While I personally believe that a referendum on this topic would be a waste of public money, and ultimately solve nothing (bigots will stay bigoted, whatever anyone else says: that's what they do), surely a cry to "ban the referendum" is equally shortsighted and stupid?

It simply gives the bigots one more thing to bleat about.

There are no "flames" to fan, not even a smouldering wick on a candle of prejudice or a single twinkling coal in the ashes of the Australian nation.
These "bigots" are just approaching anti Racism in a different way, it's simply non Feminist, non New Left critique, you can't even call it right wing.
Neither side is talking about the real problems with mass third world immigration and both sides work to suppress both honest criticism and radical viewpoints.
It's well known that "Anti Racists" as well as the so called patriots groups feed information to ASIO and the Federal Police, some of them such as Sherman Burgess and Ralph Cerminara are so dopey they can't keep their mouths shut about their links with the state.

How about a referendum on whether our country should be beholden to international law?

There is a massive glaring flaw with your article's basic argument: that is, that we are somehow constrained by International Law as if it were sacrosanct. You don't seem to accept the fact that a country can choose to be governed by it or not. Of course a country may subject to trade embargoes or worse possible invasion if it doesn't follow these laws-- but at the end of the day it is the countries choice. Specifically, regarding the Burqa I don't think any country of consequence (ie: militarily powerful and economically import countries) would actually do anything besides token words of disapproval against a first world country that did ban it.

I really don't understand how you can hold the belief that a referendum cannot be the ultimate source and final word on what should or should not be our own law.

(By-the-way: personally I don't care either way about a ban on the Burqa, its just a piece of clothing. But, I really do care when foreigners (ie: UN) think they can start telling me what my Laws should be without giving me the right to agree to and/or influence change about those laws.)

Even though not all moslems believe the burqua must be worn that is not
the point. Consider why it is worn.
It is worn because the men do not want other men to see their wives.
It is part of the paranoid attitude to women and something called honor.
As they themselves feel they cannot control their own sexual attitudes
to other women, they assume every other man is the same.
In our societies we men do not become overwhelmed by sight of a little bit of ankle.

Or perhaps we could ban bikinis? Nude bathing? Or even Pauline Hanson?

If she really wanted to do something sensible for a change, perhaps she should call for a ban on preferential voting, and have the present system replaced with proportional representation. i.e., the truly reflected will of the people?

And given primary votes would then be the only ones counted, had the recent election been decided by the fairer system, we could have seen the LNP returned with a workable majority?

The best we can hope for now, is a hung parliament and the Government needed the assistance of the minor parties, to get their legislation through!

Fortunately, none of them will be O.N.
Or Pauline, who would look nice in a burqa, topping a weensy teensy yellow polka dot bikini; or something out of, I dream of Genie!

At least a Genie can be put back in her bottle, even a five thousand year old one! Oh my itchy nose!

Unfortunately there's just no way to hide that strident whine/or that please explain that tells us a really dumb person has no choice but to come up with some really dumb ideas.
The burqa is not the problem! Racism or even reverse racism is!

The recent Q'ld election result could've been, because the majority
of voters probably thought the LNP would've been returned and therefore safe to vote labor as a protest to privatization; and or, a PM willing to confer a knighthood on a royal.

I hope it's just a really dumb decision and not a case of extreme, born to rule arrogance?

In which case Pauline would be in good company?
Rhrosty.

The amount of swing out weighs your first past the poll vote.

I don't give a damn if stupid women are prepared to, or even want to wear the horrible thing. Lets face it, the real reason for the things, is some men do not want it shown publicly, that their womenfolk are as ugly as a couple of garbage tin lids.

My only interest is in identification, & safety.

Provided I can demand the removal of the thing if I feel unsafe with a masked person near me, & those so attired are never allowed in control of a vehicle on public roads, with such restricted visibility, I don't mind some men protecting their pride by covering their womenfolk.

Incidentally, isn't this a typically useless bit of meaningless academic fluff? Much more importantly we should be demanding we stop wasting taxpayer dollars paying fools to produce such garbage.

