Posts

Open Letter to Ottawa’s Mayor RE: ‘Hijab Day’

The Honorable Mayor Jim Watson
Ottawa City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue west
Ottawa  Ontario  K1P 1J1.
Canada

The Honorable Mayor, Jim Watson,

I hope you will take the time to listen to my concerns about “Ottawa Hijab Day” scheduled in Ottawa, Feb 25th, 2016 and that you will give serious consideration to my request outlined below.

I am someone who believes in information and education. What reasonable person could possibly object to an event which promotes “education, acceptance and tolerance”? Unless, of course, the “education” was disinformation; the “acceptance” was acceptance of a superordinate (according to Islamists) legal system (i.e. Sharia Law) that is contrary to our democratic values and human rights; the “tolerance” was tolerance of an extremist ideology that condones honour killings, FGM and treatment of women that is incompatible with Canadian values.

I would ask that you not discount me as a “racist” or an “Islamophobe”. I am a well-educated, patriotic Canadian, who is a strong proponent of diversity and freedom of religion. I am not anti-Muslim, but I do have serious concerns about extremist Islamic ideology that runs counter to the Canadian values I hold dear.  I have known and liked many Muslims, who share my Canadian values, and are what could be called secular Muslims. They or their parents may have immigrated here to escape Sharia Law and to embrace Canadian values. (Unfortunately, not all Muslims who immigrate here do so for those reasons.)

One of the ways in which Islam differs from other religions is that, in addition to the individual, religious component, it also has a political component and a judicial component.  As a politician, you are likely to have listened to presentations by political groups (or individuals representing those political groups), whose goal it is to present extremist Islamic ideology in a favourable light, for example, by saying that the hijab is just a sign of “modesty” and that it is worn voluntarily by Muslim women. (What Canadian could be against freedom of choice?)  Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. In fact, the hijab is a symbol of adherence to an extremist Islamic ideology and in Muslim countries women who wear it do not do so freely.  I am attaching a few links for you to videos, articles, etc., which will present you with an alternate view to that which you have likely been presented by members of activist organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Muslim Students Associations, and many more.  I would ask you to watch these videos – none of them are in any way “racist”. They are thoughtful, educational pieces intended to make people think.

First of all, the idea that the hijab or the niqab are in any way “traditional” Muslim dress is absolute hogwash!  They are relatively recent adoptions which are the result of Saudi Arabia having exported its extremist, Wahabbist/Salafist brand of Islam around the world. Along with the clothing come the extremist ideas!

Second, I am attaching a video of a speech by the so-called “Pope” of Sunni Islam (the most populous school of Islam and the school to which Saudi Wahabbism and Salafism belong) in which he argues for the wearing of the hijab. You will note that not once does he mention “modesty” as a reason to wear the hijab, but the reasons that he does give are not in keeping with integration into Canadian society.

I am also attaching a video by Bill Warner, Ph.D., entitled “The Political Side of Hijabs“, which I hope you will find interesting and enlightening.

Third, and related to whether or not the wearing of the hijab is voluntary for all Muslim women, even in Canada, I ask you to remember the unfortunate cases of Aqsa Parvez, a Toronto teen who was strangled by her father and/or brother for not wearing the hijab.  You will also remember, no doubt, the horrific case of the Montreal Shafia family “honour killings” of 3 daughters and a second wife by the father/husband and the brother, because they did not adhere to his extremist ideology, but, instead, adopted Canadian values.. These Muslim women were Canadian citizens and their killings were not only criminal; they were motivated by beliefs that are contrary to the values of equality of women and human rights.

Request:  I would like to request that you advise CAWI that, while they may continue to hold their hijab day as a privately-sponsored event, they may not call it “Ottawa Hijab Day”, as this gives the incorrect impression that it has been officially proclaimed by the City of Ottawa.  In future, events which encourage non-Muslim women to try on or wear the hijab may not be held at City Hall. You may wish to give them any or all of the following reasons:

“While City Council fully endorses activities which increase understanding between cultural and religious groups, so-called “Wear the Hijab” events are a sensitive issue and do not necessarily achieve the aim of increasing inter-faith or inter-cultural understanding.  Some women feel that wearing the hijab is their choice, while others see it as a religious obligation; still others see it as cultural, not religious.  Some feel strongly about the many Muslim women, including Canadian women, who have been killed for not wearing the hijab and believe that to celebrate the wearing of the hijab would be to do them a disservice. Some women believe that wearing the hijab is a private choice or a religious duty which identifies them as Muslim and find it offensive that non-Muslim women should wear the hijab, for any reason. Some view “Wear the Hijab” days as a form of proselytizing.  In closing, while people of all religious faiths are welcome to live and practice their faith in Ottawa, City Council will not proclaim individual days dedicated to the wearing of particular items of religious apparel or accouterments of any faith, nor will it approve the use of “Ottawa” as part of the name of any such private event, or the use of City property to celebrate such private events. ”

In closing, I would like to thank you for reading my letter. I hope you will think very carefully about the message that “Ottawa Hijab Day” sends to Canadians and internationally, particularly to those women who do not have a choice, who may be trying to escape a life of oppression, circumscribed by religious extremism, where their human rights are violated and possibly even their lives are at risk. Ottawa should be known as a city which promotes freedom of religion and equality of men and women.  Allowing a private group to advertise an “Ottawa Hijab Day” and to hold an associated event at City Hall may do damage to the City’s reputation by appearing to favour one religion over others (possibly even proselytizing on behalf of that religion) and by being seen to promote the wearing (even by non-Muslims) of a controversial item of clothing such as the hijab, which is associated in many countries with an extremist ideology that devalues women and curtails their human rights. Such events are better held at a mosque, without the assistance of public money, either directly or indirectly.

A better alternative would be to hold an Ottawa Women’s Day (for women of all faiths and cultures) or an Ottawa Human Rights Day or an Ottawa Equality Day, all of which are inclusive and promote the values that Canadians and Ottawans hold dear!

Sincerely,

Shabnam Assadollahi
Iranian Canadian human rights activist, Ottawa

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ottawa Mayor on Hijab Day: “It is not my role to tell people what they should wear”

Counter-terror expert warned U.S. Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS”

Syrian refugees in Alberta welcomed with prayer: “destroy enemies of Islam”

No, Women Are Not Obliged to Vote for Hillary by Sarah Skwire

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

It’s one of Madeline Albright’s most famous lines, and she’s brought it out on any number of occasions. Starbucks even put it on a coffee cup. I understand why. It’s eminently quotable and suggests a kind of tough-minded sisterhood that can be appealing. I can see its ready application, for example, when helping a drunk friend get home safely from a party or when holding another mom’s infant so she can use the restroom in peace.

But Albright should have been a lot more careful before she applied her signature line to what she sees as an obligation for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries. Because the minute that you take her line out of the context of relationships among people and move it to the political context it loses whatever tough-minded charm it has, and it becomes a bullying, sexist, prescriptivist piece of obnoxious nonsense.

I don’t believe in hell, so threatening me with it has never had much purchase. But to the best of my understanding, for religions that do believe in hell, the things that get people sent there are sins against God or against other people. Taking a political action that someone doesn’t agree with (voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton) doesn’t seem to fit that bill in any way. Suggesting that it does mingles church and state in ways that sit uncomfortably with long American traditions.

And even if voting in a way that Albright thinks is wrong is a sin that leads to damnation, if Albright really is a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she should probably be led by the many New Testament verses that counsel believers to use gentle correction and instruction toward those who have gone astray.

If Albright isn’t a believer in eternal torment and hellfire, she might be well advised to keep theology out of her politics entirely.

But even if we leave aside the myriad objections that arise when a bullying and inaccurate theology is dragged into the political realm, Albright’s insistence that women have a duty to vote for Clinton because she is also a woman remains moronic.

It is sexism of the oldest and most annoying type. With one comment, Albright managed to suggest the following:

  1. Women should shut up and vote the way they are told to vote.
  2. All women should vote the same way.
  3. All women have the same interests and objectives.
  4. Women who have made choices others disagree with have chosen incorrectly and must be brought back into line.
  5. Women cannot be trusted to recognize (and vote in favor of) their best interests.

Women have, over the centuries, gotten quite practiced at responding to these particular bits of idiocy. So while it’s disconcerting, at best, to hear this tosh from a woman of Albright’s stature and experience, it’s not particularly challenging to formulate an intelligent response. In fact, one thing that makes Albright’s comment so maddening is that, to many women, it seems so incredibly retrograde when applied to politics. It ignores the very real progress made by 21st century feminist thinkers in recognizing the different kinds of lives lived by different kinds of women — from different classes, of different colors, with different religions, of different sexualities, and in different bodies. By shouting right over that kind of nuance, Albright’s comment sounds like it’s stuck in the feminism of the 1960s.

But it’s worse than that. In its gender essentialism — its insistence that women are all women and therefore all alike — Albright’s comment could have been ripped right out of the first years of the 20th century. Or the 19th century. Or the 18th.

Happily, we have had Mary Wollstonecraft around for the past nearly 225 years to respond to that kind of nonsense. Albright would do better if, like Wollstonecraft, she would “consider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in common with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties.”

Telling a woman how she should vote because she is a woman is no less insulting than telling her that she shouldn’t vote because she is a woman. Both approaches deny an individual the opportunity to unfold her unique faculties as she sees fit. Both approaches reduce a complex individual to a single characteristic. Politics routinely does this to all sorts of groups — women, people of color, people of faith, gun owners — and it is in every case an insult to the dignity of the individual.

But Albright’s comment does something even worse. Or perhaps, for our purposes, it does something even better. Albright’s comment reveals the truth about politics. And that truth is that Clinton’s run for the White House, like Sanders’s run, or Trump’s, or Bush’s, or Cruz’s, or anyone’s, is not about serving the people.

We are told to vote for Clinton because we have a special duty to help other women. But Albright and Clinton do not mean that we have a special duty to the women standing next to us in line at the grocery store, or to the women who are suffering from poverty, or out of work, or abused by their spouses, or harassed by their bosses. They mean that we have a special duty to one woman: Hillary Clinton. It is our duty, as women, to help her to a spot in the White House, because no woman has done that before. Seeing her up there proves … something. And it will make us all feel … something.

That’s pretty weak tea, Albright.

But it is, at least, weak tea that exposes the fundamental truth about politics. It’s not about helping women. Or men. Or people of color. Or the unemployed. Or whomever we are told it is about helping.

It’s about helping the politician.

And I’ll be damned if I’m going to do that.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Online Survey: Should women be forced to register for the draft?

There is growing controversy about the proposal to force women to register for the draft. It has become a point of contention in the presidential primaries. Jazz Shaw from HotAir.com reports:

Ted Cruz on Sunday [February 7, 2016] said he opposes requiring women to register for a potential draft, breaking with Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, all of whom indicated support for opening up the Selective Service to women during Saturday night’s [GOP] debate.

“I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Cruz said Sunday, speaking at a town hall here. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

To applause, Cruz went on to note that he is a father to two daughters, and he wants them to follow their dreams.

jerry boykin

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Family Research Council Action’s Executive Vice President, released the following statement regarding comments made during Saturday’s presidential debate in which several candidates expressed support for requiring women to register for Selective Service:

“Some of the presidential candidates appear to be espousing the politically correct position that women should be required to register with Selective Service. In supporting this draft registration policy, these candidates demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the imperative for combat effectiveness and of the American people. Ask the question of why America, since the passage of the Selective Service Act, has never required women to register for the military draft. Americans do not want the government to send our daughters into battle against their will, and it is frankly shocking that any Republican candidate for president would not oppose the suggestion in the strongest terms.

“The real issue is whether we should place women in Infantry and Special Operations units where the mission is to close with and destroy the enemy. Removing the restrictions on the types of jobs women may hold means necessarily that some women who are drafted will be involuntarily assigned to units that will be directly engaged in combat with enemy ground forces. Every candidate who wants to earn the trust of the American people should oppose the Obama administration’s policy that is paving the way for requiring our daughters to go to war against their will,” concluded Boykin.

The Selective Service website notes:

Women Aren’t Required to Register – Here’s why:

THE LAW

Selective Service law as it’s written now refers specifically to “male persons” in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.

THE SUPREME COURT

The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

There are nations that have a universal conscription such as Bolivia, Chad, Eritrea, Israel, Mozambique and North Korea. Israel has universal female conscription, although in practice women can avoid service by claiming a religious exemption and over a third of Israeli women do so. Israeli men are required to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces for 3 years and women for 2 years.

Since the founding of America women have volunteered and played key roles in supporting or serving in the military. With the current all volunteer force women are volunteering to serve and most recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that combat roles have been opened to allow women to join some of the military’s most elite forces.

Please take this quick and confidential survey on women’s roles in the U.S. military:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Why Senator Mike Lee Wants to Keep Women Out of the Draft

Why Women Shouldn’t Be in Combat

Generals Say Women Should Have to Register for Draft

Military appeals courts confront sexual activity by HIV-positive troops

morgan reese with dog ranger

Morgan Reese with her dog Gunner.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Morgan Reese. Morgan is pro-military, pro-Second Amendment, a crack shot and certified gun smith. She is an avid reader of books, particularly those written by former U.S. military special operators.

Morgan resides in Texas and is a professional model, appearing in numerous publications such as Recoil Magazine.

To learn more about Morgan please visit her Twitter page @MorganReeseXO.

Presidential Candidates ‘Should Oppose Forcing Women to Register for Selective Service’

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Family Research Council Action’s Executive Vice President, released the following statement regarding comments made during Saturday’s presidential debate in which several candidates expressed support for requiring women to register for Selective Service:

“Some of the presidential candidates appear to be espousing the politically correct position that women should be required to register with Selective Service. In supporting this draft registration policy, these candidates demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the imperative for combat effectiveness and of the American people. Ask the question of why America, since the passage of the Selective Service Act, has never required women to register for the military draft. Americans do not want the government to send our daughters into battle against their will, and it is frankly shocking that any Republican candidate for president would not oppose the suggestion in the strongest terms.

“The real issue is whether we should place women in Infantry and Special Operations units where the mission is to close with and destroy the enemy. Removing the restrictions on the types of jobs women may hold means necessarily that some women who are drafted will be involuntarily assigned to units that will be directly engaged in combat with enemy ground forces. Every candidate who wants to earn the trust of the American people should oppose the Obama administration’s policy that is paving the way for requiring our daughters to go to war against their will,” concluded Boykin.

