Vienna has become a very culturally enriched city. Earlier today Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff experienced yet another example of the new enriched Viennese urban environment.
Burkini vs. Hijab
by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
The weather has been hot lately in Vienna, and no one here has air conditioning, so I’ve been spending quite a bit of time at the public swimming pool. I was there with a friend today, and as we were leaving, we saw a woman wearing black hijab, a black shirt and black pants playing with her child in the pool.
Now, the rules at this pool are strict: no street clothes in the pools. But no, she was in the pool. Wearing her culturally enriched street clothes.
So my friend and I complained. The (non-Muslim) lifeguards sympathized with us, but said they were bound by the decision made by their boss. He had ruled the clothes a “burkini”, which it most decidedly was not.
Other (non-Muslims) agreed with our objection, notably my neighbor, who threatened to call the authorities to complain. “In Jordan I had to dress according to the customs. These women must do this here as well. I do not want a condom-clad lady in the pool!”
Apart form the Islamic aspect of this incident, there is also the hygienic aspect. I am not allowed to swim in shirt and shorts. Why should this Muslim lady be allowed to swim in street clothes?
Later, as we left the pool area to go to the car, we were verbally attacked by two cashiers, a man and a woman, who accused my friend and me of “racism”. “I am a Muslim, my mother wears those clothes, and I know that this is a burkini, and you do not.”
I replied that I knew what a burkini looked like, and that the woman’s clothes were definitely not a burkini, but street clothes. Again, the “racism” charge
One of guests at the pool remarked to my friend: “Next time I’ll bring along my dog, because the dog is much cleaner…”
What scares me even more is the divide: one the one hand you have the seemingly integrated and non-hijabbed Muslims who will side with their kind no matter what. And on the other hand, there is the “old” population, which knows exactly what is going on, but dares not do anything out of fear.
I’ll put the sole of my shoe on top of the head of any “democratically elected” cowardly politician who sides with muslims on every turn when they systematically break the laws and still they import more of them.
Is there honot and men in democracies?
“…seemingly integrated and non-hijabbed Muslims who will side with their kind no matter what.”
Ah…the silent majority of Muslims who keep their mouths shut except when it comes time to pass the ammunition.
There ya go. All the explanation anybody needs.
The woman in the blue looks like a teletubby. We had the Saudis out in force in Chiang Mai yesterday. Headscarfs and robes to the fore but no hidden faces. This was unfortunate as most of them were pig and I mean pig pig pig ugly. Just like their religion.
In 1997, I objected to teaching a burka clad student in my class. The other students did not like it either. I ejected her from the class. She complained to the Department, that I and the class had insulted her faith. The Department backed myself and the class on the grounds that covering one’s identity was “unfair to others” and she was told in no uncertan terms that she was not to wear such clothing on campus.
Today that same campus is full of burkas.
I detect a change in the ‘cultural’ attitude towards our Islamic Enemy. It seems to be increasingly evident in articles and comments such as this. What think you, boys and girls–or is it just my wishful thinking?
I still do not think that the ending will be pretty.
“And on the other hand, there is the ‘old’ population, which knows exactly what is going on, but dares not do anything out of fear.”
Read right here at GOV how fear is the force that drives Islam.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/11/islam-is-fear-part-i.html
Well, yes and no: yes there is rampant fear in Islamic culture and psychology; however, it’s not a simple fear we can comfortingly compare with other people and cultures, but must be contextualized in terms of a uniquely powerful Stockholm Syndrome by which we must not underestimate their enmity against us.
I.e., it doesn’t add much to our strategic concerns to note that most Muslims are “fearful” of their own Islamofascism; but, on the other hand, it can positively undermine our ability to defend our societies in the coming decades, if such a perspective percolates into our policies and pyschology in the form of an undue optimism about the humanity of Muslims trumping their inhuman & inhumane fanaticism.
Multiculturalism and the rule of law are mutually exclusive. The clue is in the word ‘multiculturalism’ which, by definition, implies a mutliplicity of cultures. And where there is a multiplicity of cultures there must also be a multiplicity of legal systems since the legal system is a function of the culture that spawned it.
Rule of law means equality before the law, where everyone is dealth with according to the same law. It’s played an important role in maintaining an equable relationship between society’s individual members. And those societies where the rule of law doesn’t exist tend to be amongst the world’s most chaotic.
The rule of law in Britain is now merely theoretical, in practice it doesn’t exist – it can’t exist, Britain is multicultural and therefore, by definition, it must contain within it a multiplicity of legal systems – or at least one system that is applied differently to different people according to their individual requirements.
The clearest illustration of this is the law pertaining to the slaughter of animals for consumption: according to British law, were a ‘non-Muslim’ to slaughter an animal according to Muslim practice he would be breaking the law, yet for a Muslim it is perfectly legal.
Before multiculturalism, British Law governing the slaughter of animals for consumption focused on minimising stress and suffering. The animal is protected in law, this is a manifestation of our relationship with animals, it’s an expression of our culture.
However, the Muslim sees it differently. His method of slaughter is less concerned with animal welfare than it is with religious dictates. He could utilise a more humane method of slaughter but doesn’t because it would conflict with his religion.