Hasbeen, yes most of the female forms I see covered in a chador are almost as wide as they are high but the young Muslim girls around here push the Islamic dress code to the absolute limit. Around here a Hijab is often coupled with gym gear or leggings and form fitting tops leaving little to the imagination, I have two daughters in high school and I'm well aware of the tricks of the trade and the liberties young women will take when their parents try to enforce modesty in attire.
You can see young Amirah or Noor leaving home with the standard hijab, long coat and skirt on and by the time she arrives at Westfield to meet her friends she's wearing a completely different outfit, yoga pants, Nikes and a long T-shirt.

If some Islamic women wish to wear the Burqa, then why not ? As long as we men can wear a full face motor cycle helmet whenever we choose ?
Somehow I don't believe the latter would ever be permitted. For this reason the Burqa should be discouraged as not being consistent with the Australian culture, but 'banning' it, is clearly wrong.

What must be mandated; a total prohibition on 'face covering' in such areas, where clear facial identification is necessary; Banks, Airport Security/Immigration areas, law enforcement requirements, etc.

My biggest concern is the inevitable spread of that awful curse of Islamic radicalization, right here in our Sydney suburbs ! Issues of wearing the Burqa is nothing compared to this insidious menace !

The "tent things" that some people put on their heads are an insult towards Australians, there are elements who are using these "wedges" in an attempt to change our society to their way of thinking and bring in "laws" that are abhorrent NO THANKS; NO ONE has the right to go in public warring a disguise, it is alarming and "normal" people have the right to be fearful of such people, any one who thinks these contraptions are acceptable IN PUBLIC have serious mental problems, we do not know what is being hidden under these weird garments. The excuse that it is some form of religious right is not plausible. The general public must be able to identify people during any investigation, if I see any of these "things" I will report it to Police, we don't need a Referendum, we need these recalcitrants to conform to OUR LAWS or leave to someplace where that they would be happier.

Ayatollah you already: I said hijab, not head-job!

By the way, here is Charlie Hebdo's take on the burqa.

Translation: "Yes to wearing the burqa ... on the inside."

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=charlie+hebdo+cover&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSxQEawgELEKjU2AQaAAwLELCMpwganAEKOggCEhSGFboL9hO_1C58O7giAF4AI8iGqDhogTfFg1cgGTpPYkDMSYNdkb2ZqCHVTrXdLD8dgbIr_15A0KXggDEiiIFIwUiRTzA9od2R2HFJMUixT9CZguly7zJM899iSIOOMt8y3QPfstGjBlgpuEl7zTA_1iVh1yHpmA3xeIrJv0doNULFse_1Nyk7Zd9bavjTkxkkF6smYkQfLX0MCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgRyFJdgDA&sa=X&ei=3OXOVICKL9Ti8AWb2YKQCg&ved=0CBoQwg4oAA&biw=1240&bih=657

Hi there LOCKHARTLOFTY...

Reading your thread I'm sure you'll more than likely, rattle somebody's cage my friend ? Nevertheless much of what you say, is firmly in the minds and hearts of many ordinary Aussies in our community, and with good reason I believe ?

We're rapidly approaching the 'tipping point' where we'll ultimately lose our unique Australian character, particularly if we continue to ignore these subtle social transformations to our customary way of life. It's my belief that political correctness has already abraded many of our hitherto hard won principles ?

In fact to such a point we're no longer capable of mounting an adequate defence of the ordinary secular or Christian perspectives that we've all held so dear to us all. For some inane fear we'll unwittingly violate one of those invisible boundaries of this thoroughly ridiculous 'political correctness' nonsense.

Which absurdly, has almost reached pandemic enormity throughout the entire Western World ? Worse, the enemy is now emerging from within, so it's somewhat a fruitless exercise attempting to interdict their efforts externally ? Moreover our intelligence community including; ASIO, ASIS, DEFITL, ONA, BCI, and ABCI all of whom have been furnishing 'solid product' to successive governments, of the burgeoning 'home-grown' threat of Islamic radicalisation. That has been emerging from within our communities, over the last quarter century or so ? It's only now, some of our over remunerated politicians have started to take some notice and act ?

Forget s.18c altogether. Repeal the entire Legislation, in toto !

Yet another topic discussion by bias authors.

.... As a way to provide clarity to this inflammatory debate, we should calmly consider the key schools of thought on this subject

What's inflammatory about this statement, this is Australia after all, and we are predominately a Christian nation, a fact they were well aware of before they arrived.

