Must the veil be banned: The Danish case
10 Jun, 2008
In the Danish case, the controversy seems to stem from the fact
that a racist party is behind this law and anti-Muslim sentiments
are being provoked in support of the legislation. This has made some
progressive and secularist individuals and organisations uneasy to
support the law openly, from the fear of being associated with
racism and xenophobia. This is a credible dilemma. While I
sympathise with the reason behind this reluctance, I like to argue
that the left and progressive people and organisations must put
forward their own anti religious agenda. Defence of women's rights,
children's rights, freedom of expression and criticism and
secularism are very basic and important principles that must not
fall hostage to our fear of racism. Islamists have taken our
anti-racist sentiments hostage for long. We can and must fight
against racism and at the same time uphold women's rights, children
rights, freedom of expression and criticism and secularism. It is
not racist to criticize Islam, to expose its misogynic and brutal
nature and to demand the ban on the veil in certain circumstances.
Here I would like to look at the veil more closely, and defend the
banning of the veil in some circumstances. Is the veil only a
religious symbol? Do religion and the right to practice it take
precedence over any other laws, e.g. women's rights and children's
rights or the secularist principles?
In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake:
Individual freedom to practice one's religion, freedom of choice,
freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular
community, that is, the so-called Muslim community. Islamists and
some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Muslim
community is being stigmatized and have been under racist attack
since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban
burke or the nighab is a violation of individual freedom and another
racist attack on Muslims. Let's examine these issues closer.
In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or
shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious.
It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern
civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the
veil, one comes, at best, in collision with other set of rights,
i.e. children's rights, women's rights, societal rights, and the
principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing
the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration.
1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil
and 3. Where the veil is worn.
Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?
First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is
it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that
classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading.
The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover,
nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political
movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of
Islamic power. Wherever, Islamists gain power, they force the veil
on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.
Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued
that irrespective of its religious or political character and
significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious
symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many
others', to this is a categorical NO. It must be said that in most
countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress
codes at workplaces and wearing different political symbols or
religious ones are not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil
must also be viewed in this light. We should tear off all this
romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious
and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and
deprives women.
The veil as a symbol of women's subjugation
The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women's subjugation.
Islam, as in fact, all other religions, is a misogynist ideology.
Islam is a direct product of sheer patriarchy. Islam, particularly,
due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of
private and social lives of men and women. A woman, according to
Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an
independent identity and is defined by her master. The veil has been
prescribed to hide men's property from potential violators. A “free”
woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target, a
free ride.
It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress
style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really
functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a
symbol of servitude and subjugation.
Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of
servitude, one should be free to do so. The modern civil society has
a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society
when safeguarding human rights, children's rights or women's rights
there are laws limiting an individual's right to harm oneself or to
deprive oneself of certain rights and privileges. By the same token,
there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This
is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those
above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.
Veil must be banned for underage girls
One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the
recognition of society's responsibility to safeguard children from
any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for a child's
safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development.
Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving
individuals to establish the concept of children's rights, to
recognise a child as an individual and not the property of their
parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the
essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property
of the father or grandfather and they even have the right to take
the child's life. Therefore, some laws which defend rights of
children and give the state the power to remove a child from their
home, if it can be established that the child is being abused,
contradict basic religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify
certain religious or “divine” rights. This modern achievement must
be extended to girls living in Islamic communities.
The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their
physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of
the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It
assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender
and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is
duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of
these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of
choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls.
“A child has no religion”. It is the parents' religion that is
imposed on the child. The society must respect the child's right to
a free development. Just the same way that modern society recognises
the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child
labour and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it
must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all
international children's rights charters. The veil is a physical,
mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such
by the international community.
Secular society versus the veil
In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any
individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away
from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend
individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held
belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be
avoided in a secular society. In a secular society wearing or
carrying any religious symbols at state institutions and in the
place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and
the educational system do not promote any particular religion.