Because the British political establishment was too cowardly to demand that Muslims adopt our attitude to animal welfare, we are now in the absurd situation where British law deems a method of slaughter cruel and illegal if it is carried out by a non-Mulsim, but humane and legal if carried out by a Muslim.
Rule of law?
Elisabeth’s example is one of many. It would be interesting to list all the ways in which our rule of law has been compromised to accommodate Muslim demands.
If I chose to drive around in a balaclava how long would it be before the police pulled me over? If I entered a bank similarly dressed would they not ask me to uncover my face?
The rule of law, or rather equality before the law, was undermined well before western societies became multicultural. Group entitlements was already established, it just became more apparent when it was applied to alien groups. Sometimes by special laws for kings, men of the cloth or nobility, at other times to protect function monopolies like licensed trades or occupations. These are remnants from the days of the tyranny of kings and aristocracy, when they were the only one to possess rights, while all others could only achieve/earn/buy privilege, which to a degree is still true today. After the french revolution the socialist block (and other groups) perverted the true purpose of law, and made it into an instrument for everyone and all groups to try to use it for gaining advantage over and living off the efforts of others. Since that fatal event, the rule of law has been a mess in most western societies.
I will recommend the essay “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat to explain the issues better.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Certainly there have always been exceptions to the law – what I’m talking about though is alternative systems of law that exist alongside the current legal system within the same society but in a kind of parallel universe.
I was not writing about “exceptions to the law”, I outlined a tradition for group entitlements in the law. And I propose that this tradition in western “law” and societies is the origin of the absurd consequences that we observe today. To solve a problem, we have to know what causes it. In my understanding multiculturalism is just a new symptom of a rather old problem plaguing humanity.
And what is that old problem?
Failure to follow the Ten Commandments.
Namely, thou shalt NOT steal.
Brilliant piece on all fronts, sir. Accolades and regards, Max.
@maninthepub As for the slaughter of animals.
Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish law. Dhabiha is the method used to slaughter an animal as per Islamic tradition. Shechita requires that an animal be conscious and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical, gas, or percussive stunning before slaughter is forbidden. Most Muslim authorities also forbid the use of electrical, gas, or percussive stunning. However, other authorities state that stunning is permissible so long as it is not the direct cause of the animal’s death.
It appears Jewish and Muslim rituals are mostly similar in this particular matter.
To me it’s not the big issue. People should be disturbed the way animals like chickens are slaughtered in the “secular”? “Western”? method : before they are killed, pluck their feathers, cut off their beaks, and stun them so they don’t move around when their throats are cut while alive.
Let’s get to the main point here: to me the issue is not whether it’s a burkini or not, but that we should not be encouraging the whole concept that women need to be ashamed of their bodies and hair. The fact that they cover up like this makes a very clear implication for ordinary western women: the fact that men can see your hair and more of your body puts you in the wrong and ‘invites’ harassment.
We got over this c**p decades ago. Why is the left allowing it to come back in this way?
Because under the cultural domination PC MC throughout the West, multiculturalist sensitivity to the Other (and Muslims post-911 have become the Mother of All Others) trumps all other liberal values, including gay rights, feminism, artistic freedom; etc.
Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish law. Dhabiha is the method used to slaughter an animal as per Islamic tradition. Shechita requires that an animal be conscious and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical, gas, or percussive stunning before slaughter is forbidden. Most Muslim authorities also forbid the use of electrical, gas, or percussive stunning.[citation needed] However, other authorities state that stunning is permissible so long as it is not the direct cause of the animal’s death.
Little difference.
What people should be more disturbed about is the way animals such as chickens are processed for our dinner tables in the good old Western tradition in those big chicken factories. Before you kill them; hang them upside-down, defeather them, chop off their beaks, and then stun them before you cut their throats.
According to the BBC’s “Food Programme” a few days ago, the chickens are stunned (ie unconscious) before the rest of the process.
Update:
Both my friend and my neighbor called the municipality in charge of the pool. The lady on the other end of the phone line could/would not tell my friend how many complaints she has received, but between the lines she let it be known that her day’s fun was limited. However, the gist is: tough luck, it’s allowed. Non-Muslims are not allowed to swim in clothes (shorts and t-shirt), but the Islamic clothes (i.e. hijab, leggings, tunica shirt) are permissible.
So this is how far we’ve come. The non-Muslim population must adhere to hygienic rules while the Islamic population need not. This is the new equality before the law.
How inclusive our new society has become!
Here’s an idea…get 12 activists to don the street clothes “burkini” and revisit the swimming pool. Bring along a Go Pro camera in a watertight case for video documentation. See if your activists are allowed to swim or frolic in their burkini garb. Also don some dry hijabs and visit your local banks. Withdrawal some funds and video document your experience. Say nothing about a faith conversion or following Muslim beliefs. Just show up in the same clothing to see if you will be treated equally under the new precedence allowed at the swimming pool. Post your video experiences on Youtube.
Three weeks ago, I was at Rome airport where I saw dozens of hijab clothed women walking six paces behind Muslim men who appeared to be dressed in Western attire. Many of their female children were also dressed in Western attire. When the numbers of burkhas and burkinis increase in public places, people will take notice. One or two go by unnoticed. That has been my experience in Italy and Germany this year.