As for a referendum, why waste the money, just do it. We have allowed these people to dictate their terms upon us for far too long, in fact, we are now paying the price for our softly softly approach.

As a country, leaders should always put the needs of their own people first, then cater for invitees, not cave in to invitees and, if some lenience was given previously, this should not restrict our lawmakers from enforcing laws at a latter stage, essoecially if such laws are in response to actions by the religious group as a whole, for which terrorism on our own soil is a prime example.

All laws must be able to be altered, strengthened, even revoked in reaction to developments within our society. Because let's face it, it only became illegal to wear a motorbike helment in a bank in the early 80's, and this was a prime example of a law being enforced in direct reaction to a change in circumstances.

This law is no different as our circumstances have changed. They can still wear it in their homes and place of worship, just not in public.

Multicultural Meltdown
http://takimag.com/article/multicultural_meltdown_james_jackson#axzz3QYb17kjb

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse." - Osama Bin Laden

For goodness sake Jardine, use Tiny URL.

A referendum is required to change the federal constitution . The Federal Parliament has no constitutional power to regulate clothing styles except , if it were silly enough to do so ,in Federal territories . To regulate it in the States , it would have to seek to rely on either the external affairs power or the defence power , both of which attempts would probably be rejected by the High Court .

Changing the constitution or even a plebiscite , simply to ban Muslim clothing in the States , whatever the item of clothing is called , would be a gross waste of money [ perhaps $ 100 million for the referendum ] . Defining precisely what clothing items were banned would be a very difficult exercise .

Possibly , those who seek to prohibit Muslim clothing mean a
" plebiscite " [ which would not change the constitution , but simply encourage Parliament to pass laws banning Muslim clothing ] . It would not require a 4 State majority . Possibly , clothing bans could be imposed by legislation in each State separately .

If we ban Muslim clothing , why not baseball caps turned the wrong way around , pants which hang too low , exposing buttock tops and other breaches of sartorial elegance ?

Yes, they should ban the burqa.

It is the ultimate form of oppression. No sane woman would want to wear it. Why is not Sarah halfwit young complaining about feminist pig Muslims?

And how long before a man dresses up in a burqa and robs a bank, or hides a gun and kills people?

By all means pray to Allah or any pretend friend you like, but don't put the safety of Australia as risk, and don't belittle women.

I just loath the way that the xenophobic, racist, bogong and bigot labels are hurled around by the latte set as soon as someone wants to open a discussion, silly idear or not. Where is all that islamohobic backlash we are all waiting for following the Sydney hostage crisis. Get it through your pea brains my friends, Australia is NOT a racist country. Can the same be said for Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, etc etc. show me an Muslim majority/ruled country and I will show you ALL the above epithets/labels.

In Hinduism some priest walk naked in the street and do not wash expect during a festival ( forgot name) in the Ganges , should we allow that?

I'm quite comfortable with multicultural however it like everything has it limits, and at some point social cohesion must outweigh individual rights. your never going to get everyone to agree where the limits are but the burqa is too far in my view.

"how to balance women's rights and religious freedom."

That statement seem to imply that religious freedom is somehow distinct and separate from human rights, when it is, in fact, simply another human right. I hope that the authors really didn't intend to promote that idea.

Jay of Melbourne,

Good quote, although so far as the West is concerned at present, the only ones recognizing that "strong horse" are some oddballs on the fringes of society.

Gaudlium,
True that:
http://goo.gl/U30tSr
http://goo.gl/PXBBD8
Islam is just another White messianic "forlorn hope":
http://goo.gl/OO2sKn

The most notable thing about this thread is that a self appointed elite have decided that this is something that should be of no concern to the <<plebs>> . We their betters will decide on their behalf :)

Jay,

The last link you posted is thought-provoking to be sure.

Islam finds/found itself a respectable and capable form in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Libya. Join the dots and we'll find that all these places were and still are under assault from outside forces. Why is that? Their leaders are all evil, duh! In the world outside of MSM however, Gaddafi, Hussain et al. were solid leaders; engaged in no worse atrocities than what the Atlantic powers are still doing now. Today, those who want to see stability in the Middle East should be supporting Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian government forces are working together as one for national sovereignty: Shi'ite, Sunni, Alawite. It's a united defense against barbarism and international stirrers.

