Another case of Muslim sex-segregated seating in the UK

You’ll remember the recent kerfuffle at University College London when a Muslim student group segregated an audience by gender in a debate between Lawrence Krauss and Hamza Tzortzis.  Despite some claims that the segregation was “voluntary,” that appears to be untrue, and the Islamic Education and Research Academy has been barred from hosting further events at UCL.

Now it’s happened again, this time at the University of Leicester. And Tzortzis was involved again. According to the Guardian:

The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. . .

In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

A message on the group’s website says: “In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females.” The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.

The authorities at Leicester are investigating this incident, trying to determine whether the segregated seating was voluntary (apparently okay) or forcible (not okay).  I guess I have no beef against Muslim women wanting to sit together on their own, but “voluntary” versus “mandated” blurs when you know you’ll incur the disapprobation of your coreligionists if you try to sit with the men. One person recognizes this obvious fact:

. . . .Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights, has claimed there is “consistent use of segregation by student Islamic societies across the country”.

He wrote: “While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated.”

Here’s a photo from the Guardian article apparently showing the “voluntary” nature of the seating arrangements at that event:

segregation signs on door

 

Okay, Peter Hitchens, Glenn Greenwald, et al.: do you really think that Islam is no more pernicious than other faiths? You won’t see this at events sponsored by Christian or Jewish organizations (although, in another case of disempowering women, Orthodox Jews segregate their women at social events and in synagogue, where they must sit in the rear, behind a screen).

h/t: L. G.

77 Comments

  1. eveysolara
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Protestors like Amina must really rile them up, even the moderates.

  2. Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    As a compromise, would it be acceptable for Muslim women to sit with men, so long as the Muslim women were on a leash, preferably attached to a ring through the nose?

    And the same for non Muslim women who wanted to attend the event with their, say, Christian husbands?

    How much accommodation of religious practices is acceptable in the public square becomes a real issue when it comes to Islam, because it so often pushes the envelope. IIRC, there was a public pool facility in Britain which had Muslim-only hours to accommodate the Islamic precept that Muslims should not have to tolerate swimming with filthy heathens.

    How do we decide where to draw the line? Should voluntary segregated seating be allowed at all in public universities? At private universities (it currently is allowed)?

    Private religious institutions are currently allowed to discriminate in hiring and firing – actions which would be unconstitutional in the secular sphere. Is it time to challenge this deference to the religious privilege granted to the 2nd Amendment, compared to the privileges granted to secular entities (like women’s rights)?

    • Sunny
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      Interesting that they don’t mind breathing the same filthy air that the heathens are breathing.

    • Alex T
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      “Voluntary” segregation comes with a lot of social pressures. I don’t want to create a big fuss but I also don’t want to conform to this sort of regressive “request”, and I doubt I’m alone in feeling that way.

    • DV
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 10:10 am | Permalink

      There are no Muslim women with Christian husbands. Only with ex-Christian husbands.

    • Gary W
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      Should voluntary segregated seating be allowed at all in public universities?

      I think it depends in part on what you mean exactly by “voluntary segregated seating.” What kind of restrictions on “voluntary segregated seating” do you propose? There is an individual right to free association. If individuals choose to self-segregate by sex (because of their religious beliefs or for any other reason), I don’t think there would be a reasonable basis for “disallowing” that.

      Private religious institutions are currently allowed to discriminate in hiring and firing – actions which would be unconstitutional in the secular sphere. Is it time to challenge this deference to the religious privilege granted to the 2nd Amendment

      Another rather confusing statement. I assume you mean the First Amendment rather than the Second (the Second Amendment has nothing to do with religion), “right” rather than “privilege,” and “protected by” rather than “granted to.” The Bill of Rights does not “grant privileges to” the Amendments. It’s a set of Amendments that protect rights.

      With respect to your example of “Muslim-only hours” at a public swimming pool, in the U.S. I think that would probably be a violation of federal Civil Rights law (discrimination on the basis of religion) and possibly also unconstitutional (a violation of the Establishment Clause). But if the pool has a policy of allowing organized groups to reserve it for exclusive use at certain times (schools, boy scouts, gay groups, veterans groups, women’s groups, etc.), I doubt there would be grounds for excluding religious groups from that policy.