Womans ‘Get off me’ Guns

Guns for women! To give them a solid defense against the dangers of Obama’s new America.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mainstream: Girls with Guns in America

Obama’s Mosque Speech: Missing a ‘Berlin Wall Moment’

U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his first speech from a mosque on February 3. He pushed the Muslim-American community to lead the Muslim world into a better future, but he missed a “tear down this wall” moment by speaking at a mosque with a radical history instead of giving a lift to Muslim reformists who confront Islamism.

Here are three hits and three misses from Obama’s speech in alternating order:

Hit: Using quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Obama simultaneously countered Islamist preaching that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith identity with American patriotism. This is also a strong rebuttal to those that wish to exempt Muslims from constitutional protections simply for their choice of faith. He said:

Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans.  And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.”  (Applause.)

…Benjamin Franklin wrote that “even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”  (Applause.)

Miss: He implied that Muslim terrorists and extremists purposely “twist” Islamic verses to suit their agendas, as if groups like ISIS do not actually believe in the Islam they practice and impose. He said:

“Right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. Part of what’s happened in the Middle East and North Africa and other places where we see sectarian violence is religion being a tool for another agenda—for power, for control.”

By denying the Islamist ideological root of these threats, President Obama removes the obligation from the Muslim world to directly address, debunk and reform Islamic interpretations that are dangerous and strongly-held. He disarms the chief argument of the best Muslim allies, like those in the Muslim Reform Movement.

Hit: Pressuring Muslim leaders to confront anti-Western propaganda, anti-Semitism in Europe and persecution of Christians.

Obama did not call on Muslim leaders to refute Islamism overall but he did directly tell them that they have an obligation to confront anti-Western views that present the U.S. and its allies as an enemy of their faith.  He said:

“Muslim political leaders have to push back on the lie that the West oppresses Muslims, and against conspiracy theories that says America is the cause of every ill in the Middle East. Now, that doesn’t mean Muslim Americans aren’t free to criticize American-U.S. foreign policy. That’s part of being an American.”

“…The fact is, there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault—sometimes by Muslims.”

The Islamists’ constant depiction of the U.S. and its allies as evil, including reflexive bashing of the integrity of law enforcement, acts as a trigger for radicals to become violent jihadists. We need genuinely democratic Muslims around the world to hold Islamist propagandists accountable for their incitements.

Miss: The choice of the Islamic Society of Baltimore as a venue, which he described as “an all-American story.”

The ideological war against Islamism is somewhat like a political campaign. The Muslim reformers need positive press, resources and a platform. By praising the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the president gave a helping hand to the Islamist side of the competition.

The Islamic Society of Baltimore, as documented in this impressive expose by the Investigative Project on Terrorism , has a long history of promoting Islamist extremism including the very same views Obama pushed Muslim leaders to confront.

A Muslim Brotherhood leader from Sudan named Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh served as the imam for a total of 15 years from 1983 to 1989 and 1994 to 2003. He was instrumental in setting up the U.S. branch of the Brotherhood. He also led the radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, was regional director for an al-Qaeda-linked charity and said in 2004 suicide bombings are justifiable if authorized by afatwa and if it’s in a situation where “Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means.”

El-Sheikh signed a letter condemning ISIS, but the letter endorsed the foundational doctrines of ISIS and other Islamist terrorists.

A screenshot from 2000 shows the mosque’s chosen resources for Muslims were radicals, including known supporters of terrorism like Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, Bilal Philips and Jamal Badawi.

Even after El-Sheikh left, the mosque has not been a model for countering Islamist extremism. Its imam preaches against“progressive groups within Muslims” like those that tolerate homosexuals. It has radicals as guest speakers, such as Zaid Shakir in 2008.

The Obama Administration did a better job in selecting the Muslim participants in the preceding roundtable with Obama, but still included Imam Khalid Latif, who was a board member of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2008. The FBI’s official policy prohibits using CAIR as a liaison partner because of evidence linking it to Hamas. The New York chapter has been a particularly radical chapter of CAIR.

Hit: Advising Muslims to respond to negativity by rejecting extremist views and maintaining patriotism.

After ISIS’ attacks in Paris, Clarion Project wrote here and explained on Fox News how the group’s supporters were salivating at the prospect of reprisals against innocent Muslims. ISIS and other jihadists have a separatist view and want Muslims to see democracy as a failed concept for them and to accept Islamism as the alternative.

Obama urged Muslims not to respond to anti-Muslim sentiment by validating these views, decreasing their patriotism or accepting propaganda legitimizing hostility towards the West. He said:

“You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American. (Applause). Don’t grow cynical. Don’t respond to ignorance by embracing a worldview that suggests you must choose between your faith and your patriotism. Don’t believe that you have to choose between your best impulses and somewhat embrace a worldview that pits us against each other—or, even worse, glorifies violence.”

Miss: Failing to endorse or at least include the best Muslim allies for this cause, even if they are less resourced and well known.

Imagine what would have happened if Obama gave global coverage to the declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement, putting them on at least equal footing with the Islamists. Imagine the shiver down the spine of the Islamists who have defamed them essentially as “apostates,” all the while touting their own professed inclusiveness and moderation.

Imagine if Obama used the microphone of the White House to form a common thread between Muslim activists against Islamism everywhere: From Malala Yousefzai to the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who cursed off Islamists promoting separatism in Europe; from the Muslims of the Green Movement who protested against the Iranian regime in 2009 to the Muslims who demonstrated and defeated the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia; from the Muslims in Libya, who asked for U.S. help in their fight against Islamist militias and held pro-American rallies after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, to the Syrian protestors who greeted the American ambassador with cheers, roses and olive branches.

Just outside the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Muslim women protested the mosque for its gender separation and inequality. Asra Nomani wrote a powerful op-ed about Obama’s choice of venue. She pointed out how photos from 2010 showed the “second-class conditions women endure in spaces akin to a ‘penalty box.'”

Imagine what a quick photo-op with the Muslim women would have caused. Think of the attention to their cause and productive dialogue that it would have spurred simply due to a choice by the Obama Administration to be inclusive of Muslim reformers and their progressive agenda.

Watch President Barack Obama’s full speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR Florida

Obama to Visit U.S. Mosque Tied to Extremism

Bill to Designate Brotherhood as Terror Org. Gains Support

CAIR Officials Invited as Guests to State of Union Address

Hillary and Bernie Must ‘Stop Spewing the Gender Pay Gap Myths’

SAN DIEGO, California /PRNewswire/ — The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) calls on Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and all other candidates to be honest about the gender “pay gap.”  Claiming that women “earn less” without explaining why is misleading and dishonest.  The Department of Labor funded a study that showed the pay gap is mostly due to choices, not discrimination.

Before women get married and have kids, they earn the same as men, and are also beneficiaries of quality of life choices that favor health and longevity as reflected by statistics on industrial deaths.  After having kids, women make additional quality of life choices different from males, such as more flexible hours and less managerial positions. Women have more options than men when it comes to being primary parents.  In fact, over half of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.  This is not an option for most men.

Men are either primary breadwinners or on the streets. Consequently, they make the vast majority of homeless adults, job-related deaths, suicides, and incarcerated persons.

Women who were never married and are childless earn more than their male counterparts.  And as corporate executives, women now earn more than men.

NCFM calls on the candidates of both parties to be honest and tell the whole truth about the gender pay gap as well as the many gender inequalities that men face in our society, not just in terms of homelessness, workplace deaths, and suicides but also systematic sex discrimination in child custody, criminal sentencing, public health policies, and more.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN

Operating since 1977, NCFM is the oldest men’s group committed to ending sex discrimination. Throughout our history we have advanced step by step, across three nations, toward our goal of resolving issues which are barriers to progress and freedom. You may quickly realize that you are not alone or that an uncomfortable feeling has been revealingly discussed here. Or you may realize that your insight or skill could dramatically improve our mutual progress. We are not finished. We are a work in progress toward substance, comradeship, and freedom. We are glad that you are here, whether you are seeking help or learning how you can work with us.

Check out our National Advisors , read about our philosophy, make a suggestion, check out our newsletter, join us on FaceBook or come back again and again. We are a select group of serious activists, but we may enjoy your membership and our work could certainly use your support. You may enjoy an event at one of our chapters. You may be interested to know if a chapter is forming in your area. Otherwise there are events at many affiliated organizations.

Learn more about NCFM.

American Muslima: ‘Finally got my Suicide Belt today … to kill non-Muslims’

Alhamdulilah = thanks be to Allah. Kuffars = unbelievers. But don’t be concerned. John Kerry and Marie Harf are going to visit her and offer her a job at Walmart, and she will give up the jihad forthwith, and hey, Richard Chartres has a beard, which should calm her down considerably.

Hizam

“EXCLUSIVE: American Female ISIS Member Brags: ‘Finally Got My Hizam [Suicide Belt] Today,’”MEMRI, January 19, 2016 (thanks to Bob):

On January 19, 2016, an American woman who posted a photo and message on her Telegram channel about possessing a suicide belt. Expressing her desire to use it in a suicide operation, she wrote: “Alhamdulilah finally got my Hizam [belt, i.e. suicide belt] today. May Allah Subhana wa ta’ala grant me the opportunity to use it soon, to grant me the honor to sacrifice myself for Him, for His deen [religion] (To kill the kuffars) [infidels]. May Allah subhana wa ta’ala grant us all shahadah [martyrdom] Ameen.” At the time of this writing, her Telegram channel has 451 members

RELATED ARTICLES:

Female Suicide Bombers

Biden: US & Turkey prepared for “military solution” to take out the Islamic State

Bishop of London: Christian clergymen should grow beards to reach out to Muslims

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Hiba, a 28-year old, mother of five, Suicide Bomber Trainee. Photo: Keith Pounds.

VIDEO: Florida Democrat Wasserman-Schultz defends Muslim raping mannequin – Bill Clinton responds

The below video shows a Muslim man sexually assaulting a mannequin (hat tip to PamelaGeller.com for this breaking news story).

Local sources report the sexual assault occurred after the Muslim rapist couldn’t find a suitable non-Muslim woman to rape.

debbie wasserman schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, FL District 23

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, defended the assault. Wasserman-Schultz said:

It is better to submit and take it like a mannequin, than to resist!

All women can learn a lesson from this mannequin. She was passive throughout the assault and survived the attack without incident.

We will be introducing legislation that will disarm women so that they do not shoot inadvertently a Muslim trying to rape them. With many Syrian Muslims migrants registering as Democrats, every refugee vote will count in November.

The bill will be called the Muslim Mannequin and Fire Arms Protection Act of 2016 HB 69.

According to the Council of American Islamic Relations, “His libido just got the better of him. It is un-Islamic to rape a mannequin. However, it is permitted, under Muslim laws, to rape a Christian or Jew or other non-Muslim. We understand that the mannequin in question was made by Christians. We have asked our Islamic scholars to study this new form of sexual jihad. We will issue further guidance to the American Muslim ummah (community) next week.”

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin based Mondo Mannequins President Bob Rosean in a press release noted:

We are concerned that Muslims are sexually attacking mannequins. We have partnered with the Feminist Majority Foundation to allow those Muslim men thinking of raping a mannequin, who wish to seek help for their sexual addiction, to call a new hotline 1-800-MANIRAPE.

This hotline will have Arabic speakers for those who recently arrived in the United States under President Obama’s Syrian refugee initiative.

We are considering a new line of female mannequins that have fully function sexual organs. We see this incident as a emerging new market in America and Europe. We are looking at a series of mannequins that appear to be under the age of 9-years old. We plan on calling this line “Aisha”, in honor of the underage wife of Mohammed.

We can help reduce rapes of real women by providing mannequins that function as well as or better than real Christians and provide jobs at the same time.

All of our mannequins are proudly made in America.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), which was founded in 1987, notes, “This is new and uncharted territory for our organization. We will do what we can to protect mannequins in Wisconsin and beyond from such assaults.”

Bill Clinton, while in Iowa campaigning for Hillary, stated:

I am sure Hillary will institute a national program for the protection of Muslims who wish to rape mannequins. We cannot allow Islamophobes, such as Donald Trump, to make an issue of this video and call for the banning of Muslims coming to America, the land of milk, honey and mannequins.

I have on occasion been attracted to mannequins. I understand my Muslim brothers pain, especially in their loins.  It is something that must be addressed by our government sooner rather than later.

Hillary understands the plight of Muslims who can’t seem to find enough women to rape. She has first hand knowledge of men who can’t get enough. Who better to address this issue than a President Clinton, I mean Hillary of course?

HRC logoThe Gay Pride, LGBT community and Human Rights Campaign issued a joint statement:

We believe that Muslims who are attracted by the same sex should have gay mannequins to abuse. It is sexist to deny those Muslims who are questioning their sexuality to not have a choice in which mannequins to assault.

We ask that the producers of mannequins consider a gay line for the sexually diverse. We would suggest calling this line “Q”, for obvious reasons.

The Donald Trump campaign issued the following short statement, “You have got to be kidding me? Muslims raping mannequins? Is this the new M&Ms?”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

13-Year-Old Schoolgirl Kidnapped by 3 Muslim Migrants, Raped for 30 Hours

Anti-pedophilia bill quickly rejected in Pakistan; considered ‘anti-Islamic’

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire appeared in Playboy and the Islamic State Inspire magazines.

VIDEO: Muslim ‘Rape Culture’ Threatens European Women

New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany saw an unprecedented number of sexual assaults against German women.  This, of course, is just one example of a trend occurring across Europe after an influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees.

Vienna Police Chief Gerhard Purstl warned, “Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know.”

While Purstl’s advice has been met with backlash, mainly from feminists who reject the initial stance that women should need to be more careful, the question remains, why is this happening?

The origin of these exceedingly violent sexual attacks, known as taharrush–gang gropings and rapes–can be traced back to the Egyptian Revolution, which followed the fall of then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Angie Abdelmonem, a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University, who recently published a study regarding instances of taharrush during the Egyptian Revolution, stated, “Between 2011 and 2013, sexual harassment became common at protests in Tahrir Square, exemplified by a number of highly publicized violent attacks that demonstrate how women’s bodies became objectified and dehumanized during the uprising.”

Egypt has been a hotbed of sexual harassment, usually verbal, for a long time, but something about the uprising and forced resignation of Mubarak sparked the physical and more violent taharrush.

Some analysts believe taharrush to be a product of North-African men, not necessarily Middle-Eastern or Muslim men.  It is unclear why this is the case, except for the fact that North Africa, especially Egypt, is home to a patriarchal society that permits or at least to some extent turns a blind eye to sexual harassment against women.

Since Egyptian society refuses to give women independence from men, it presumably makes it easier for women to be viewed as objects instead of people. This, coupled with the destabilization of the Egyptian government, seem to be the most plausible factors that created the type of environment necessary for this particularly violent kind of sexual assault to manifest.

This is just one filmed example of recent sexual harassment of women in Europe:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syrian Husband Offers Wife’s Rape for Passage to Europe

ISIS May Be Printing Syrian Passports With Seized Machine

ISIS Wants to Carry Out a WMD Attack in Europe

Euro MPs: Don’t Use Border Controls to Fight Terror

VIDEO: Mothers appeal to Women and Girls not to join the Islamic State

The British police force teams up with Muslim mothers in an appeal to Muslim women and girls not to join the Islamic State.

Obama ordered CIA not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran

As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there have now been three large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support — and those three exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.

The three pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013, and the pro-secularism demonstrations in Turkey in recent weeks. There is a common thread between these three that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; in Turkey, they were protesting against the Erdogan regime that is working hard now to establish an Islamic state. All the other demonstrations were not against pro-Sharia forces, but were led by pro-Sharia forces, and led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered — in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.

In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes.

“Nuclear Deal Fuels Iran’s Hard-Liners,” by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2016:

The Obama administration’s nuclear deal was intended to keep Iran from pursuing an atomic bomb, and raised hope in the West that Tehran would be nudged toward a more moderate path.

But there are growing fears in Washington and Europe that the deal—coupled with an escalating conflict with Saudi Arabia—instead risks further entrenching Iran’s hard-line camp.

Since completion of the agreement in July, Tehran security forces, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have stepped up arrests of political opponents in the arts, media and the business community, part of a crackdown aimed at ensuring Mr. Khamenei’s political allies dominate national elections scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Iranian politicians and analysts….

But the ranks of reformists in Iran have been depleted. Many activists are angry at the Obama administration for failing to support them six years ago in a rebuff that hasn’t been previously reported.

Iranian opposition leaders secretly reached out to the White House in the summer of 2009 to gauge Mr. Obama’s support for their “green revolution,” which drew millions of people to protest the allegedly fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The demonstrations caught the White House off guard, said current and former U.S. officials who worked on Iran in the Obama administration.

Some U.S. officials pressed Mr. Obama to publicly back the fledgling Green Movement, arguing in Oval Office meetings that it marked the most important democratic opening since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Mr. Obama wasn’t convinced. “‘Let’s give it a few days,’ was the answer,” said a senior U.S. official present at some of the White House meetings. “It was made clear: ‘We should monitor, but do nothing.’ ”

The president was invested heavily in developing a secret diplomatic outreach to Mr. Khamenei that year, sending two letters to the supreme leader in the months before the disputed election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, said current and former U.S. officials.

Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran—and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement—influenced Mr. Obama’s thinking, current and former U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials said the White House also was getting conflicting messages from Green Movement leaders. Some wanted Mr. Obama to publicly warn Mr. Khamenei against using force. Others said such a declaration would give Iran’s supreme leader an excuse to paint the opposition as American lackeys.

Mr. Obama and his advisers decided to maintain silence in the early days of the 2009 uprising. The Central Intelligence Agency was ordered away from any covert work to support the Green Movement either inside Iran or overseas, said current and former U.S. officials involved in the discussions.

“If you were working on the nuclear deal, you were saying, ‘Don’t do too much,’ ” said Michael McFaul, who served as a senior National Security Council official at the White House before becoming ambassador to Russia in 2012.

After a week of demonstrations, Iran’s security forces went on to kill as many as 150 people and jail thousands of others over the following months, according to opposition and human rights groups. Mr. Khamenei accused the U.S. of instigating the uprising. Iran denied killing protesters.

Some of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , said in retrospect the U.S. should have backed the Green Movement. “If we could do it again, I would give different counsel,” said Dennis Ross, Mr. Obama’s top Mideast adviser during his first term. At the time, he said, he argued against embracing the protests.

A senior U.S. official said this week that the Obama administration argued against covert support for the Green Movement because it risked undermining its credibility domestically, not out of fear of Mr. Khamenei’s reaction. “We did not want to tar the movement,” the official said.

Mr. Obama pursued nuclear diplomacy with Iran using a two-track approach: ratcheting up economic sanctions while leaving the door open for direct negotiations.

Over the next four years, international sanctions cut Iran’s oil exports in half, and the value of its currency, the rial, dropped by two-thirds. The U.S. also succeeded in shutting off most of Iran’s financial institutions from the global economy, including Iran’s central bank.

In 2012, the White House, working through Omani intermediaries, set up the first direct talks with Iran. A year later, Mr. Rouhani was elected, and the negotiations moved more quickly toward an agreement.

Mr. Obama’s advisers said the White House’s cautious handling of Iran’s political opposition was the best course in 2009. The Green Movement wasn’t unified, they said, and didn’t have much of a chance to overthrow the regime.

