Glimpsing the “New Europe” in Prague

What might have been.

Tuesday, February 20. It's our first time in Prague, and – except for a couple of visits to Berlin – K.'s first time on territory that was once part of the Warsaw Pact. Today, as we're wont to do on arrival in a new city, we passed on museums and other cultural attractions, preferring instead to walk and walk and walk – to get a sense of the place and the people and start finding our way around.

After several hours of wandering along the winding streets and across cobbled squares dominated by churches, we came back to our hotel and had a drink at the bar. After two gin and tonics, I saw that K. had tears in his eyes. I looked at him quizzically. He could hardly get the words out.

“I'm so angry at my country's government!” he finally exploded.

The country in question being Norway.

K. explained. We had just seen a good deal of Prague, and had passed heaven knows how many thousands of people. Not once had we seen a hijab. Let alone a niqab or burka.

Read more>>>

Bill Maher: Burka fashion show

Ok, nice way to take the mickey out of that misogynistic portable prison.

However, what's up with the politically correct mantra about defending the right of a woman to wear a burka voluntarily as a religious expression? Hello? Voluntarily? Who cares? In the West we do not discriminate or treat women as second-class citizens, we should not allow the burka here even under the guise of "voluntary religious expression". Period.

What would have happened to that lovely Indian tradition of burning widows on their husband's funeral pyre if General Napier had not stood up for the superior and much more humane views of his own civilization and put an end to that barbaric custom?

He said:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

You can be sure that if he had defended the right of a woman to voluntarily immolate herself as a religious expression the practice would not have become outlawed and women would still be "voluntarily" climbing onto those funeral pyres today.

Backward, inhumane and discriminating customs have to be eradicated, whether they are based on religion or not, and whether the women concerned are "voluntarily" supporting it or not.

Oh, and by the way: the same goes for the niqaabs, hijabs, headscarves and other assorted islamic tools to oppress women. After all, the only difference is the amount of material used. The thought behind all that "religious clothing" is the same: If you don't cover the meat, the tomcat will come. And whatever happens afterward is never the fault of the tomcat.

You want to oppress your women? Go live somewhere else!