Religion remains in the private sphere and clashes between followers
of different religions is somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe
that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of
wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is
an appropriate step in the right direction.
However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl's fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the rights of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.
Burke or the nighab, an individual right or a societal right?
The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a
robe-like loose garment that covers the woman's whole body (it looks
some what different in different countries, or according to
different Islamic sect's rules) and finally the burke or the nighab.
Burke has become known as the symbol of Taliban, the most severe
restriction imposed on women's appearance.
Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe
form of the veil? In my opinion: NO. The banning of burke or the
nighab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2)
the women's right.
Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with burke or the nighab, we
surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere
of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil
has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot
work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace,
it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the face
of their colleagues or the personnel. There is also the issue of
trust at stake. You can not trust the person who has covered their
face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication, if
you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore,
wearing burkes or the nighab must be banned at the workplace.
I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further
than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park,
in the recreation ground, etc, that you can see the face of the
person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of
individual rights versus the societal rights. There are instances
where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals
of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For
example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe
restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers,
but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole
society. Burke or the nighab must be banned for the benefit of
society.
Secondly, we argued above, that the veil is a symbol and a tool
for women's subjugation and degradation. This is one of the main
reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls.
Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the
right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we
also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on
self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which
after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice
really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many
Western governments. Women rights activists had to fight vigorously
in order to bring consciousness about this brutal religious practice
and succeeded to ban it in these countries. There are many different
religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the
law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice
just any religious command or custom.
I believe that burke or the nighab should also be categorized as
those religious practices prohibited by the law. Burke or the nighab
deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise
the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a
ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. The
society should not permit such degree of degradation and humiliation
of humans. This is outrageous. This must fall under the category of
the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in
passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice
regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will
not get into this debate here.
We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls. The use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions and total ban on burke and the nighab.
- Name: nudity is fine , but hijab is a problem, the Satan has them under it's thumb.
- Date: Monday June 09, 2008
- Time: 14:32:46 -0700
Comment
Modesty Gone Berserk-The Veil Controversy The 7th grade textbook, History Alive! the Medieval World and Beyond, has an excruciatingly long chapter on "The Teachings of Islam". Sharia law comes under the First "Pillar" of this deadly religious ideology. Page 102 states "....the Quran tells women to 'not display their beauty'. For this reason, Muslim women usually wear different forms of modest dress. Most women cover their arms and legs. Many also wear scarves over the hair". Unfortunately, the reality of what Muslim women are FORCED to wear belies this sanitized form of Muslim piety. [admin note; after wearing one of these burqas at a 2-hour demonstration, one of the CFTIE members can attest to its impersonalization, uncomfortable closeness on the eyes making it hard to blink and an inability to see clearly-especially when the sunlight hits the mesh eye panel.] The Weekly Standard just published an article by Olivier Guitta, a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant in Washington, concerning "the veil". We post it here to correct the