      • Posted April 16, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Yes- 1st Amendment – my oops.

        By privilege, I was referring ineptly not to rights, per se, but to the supercedence of the 1st amendment religious rights over those of other amendments. These religious rights have always enjoyed a privilege, if you will, that should perhaps be modified.

        Is there a case to be made that, in the public square, deference to religious rights should be maintained? If we must allow ‘voluntary’ segregated seating in public universities, must we also allow Muslim women to be ‘voluntarily’ led in public by a leash attached to a ring through their noses?

        There are limits to religious freedoms. Peyote can not be used in religious ceremonies. Children may not be harmed by the medical priorities of their religious parents.

        The equal rights of women need protection as well. Should the rights of women be equal to or deferential to religious rights is a question that seems to be posed by the issue of university seating?

        • Gary W
          Posted April 16, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          the supercedence of the 1st amendment religious rights over those of other amendments. These religious rights have always enjoyed a privilege, if you will, that should perhaps be modified.

          This certainly isn’t clear to me. How did you conclude that First Amendment religious rights “have always enjoyed a privilege” over other constitutional rights? Can you give us some examples?

          If we must allow ‘voluntary’ segregated seating in public universities, must we also allow Muslim women to be ‘voluntarily’ led in public by a leash attached to a ring through their noses?

          I doubt that we “must” allow it. Presumably, legislators could pass a law making it a crime for women to be voluntarily led in public by a ring attached through their noses. But I don’t see any justification for such a law.

          Regarding voluntary segregated seating in public universities, you still haven’t explained what restrictions, exactly, you have in mind. Presumably, you do not seek a law that would make it a crime for individuals to voluntarily self-segregate by sex. So what exactly are you suggesting?

        • tomh
          Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

          Roger Lambert wrote:

          Children may not be harmed by the medical priorities of their religious parents.

          This is not true in America. Most states allow the religious beliefs of parents to supersede the medical needs of children.

      • tomh
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Gary W wrote:

        “right” rather than “privilege,” and “protected by” rather than “granted to.” The Bill of Rights does not “grant privileges to” the Amendments. It’s a set of Amendments that protect rights.

        What nonsense. Privilege is exactly what it is. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects the “right” of religions to discriminate – that so-called right has been written into laws under the guise of “free exercise” of religion. American law is permeated with religious privilege, all supposedly justified by the sham of free exercise. Taxes, zoning, child abuse, health and safety, pensions, and a myriad of other fields – apparently, if religions had to follow the laws on any of these it would interfere with the free exercise of their religion. These are not “rights” being protected, these are privileges, plain and simple.

    • Leigh
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

      You asked how much accommodation of religion is acceptable. I would answer none. I cannot think of any accommodations of religion in public space that I would accept.
      Further I would define public space broadly to allow for regulation of private businesses and institutions.

      As for segregated events, either do not attend, do not allow your own institutions to host and make sure speakers and organizers know you do not approve of their participation, or make certain that large groups of women choose to sit in the brothers’ section and equally large groups of men sit with the sisters.

  3. Tulse
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    I do wonder how Orthodox Jewish student organizations address this issue in campus events — do they have segregation as well?

  4. pktom64
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Orthodox Jews segregate their women at social events and in synagogue

    I remember being quite surprised and even shocked when I visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem some 15 years or so ago, as a teenager.
    There were only males on the “principal” and largest part of the wall and all women were on the small side (on the right when looking at the wall), separated by a thin wall. There was a celebration at the time and women had to climb on chairs on their side of the wall to —supposedly— see the family boy being celebrated.

    I was very surprised at that (never having been before confronted with gender segregation) and I don’t know if this is still the case nowadays.
    OK, I’ve looked it up quickly and you can see what I’m talking about on this (and other) picture:

    http://www.ebibleteacher.com/sites/default/files/images/1/westwall2.jpg?1310095965

    • truthspeaker
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      I’m pretty sure it’s still the case, and occasionally women protest about it, which really riles up the Orthodox men.

