69 million page views
You're invited: Join Daniel Pipes & MEF on a fact-finding mission
to Poland, Hungary & Austria. For more information, click here

The Inhumanity of Covering One's Faces

Reader comment on item: The SPLC Finds Niqabs and Kippahs Equally Threatening

Submitted by Robert (United States), Dec 11, 2016 at 05:28

Dear Daniel Pipes,

I'm rather surprised that
no popular movement exists on ant-Sexism grounds,
or on Human Rights grounds,
which criticizes this religious practice.

There has been research of the significance of face recognition by infants.
As I recollect from my undergraduate studies days
a baby is born with the capacity to recognize her mothers face.
According a woman who covers her face in public is inhuman.
The face is not a sexual body part except in Wahhabi or Salafi denominations.

Religious freedom is a license to do what one wants under that banner.
Torturing an animal under the claim that it if a religious ritual is illegal in most civilized jurisdictions.
Similarly, a religious culture which brainwashes its women to cover their faces in public
should be discouraged on the grounds that it is uncivilized and sexist.
Why aren't Muslim men walking around in public covering their faces?
Even forcing women, through religious indoctrination to cover their hair is sexist.
Feminists should voice this protest most vocally, especial fellow Sisters.

As we are intolerant of Suicide Bombing, we should discriminate against families
which migrate to any Western country from any other country
when their adult women or trier minor girls cover their faces on the grounds of "modesty."
Doing otherwise is a step backwards in the march of Civilization;
incidentally, the loss of this noun to the realm of Political Incorrectness
is due to the backward phenomena of Multiculturalism.

To single out for discrimination a handful of families
and prohibit them from seeking asylum in the West is one thing, and would be unfair.
However, to flood Europe with millions of burqa clad women (I would like to say "broads") is another.
Women in bikinis would be banned from immigrating to Saudi Arabia, for example,
if not executed as non-Muslims.

How do we raise the awareness, or conscious, of cultures which breed this kind of anti-women culture?
The answer calls for creativity, without crossing the line to illegality.
Should such adult women be insulted, discriminated against?
Yes - but within the limits of the law;
a woman who covers her face in public denies her humanity to the Other,
Accordingly, she should receive a similar dose in kind.
But it is extremely difficult to figure out how to respond to her
without going over into the realm of Criminal Conduct, a a violation of her Civil Rights.
Here's an example: posting a sign in a restaurant or apartment complex:
"Burqa Clad Women Unwelcome."
Perhaps such women also need to be confronted with Dialogues (a Chinese Communist notion)
encouraging here to defend her Dehumanizing activity
Under the Color of Religious Freedom, or Feminine Modesty.

In summary, we must find ways to discombobulate such adult clad women,
without ourselves going over into criminal conduct,
or overdoing a response that would constitute a violation of her Civil Rights.
In the United States Religious Liberty it appears
can be used to set back women in their struggle for equality.
Imagine, if you can, a Woman President of the United States - in a Burqa!


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (17) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
3Nikabs are fine but the word "bacon" shouldn't be publically visible? [79 words]AnonApr 29, 2017 19:19238890
People in the West don't actually want any immigrants [264 words]NadiaMay 1, 2017 11:59238890
Ambassador Dermer defends you against SLPC [1 words]PezDispenserDec 15, 2016 10:28234700
The Inhumanity of Covering One's Faces [511 words]RobertDec 11, 2016 05:28234632
2SPLC and Dr Bill Warner [89 words]dhimmi no moreNov 8, 2016 13:28233880
4The pope might object to banning the kippah, seeing as he wears one [37 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
AnonNov 7, 2016 22:37233856
So Niqab and Kippah are equally threatening [27 words]PrashantNov 7, 2016 21:44233855
One VS three!! [25 words]stevenlNov 6, 2016 21:32233835
1The hypocrite Majid Nawaz and SPLC [111 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
dhimmi no moreNov 6, 2016 13:07233824
1Bill Warner, PhD: The Political Side of Hijabs‬ [20 words]Robin RosenblattNov 6, 2016 12:50233821
The SPLC Finds Niqabs and Kippahs Equally Threatening [184 words]Bill NarveyNov 6, 2016 11:08233820
1The Real Reason for islamic Public Displays of Dress and Praying [306 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Domenic PepeNov 6, 2016 10:53233819
Minutes of SPLC Committee For Public Safety [236 words]DaveNov 6, 2016 10:27233818
Vive la Trance! [36 words]Michael SNov 8, 2016 00:18233818
Hijab, Burqa and Burkini [817 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Iftikhar AhmadNov 6, 2016 07:05233817
But she plucks her eyebrows! Not very Islamic [83 words]dhimmi no moreNov 8, 2016 11:38233817
Something Psychotic [114 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Michael SNov 6, 2016 04:18233813

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to The Inhumanity of Covering One's Faces by Robert

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2018 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)