false impression given in the textbook and advance the truth about Islam. IN 1989, the first hijab incident in Europe took place in Creil, a suburb of Paris, when three high school girls tried to go to class wearing the Islamic headscarf. The students were expelled. Fifteen years later, with the hijab spreading fast among Muslims in France, the government formally banned the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. At the time, most European countries criticized French "intolerance" and deemed the issue a uniquely Gallic problem. But it wasn't. Today most European countries--and a number of Muslim countries--are debating what to do about this increasingly problematic sign of Islamization. The British were among the most vocal critics of the French ban--back when they were still quite pleased with their own multicultural model. But on October 5, ex-foreign minister Jack Straw revealed that he regularly asked women who came to see him wearing face veils to take them off. Straw pointed out that veils are bad for community relations, and Prime Minister Blair added that the veil is a "mark of separation." This debate coincided with the decision of a British principal to fire an assistant teacher who refused to remove her full-face veil, or niqab, while teaching. Joining the fray was author Salman Rushdie, whose elegant contribution was the statement, "Veils suck." Tensions are rising, fueled by accusations of Islamophobia from some Muslim officials. There is fear that race riots could break out in some British suburbs. Then there is Germany, where four states have barred public school teachers from wearing the hijab.Some brave female politicians born in Turkey spoke out on the issue in an October 15 interview with Bild am Sonntag. One of them, Ekin Deligoz, a Green party member of parliament, advised fellow Muslim women: "You live here, so take off the headscarf." She added that the headscarf is a symbol of female oppression. Because of her comments, Deligoz has received death threats and is now under police protection. Finally, in Italy, where the niqab is banned, the controversy has reached new heights since the broadcast of a heated exchange on a television talk show. Right-wing member of parliament Daniela Santanche clashed with the imam of a mosque near Milan, Ali Abu Shwaima. Said Santanche: "The veil isn't a religious symbol and it isn't prescribed by the Koran." Retorted Shwaima: "The veil is an obligation required by God. Those who do not believe that are not Muslims. You're ignorant, you're false. You sow hatred, you're an infidel." Coming from an imam, this rant carried almost the weight of a fatwa, or religious edict, in certain quarters, where it could be seen as a death sentence. Santanche has been given 24-hour police protection. She says she is speaking out because Muslim women forced to wear the veil have asked her to. She told the Sunday Times, "It's time to turn our backs on the politically correct. It's a question not of religion but of human rights." And not only in Europe. Muslim countries are not immune to the controversy over the veil. In Egypt--where some 80 percent of women are now veiled, according to sociologist Mona Abaza--the dean of Helwan University has recently expelled female students for wearing the niqab. Interestingly, Soad Saleh, a former dean of the female faculty and Islamic law professor at the most prestigious Islamic university in the world, Cairo's Al-Azhar, confirmed that the niqab is not an obligation. Gamal al-Banna, brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, goes further: "Neither the Koran, nor the hadith require women to wear a headscarf." But the country whose government is currently going after the hijab most vigorously is Tunisia. The wearing of the hijab has been spreading rapidly in Tunisian towns, prompting President Ben Ali recently to reactivate a 1981 decree banning the wearing of the hijab in government offices, schools, universities, and public places in general. His government views the hijab as one more sign of the unwelcome but growing influence of Islamists in Tunisian society. This past Ramadan, in a reversal of the standard pattern for Muslim religious police, Tunisian police were seen tearing headscarves off women in the streets. The authorities consider the hijab unacceptable in a country that enshrined women's rights as long ago as 1956, with the banning of repudiation (male-initiated casual divorce), polygamy, forced marriage, and the granting of women's rights to vote and sue for divorce. Ben Ali sees women "as a solid defense against the regressive forces of fanaticism and extremism." Interestingly, the Tunisian author and feminist Samia Labidi, president of A.I.M.E., an organization fighting the Islamists, recounts that she personally started wearing the veil before puberty, after Islamists told her the hijab would be a passport to a new life, to emancipation. After a few years, she realized she had been fooled and that the veil made her feel like she was "living in a prison." At first, she could not bring herself to stop wearing it because of the constant psychological pressure. But the 1981 ban on the hijab in public places forced her to remove it, and she did so for good. Labidi's experience suggests that in both Tunisia and France the recent banning of the hijab has actually helped Muslim women who are subject to Islamist indoctrination. For Islamists, the imperative to veil women justifies