      • jdhuey
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        More than occasionally. Here is just the latest:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/17/sarah-silverman-tweet-wailing-wall-protest

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted April 16, 2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

          Sarah Silverman? Cool! I bet she’d really get up the noses of the orthodox : )

          I’m highly ambiguous about her sister’s demand to be allowed to pray on equal terms with the men. On the one hand, it grossly offends a bunch of stupid old white men, which has gotta be good. On the other hand, what she’s demanding to do is indulge in equally stupid old religious rituals. I just think her efforts should be aimed at something more meaningful.

          Still, good luck to her and her daughter.

          • jdhuey
            Posted April 17, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

            Equal rights includes the right to be stupid.

    • godsbuster
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      Another of the many reasons traditional Jewish men, first thing in the morning to really get the day off on a good footing, intone the prayer: “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman.” and relegated me to 2nd class wall wailing.

  5. Alex T
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I would hate to make my wife act as a lightning rod by dragging her to the men’s section, but I would feel skeevy if I joined her in the women’s side. I would resent being pushed to avoid the whole event because of this sort of segregation “request”, but I am thinking that’s the best of the bad options.

    Question for the group: what would you do?

    • lkr
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Given that they have absolutely no ideas that I’m interested in, don’t bother to attend.

    • Marella
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      As I recall, women who came with their husbands were allowed to sit with the men, but single women had to sit at the back.

    • Pierre Masson
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      Re: I would resent being pushed to avoid the whole event because of this sort of segregation “request”,

      Why would you even want to attend an event organized by a group that feels it’s right to segregate based on people’s gender?

    • Posted April 16, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      My wife would insist on sitting on the men’s side and she’d make well sure everyone in the place knew about it.

      • SA Gould
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        I’m with your wife on that one. The moment you start putting up signs dictating how people should “voluntarily” act, I have a problem. Because all such behavior is about intimidation.

        Similar intimidation behavior by the gun owners who paraded with assault rifles in front of a mother’s anti-gun rally. They claimed they were “educating” people about their 2nd amendment rights, but it’s was all about intimidation.

    • Diane G.
      Posted April 18, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      Why feel skeevy?

      If enough guys did it, that would be quite a statement.

  6. agentwhim
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    The Guardian should have sent Andrew Brown along to explain that religions don’t really do this sort of thing.

    • truthspeaker
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink

      +1

      • kevinj
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

        nah when the evidence is overwhelming he will just blame militant atheism. With most likely a paragraph or so dedicated to an attack on Dawkins preferably using some random interpretation of one of his books.

  7. Taz
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    An ultra-Orthodox Jewish town in the US has opened a gender segregated playground:

    http://observer.com/2013/04/kiryas-joel-sex-segregated-park-opens-in-new-york/

  8. Posted April 16, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    “(although, in another case of disempowering women, Orthodox Jews segregate their women at social events and in synagogue, where they must sit in the rear, behind a screen).”

    This is true about only some Orthodox groups. Many do not segregate at social events. And while virtually all Orthodox synagogues do separate men and women during prayers, many do not make the women “sit in the rear, behind a screen.”

  9. ACS67
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    The Russian Orthodox Church separates men and women in church as well and men are always granted to be “first in line” even at meal time, etc. I believe the stricter Greek Orthodox do the same. I know they do in their monasteries.

    • Marella
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      This is a point that really riles me, not only are the genders segregated, but the seats aren’t divided down the middle, the women have to sit in the crappy seats at the back, behind the screen at the back, they’re not just apart, they are labelled inferior by being put in less desirable places.

      • Pierre Masson
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Precisely, that’s the whole idea.

      • darrelle
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Well, they are just ribs after all, right?

    • Diane G.
      Posted April 18, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      The Amish and the Mormons aren’t far behind.

  10. @eightyc
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    lol.

    what happens if you’re transgendered?

    • Sines
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      Then you get stoned to death.

      • @eightyc
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

        lol.

        Well that’s not a very warm and cordial reception.

        • darrelle
          Posted April 17, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

          What! Are you kidding? That’s treating you just like family!

          • truthspeaker
            Posted April 17, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

            I feel obliged to point out that in at least one fundamentalist Muslim country, Iran, transgender is officially considered a legitimate medical condition with gender reassignment surgery subsidized by the state.

