
Feminists are a strange breed of creature indeed. As they teeter precariously around the office water cooler empowerment zone atop their latest Jimmy Choos, their conversation rarely strays toward Islam’s brutal treatment of women. They are much happier when unhappily discussing why grim-booted Bob from accounts is routinely promoted ahead of them, despite his shameful ignorance regarding over-priced cobbling.
They are unconcerned about the truly important areas of concern, such as a religion imported into the 21st century West which treats women as mere chattels of men; denies them equal legal rights; carries a death sentence in the event of a spot of marital infidelity and allows the husband to add three more wives to his harem should he so wish. Another aspect of Islam which rarely crosses their minds is why do Asian/Muslim females commit suicide at a rate three times higher in the 16-24 age group than any other demographic?
But is it always suicide? The Islamic practice of Honour Killing is but a recent addition to the glorious diversity a previously mono-cultural Britain was hitherto unable to celebrate. Failure to marry the man chosen by your father is to bring shame and dishonour upon the family, doubly so if a girl is foolish enough to consider a relationship with a non-Muslim. This is why murdering your daughter is termed an “honour” killing. It is done to regain the honour of the family, and there exist in Britain many Muslims who really believe this to be true.
When Turkey passed life jail sentences for murdering daughters in 2005, previously immune murderous fathers asked them to commit suicide instead. The “suicide” rate rocketed in the aftermath of the new legislation. Girls told to kill themselves are usually given one of three options – a noose, a gun or rat poison. They are then locked in a room until the job is done.
Their fate is usually decided during a “family council”, when the extended family meets to discuss breaches of honour. In these meetings, it is agreed how the victim must be killed. If the girl rejects a forced suicide, a killer is chosen. The youngest member of the family is often ordered to kill, in the belief they will be treated more leniently if caught.
And the numbers are terrifying. When a Turkish girl states: “When I was at school, a few girls I knew were killed by their families in the name of honour” then simple mathematics point toward the numbers murdered across the entire country (Turkey) running into thousands. Such horrific statistics lend weight to a report in the Independent suggesting there are 17,000 victims of honour related violence a year in Britain.
The Independent does point out that murder is a very small percentage of this; the majority of cases being rape, kidnap and beating, but the point it makes is clear – there is little knowledge of what goes on in the murky world of Muslim honour violence, but what is known suggests it is only the tip of the ice-berg. In light of Turkish “suicides” perhaps we should look at the elevated suicide rate of British Muslim females from a new perspective.
Forced marriage of course, could bring about suicidal tendencies. The Telegraph reports up to 8,000 forced marriages took place in 2008, and in Bradford alone some 750 girls aged 13-16 were either subjected to a forced marriage at home, or taken abroad never to return. Sociologist Nazia Khanum spent a year investigating this issue in Luton before publishing her report, which estimates some 4,000 children are forcibly married and taken out of Britain against their will every year.
Worse still, the precedent set by the prophet Mohamed in marrying a six year-old girl enables modern day Muslims to do much the same, leading to horror stories about the government’s Forced Marriage Unit fighting cases concerning girls aged only eleven and in one case a girl of only nine.
While this is happening, women are being imported in their hundreds of thousands from Muslim countries, principally Pakistan and Bangladesh. Ex-Labour MP Ann Cryer, who represented Keighley, estimated that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over a four year period to work study or marry. Imported wives made up 80% of all marriages in her area.
Muslim women now outnumber Muslim men by a ratio 2:1 which has itself led to Muslim men taking multiple wives; all illegal of course under British law but permissible under Sharia law. On Newsnight two years ago, a representative of a British Sharia court claimed it would be discriminatory not to allow multiple wives as it would consign 50% of imported women to lives of unmarried, childless desolation. The British government agreed, and now provides welfare payments to multiple wives, providing the marriage was conducted in an Islamic country.
In addition to the Forced Marriage Unit, Britain now plays host to Project Azure another state funded specialist crime department of the British police, this one dedicated to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) a form of child abuse usually associated with Islamic African countries like Northern Sudan, but now growing in Europe as a result of immigration and refugee movement.
