glazov brilliantly skewers the increasing liberalisation and dhimmitude of "conservative" American news pundit Bill O'Reilly.
A recent edition of his "O'Reilly Factor" show on Fox News, discussing the French burqa ban (video at the link above), has Billy Bumpkin making a disparaging reference to “the Western eye” to imply that forced veiling is only oppressive through our Western lens - as though there is no universal standard of human rights. Priding himself on being for “tolerance” and, therefore, for being in favor of allowing Muslim women to veil, he affirms that “most” Muslim women want to veil themselves.
First and foremost, stating that “most” people favor something in an environment where verbalized dissent or oppositional action is viciously punished is meaningless. In other words, to say that “most” Cubans support Castro or that “most” North Koreans support Kim Jong Il, when anti-regime thoughts and acts will, in these circumstances, get a Cuban or North Korean imprisoned, tortured or killed, is disingenuous and erroneous to the extreme."
He quotes the courageous Syrian-born Islamic apostate Wafa Sultan:
In 2005, I traveled to Syria with my American friend. We visited a small Syrian island (Erwad). My friend noticed that the majority of women in that place were head covered. I asked our tour guide to explain the reasoning behind it. I asked: “Are ALL women on this island covered? Without any hesitation he responded: “Yes, they are ALL covered except for a few whores.”
Glazov highlights the significance of this statement, and the attitudes it represents:
In other words, even in situations where you think it might be a Muslim woman’s decision to wear the veil, the bottom line is that it’s not her “choice.” When you make a decision, it does not necessarily mean your society has allowed you to freely choose what you chose.
Be sure to read the whole magnificent rebuttal to O'Reilly's pathetic nonsense.
There are other reasons, however - aside from the fact that the veil is a symbol of misogynistic oppression that does not belong in any civilised society - why the French burqa ban was the right thing to do, and why its example should be followed in Britain and everywhere else in the Western world. To name just a few:
- A ban would eliminate problems of identification, which are regularly exploited by terrorists and criminals, who use the burqa to disguise themselves and bypass security measures that are so often lifted for veiled Muslim women - and men.
- A ban would alleviate communication problems.
- A ban would prevent women from physically harming themselves and their children through lack of exposure to sunlight.
- A ban would go one step (although admittedly nowhere near the whole hog) towards preventing Muslims from deliberately isolating themselves from the Western societies they live in, and thus creating tension, division and mistrust. As former Apprentice contestant Saira Khan, a Muslim herself, has pointed out:
The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.'
It is, as the saying goes, a "no-brainer". Except that Bill O'Reilly has no brain, and even he hasn't managed to grasp the significance of these facts yet - if he ever will.