          • Diane G.
            Posted April 18, 2013 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            Best black humor I’ve heard all week!

  11. Graham
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Quote from the Guardian article:

    “The University will not interfere with people’s right to choose where to sit. If some people choose to sit in a segregated manner because of their religious convictions then they are free to do so. By the same token, if people attending do not wish to sit in a segregated manner, they are free to do so.”

    So they expect the meeting to be at one and the same time both segregated and non-segregated? How’s that supposed to work? “If some people choose to sit in a segregated manner”; is that not the same as as saying “If some people choose to be oppressed”? This seems to be a very superficial and naïve response to come from a university. Has it not occurred to them that internalized oppression may be a factor in this?

    Though it’s not mentioned in the article, I’ll bet my pension that the segregated seating involved the women sitting at the back.

    Leicester is one of the most ‘multicultural’ cities in Britain and prides itself on how well the different cultural groups get on together- but how often does this apparent harmony come at the expense of appeasement and unrealistic work-arounds such as attempting to have meetings which are simultaneously segregated and not segregated?

    By a strange co-incidence Leicester is also home to one of only two UK secular societies which actually has its own building. Handed down from Victorian times, the Secular Hall is in urgent need of repair. See here for details, and the opportunity to make a donation should you wish: http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/appeal–modernising-leicester-secular-hall

  12. Mel
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what would happen if an atheist (or other infidel) male(s) decided to attend one of these events and sat in the women’s section?

  13. Posted April 16, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Many forms of Judaism, Christianity and other religions all practice this very same sex segregation. For example, the Mehadrin bus lines used by the very Orthodox Jews. At one time, and until very recently, they were very common in Israel, we also have them here in the US (in New York for sure, and possibly other cities).

    And the list goes on and on and on and on and on… Like this:

    Israeli leaders are to blame for the religious segregation they decry

    The sudden public outcry over gender segregation on ultra-Orthodox buses is misplaced: such practices have been going on for years. There are other new phenomena that should worry us more.

    So, if gender segregation and gender discrimination by the Muslims is what you’re using to ‘win’ some points about how ‘Islam is bad in some special and different sort of way’, you just failed, Jerry.

    You just don’t see it blown up in such a way in the West. You don’t see all the Mormon, Evangelical, Orthodox Jew, etc, etc, etc, crap that is just as bad. Because, oddly enough, despite you’re being so well-traveled and an urban sophisticate, you’re shockingly sheltered in some ways.

    In the end it think those who make the best case make the case that by-and-large it’s about economics. Prosperous societies liberalize while societies with horrible economic conditions and vast gulfs in wealth distribution suffer greatly from these social ills — regardless of religious affiliation.

    • ACS67
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      moseszd,
      Gender segreation, whether it is done by Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, belittles women and has the intent to show that they are “less” than men. It’s wrong and it is regressive. Human evolution is about more than just the physical aspects, it must involve our collective ethics as well. Those ethics must not benefit only a few in a select group in accordance with the rules of the past, but all human beings, without prejudice, moving toward the future…together.

      • SA Gould
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

        Moving towards the future? That would be nice. I simply do not get this hatred for all things female.

        • Duncan
          Posted April 17, 2013 at 12:23 am | Permalink

          Fear of those who control the generative process?

    • abandonwoo
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      I am able to agree with moseszd’s final paragraph pretty completely. There are certain to be initial exceptions should the condition ever obtain, but universal economic justice will liberate all but the most hidebound minds, and maybe even them in time. Who can say “Not so!” with certainty, until the condition comes into existence and endures?

      I regret it is most certainly impossible this will happen in my lifetime. Sunsets, rainbows, newborn life, the cosmos: all this simply is. The implementation of universal human dignity, however, is an event I would be willing to consider a wondrous miracle.

    • Posted April 16, 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      What makes you think Jerry doesn’t see all the “Mormon etc etc crap that is just as bad?

      Is Jerry only supposed to post about ultimate causes?

      Besides, the war is won by fighting individual battles.

      Also, perhaps there is more than one vector of causation. I’d bet that regressive, theocratic societies not only are that way because of economic circumstances, but that the religious crap those societies are steeped in make it very difficult to improve background situations like economic conditions.