The procedure is traditionally performed by an older woman with no medical training. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatment are not generally used and the practice is usually carried out using basic tools such as knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass, tin lids and razor blades. Often iodine or a mixture of herbs is placed on the wound to tighten the vagina and stop the bleeding.
This rarely happens within British borders. Young girls are normally taken abroad at the beginning of school summer holidays, thus allowing the wounds to heal before the victim returns to Britain. The Met Police inform us that consequences of this Stone Age Barbarity “include extreme pain, shock, infection, haemorrhage, infertility, incontinence, HIV and death.”
A study by the Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development estimated that 66,000 women living in England and Wales had been circumcised, most before leaving their country of origin. The government-funded research also found that more than 6,500 girls were at a high risk of being subjected to genital mutilation in Britain, with some 3,500 in London alone.
It has been proposed that teachers in certain schools receive specialist training to detect whether Muslim girls have been genitally mutilated, but it is unlikely Muslim fathers will allow their daughters to be subjected to the type of gynaecological inspection necessary to occasion proof positive. No one should be surprised therefore, that despite Female Genital Mutilation constituting a criminal offence, not one person has been prosecuted.
Although not as horrific as FGM, why will the sisterhood not broach the subject of the misery inflicted on Muslim women and children via the practice of first cousin marriage? 50% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, and 10% of their children either die at birth or live with serious congenital disorders. People coming from agricultural villages in Pakistan are unlikely to understand why they have such problems, but our failure to educate them lest we upset their cultural sensibilities is bordering on a crime against humanity.
As is the behaviour of Labour politicians dependent on the Muslim vote in their constituencies. Jack Straw, for example, is fully aware of all that I have described above, yet he is also acutely aware that confronting it would mean being labelled a “racist” leading to the loss of his seat, his salary, his expenses and his John Lewis perks. So, like all hypocritical socialists, he finds it more convenient to ignore the savagery and misery his male constituents inflict on his female constituents, along with twenty other of his socialist colleagues representing safe Labour seats in Muslim areas.
I suppose politicians at least have an excuse. What I find really inexcusable however is the attitude of the feminists. If European men were behaving as Muslim men do, there would be a national outcry led by the Germaine Greers of this world. If feminism is to be taken seriously then the definition of female oppression simply cannot be corporate glass ceilings and the lack of sufficient bonuses required to fill a wardrobe with Manolo Blahniks. It must instead be redirected at the genuine suffering of Muslim women and girls in Britain, because the wilful refusal by feminists to recognise crimes against humanity is morally no less obscene than the committing of them.
Comments
DEC




I suggest the opening paragraph is deleted in this article, it’s a VERY sexist view on women who the writer has labelled feminists.
It stopped me reading the vast majority of this article.
Violet, this being the British Freedom Party, we prefer to let people express their opinions freely, so we’re not keen on censorship. If you disagree with any of the article, then please say why – you can be as critical as you like.
George,
I will say if i disagree, and i will be as critical as i want if the need arises..
I wasnt asking for censorship i was pointing out that the definition of a feminist in my opinion was wrong. And put me off reading most of the article.
Dear Violet, I am sorry you find the opening paragraph offensive.
I should point out however that I do not talk of women in general, but specifically feminists. The whole point of the article was to express my astonishment that the genuine hatred and violence meted out to women by Muslim males has not become THE central focal point of womens’ rights and equality in this country.
I simply cannot understand how such an obviously appalling situation is met by a near silence from the British feminist movement, who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I think honour killing, female genital mutilation, unequal rights between men and women in Sharia courts, forced marriage, child brides etc etc are examples of genuine sexism. Exposing British feminists who turn a blind eye to this is not, I would suggest, sexist in the least.
Kind Regards
Paul Weston
Dear Paul, thank you for replying.
Your definition of a ‘feminist’ is different to mine and all other women i know.
Every single female i asked favoured the view that a feminist is a woman who stood up for other women in every which way. Not a fluffy bird brain which is what you wrote (or words to that effect)
My daughter is classed as a feminist and would never walk around the office in a pair of any designer shoes discussing the merits of her latest purchase and she for example is a staunch nationalist.
Along with myself , we are known for our campaign and action against the disgusting treatment of women by muslims for example.
I do understand what your article was about which is why i only said the first couple of paragraphs.
regards Violet.
I haven’t seen or heard any feminists challenging these muslim men, or women either on the burka (or whatever they call it) or on lots of other issues in which islam treats women badly. If they have they’ve not been very vocal about it. I believe the reason for this is that most of them are pro muslim and pro multiculturalism. I have met some. Women running training courses just for women. They had some of us dressing in asian robes (not me), although there were mutterings of dissent from many. If there’s now fallout, then it’s been created by them supping with muslims in the first place. Think of one of the first modern day feminists. Jane Fonda. Or rather ‘Hanoi (traitor) Jane’ as she was known. Not to mention the feminist lefty witch Harman. Anyone who doesn’t realise all this is out of touch with the views of society and of women in general. The article was spot on.
He was making the point that feminists don’t seem to be interested in their own welfare. Very few are out protesting against islam, when sharia law would condemn all of them to death. Don’t they know that they are second class citizens in the eyes of all male muslims!! The treatment dished out to females, could only have come from satan!!
I didn’t understand this paragraph to mean women in general, but those who call themselves feminists. I’m all for women’s rights, but wouldn’t call myself a ‘feminist’ because I’m afraid this group of women have earned themselves a very negative profile. Well earned it. In fact, I dislike them as much as many men do, as they do little for the real causes of gender equality. This article is dead right, because from what I’ve seen 90% of ‘feminists’ are lefties. Any that aren’t can thank the other 90% of activists. People like Harriet Harman.
it’s not easy to fight with the agenda because they got washed brains by their scolars, watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZCUKRT4OC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHk1t3y7BhA
To suggest that a male politician be exempt from protesting against Muslim gender inequality, yet a female office worker is not, is sexist in and of itself.
The truth is that anyone and everyone that protests against anything to do with Muslims, is immediately branded a “racist”.
Quite why you are laying blame at the door of the collective non-Muslim females is unclear, however to do so is not only inaccurate, offensive, sexist, but also ignorant and ignores the fundamental issues that ALL British non-Muslim people face when challenging barbaric crimes disguised as religions.
Demeaning women by generalising about shoes is not academic substantiation either, simply another indicator that the writer has a very sexist attitude towards women in general. Many of the affected Muslims discussed in the article should not even be in Britain and are indeed there on unlawful means, again disguised as religious reasons, yet those whom have allowed this to happen are not villified, whilst blame for not protesting their cause, is laid at the feet of their non-Muslim comstituent counterparts!
This article is filled with sexism and hypocrisy and attendant contradictions.
Show me one “feminist” – if we are suddenly defining feminists as those with a job that gives them the means to clothe, shoe and feed themselves, that is exempt from the same laws that prevent EVERYONE, from condemning the atrocities perpetrated within the Muslim “culture” disguised as religion, and I’ll show you a democrat in Parliament.
Since no one has bothered to address my response to the completely erroneous and false information contained in the article above, I shall respond further to ensure that such gross misrepresentations are corrected. I shall point out that contrary to the assertions that non-Muslim “feminists” are doing nothing for oppressed females, indeed quite the opposite is correct. There are organisations, run by non-Muslim and Muslim females, to effect political change and stop Islamic mistreatment of and inequality towards, Muslim women. The “feminists” are smart enough to realise that they are criminalised and branded “racists” if they speak out and are tarred as “haters” on the internet and threatened, hence they focus on politically and legally appropriate channels and focus on constructive activity. Indeed the writer of the above article should know better and should be well aware that opposing anything on the internet cannot and will not, effect legal change. Only politically expedient means will effect change.
Unfortunately, since the British Freedom Party appears to be pushing a different agenda to that of eliminating Islamic cruelty, it is notable that the legislative changes against Sharia Law, etc, already underway, are not mentioned anywhere on your website, whilst White, non-Muslim women are demonised as selfish “feminists”. The author of the article above shows clear personal bias and rather than offer evidence based facts, leans on biased generalisations towards the entire female gender. Such poorly written articles which of course lack credibility as do all such biased generalisations and do nothing for British Freedom, other than to prove that the author has his own bias, his own agenda and his own reasons for ignoring the valuable and important work being conducted BY FEMALES, FOR FEMALES, for example, the campaigning work and Legal changes expedited by groups such as “One Law For All”.
To make you aware of the significant progress made just this year, by campaigning efforts against Islamic brutality, I include below, the latest update from AnneMarie Waters, spokeswoman for the “One Law For All” group.
——————–
Dear Friend,
We want to thank you for your support throughout 2011 and to give you a reminder of the important steps we took throughout the year, none of which would have been possible without you.
One of the most significant events this year was the introduction of the Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill which was introduced to the House of Lords by Baroness Caroline Cox. Baroness Cox has said that she was inspired by the work of One Law for All. I, along with Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, have been working closely with Baroness Cox in recent months to assist in her efforts, within Parliament, to shore up support for the Bill. Last week, I addressed a meeting of Peers at the House of Lords and further talks and information sessions will be held in the New Year. The Bill aims to end discriminatory practices, particularly against women, in arbitration and mediation carried out in the UK. This would mean that the sharia practice of giving the testimony of women only half the weight of that of men would be unlawful. The Bill will also create a criminal offence which will prevent people from pretending to have lawful jurisdiction that they do not have. This would carry a five year prison sentence and is aimed at protecting vulnerable women. We will continue to push this incredibly important Bill in 2012, which promotes equal rights for all.
Also in 2011, One Law for All began studying the effects of sharia on the rights and protections of children. Sharia law awards child custody to fathers at a preset age regardless of the circumstances of the case. This is entirely contrary to the requirements of the Children Act 1989 which instructs all UK courts to place the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all cases. One Law for All has decided to expand its written report in to this issue and we are currently inviting experts in this area to contribute to this important document, which we hope to hand over to the Government in early 2012. We held a successful seminar in November this year with the aim of introducing the issues surrounding sharia and the rights of children. We will continue to work on this in 2012.
Throughout the year, Maryam and I have debated sharia law at UCL, the House of Commons and the Liberal Democrat conference. We have given talks on sharia at Oxford University, How the Light Gets in Philosophy Festival, London School of Economics, Amnesty International, and various other educational and human rights institutions. We have also organised a successful seminar, ‘Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right and Pro-Islamist Left’, an international conference on ‘Women’s Rights, Sharia Law and Secularism’ as well as the third edition of our art competition ‘Passion for Freedom’.
In August, Maryam brought One Law for All to Australia, where increasing demands for sharia are being made. She spent a week there on a highly successful speaking tour, and was interviewed by many TV stations and other media. We have also been to Italy, Denmark and Norway this year and plan to speak in Belgium, Canada and Sweden on Sharia in the coming year.
It has been a busy and extremely important year for us and we very much intend to step up the pace in 2012 and continue to insist that our voices against sharia are heard – by Parliament and also by the Islamists themselves; but as always we can only do this with your help. Please help us to continue our essential work and end sharia courts for good. To donate to the work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/. We need regular support and also for supporters to commit to giving at least £5-10 a month via direct debit. You can find out more about how to join the 100 Club here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/.
If you shop online, please do so via the Easy Fundraising’s website: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/register-supporter/?char=40474. It won’t cost you anything extra but can help raise much needed funds for One Law for All.
Once again, thank you for your vital support and we would like to wish you a very happy festive season and a prosperous 2012.
Very best wishes,
Anne Marie Waters
Spokesperson
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk
These are interesting initiatives – would you care to write a short article for our website describing the work of One Law for All? I’m sure our readers would want to know more. Contact me, George Whale: georgewhale@britishfreedom.org