We have to stand with Charlie Hebdo – there is no other choice

FRANCE-ATTACKS-MEDIAMuch as a very large part of me wants to curl up and become a xenophobe and a religiphobe, I do not want to cloud my vision to what is actually going on.
The senseless and violent assassinations of 12 people, including the two policemen charged with security, at Charlie Hebdo in Paris today leaves all of us numb, with developing anger, sadness and a sense of impotence that no amount of throwing something at the wall will satisfy.
We all remember the Danish cartoons, the people who were killed, the movie made by Hirsi Ali and Van Gogh, the fatwa that sent Rushdie to America for safety, and other atrocious killings. We have witnessed beheadings by terrorists of harmless journalists and aid workers posted on the internet for all to see.

We are all aware of what is definitely an upsurge in Islam-related bombings, suicide bombings, stabbings and the appalling murder in full daylight of a soldier with the perpetrators sending their dreadful message on video tape while waving blood stained hands and machetes on air.

You can go onto YouTube and find video after video after video of Islamic would-bes if they could-bes ranting and raving about the immediate world domination by Islam and the beheadings of all those who refuse to submit to the religious edicts.

All these acts are aimed at creating a miasma of fear with the aim of subjection.

There are those who insist that European countries start to repel intended immigrants if they come from war-torn Arabic or African states. There have been incidents in The Netherlands, Denmark, France, the UK and so many other countries. Here is an image; an analysis of Islamic terrorism gleaned from 12 years data collection. I can’t attest to any accuracy, obviously. It is disturbing, none-the-less.

Distribution of Islamic terrorism using collected from 2001 to 2012

Distribution of Islamic terrorism using collected from 2001 to 2012

I have to say, to any reader not familiar with me, that I have a decided antipathy to any and all religion as it is practised, proselytised and imposed. Historically religion has dominated societies and we are still trying to shake ourselves and our societies free of religious shackles. Not an easy task. As secularism grows and has a greater voice in the media (and there are many media these days), the more insular, dogmatic and hard line religions fight back. They cross the line when they resort to murder, terrorism, mutilation, mass killings etc.
It is very easy to satirise Pat Robertson with his loopy Christianity, or any of the way over the top religious charlatans who fleece gullible people. Not so easy to relegate Islamic extremism to the asylum ward.
There is an enormous movement of Muslims into Europe – Europe that has seen bloody religious wars and has no stomach for them. But Europe is worried by the growing ant-Islamic sentiments venting there.

Any reading of the histories of any/all religions shows the intolerance and internecine flavour that attends them.
I have a friend who has, for years, eschewed criticism of religion partly because it goes nowhere. Just words. However today, he has posted an essay that Christopher Hitchens wrote for Slate in 2006 and I reproduce it in full here with the introduction by Slate on today’s atrocity:
The case for mocking religion

By Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

On Wednesday, gunmen attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12. The magazine was known for printing images of the prophet Mohammed, including the 2005 cartoons that originally ran in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, leading to widespread violence. In February 2006, Christopher Hitchens addressed that controversy in his inimitable way. His article is reprinted below:

As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week’s international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.

“Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.”

Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean “unacceptable”? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a “spokesman” cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.

Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.

Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find “offensive.” (By the way, hasn’t the word “offensive” become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a “holy” book. But I will not be told I can’t eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can’t even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There’s an insult to Islam, if you like.

The question of “offensiveness” is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it “pixilated” the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be “offended” will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against “all those involved in its publication,” which led to the murder of the book’s Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.

In the Wall Street Journal today there is this:

salman rushdieSalman Rushdie, whose book “The Satanic Verses” prompted Iran’s Ayatollah to issue a fatwa on him in 1989, responded to Wednesday’s shooting attack at the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. His statement:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”  –Salman

What to do about this stuff?? I don’t know. It is no use crying to ‘get rid of them’ from ‘our’ country(ies). The problems with terrorist Islam is not going to go away soon. Each incident has to be dealt with as it happens. The US has immigrants sign a paper stating they will not bring harm to the US or they face being deported. That still only works on an individual incident and perpetrator basis.

There is a lot of money brought into different countries from oil-rich Arabic and Islamic states. Populations have become dependent on the products that oil provides. There appears to be no political will to cut off potential political funding by taking any sort of strong stance on immigrants, even if there is a suspicion that said immigrant may be problematic.

Has anyone arrived at a logistical and reasonable solution to this seemingly growing problem of religio/political terrorism? Not a polemic but a solution that can be realistically implemented? In any case, I am with Rushdie and Hitchens – mock all religious stupidity, and tyranny. The pen has to be mightier than the sword. Well – more people can write and make cartoons than can wield the sword.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/paris-charles-hebdo-writing-journalism-intolerance

Advertisements

FGM-a proper legal response

 

It is with interest that I noticed an article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday that details the beginnings of legal actions to be taken against those in Australia that undertake this horrendous practice of mutilating little girls.

As anyone reading this blog is aware my reactions to FGM, as one of the disgustingly barbaric, disfiguring and revolting things that can be done to defenceless and vulnerable children under the control of deluded adults, raises my ire as little else does.

Sheikh Shabbir Vaziri, 56, who police sources say is part of a lesser-known branch of Islam, has been charged with two counts of accessory after the fact of female genital mutilation and hindering investigation of a serious indictable offence.

Also arrested today was a 68-year-old woman who has been charged with two counts of prohibition of female genital mutilation.

A 42-year-old man and a 35-year-old woman were arrested last Friday and charged with two counts each of female genital mutilation.

This final statement in the article drew my interest:

Female genital mutilation is illegal in NSW. It is also an offence to take a NSW resident overseas to have the procedure performed.

 

To begin with I hadn’t realised that FGM had been made illegal in NSW and that it is an offence to spirit girls away overseas to have the procedure performed in places like Pakistan and in Africa.

It is heartening that more and more news stories indicate that FGM is becoming unacceptable even in places where hitherto it had been seen as a cultural norm rather more than a Muslim practice (which it isn’t except that Muslims are the ones practising this barbarism).

There is another SMH report two days ago about WA girls and babies undergoing FGM. It appears that some Catholic groups also perform FGM. It is obvious that FGM pre-dates any and all religion. The Catholic must be the African Catholics having been proselytised by white Catholic missionaries sticking their noses in where they shouldn’t.

While its original raison d’être seems to relate to cleanliness as did male circumcision, the fact that these procedures still occur has more to do with tradition than any real sense of ‘need’. There is a belief that clitoral and labial removal and stitching up whatever is left of the external genitalia is to stop women from being ‘overly sexually active’. What a load of codswallop!

I have enormous difficulty with this as babies are the ones undergoing the procedure. The only thing I can see is that the children are under adult control and the women are the ones to perform this barbarism.

I suspect that hidden amongst the traditional rubbish and crap, FGM is to keep bloody paedophiles away from girls. It obviously didn’t and still doesn’t work. Men still abuse girls and women, get away with it while the women undergo humiliation, torture and are often stoned to death. In western countries stoning has been replaced by shooting or knifing.

We know about Ayaan Hirsi Ali but I hadn’t heard of this woman who is on the same warpath and from the same country of Somalia. This is Waris Dirie and she is quoted as saying something that I can relate to:

The idea that things are too private to mention is, after all, what keeps them shrouded in silence. ”You’ve got a vagina, I’ve got a vagina, every man in the world knows you have got one, like he’s got a prick and an arse!” she snaps. ”There is nothing to be ashamed [of], that it should not be discussed because it is private! But then it is private and should not be touched – that is the point. And it’s not just my world, it’s everywhere.” 

Waris Dirie – another FGM victim

She is strong and angry and this quote from the SMH article is good:

”But I’m sad this ignorance is still happening. I know the world knows it’s wrong. If I’m angry, I’m angry with those who have the knowledge to change something and are not changing it.”

 

Female Genital Mutilation – FGM – in tolerant Britain

I am sick to bloody death of the so-called ‘cultural sensitivity’ that abounds in this damned country. The cultural sensitivity that I call wimpishness that allows, by tacitly condoning, some of the more repulsive and barbaric practices that have been imported into Britain.

These practices include the outrageous and egregious practice of female genital mutilation that has infiltrated this country via different immigrant peoples all of which call Islam their ‘religion’.

The British seem to have no idea how to make multiculturalism work but keep opening their arms to disparate groups of immigrants – mostly post colonial, some of whom are internecine enemies. The British then allow pockets of immigrant groups to form in housing estates thus allowing (again by tacit acceptance) a ghetto culture to develop with rival groups at loggerheads with each other. So much of this stems from the old days of Empire when Britain had some pretty horrendous practices of its own. But, really! Is that any excuse to encourage the barbarism that some of the immigrants’ cultures embrace with religious fervour. The Brits stand by limp-wristedly and spruik cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness.

Today the BBC online news had an article advertising its Newsnight programme tonight:

Hidden world of female genital mutilation in the UK

It must surely be unacceptable in any so-called self-styled civilised society to turn a blind eye to cutting off the clitoris, the outer labia and inner labia and then sewing up the raw flesh of the vagina leaving a tiny hole for urination and menstruation. Done when the girl is anywhere from three years old onwards. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was six when her grandmother held her down and in highly septic conditions mutilated her. That was in Somalia.

I understand how hard it is to track and monitor this revolting practice because it occurs usually in a domestic setting and on a kitchen table. I also understand how pathetic Border Control is – but that is where the monitoring should start.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – mutilated at six

Read Ali’s book; read the BBC article; watch Newsnight tonight or watch it tomorrow on BBC iPlayer. Become aware of what is going on in the cities across Britain.

I fail to understand why, if France can use its enacted laws to prosecute the practitioners of this disgusting practice of hacking off female genitals, Britain has yet to prosecute anyone despite having enacted similar laws to France at the same time in the 1980s.

I get so angry when I try to imagine the horror and pain these children feel; what must seem as an act of betrayal from the parents and grandparents they have learnt to trust. Because it is an act of betrayal. Parents are expected to love, cherish and nurture their children, not mutilate them for some stupid tradition.

And then the aftermath when these girls grow up (some, of course, die from blood loss, toxic shock and other infections) – painful sex, reconstructive surgery, agonising childbirth after being cut open again for the passage of the baby. And I am supposed to accept that crap because such practices are part of the social and religious culture of various peoples? Bollocks! It is barbaric and stems from primitive beliefs and gender control measures.

This is how France’s seasoned campaigner sees it:

‘She (Isabelle Gillette-Faye) is trying her best not to be rude about the English.
“In England, you are very respectful of your immigrants,” she says.
“It is very different in France. They have to integrate and they have to obey our laws.”’

What sort of religious claptrap is Britain going to handle so that girls can be cut because the Brits are oh so ‘culturally sensitive’. What a load of rubbish. France has it on the money. Integrate and obey the laws of the land. Stamp this horrible dehumanising behaviour out – and Rowan Williams – stop bleating on about how Sharia law needs to sit in concert with British law so that Islam can continue pretending it can exert its barbarism in this country.

It is time to take a zero tolerance stance on this rubbish. Massive fines, gaol terms and banishment from our society. Come on Cameron, Gove, Clegg and the rest of you wimps. Do something!

Forced Marriage – honour-based abuse

The Prime Minister

In today’s news Cameron appears to be set to make forced marriage a criminal offence. The BBC Newsround headlines:

Forced marriage to be made illegal in England and Wales

My initial reaction was Hurrah! And then I thought – hang on, I am actually astonished that it isn’t a criminal offence already. This is 21st century Britain after all.

So I started scouring the news for details. I found that in Scotland, forced marriage has been illegal only since November 2011. Here is a definition as noted by the Scottish Government:

A forced Marriage is a marriage in which one or both parties do not (or, in the case of some adults with learning or physical disabilities, cannot) consent to the marriage and duress is involved. Duress includes both physical and emotional pressure. It is very different from arranged marriage, where both parties give their full and free consent to the marriage.

The Independent today has an opinion piece entitled:

Forced marriage – we can’t ignore the shocking truth

Apparently until now, forced marriage has been a civil offence only. The Government in England instituted a Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) which could use the force of the law but not prosecute the parents. This soft approach was to encourage victims to report knowing that their parents would not be prosecuted. This is about to change. We can only hope victims will still report to the FMU.

Last year the FMU dealt with 1,468 cases (78% are women and 30% of those are under 18). I don’t how many of the remaining 22% are disabled and/or gay men and how many are boys also being forced into marriage.

The statistics show that 56% of 2011’s victims had learning disabilities and some 10 cases involved gays or lesbians. And these figures are only the reported ones. There seems to be a whole underground in this country where honour-based abuse thrives.

Karma Nirvana has some 5,000 distress phone calls to its helpline every year. This is from their web page:

At Karma Nirvana, we have one clear aim: to stop the scandal of forced marriage and honour-based violence. No apologies. No excuses. No backing down.

If you’re here to tell us that we can please all cultures without causing the slightest bit of offence – well, frankly, you’ve come to the wrong place.

Jasvinder Sanghera

Jasvinder Sanghera the founder, is committed to the support of victims of honour-based abuse in Britain after her own experiences and the suicide of her sister.

We are aware that forced marriages appear to have more to do with eastern and Middle Eastern countries and the cultural norms and religions that survive there. But this is happening in Great Britain among immigrant communities. Some girls are sent back to where their families came from and forced into marriage there, often to much older men and/or male relatives. Some girls and women are subjected to constant rape and domestic violence. Some girls and women commit suicide because there seems no way out.

Along with forced marriage goes domestic violence, honour killings and female genital mutilation (FGM). None of these practices should be condoned by Britain or, indeed, anywhere else. Remember Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about these things in Somalia in her book Infidel? A horrifying read.

And now we are aware that disabled people are being forced into marriage in this country. Over half of the cases reported to the FMU relate to disabled people. According to the blog DisabledGo News, half of the cases reported are from Pakistani origin and the rest from across many different ethnic groups. Some are forced into marriage to provide them with a carer others for residence and citizenship reasons.