      • Posted April 18, 2013 at 3:52 am | Permalink

        What makes you think Jerry doesn’t see all the “Mormon etc etc crap that is just as bad?

        Is Jerry only supposed to post about ultimate causes?

        Besides, the war is won by fighting individual battles.

        Well, the original post did seem to be making the point that this is a problem that makes Islam more pernicious than other religions. As the original post also mention (nut only parenthetically), and as moseszd points out, the problem of gender segregation is not confined to radical Islamists: see this for a particularly bad example: a gender segregated kids’ playground right in New York.

  14. Gary W
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    So they expect the meeting to be at one and the same time both segregated and non-segregated? How’s that supposed to work?

    Presumably, people who want to sit in a segregated fashion would sit together in single-sex clusters and people who wanted to sit in an integrated fashion would sit in mixed-sex clusters. I guess “gate-crashers” could try to disrupt the single-sex clusters, but hopefully most people would respect the choices of others and allow them to sit in the way they want.

    “If some people choose to sit in a segregated manner”; is that not the same as as saying “If some people choose to be oppressed”?

    No, I don’t think so. Why do you think they’re necessarily “choosing to be oppressed?” But even if they are, so what? What exactly are you suggesting the university should do differently?

    • Filipe
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

      The University should not allow arrows telling «brothers» and «sisters» where to sit. That’s actively promoting segregation.

      • Gary W
        Posted April 16, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

        According to the article, the university says it “does not permit enforced segregation at public events.” I don’t think the sign counts as “enforced segregation,” but I would expect the university to at least ask the Islamic society to change the sign to make it clear that the segregation is voluntary rather than enforced. The article also says that the society removed the message on its website stating that it operates a “strict policy of segregated seating between males and females” after it was contacted by the Guardian. The sign apparently predates that intervention, so perhaps it has now also been removed or modified.

        • SA Gould
          Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

          Signs count. They always count. They are put up for a reason, and they get taken down for a reason. Sometimes the signs are useful, as in “Restrooms, that way,” sometime the are not, as in “Whites only.”

    • HaggisForBrains
      Posted April 17, 2013 at 1:49 am | Permalink

      It seems to me that the university could have ensured that there were three seating zones: Males, Females and Mixed. That would allow a freer choice, and reduce pressure to conform.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted April 17, 2013 at 2:45 am | Permalink

        It would also have thoroughly pissed off the sex-segregationists (in this case the Muslims) while leaving them nothing to rationally complain about, since they’re not being forced to integrate ; )

  15. marcusa1971
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    ‘Despite some claims that the segregation was “voluntary,” that appears to be untrue…’ Ha! Islamists lying? I’m shocked! What is the world coming to?
    Also, instead of “Sisters”, shouldn’t the sign on the right read “Targets for Acid Attacks?”
    Finally, why don’t we hear about debates about the existence of doG being held in Islamabad, Tehran or Mecca?

    • marcusa1971
      Posted April 16, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      I mean, just imagine it. A public debate, held in Mecca during Ramadan, titled “The Pilgrimage: Is It Just A Huge Fucking Waste of Time?” I’d buy that for a dollar!

  16. CottonBlimp
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    “Okay, Peter Hitchens, Glenn Greenwald, et al.: do you really think that Islam is no more pernicious than other faiths?”

    I think it’s a mistake to begin with to make the debate a “which religion is the most evil” contest. It’s not the point.

    If the Glenns or anyone else (not mentioning Peter Hitchens, who is just a complete sack of shit) want to make the point that we’re not being sufficiently critical of Jews or Christians, that’s one thing. But that’s not what they’re saying – they’re saying we’re being TOO critical of THIS religion which is fundamentally evil at its core. They are making excuses for this evil, they are opposing attempts at making the evil go away.

  17. Cremnomaniac
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    I can’t help feeling that there is something terribly incongruous about that sign:

    Did the poster of the signs think “Brothers” & “Sisters” was just too vague to be understood, even while operating under the assumption that attendees would largely be Islamic? In which case they have certainly heard the terms before.

    A more humorous take would assume they didn’t want any male “sisters” or vice versa to mistakenly sit on the wrong side. Of course they wouldn’t be welcome on either side. The only solution would be to post 3 signs:

    Brothers and Sisters (transgender)
    .