Back to the topic at hand. Is petty dialogue on "banning the Burqa" the best discussion we can muster on Islam? It brings out two extremes: the bogan bigots and the nonsensical egalitarians - neither offer anything of substance and are clueless on the geopolitics which shape the reason why Islam has become the focus of our attention in the first place.

Not much chance of a referendum getting up on this topic so that aspect is mostly a moot point.

Governments already place restrictions on attire for a variety or reasons.

So called public decency prohibits public nudity in most parts of Australia and as I understand it includes legal consequences for nudity on private property if visible outside that property (not sure about nudity visible to uninvited people on private property).

People are prohibited from wearing other items of apparel which cover the face in some situations.

There are already restrictions in place regarding driving with restricted vision.

I don't personally believe that a religious belief should trump law, if a restriction is required so badly that the law is used to override an individuals choice that restriction is required regardless of religious choices.

I don't seek more government in peoples free choice. The wearing of the niqab etc should be restricted on the same basis as the wearing of any other item of clothing which hides the face or restricts vision. If the person choosing to wear attire which limits their ability to take part in public life does not like the consequences they have a choice (and if someone is forcing them to wear that clothing we have laws about that as well).

R0bert

Perhaps some Muslim women prefer the overall covering as no one can see that their husband has beaten them up.

Is Mise,

That falls under domestic abuse. Unfortunately, many non-Muslim woman would envy the opportunity to cover their wounds.

As pointed out above, referendums in Australia are used to amend the Constitution. What Hanson needs to call for is a plebiscite, which is a non-binding way of finding out what people want or think. As it stands now, section 116 of the Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion (amongst other things). Thus, if islamic women view wearing a veil as an expression of their religion, they are protected by while doing so. The Federal government may make mo law which abridges this freedom.

Paula Gerber is opposed to Australians voting directly to create the sort of society they think Australia should be. It is just amazing how people like Paula despise and mistrust their own people, and wish to deny them a direct say in what sort of world they wish to live in. I have always suspected that socialists were control freaks with a superiority complex, and Paula is helping to confirm that view.

A referendum on banning the burqua would be a wonderful way to gauge public opinion on Muslim immigration and multiculturalism, which our politicians would be forced take notice of. It would also be a wonderful way to stick it to the most fanatical Muslims in Australia who wish to display their contempt for the Australian lifestyle, and their social separation from the rest of us.

Paula argues against the referendum on two grounds.

The first, is that referendums rarely succeed. The reason for that, Paula, is because the electorate you despise never gets a say in what subjects should be on the agenda of any referenda. Instead, we get stupid proposals shoved in our faces like the present Catch-22 proposal to fight racism by making aborigines a special race. But a referendum to stick it to the Muslims would be very popular, and you know it.

The second, is the usual whine about Human Rights. Human rights are little more than a left wing wish list where the ordinary citizens which Paula despises, find out that criminals, terrorists, and country shopping illegal immigrants have more rights than they do. The electorate is increasingly aware that lefties like Paula have selective visions when it comes to Human rights. The motley collection of taxpayer funded, state Human Rights organisations were conspicuously missing in action when Andrew Bolt was on trial for having the effrontery to engage in freedom of speech.

JKUU,

"....Thus, if islamic women view wearing a veil as an expression of their religion, they are protected by while doing so....".

The wearing of a veil or full covering is not a religious requirement in Islam, so banning such covering is not interfering with religious rights.
The Government would be within its rights in declaring Islam to be a political movement and not a religion, thus doing away with the problem of people wearing disguises in public.

Some one mentioned the Hindu Sadhus going unclothed, this is not a Hindu religious requirement so any Hindu inclined to bare all at Circular Quay would be arrested.
That would not be an infringement of religious freedom.

