World Hijab Day – A Celebration Of Muslim Authoritarianism And Feminist Hypocrisy

Today, February 1st is apparently World Hijab Day. This is the latest demonstration of the abject stupidity of liberal feminists and inevitably has its very own hashtag: #StrongInHijab. Most of the usual suspects, the self righteous virtue signallers and professional hypocrites, politicians showbiz luvvies and media sheeple are jumping on the bandwagon, in the name of “Womens’ right to choose.”
What makes this a day which ranks as one of the most sickening displays of virtue signalling is that privileged middle-class Western feminists are lining up to display their multicultural credentials by donning a hijab as a fashionable symbol of liberation. In order to be seen to support Islamic human rights 110%  they pretend to be ignorant of the brave women in Iran and other places in the Middle East where women are literally risking their lives to remove the hijab. To them it a hated symbol of oppression. The Iranian regime has decreed it compulsory for a woman to cover every part of their body apart from their face, and wearing a hijab is thus compulsory.
Yes on this very day, while western poseurs are fighting for Muslim womens’ right to wear the hijab, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and all around the Islamic world women are being stoned or flogged for demanding the right NOT to wear the hijab. Punishments for removing a hijab in Islamic societies can be brutal – Islamist regimes are known to physically beat women for non-compliance with their dress codes. This is true not only in the Middle East but is increasingly becoming accepted in the name of multiculturalism in the West.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has joined in the chorus of the self-righteous and added her voice to the celebrations. Teresa The Appeaser told the House of Commons that “a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants”. As ever the very worst kind of hypocrite, May makes absolutely no mention of women who do not want to wear a hijab and are regularly arrested, imprisoned or somehow forced to by huband, Imam or religious police for not wearing one.

RELATED POSTS:

France leads celebrity pushback against ‘#MeToo’
Two Police Officers Escape Violent Death At The Hands Of Immigrant Mob On New Year’s Eve
Fired Engineer Damore Sues Google For Discrimination Against White Male Conservatives
UK Taxpayer Hands £6 Million a Year to Islamic Charities
Feminist hypocrites
Muslim intolerance
A Song Of Servitude

Hypocrite

He once said:

“It is now very common to hear people say “I am rather offended by that.”
As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more than a whine. “I find that offensive,” it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
“I am offended by that.” Well so fucking what.”

Who is he.Stephen fucking Fry that’s who.

Now he makes television programs whining about how nasty we are to homofuckingsexuals.

Well so fucking what. I’ve never been nasty to a homosexual (and I’m not being so now, I’m being nasty to a pompous egotistical arse) but I take the view that if Africans want to act like savages in their own country or American evangelical Christians want to preach bigoted bollocks in their own churches, it’s none of my business.

My rights are no more important than theirs and neither are Stephen Fry’s.

Making people equal by force.

As we approach the end of another bad week for common sense, in which we have seen a consrvative Prime Minister align himself with various identity politics groups instead of thinking about the nation as a whole, when we have seen equal rights campaigners demanding that in the name of equality certain minorities be treated as members of privileged elites and when we have seen further politicisation of the courts, the police, the civil service and the education system in the name of “equality” I was reminded of these words from F. A. Hayek.

“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal.”

How The "Yooman Rights" Brigade Plan To Boot You Off The Internet

For years I have argued that the internet should accept some form of regulation to the extent only that everything posted ought to be identifiable to a source thus imposing the constraints of normal decency on people and curbing the criminal activity the world wide web has spawned.

You should have heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth from lefties and “yooman rights” campaigners about how this would curtail freedom. if you are familiar with how the left operates and how control freakery comes as naturally to them as sucking on a tit comes to a mammilian baby you might have found this commitment to freedom a bit suspect. After all the only freedom the left have ever been concerned with is their own freedom to Impose their ideals and values on the rest of us (by force if necessary).

It should come as no surprise then that the left’s commitment to internet freedom lasted only as long as it took them to come up with a way to get independent websites and blogs off the cybersphere and ensure that we could see ONLY officially approved propaganda. Hat tip to Anna Raccoon for bringing this to my attention.

Last month in a little noticed case in the US, a Federal Judge made a ruling that has implications for us all. We may think that the truly sensitive and the terminally offended have been making inroads into the freedom of the Internet, but they are piffling flea bites compared to the implications of this case.

What the ruling – that the Internet is ‘a place of public accommodation’ – boils down to in plain English is that the Internet has the same status as a Public House, your local council offices, Disneyland, the O2 Arena, and anywhere else you can think of that has to comply with disabled accessibility legislation. It will be your responsibility to ensure that the blind reader has a voice over of your hastily crafted howl of anger at the latest government outrage, that the deaf have suitable sub-titles on your YouTube efforts, and one can only presume, that the terminally stupid have a simplified version in words of one syllable, to ensure that everyone has an ‘enjoyable and enriching experience’ when they land on your blog.

The lawyers are sharpening their quills already, for it matters not that you are penning your anguished prose from a bed sit in Bridlington – your reader may well be a one eyed Albanian asylum seeker in the US, libel law has long since established precedent that if he can access your words in the US, then you are publishing in the US, regardless of where your ‘server’ is.

Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I’m not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers will have a long check list of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.

One common argument for imposing accessibility obligations on physical businesses is that it is unrealistic to expect the disabled to simply ‘go somewhere else’ if the nearest business can’t accommodate their needs. The Internet doesn’t have territorial limitations – by extending this ruling to the Internet, the lawyers are in effect saying that everyone must make every part of their ‘public life’ accessible to anyone who wishes, worLd wide, to partake of the opportunity.

Now I don’t expect this to affect Joe Bloggs blogging from his back room in Bridlington overnight – but it doesn’t require too much imagination to realise that if Google get sued for failing to provide a voice over on their political blogs, they will immediately refuse to host any blog that doesn’t comply. Netfix, the company which the American Association for the Deaf successfully sued for failing to provide sub-titles on the videos which they streamed, may be able to afford the costly technology to comply with this ruling, individual bloggers won’t. Netfix may respond by not hosting movies which don’t carry sub-titles, I would expect Google to take the same route.

Read the full post: Wheelchair access to the blogosphere

Now as Anna says this law willl not be enforced right away to make sure we bloggers, contributors and site owners provide access to a braille translator or a text to voice converter so that your partially sighted visitors can have access to our rants, pithy observations, homilies, philosiphizing, self indulgent rambles and scintillating prose. but once the “yooman rights” brigade find a site that challenges their prejudices and does not conform to these requirements there is not much doubt about which way a court verdict will go.

The answer of course is we can all ignore the law and work on the prinbiciple that they can’t put us all in prison. “OK, but what if they decide to put me in prison to make an example of somebody?” you might well ask.

Simples. At the first sign of trouble take your stuff offline. Back it all up and find yourself a host that operates its servers from Andorra, Costa Rica or some such place that does not have any serious libel laws. Pay with your paypal account. Use a proxy server such as Anonymouse and rebuild your website using a pseudonym to disguisE your authorship (something like Aethelred-Naggernunk is good)

Then the “yooman rights” lawyers can spend their time chasing shadows while you concentrte on building links to your site and getting your ideas out to the widest possible audience and promote the cause of free thinking against the dark forces of “progressiveism”.

UPDATE:
And it is not just the politically correct Thought Police who don’t want you on the web …
Latest Google update favours their own products and sites that pay for traffic

RELATED POSTS:
Internet Threat To CIvilisation
WHY THE INTELLECTUAL ELITE DESPISE THE LOWER CLASSES