Cameron is quoted as describing forced marriage as “little more than slavery”. Yes, Cameron, that is true. And now – how do we ensure that the practice doesn’t go underground? That’s a potential problem that I can see and can’t think of a solution.

The Cultures behind the Burqa

Not quite penguins, but huddled

Apropos of my first blog entry on the Burqa and what I thought of the banning or otherwise of its use in Western Society, I decided to have a look further at the genesis of its appearance in society.

I postulated its beginnings in the desert trade routes and realised that it pre-dated any religite holy book, dictates or whatever.

In the Wikipedia article there is mention of the concept of Namus which I touched on briefly in the earlier blog.

Anyway I looked up this word ‘namus’. Talk about bizarre. It is an ethical category, a virtue, of Middle Eastern patriarchal character and has, of recent times, come to be strongly gender-specific; surprise, surprise.

Talk about an idiotic concept that is used (sorry, nearly said abused) as a cover-all for anything to do with the male head of the family – sometimes extended out to the titular head of a tribe; patriarchy again and in spades. What is wrong with these people?

Namus represents obedience, faithfulness, modesty (in behaviour and in dress), ‘appropriateness’ – for the women of course. It can be translated as ‘virtue’ or ‘honour’.

Therein lies the raison d’etre for barbaric murders, suicides, infanticides, forced abortion, and other yucks that have come to be associated with these societies that also practice some form of Islam. These barbarous practices are called overall the ‘restoration of namus’.

The ‘violations of namus’ are numerous, including – wait for it! – giving birth to a daughter instead of a son. In some cases it includes encroachment on a man’s plot of land.

It should be pointed out that support for namus does not exist in any of the holy scriptures. Apart from the fact that all holy scriptures are man-made fairy tales embodying wish fulfilment, eternity and ultimate acceptance, namus is a man–made construct of the vilest nature.

In the middle of the high flown and fly blown words describing heavenly perfection as seen by man, we find a culturally driven, religiously sanctioned concept that allows, nay encourages murder, mayhem, destruction all in the name if  ‘honour’!

In this context, I am reminded of George Carlin who described Christianity as the best bullshit story ever told.

So here is a list of countries where namus manifests as honour killings. This is often (usually) done by throwing stones at the head of the victim who is buried in a public place – often a sporting field – and unable to escape. The male members of a female victim’s family are offered the first throws.

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda are countries in which “honour killings” occur amongst the Muslim population.

This is because among adherents to this barbarism, men are supposed to control the women in his family.

The other interesting point to make is that is the namus of the whole family that is violated if a female of the household is raped. Wiki states that an estimated 5,000 victims are killed or forced to commit suicide and that number is on the rise worldwide.

It sounds like a sick form of losing ‘face’; very sick.

Wikipedia also states that namus is still an active force in rural societies.

Well yes, I guess those rural societies mentioned are the sort that we would refer to red-neck societies. You know – those communities that don’t really interact with the outside world and as a consequence stay stuck in the religious and social mire through which their leaders wield despotic power. And woe betide anyone who wants to leave; or transgresses the “RULES”.

But it isn’t just rural societies. Here is an excerpt from a page about a young, brave woman in Sweden of all places:

Fadime Sahindal

Birth: 1975
Death: 2002
Social Reformer, Murder Victim. She made her name in her struggle for women’s liberation and integration, from an ethnic point of view. Being a Kurdish immigrant to Sweden, she fought for young women’s acclimatisation into western society, often in opposition with old tradition. She delivered a speech on the subject to the Swedish Parliament and gave those issues a public face. Fadime had a Swedish boyfriend, something that meant ”disgrace” to some of her relatives. She was brutally killed on the 21st of January 2002 by her own father; a so-called ”honour killing.” Her funeral became a manifestation, broadcasted on Swedish TV. It was attended by many officials, as well as members from the Swedish government.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Then there is Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia who lays bare the tyranny of Islam and the thrall in which Muslims are held. Her recollections in her book Infidel are quite horrific.

So, at the end of all this, I can only come down on the side of France, Syria, The Netherlands, Belgium and Egypt and anywhere else that is trying to ban the burqa. I would do away with all religiously motivated clap trap, apologetics and raison d’etre for piss poor behaviour; especially that which results in death or mental and physical abuse, disfigurement and other mutilations.

The symbolism of the burqa as the really observable face of female subjugation and religious tyranny means its days must be numbered; by legislation and policing. Everywhere; and disenfranchised women must be able to call on, expect and be given full support by the law.

I am no longer interested in being politically correct about this barbaric, backward and stifling religion. This is Islam, it is practised in this manner by a seemingly increasing number of adherents.