Gaudium, if you believe these statistics then partner violence and sexual assault are concentrated in certain demographic "clusters" and there's a pretty simple explanation for the "epidemic" of violence against women, 84% of victims appear to be overseas born.
Mail order brides and arranged marriages? Or alternatively allegations of domestic abuse can be used to speed up visa processing and a lot of women appearing at shelters and support services are non residents.
Domestic violence: how taboos veil the truth
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/domestic-violence-how-taboos-veil-the-truth-20150126-12umej.html
"The latest ABS Personal Safety Survey breaks down the figures by gender, age group, state and disability, but not by ethnicity or religion. Of the 27.4 per cent of all Australians who experienced sexual assault in last 12 months, 41.7 per cent were born overseas and were English-speaking, 36.6 per cent were born overseas but spoke other languages, the rest were Australian-born, so ethnicity and cultural factors seem to be significant.

The background of sexual assault victims is also hard to unpack – Australia 16.2 per cent in last 12 months, 3 per cent since age 15; Overseas (English-speaking 41.7 per cent in last 12 months, 7.5 per cent since age 15; other languages 36.6 per cent in last 12 months, 10.9 per cent since age 15)."

Let the burqa wearer be,
So her face we cannot see.
Only those who seek to lie
Hide their faces from our eye.

To speak with fairness, it's a must
To show your face, it's only just.
If you hide that truth from me,
I don't wish to speak with thee.

Why do you sneer at what someone wears
Why do you abuse them - and even care
They do not judge you and your life
Why are you bent on causing strife?

Are your beliefs so set in stone
That you want others simply gone?
Can't we try for love and peace
Can't we make this hatred cease?

Tito, Foxy,

I wrote this above:
"Back to the topic at hand. Is petty dialogue on "banning the Burqa" the best discussion we can muster on Islam? It brings out two extremes: the bogan bigots and the nonsensical egalitarians - neither offer anything of substance and are clueless on the geopolitics which shape the reason why Islam has become the focus of our attention in the first place".

I'm not placing either under the pejorative titles, but see my point?

When I look at the burqa and then look at the young females with great big fat thighs, big boobs flopping around, half a bum crack showing, terribly overweight but wearing the skimpiest of clothes, the burqa in my opinion has a lot going for it

Dear Gaudium,

Your point has been made time and time again
on this forum - by myself and many others.
It doesn't always work - but one is obligated
to continue to try.
However, sometimes one has to adapt one's response
to suit the poster to whom it is being directed.
In this case because the response originally was a
"ditty" another "ditty" in reply seemed appropriate.

Cheers.

SWPL woman wears hijab to signal status, signals ignorance instead
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/02/03/swpl-woman-wears-hijab-to-signal-status-signals-ignorance-instead/#more-13273

SWPL = white educated liberal bohemian

So what the heck is a bohemian? Wikipedia aptly defines “bohemian” as a word of French origin, “first used in the English language in the nineteenth century to describe the untraditional lifestyles of marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors in major European cities. Bohemians were associated with unorthodox or antiestablishment political or social viewpoints, which were often expressed through free love, frugality, and/or voluntary poverty.”

But modern bohemians aren’t necessarily impoverished. In fact, being college educated, they are usually wealthier than regular middle class white people, and many SWPLs are downright rich. BIGLAW is full of SWPLs such as Heather Eisenlord. Consequently, there is a great deal of overlap between SWPL values and upper middle class values.

SWPL is actually an acronym for “stuff white people like” which was coined by Christian Lander who founded the blog of the same name, Stuff White People Like. In his blog, Christian wrote post about stuff that “white people” like, which includes things such as farmer’s markets, sushi, knowing what’s best for poor people, and the Ivy League. The blog was so well done that people initially thought that the author was Asian, but it turned out that the author was a member of the very class he was mocking.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SWPL

There are now proportionally more university educated people in Australia than ever before. In 1901, 2% of the population was tertiary educated, compared to 15% today. University educated people in the past were almost always the progeny of the Establishment and made up the nations engineers, doctors, lawyers and scientists. But with the growth of arts and "soft" university courses, bourgeoisie and bohemians were getting all mixed up together.

What has resulted is a new and growing class of educated elites who's values are a blending of opposites. Social climbing superiority mixed with socialist egalitarianism. Anti materialism reconciled with hedonistic one upmanship. Most were very successful professionally, and their numbers included rock stars, bond merchants, senior or mid level government employees, investment analysts, and start-up software company executives. Patrician suburbs like Dover Heights and Mossman started sprouting cappuccino cafes, while formerly working class suburbs like Balmain and Ultimo started sprouting million dollar condominiums.