almost any means. Sometimes they try to buy off resistance. Some French Muslim families, for instance, are paid 500 euros (around $600) per quarter by extremist Muslim organizations just to have their daughters wear the hijab. This has also happened in the United States. Indeed, the famous and brave Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan recently told the Jerusalem Post that after she moved to the United States in 1991, Saudis offered her $1,500 a month to cover her head and attend a mosque. But what Islamists use most is intimidation. A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. A series in the newspaper Libération in 2003 documented how Muslim women and girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab are insulted, rejected, and often physically threatened by Muslim males. One of the teenage girls interviewed said, "Every day, bearded men come to me and advise me strongly on wearing the veil. It is a war. For now, there are no dead, but there are looks and words that do kill." Muslim women who try to rebel are considered "whores" and treated as outcasts. Some of them want to move to areas "with no Muslims" to escape. However, that might not be a solution, as Islamists are at work all over France. The Communist newspaper L'Humanité in 2003 interviewed two Catholic-born French women who said they had converted to Islam and started wearing the niqab after systematic indoctrination by the Muslim Brotherhood. In light of this, wearing the hijab may or may not be a manifestation of the free exercise of religion. For any individual, it may reflect the very opposite--religious coercion. In fact, millions of women are forced to wear the veil for fear of physical retribution. And the fear is well founded. According to Cheryl Benard of RAND, every year hundreds of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan alone are killed, have acid thrown in their faces, or are otherwise maimed by male fanatics. Given the Islamists' ferocious determination on this point, it is worth asking: Why exactly is covering the female so important to them? The obvious answer is that it is a means of social control. Not coincidentally, it is one of the only issues on which Sunni and Shia extremists agree. It's not by chance that use of the hijab really took off after Iran's Islamic regime came to power in 1979. Some Shiite militias in Iraq have actually started forcing women--Muslim or not--to wear the veil or face the consequences. If this issue were not vital for Islamists, how can one explain their reaction when France banned the hijab in public schools? Al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, "strongly condemned" President Chirac's decision and threatened actions against France. Likewise, Sheikh Fadlallah, founder and spiritual leader of Hezbollah, wrote to Chirac threatening "likely complications" for France. Mohammad Khatami, former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, called on the French government to "cancel this unjust law." Commenting recently on the veil and the Islamists' strategy, Professor Iqbal Al-Gharbi, from the famous Islamic Zaytouna University in Tunis, explained: "The veil is just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the veil, there is the regressive interpretation of the sharia [Koranic law]. There are the three essential inequalities which define this interpretation: inequality between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, between free man and slave." "Islam is the solution" is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, the real solution to the veil problem in Europe and in modern countries elsewhere is the defeat of radical Islam, making possible the peaceful integration of normal Muslims into Western societies on Western terms. [Admin note-based on Quranic male domination and female inequality "revealed by "Allah" , CFTIE does not believe a peaceful integration of "normal" Muslims could ever exist for very long in Western societies.
- Name: NUDITY IS NATURAL HIJAB IS UNNATURAL
- Date: Monday June 09, 2008
- Time: 23:37:55 -0700
Comment
MAN IS NOT CREATED BY SOME IMAGINARY DEITY/ALLAH BUT EVOLED BY NATURE AND MOVED FROM AFRICA TO THE WORLD,PROOF IS IN OUR DNA.SO NUDITY IS NATURAL,HIJAB IS UNNATURAL,HIJAB IS ARAB SOCIETY BACKWARDNESS WORK,NUDITY IS WORK OF TRUE GOD WHO EVOLED MAN-NATURE.JEWS CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS R THE WOPRST OF ALL MANKIND,AND JUDEO CHRISTIANITY ISLAM MUST BE DESTROYED ELSE NUKE WORLD WAR 3 WILL COME SOON.
- Name: The Qur'an has been falsified???
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 02:47:45 -0700
Comment
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35231
- Name: tanstaafl
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 06:02:22 -0700
Comment
Why do Muslim women have to wear the veil? Once upon a time, the prophet (BBOH) had a bevy of teenage brides. Since the prophet was in his fifties, he was jealous of all the young men in his movement. Hence the veil. Now the veil is a political statement from a political movement calling for the degradation of women.
- Name: wearing veil is humliation to civilsed society
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 09:55:19 -0700
Comment
wearing veil is humliation to civilsed society.Now citezens of world are not barbarian arabs of 7th century ,who can not tolerate by seing the woman and rape them.Muslims cant not develop and rationalise .