    The point is, the signage is as absurd as the idea it expresses. “Voluntary segregation” is another way of saying covert coercion.

    Has anybody visited the University of Leicester website? It opens thusly, “We think a university should be about empowering people to explore what they don’t know.”

    It seems perfectly reasonable then, to teach women that they don’t have to submit to subjugation. A ban on all events that practice discrimination, religious or not, should be implemented.

  18. Cremnomaniac
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    There was one other bit on the University of Leicester website, “Elite, without being elitist…”

    Ironic. Me thinks the Islamic student association missed the idea completely. Must not have been part of orientation.

  19. Matt
    Posted April 16, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Jerry,

    “You won’t see this at events sponsored by Christian or Jewish organizations (although, in another case of disempowering women, Orthodox Jews segregate their women at social events and in synagogue, where they must sit in the rear, behind a screen).”

    you just refuted your own argument.

  20. Posted April 16, 2013 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    DO NOT DEBATE MUSLIMS! Simples.
    Until they join the civilised community…

  21. Venise Alstergren
    Posted April 17, 2013 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    As long as Muslim ladies are prepared to suffer this kind of shit, so long will they be treated like the family donkey-less than human. People in the West cannot fight all their battles for them. It’s the same with the wearing of the hibjab. If all Muslim women could coordinate down to the appropriate second and removed their burqas and hibjabs simultaneously it would end the practice.

    Of course, women tend to love the ropes which bind them.

    • SA Gould
      Posted April 17, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

      “If all Muslim women could coordinate down to the appropriate second and removed their burqas and hibjabs simultaneously it would end the practice.”

      Or their lives. Could go either way.

      • Venise Alstergren
        Posted April 18, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

        True, but the desire for freedom is worth dying for. Or, as a famous Mexican revolutionary put it…..It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted April 18, 2013 at 2:30 am | Permalink

          Not everybody feels that way, nor does everybody agree what constitutes ‘freedom’.

          After all, if you’re dead you’re not free – you’re just DEAD.

          In more practical terms, who’s going to organise all the Muslim women to simultaneously throw off their burqas. Even if possible, people won’t do it until the climate is right. “If everyone simultaneously did yadda yadda” is a spurious argument. There is a far more powerful ‘what if’ example – “What if all the soldiers stopped fighting and told their officers to take a hike?” – never happens, even when the soldiery know they’re just cannon fodder and have far more to lose than just walking around in a sack.

        • SA Gould
          Posted April 18, 2013 at 5:25 am | Permalink

          Have taught women self-defense at domestic violence shelters, and in many cases, timing their escape *with their children* is the major concern.

        • truthspeaker
          Posted April 18, 2013 at 6:18 am | Permalink

          This is real life, not a Hollywood movie.

        • tomh
          Posted April 18, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

          True, but the desire for freedom is worth dying for.

          Especially if it’s someone else doing the dying.

          • Diane G.
            Posted April 18, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

            Precisely.

          • Venise Alstergren
            Posted April 18, 2013 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

            True, but if anything is worth dying prematurely for, it’s freedom. I think Emiliano Zapata got it right.

  22. Elizabeth
    Posted April 17, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Muslim males are such narcissists! Apparently it does not occur to them that if they want to live in The West instead of a filthy desert they need to grow up and act like adult Western men instead of childish barbarians.

    Now Britain has been far too tolerant of this pathetic behavior, including the bizarre excuse for education at Muslim schools. This isn’t multiculturalism; It’s plain crazy. Why do the British need to put up with such bad behavior from immigrants? The swimming pool thing is especially outrageous!

    This bunch of illiterate goatherds will drag Britain down if they continue to behave badly, especially on the public purse. What’s the Town Council line on honor killings?

  23. atilla the hun
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    About time we all stopped arguing about who has the best superstitions and got rid of all of them, its 2013 and people still believe in fairy tales.
    We have not advanced very far have we.

  24. Posted April 21, 2013 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Rattlers Pit.


2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] (vía Why Evolution Is True) [...]

  2. [...] Another case of Muslim sex-segregated seating in the UK (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,567 other followers

%d bloggers like this: