Christian Ortner is a prominent popular journalist and opinion writer in Austria. The following essay about the culture-enriching treatment of “Viennese” women was posted on his website yesterday. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:
Why Not Put Women on a Leash?
by Christian Ortner
August 12, 2015For some weeks now, in Vienna City, you can see women — mostly in groups with a man — wrapped from head to toe in black cloth, covering the entire body and the head and usually only leaving a narrow slit at eye-height.
The whole thing is reminiscent of a gaggle of penguins.
In most cases, the article of clothing is a “niqab” as women (must) wear them, particularly on the Arabian peninsula and in the Gulf States, but to some extent also in other Muslim countries of the Middle East. These are women dragged along in the train of their husbands, as tourists at the height of the summer, looking to cool off at 40 degrees [Celsius, 104F] in Vienna.
Women who (have to) wrap their bodies entirely — what can you call that but an obscenity? (Wikipedia: “Something that is obscene is calculated to move other people to repulsion or shame or to injure some other elemental feeling.”)
And it is shame and repulsion that is awakened in any halfway civilized person by the spectacle of a woman forced by her society to completely shroud herself. It is an action of oppression, of denigration and of dehumanization, and any witness to it must fight the considerable and almost irresistible embarrassment and repulsion it causes.
It is incomprehensible why Western societies allow this kind of thing. Let us assume that in some distant, archaic culture it were customary to walk women through town, naked, on all fours and leashed. Would we shrug our shoulders and tolerate that? Yeah, well. And there is a quantitative but no real qualitative difference between a niqab and a leash.
It is worth noting that there is another aspect to this open show of contempt for women in Vienna.
Any halfway civilized traveler from the West in the Arab world — and especially in the conservative Gulf monarchies — will make a major effort to conform to the habits and customs there. No drinking of alcohol in public, the man reminding his female companion to cover her hair and camouflage her visual attractiveness (to the extent that this reminder is necessary).
That is just courtesy and common sense.
So why do our guests from the Arab world not have these thoughts in reverse and try to conform a little to what is customary here?
The unfortunate probability: Because they regard their religious and cultural rules as superior to all others in the world. That relativism that teaches us to regard all religions as ultimately of equal value and enables us to conform to these cultures, is surpassingly alien to them.
And that is part of a problem — a damned big problem.
And here in Canada we have women refusing to ‘unveil’ to take the oath of citizenship!
What galls me most, though, is seeing little girls all smothered up, head cover, long sleeves, long pants, in summer heat, while their brothers run about in shorts.
What ‘galls’ me is that we allow creatures like this into non Muslim countries.
That goes for me too; as I’ve repeatedly stated for the last 20 years or so, islam is so bad I’m perpetually amazed the western world tolerates it–let alone prostrates itself in front of this base, cruel, intolerant charade of a religion.
It is absolutely impossible for anyone who follows islam literally (as muslims are required to without question) to live peacefully in any western society, so why are they here? (if not to take over)
With the western non-system opened wide to the Muslim non-religion the resulting lockjaw is no surprise. A kind of man with two brains back street surgery deal for Saudi cash.
I agree! I have nothing against hijabs (the scarf worn on the head), but a cloth used to cover up the face is not a piece of clothing. (In islamic jurisprudence, “the face” is not considered as part of “the body”. The hands and the face are an exception while the rest of the female body is considered “awrah”.) The argument used to try to make the niqab palatable in the West, is that it is a religious requirement in islam. IT ISN’T! I have read the quran, sura and hadith. I know this for a fact. Saudi Arabia does not even allow it during the hadj in Mecca. There, a woman is expected to show her face and frankly, if it is good enough for Mecca, it is good enough for the taking of the Citizenship Oath in Ottawa.
“I have nothing against hijabs…”
You damn well should have. Hijibs were the foot in the door.
That attitude only helped grease the skids.
Yeah, I know. Tolerance…
Common sense says the anti humanity Muslim cult is repulsive to humanity. It would be. Wouldn’t it? We let WW2 and the Nazis in the back door, through the windows and even removed the borders. Brilliant generation.
Damn straight. Agree absolutely.
By the time Mohammed ordered muslim women to cover up (or be raped) he had already committed genocide (including the beheading of children).
How is wearing a hijab any different from wearing a Nazi uniform? Would you have a problem with women walking around in Nazi uniforms? Or would you only object to men in Nazi uniforms?
Sir-
You may want to consider Chapter 33 (al-Azhab), Verse 59 of the Quran:
http://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/quran-and-hijab
“[Y]ou can see women […] wrapped from head to toe in black cloth, covering the entire body and the head and usually only leaving a narrow slit at eye-height.”
How do you know they’re women?
It could be two midgets and a pantomime horse under that tent.
As a woman, I cringe every time I see another woman covering her face. It is a visceral feeling which is hard to explain and “repulsion” is as good a word as any. Given that it is NOT a religious requirement (NO WHERE in the quran, the sura or the hadith does it stipulate that a woman must cover her face. It is a cultural tradition coming from a desert people where THERE WERE A LOT OF SANDSTORMS.) and unless she has been forced to wear the niqab by a father, mother, husband or brother, it means that the woman has deliberately set herself apart, in essence “erasing” herself as an individual in society. There is a supremacist element as well; the idea that a covered woman from head to toe is better than me. Generally, I wear my hair in a ponytail. When I see a woman in this garb I have the irrestible urge to slowly let my hair down. I want them to see that I have the freedom to allow the wind to blow through my hair. No one will never be able to convince me that the niqab is a good thing.
What diseases do they die from, and how long is expected life span for these muslimas? We do know that they lack Vitamin D, as a basis for ill health.
The Daily Mail had an article a few years ago, on this bone structure disease in the UK, but the article was quickly withdrawn – censored – because it became too obvious what part of the population had this disease and the connection to their untouchable ideology.
In middle eastern countries larger houses will have an open courtyard in the center. The women do not have to cover up at home if there is only family around. This allows them to get some sun for vitamin D.
Doesn’t work as well for apartment living, though.
This is the war on women.
What galls me is going to work and walking through the prominent catholic university in D.C. and seeing women students in the niqab. This is relatively new in last year. It is simply shocking and depressing to me.
The sooner we stop being galled and instead get stalled and hold politicians feet to the proverbial fire before the Muslims move to the next level the better.
In addition to the problem of widespread vitamin D deficiency, a fetus gestating in a womb suffering from D deficiency has been connected to lifelong neurological issues, increased prevalence of schizophrenia, etc in such offspring. This, in addition to women’s D deficiency, has presumably characterized these whole populations for centuries, as they all gestate in vitamin D deficient mothers. Who knows how much that has degraded things, affected their history, along with the brain damage from inbreeding, and the brain damage from 5 times daily head banging.
Of course in the rich muslim lands, the ladies supplement D, but that’s new.
Ah, but not to muslims as it is possible as they take their time for gestation and could also be their answer why they are most likely to also be impervious to Vitamin D deficiency
“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Lawal (worth reading)
A movie/docu could be made of this and it would show up the tragic/comedic issue of sharia and the liability to the west it has if it gains any traction.”
From an earlier comment of mine on Czechs protest stoning woman
http://tinyurl.com/nfc3mfn
I agree the “degradation of the mind” has invented many things for muslims, even in their sharia courts.
…a fetus gestating in a womb suffering from D deficiency has been connected to lifelong neurological issues, increased prevalence of schizophrenia, etc in such offspring….
And put on top of that the prevalent problem with consanguinity – (“blood relation”, from the Latin consanguinitas) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person. As a working definition, unions contracted between persons biologically related as second cousins or closer are categorized as consanguineous. First-cousin marriage very common in Pakistan, as well as in the UK. Another term for it is inbreeding.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent.[11]
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen.
Consanguinity, or in-breeding, greatly effects the individual and the population regarding health and mental disorders.
This map could almost be mistaken for a map of the spread of Islam:
http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence
My God, that map is something!
Yep, my point was three (3) separate biological sources of brain damage, all coinciding, stem directly from Islamic religion:
1) Inbreeding (to create a tight clan to remedy the low trust among people following Islam)
2) Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy, due to veiling women (and keeping them inside the home)
3) Headbanging (Zebibah-strength prayer headbanging harms the brain).
Note that this is all physical biological damage, that are unintended results of following the ROP lifestyle. It is into this brain damage-prone way of life that the Islamic education – which disables both intellectually and morally – is applied.
Quite a perfect storm of a program.
Surprised Arkansas didn’t show on that map. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the cheap shot.)
We should all try to develop Islamophobia, as severe and fervent as possible.
In any healthy society…
Fretting over the niqab, or any of the other odd behaviors of immigrants in your country, is an admission that you didn’t really put enough thought into your immigration policy in the first place.
If you invite people from a completely different culture into your country then you get what you asked for. Why pretend to be surprised when, upon arrival, they behave in the exact same manner as they’ve done in their home countries?
If halal eating, niqab wearing, free speech hating, throat cutting behavior bothers you then why specifically select those people to come live with you?
Make your mind up, either you want that behavior in your country or you don’t. But don’t invite them in and then complain about their entirely predictable behavior.
Of course, all of that presumes that your immigration policy wasn’t designed by people who hate you and want you dead.
Nobody was given the choice.these people have been foisted on us.
I disagree flatly with this. The peoples of Europe have no excuse for their stupidity and cowardice. Europeans have voted for this time and time again, in full awareness of the consequences. What you say–“nobody asked us”–was arguably true thirty years ago, but it sure isn’t now. Every day, the tabloid press in western Europe is full of stories about the failure of multiculturalism. Nobody is in ignorance. Europeans are getting precisely what they vote for, and by implication, what they want.
I’m not so sure, Nej. We “Europeans” (I’m a Brit) are not, generally, so well-informed as you assume, given our corrupt and pc media; the tabloid press to which you refer hardly scratches the surface. Even given some degree of enlightenment (through GoV et al), for whom should we vote?
I’ve voted for UKIP a couple of times, but it was through gritted teeth; many of their policies favour the rich, who have too much power and influence already.
“I’ve voted for UKIP a couple of times, but it was through gritted teeth…”
Who else is going to remove the yoke of the EU fro you?
Who else is going to enact commonsense solutions to your moslum problems?
Who else will reform your horrible NHC?
Who else will challenge the extortionst licence fee you pay to the BBC?
Hmmmm?
Quit grittig your teeth and use your brain.
I don’t know their exact policies, but not everything that seems to favor the rich will hurt everyone else. This is because economic systems are generally not zero-sum. I’m more concerned with whether someone gets rich by politically coercive rent seeking or legitimate market profit seeking.
As with the so called ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ abused populations locked up and in with millions of Muslim liars, start to feel the enemies pain and kinda start to forget which side they are on and get out of touch with what is actually going on. ‘Buyers are liars and sellers are worse’ as they say in the trade. (Used cars.)
Where have you been these last 30-40 years? No one asked us, our ‘leaders’ just invited the enemy into our countries, not only that, but conferred upon them the title of ‘superior untouchables’, and not only that but taxed us to feed and clothe and house these rabble who have been our deadly enemies for 1400 years!!
You couldn’t make this up, no one would believe it!
“No one asked us, our ‘leaders’ just invited the enemy into our countries…”
I understand that. But why are they still our leaders then if they are openly acting against our self-interest. Why do we put up with them?
Fred Reed has a line in his August 13 article on race relations in America – “A country deserves what it tolerates. And gets more of it.” As difficult as it is to think of it that way I believe its true.
You do make a point; I have no idea why the Brits re-elected Cameron, or the Americans re-elected Obama, or the Swedes last December voted for more of the same, or the Germans, or the French, etc., etc..
The only thing for me that comes to mind is that in the 40 years since this madness started, those who were babies then are now 40 years old, they have grown up with the present nonsense and regard it as normal; to put it another way, they have never experienced their own countries when they were free, happy and safe. And probably don’t believe older people who try to tell them.
Which came first, the rapist or the niqab?
In the closing days of WW2 Alexander let the Muslim rapists loose in Italy. So ‘elites’ always knew what the savages were about. Churchill did. Yet we rub a pregnant tummy with vanishing cream at best. Hope springs etc.
Pretend I just fell off the turnip truck. Who is/was “Alexander” who “let the Muslim rapists loose in Italy…in the closing days of WW2”?
thx
Sorry about that. Field Marshal Earl Alexander of Tunis and Erigal was a British WW2 leader. French Morrocan Muslim ‘soldiers’ under allied command were responsible for ‘raping and plundering their way across Italy’. Look up Muslim atrocities Italy WW2.
Yes, we’ve posted about this before, but I don’t have a link handy.
In east London you can see young girls (maybe 5 years old) being taken round on dog leashes attached to dog collars on their necks. I have seen this a number of times. No-one but me seemed to be astonished by it.
Not wishing to doubt your word, Joe, but are these different from the child harnesses one commonly sees on toddlers?
I have never ever seen an infidel toddler with ‘dog leashes attached to dog collars on their necks’. Sounds about right for a devout peaceful Muslim out walking his spring off.
Dear God.
Quran (24:31) – “And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known.”
That – above – sort of makes sense. No one, as Westerners, would probably argue with the general advice contained in that clip. But it goes on and on and on…”or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need…” It’s bordering on the ridiculous – actually it is ridiculous.
I believe it arose way, way back in the 14th cenury or probably even before, when all those desert dwellers and camel drivers had to contend with the marauding gangs of robbers and blood-fued throngs.
The women were told to cover up so that they would not be a temptation to the eyes of male strangers and robbers and gangs.
But this is the 20th century now, isn’t it. Are these muslims ever going to grow up? and stop telling their women to dress as penguin slaves and “whom their right hands possess”. Really archaic and stupid. All western countries should ban the burqa, or full length robe, and head covering…. they often look like a flock of penguins….especially ridiculous on the beach.
Two things: referring to these niqab-clad Moslem women as resembling a gaggle of penguins is an insult to penguins. And no, I’m not joking, penguins are marvelous animals.
These people are not our “guests”. I would dearly love to see all of them expelled from Western lands.
Kathy dear, you and me, both! And being from the glorious southern hemisphere I agree about the penguins–amazing and lovable!
Plastic refuse bags filed with refuse. I love penguins.
filled with
I really couldn’t care less what Muslim men do to their women. I have more important things to worry about, such as the presence of Islam and Muslims in my country, in Europe, and in the White world in general.
M@ don’t forget the White House in general.
Every leash needs a collar, in the West the self fitting sharia restraining collar is politically correctly embossed Women Only.