- Name:
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 10:02:41 -0700
Comment
I think wearing the veil or any religious symbol is a basic human right. They should only be banned for health or security reasons. Yes, I know the veil is mysoginistic but if a woman chooses to wear it, that's her business. I'm more interested in ensuring her right not to wear it should she choose not to.
- Name: The quran has been falsified??
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 10:53:44 -0700
Comment
Yes, they don't realise it but they made a very good job of it. Here is the quran justified: "The quran says the quran is the revelation from God. Therefore the quran is the revelation from God!"
- Name: WELL , YOU CAN KEEP YOUR,S UNVEILED ,
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 11:34:15 -0700
Comment
How often does sexual assault occur? In 2006, there were 272,350 victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. (These figures do not include victims 12 years old or younger.) Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted. Here's the math. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey — the country's largest and most reliable crime study — there were 272,350 sexual assaults in 2006 (the most recent data available). There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year. That makes 31,536,000 seconds/year. So, 31,536,00 divided by 272,350 comes out to 1 sexual assault every 116 seconds, or about 1 every 2 minutes. Every 2 Minutes Calculation Sexual Assault vs. Rape Notice that we said 1 sexual assault, not 1 rape. Sexual assault is a broader category that the Justice Department uses to classify rape, attempted rape, and other violent felonies that fall short of rape. Rape is defined as forced vaginal, oral, or anal penetration. In 2005, there were approximately 200,780 sexual assaults. Of these, 64,080 were completed rapes. So if you want a figure that covers only rapes, divide 31,536,000 by 64,080. That comes out to 1 rape ever 492 seconds or 1 rape every 8 minutes. The Unvictims Sexual Assault has decreased by 60% Sexual assault has fallen by more than 60% in recent years. Had the 1993 rate held steady, 6.8 million Americans would have been assaulted in the last 13 years. But, thanks to the decline, the actual number of victims was about 4.2 million. In other words, if not for the historic gains we've made in the last decade, an additional 2,546,420 Americans would have become victims of sexual violence. References
- Name: NO THANKS YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PERFACT SOCIATY.
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 11:36:57 -0700
Comment
Women 1in6 graphic 1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). 17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape. 9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. While about 80% of all victims are white, minorities are somewhat more likely to be attacked. Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women by race: * All women: 17.6% * White women: 17.7% * Black women: 18.8% * Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8% * American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1% * Mixed race women: 24.4% Men About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. * In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male. * 2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape. Children 15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12. * 29% are age 12-17. * 44% are under age 18. * 80% are under age 30. * 12-34 are the highest risk years. * Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. 7% of girls in grades 5-8 and 12% of girls in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused. * 3% of boys grades 5-8 and 5% of boys in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused. In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse. * Of these, 75% were girls. * Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7. 93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker. * 34.2% of attackers were family members. * 58.7% were acquaintances. * Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim. Effects of Rape Victims of sexual assault are: 3 times more likely to suffer from depression. 6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. 13 times more likely to abuse alcohol. 26 times more likely to abuse drugs. 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide. Pregnancies Resulting from Rape In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period. This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies: * Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy. * Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy. * Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection. * Vicims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons. This calculation does not account for the following factors which could raise the actual number of pregnancies: * Medical estimates of a 5% pregnancy rate are for one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse. Some victimizations may include multiple incidents of intercourse. * Because of methodology, NCVS does not measure the victimization of Americans age 12 or younger. Rapes of these young people could results in pregnancies not accounted for in RAINN's estimates.
- Name: Adam
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 11:41:19 -0700
Comment
Yes , i agree with the person above , when you point a finger at someone ,d0 not forget there are three pointing at yourself,it is time we paid attention to our women folk , and give them respect .
- Name: To Veil or to Unveil - this is the question!
- Date: Tuesday June 10, 2008
- Time: 13:55:04 -0700
Comment
It is so obvious. Islam regards humans as wild animals. Are we? No. Thus, there is no need for a veil. Forget islam. Islam is wrong and not good for anything.
