Seriously, which depraved parent is going to buy that for their children? And which depraved person came up with that idea?
And I thought the padded bras for girls under 10 was bad enough.
And then there was the Muslim cleric who said women in immodest clothing aka not wearing the hijab invited sexual assault. He claims the 4 women who were ganged raped in 2000 invited it upon themselves because they were not covered up.
"He said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and inappropriate clothes, "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," the sheik asked.
"The uncovered meat is the problem."
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijib (head scarf), no problem would have occurred."
So, in 2005, two pastors were hauled to court over vilifying statements against Muslims, but in the cleric's case, he was given a warning when what he said was vilifying against ALL women. Why is it for the christian case, it was judged by a court, and for his case, he was only judged by seniors in the Mosque. Someone tell me there isn't inconsistency here.
I am all for multiculturalism, and my internship at the Ethnic Communities Council Victoria opened up my eyes to the need for everyone to be sensitive to the beliefs of others. Note: Sensitive. I am happy that town councils have special times in the day where the public bath and pools are women only. I am all for neighbourhood centres having women only activities. I am glad there are laws against assaulting a woman in her traditional hijab. And I am glad for translation services across most public services. And I am happy the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is here and standing. However, there is a tension between freedom of speech and multicultural sensitivity, and it has to work both ways. Fanatics from both sections of society have to be disciplined. There is a difference between appreciation for the freedom to wear any traditional/ethnic clothing including the burka in the public, and closing down nude beaches, and getting assaulted for suntanning in your bathers just because it offends the staunch religious fanatic. It is the same theory. I will not force my neighbour to eat meat if he is vegetarian, but it will not stop me from eating meat on the same table as him. If he wants, he can get up and leave. Just as I, as a guest in Australia, know that I should never be physically or verbally assaulted for my race, but if something in the society, for e.g people saying Good Day Mate, offends me so much, I should pack up and leave instead of expecting them to stop saying it.
Maybe what he said was indeed taken out of context. No doubt, I don't believe in the objectivity of the media. But if you want others to watch their speech around you, you have to watch your speech around others too.
And of course there is the case of the girl who was sexually assaulted and filmed on DVD. I don't even want to start on that...it makes my blood boil.
4 comments:
But there also are the Christian fanatics who believe they must convert the world ahead of first addressing the suffering they see before them- what about them?
Or that every person who does not accept Jesus (not even God, but just Jesus, as a missionary took two hours to profess to me yesterday) would face the AntiChrist?
I don't encourage Christian fanatics just as I wouldn't encourage any religious fanatics...but saying a person who does not accept Jesus would face the antiChrist is just like a Muslim saying that all non-Muslims/or believers of non-monolithic religions will go to hell. It is grounded in their theology and so they can go ahead and preach their theology. It a belief and does not impinge on anyone's right to wear what they want, to live or to exist. It is concerned with the afterlife.
But a Muslim leader saying all women who dress immodestly deserved to be raped is like a Christian pastor saying all non-believering women who do not wear the cross should be raped. It is offensive and it instigates people.
And as much as it is a Christian calling to want to share with others the gospel, it is also a Christian calling to address the suffering of the world. And there are people out there doing that, like Tear Australia and the Micah Challenge. But because it is less contraversial than missionaries, people normally don't see that aspect of Christianity as being part of humanitarian aid and relief work. I don't think a religion can be summed up by a person, because there are always people, good or bad, in all religions. Just like how I wouldn't judge Islam by a few sentences this cleric says. With every Christian fanatic who kills abortion doctors, there are also two that helps a dying person. Just like with every Muslim fundamenalist, there are two who will feed the hungry.
I too was enraged by the remark. The problem however runs deeper than the domestic repercussions on muslims and non-muslims in Sydney. This is a microcosm of the insidious divide between the traditionalist, Wahabian Muslim and the progressive modern Muslim of our times. Interestingly, this furore occured the same time as Blair commented that the niqab (covering the entire face sans the eyes) is divisive to the multicultural British society.
Hi Sha! Hee this is gonna make me sound silly..but what is a Wahabian Muslim?
What is your take on the niqab issue in Britian?
Post a Comment