Former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who led the protests, remain under house arrest in Tehran, despite pledges by Mr. Rouhani to release them. Thousands of student leaders and democracy activists who took to the streets six years ago were exiled to Turkey, Europe and the U.S., fearing arrest if they return home.

At a recent oil conference in Tehran, Mr. Rouhani’s energy minister, Bijan Zanganeh, answered questions about oil production and job promotion in the wake of the nuclear agreement. When pressed about the status of political prisoners, which include Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi, he didn’t answer and instead jumped into a waiting SUV.

“A historic opportunity was missed” six years ago, said former Green Movement leader Heshmat Tabarzadi in an interview via Skype in Tehran. He has served intermittent jail terms there since 2009.

“There isn’t much of a Green Movement left,” he said.

RELATED VIDEO: Neda Agha Soltan, killed 20.06.2009, Presidential Election Protest, Tehran, IRAN

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cologne Muslim sex assaults were planned, Muslims traveled from France and Belgium to join them

UK government helps immigrants quash convictions for illegal entry into the country

Cologne Sex Assaults planned: Muslims traveled from France and Belgium to rape women

“Cologne violence was likely planned: German justice minister,” Agence France-Presse, January 10, 2016 (thanks to Bob):

BERLIN: Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas said Sunday that the shocking spate of sexual assaults during New Year festivities in Cologne was organised.

“For such a horde of people to meet and commit such crimes, it has to have been planned somehow,” he told Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

“No one can tell me that this was not coordinated or planned. The suspicion is that a specific date and an expected crowd was picked,” he said, adding that if confirmed, that would “take on a new dimension”.

Quoting confidential police reports, Bild am Sonntag said some North Africans had sent out calls using social networks for people to gather in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

Young men not only from Cologne, but as far as France and Belgium responded to the call to travel to the western German city, the newspaper said.

Cologne police said they have now recorded 379 cases of New Year’s Eve violence — ranging from groping to theft to two reported rapes — with asylum seekers and illegal migrants from North Africa making up the majority of suspects.

The allegations have stoked criticism of Merkel’s liberal open-door policy — which brought 1.1 million new asylum seekers to Germany last year.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German government predicts another million migrants in 2016

Obama ordered CIA not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran because he wanted to court Khamenei

Read the Islamic State’s Rules for Rape

Islamic State theologians have issued detailed rulings on who can rape sex slaves and when in a detailed fatwa.

The fatwa was seized by the U.S. military as part of a trove of documents captured earlier this year in a raid that killed Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) financial officer Abu Sayyaf in May. Reuters has been running exposes on some of the documents seized in the raid, including this fatwa.

Fatwa No. 64, dated Jan. 29, 2015, issued by Islamic State’s Committee of Research and Fatwas is structured as warnings to “some of the brothers” who “have committed violations in the matter of the treatment of the female slaves” which ISIS feels “are not permitted by Sharia law.”

To avoid future misunderstandings the fatwa department codifies the rules of sexual slavery thus:

  • A slave owner cannot have intercourse (rape) his female-slave if she is pregnant or menstruating.
  • He may not rape both a mother and daughter if he owns both women.
  • He may not rape two sisters if he owns both – he must choose only one. If he sells one however, the other becomes permitted.
  • A son may not rape the slave of his father, nor the father the slave of his son. Neither may a husband rape his wife’s slave. Selling or giving away the girl changes this.
  • A slave owner is not allowed to abort a fetus of his slave impregnated by  him.

There are also injunctions to treat slaves well:

  • The owner of a female captive should show compassion towards her, be kind to her, not humiliate her, and not assign her work she is unable to perform.

For an organization infamous for its draconian approach to crime and punishment, specific penalties for breaches of these rules are conspicuous by their absence.

Another pamphlet, translated by scholar and Islamic State expert Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, lays out the sharia basis for taking captives in war, including sex-slaves, providing instruction on who fighters are allowed to capture and enslave.

“For the disbelievers who have no pact of the dhimmi, ceasefire or security between them and the Muslims, the principle regarding them is that their blood and property are free for pillage if they do not convert to Islam or pay the jizya and enter under the rule of Shari’a” the pamphlet reads.

“In this regard their women and offspring may be taken captive.”

The pamphlet stipulates that it is not permissible to rape female captives until they are confirmed as slaves, since the imam (caliph) may decide to either release or ransom them. Only non-Muslims may be taken as captives, and of those, not Jews and Christians who have agreed to submit to the caliphate under a pact of dhimma.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Unseen Islamic State Pamphlet on Slavery

Beyond ISIS: Top 5 Terror Threats of 2016

Saudi Grand Mufti: Islamic State are Really Israeli Soldiers

ISIS Mutilates, Kills Woman for Breast Feeding ‘in Public’

Islamic State Blows Up Four-Year-Old Child After Executing Father

Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

In FrontPage today I explain how lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech:

clinton-oic

December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”

Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.

And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!

Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt: Salafi party bans Muslims from greeting Christians during Christmas

Hugh Fitzgerald: The “Ask A Muslim” Girl