- Name:
- Date: Wednesday June 11, 2008
- Time: 02:51:03 -0700
Comment
-why veil women? Islamist see women just as waiting to be raped - it is always there in their minds - women means sex and sex-orgies unlimited. No wonder they conjure up a 'paradise' with 72 regenerating 'virgins' for an eternal rrrrrraaaaape! So you can't expect civilized behaviour and respect for women from these base beasts created by the ideals of their super-rapist and child-molester-cum rapist Muhamad the world's most unholy 'prophet'!
- Name: vbv
- Date: Thursday June 12, 2008
- Time: 02:55:20 -0700
Comment
Why muslim women are forced to veil themselves? The answer is that the founder of islam was the greatest lecher and his 'holy' book is founded on lechery! An average muslim is deeply indoctrinated in the ways of this cult that he sees women as just game for sex/rape! After all she has to produce "$ male witnesses" to prove her rape , or else she will be flogged with 100 lashes from a whip of a zealous islamic 'religious police' or may be condemned to death by public stoning - some justice ,heh? Sheer savage ,uncouth barbarianism! Nothing less! What do you expect the petrified women to do under these circumstances than shove herself in an uncomfortable sack they call 'burqah' ,or whatever! That is why countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran, Pakistan( where they practice mass-honour-raping under the tribal justice system!), Bangladesh,etc show less incidence of 'reported rape cases' , simply because they virtually go unreported! In these countries , all a man /men have to do is rape the woman they want and threaten her with dire consequences of the barbaric "sharia"law/court! That is Muhamad and his fake Allah's sense of justice and "holy god-given law"! You can see women in islamic country do not have a choice with such barbarians!
- Name: vbv
- Date: Thursday June 12, 2008
- Time: 03:27:06 -0700
Comment
I read the news that muslim women go to hospitals/clinics in Europe,India, USA , etc to under 'hymenoplasty' , a surgical procedure to restore their "virginity" or their life is danger! Veil or no veil ,how many muslim women are truly virgins to inflate the egos of their foolish muslim men? In Indonesia the percentage of pre-marital abortion is the highest among the muslim women comparedto others. Some "religion" and some "morals" , no thicker than their skins and hypocrisy! You won't find such a paradox in free society - after all morality is not a badge you wear on your chest , but comes out of good culture and good thinking, which islam is not and can never be with an example set by their lecherous,violent,barbaric founder Muhamad! - alife full of plunders,murders,child-molestations and rapes!
- Name: DH
- Date: Thursday June 12, 2008
- Time: 06:49:43 -0700
Comment
Quite apart from the need to protect individual women who do not wish to wear it from those who would force it on them (fathers, brothers, husbands....), the Islamic veil, where worn out of choice, is a symbolic endorsement of the contents of the Koran. Those of us non-Muslims who are aware of the vilification and violence directed against us in that book of lies are therefore bound to find Islamic dress of any variety insulting and threatening. Rather like the KKK outfit vis a vis black people and swastikas vis a vis Jews. I can see no problem, therefore, in banning it.
- Name: Tarik
- Date: Saturday June 14, 2008
- Time: 20:32:46 -0700
Comment
I am from Denmark, and I am basically a "Muslim atheist" (pardon me the oxymoron). But what you ascribe to the veil, from being a banner of radical Islamism to a symbol of women's submisision, is simply NOT the reality of millions of girls, often half-Westernised, whom I have met. You may rest assured that they are not taking any abuse or even bossiness from any man! Many of them are ambitious career girls, with no radical political leanings at all! Why do you want to make their life harder? If they accept your choices, why can you not accept theirs? I found your whole argument disturbingly illiberal. Do you want to ban Muslims from bringing up their own children too? I think that to ban an "alleged symbol" according to your own interpretation (far-fetched or not) will only produce an undesirable backlash, as it panders to the worst Muslim paranoia. You need to relax. If for nothing else, then for strategic reasons!
- Name: George
- Date: Sunday June 15, 2008
- Time: 16:54:02 -0700
Comment
Yes there is female foeticide among the poorer sections of indian society but there steps being taken to correct that crime. But india is a vast country. Women in india have better status than women in islamic societies. For crying out loud , women in saudi arabia cannot drive cars. In india they can. In islamic society a womens witness is worth half that of a man. A man can divorce his wife by just saying talaq three times. The women in islamic countries find it very difficult to divorce their husbands even if they are being battered. The list of discrimination goes on and on. Muhamed says most of the people in hell are women. The absurdness of this religion is astounding.
- Name: vbv
- Date: Monday June 16, 2008
- Time: 00:04:02 -0700
Comment
To 'vbv have you any shame...' Well you are right there are cases of women abuses in India - anyone should be ashamed of. But unlike islam such discrimination does not get religious sanction . In islam women 'are your tilth :go unto them when youwill' that's what Quran says. A woman's witness is half of a man in any case,a women gets raped should produce 4 male witness or else she may be flogged or may be even stoned to death accused of adultery or fornication! In India we have secular laws and courts which mete out proper justice to all women regardless of caste/creed. Can you say the same for islamic countries , where courts always favour muslims and heavily biased against 'kaffirs'? The infidels are not even considered worthy oftheir individual freedom to practice their 'religion' or simply be atheist! In this very website , have you seen the brutal treatment meted out to coptic christians in Egypt. What about the relentless persecution of Bahais and other minorities in Iran? So who should be more ashamed you or me?
- Name: even with or with out
- Date: Monday June 16, 2008
- Time: 11:51:46 -0700
Comment
Even with or without the veil, women are raped by strangers and family memebers. And they cannot say a damn thing because THEY (the women) are the ones to be punished. It doesn't matter if they are covered from head to foot and no piece of skin is seen (which is really bad because there is no sunlight and no vitamin D coming in from the sun), women are still beaten and raped.
- Name: DH
- Date: Tuesday June 17, 2008
- Time: 05:21:05 -0700
Comment
Tarik. Why would these "ambitious career girls" with allegedly "no political leanings" CHOOSE to wear hijab in a country where it is not enforced by state power?
- Name: ha ha ha ....
- Date: Wednesday June 18, 2008
- Time: 01:55:19 -0700
Comment
The veil used by Moslem women. If they wish to wear it, and the country they live banned them from using it, why don't they go to islamic countries where they permitted to wear it? Just don't force any other nation to receive this veil custom. It is the custom made by a barbaric Bedouin in the 7th century. Why should we follow it now? God made women with their beauty, why should she cover it with veils?
- Name:
- Date: Thursday June 19, 2008
- Time: 13:31:48 -0700
Comment
According to muslims on this site people in the west have loose morals and the west is depraved and decadent. Why then do muslims still arrive in these countries in large numbers? Are they not afraid of being corrupted? Why do muslims not stay back in their islamic countries which have islamic sharia law? They way they are defending islamic religion I should think they would be comfortable and feel safe in a islamic country. But yet they wish to go to the west. Any explanations? Why has islamic religion not made any islamic countries prosperous, progressive and among the best in the world? The most prosperous and powerful countries are non muslim. How come following islam has not made any islamic nation among the top countries in the world? Any explanations?
- Name: Constantine the Great
- Date: Monday June 23, 2008
- Time: 14:54:37 -0700
Comment
The veil is insulting to women as it symbolises female subservience but it is also insulting to men as it is saying all men are potential rapists! Just because its a religious symbol doesn't mean its right, and nice, and ethnic and a multicultural thing to do. Would members of the KuKluxKlan be allowed to wear their hoods on the basis that it was part of their religious belief? Sikhs wear turbans as a symbol of their religion but their religion isn't hell-bent on converting the world, or blowing people up.