Then there were the less successful, lower level government bureaucrats like teachers, academics, social workers, artists, professional social welfare recipients, and the trust fund endowed socially parasitic offspring of the rich.

But rich or poor, what sets them apart are attitudes. Individually, they can all be categorised as patrician, bourgeoisie, working class, or disadvantaged. These classifications strike them all with horror. Even more mortifying, is that some working class people have wages much higher than the lower level educated elites. And if wealth defines status, then the status of the lower elites is actually "lower working class", which meant that their higher education accounted for nothing.

People like Foxy are therefore desperate to adopt values, attitudes and behaviours diametrically opposed to those of popular culture, which are calculated to show their social distinction from the Great Unwashed. Her more well endowed peers adopt socialist social causes calculated to get up the noses of their business class social rivals, who are usually their parents.

To be continued....

Continued.

Unable to be defined by the usual connection of wealth to status, they are defined as a class by attitudes. They are not just politically correct, they compete to be politically exquisite in their own status games among themselves. Aspirants to this elitist class affirm their membership and loyalty to this new class by their continued devotions to what their manipulative self appointed former Communist leaders define as "progressive causes." They love to play the champions of morality with an advocacy worthy of any religious fanatic.

All of them think that they are oh, so fuccking clever, and they present their views as the height of moral and intellectual enlightenment. They adopt every "progressive" social cause like they picked them from a clothing catalogue, and they are the ones who formulate the slogans and man the barricades for every batty left wing cause imaginable.

They are difficult to deal with rationally, because their values and attitudes are not based upon any objective rational analysis of any issue. It is based upon a compulsive psychological need to think that they are members of a elite brahmin caste which is superior to everybody else. To attack their opinions on any cause they adopt, is therefore to attack their fragile self esteem and their social status, which they will defend to the death using any potty excuse imaginable. This is why they can think in double standards and openly declare that black is somehow white without it even registering on their consciousness.

Yes, Lego,

Its called DEHUMANISATION.

The Erasure of History and the Politicisation of Everything
http://imagineathena.com/book-review-our-culture-whats-left-of-it-by-theodore-dalrymple/

Blame it on Bloomsbury (and the frickin Marxists as above)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/aug/17/classics.highereducation
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_oh_to_be.html

The Relevance of Classical Education
http://forum.theodoredalrymple.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2351

The Flynn effect. Read closely and see that we have become more disassociated with our inner selves instead we have become more abstract. Explains why a lot of our architecture has become uglier.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/rising-iqs-decline-faith

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_otbie-british_children.html

And now begs the question, why have a lot of Leaders in the world have backgrounds in Law. Dodgy lawyers now rule.

Too much Marxist education in the West has brainwashed students who have become INSTITUTIONALISED. They have been taught to self-loathe their own culture and hate Christianity. It is no longer possible to have ordinary people to become a Prime Minister, such as Ben Chifley who was a train driver, and of the people.

Funny you mention self-esteem and social status - exactly.

The psychobabble of the self- esteem industry which has brought about the Narcissism now well entrenched in society.

"One has only to go into a prison, or at least a prison of the kind in which I used to work, to see the most revoltingly high self-esteem among a group of people (the young thugs) who had brought nothing but misery to those around them, largely because they conceived of themselves as so important that they could do no wrong. For them, their whim was law, which was precisely as it should be considering who they were in their own estimate."
http://incharacter.org/features/theodore-dalrymple-on-self-esteem-vs-self-respect/

Why Does The Left Support Radical Muslims?
http://www.returnofkings.com/52882/why-does-the-left-support-radical-muslims

“But Matt,” you may argue, “SJWs are pansies who faint at the slightest hint of being triggered! Muslims are willing to fight for what they believe in! How could they POSSIBLY have anything in common?”
The answer is this: Muslims are not manly. On the contrary, they’re some of the most hypersensitive and feminized men alive. The attack on Charlie Hebdo, the worldwide demonstrations against the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, and every other act of Islamist terror happened because Muslims felt offended on behalf of their prophet. Letting your emotions dictate your behavior is what women do, not men."

"Islam is, above all else, a feminine creed. Evidence of this can be seen in the droves of white British and European women who are becoming Muslims. Left-wing SJWs feel perfectly at home in a religion that indulges their feeeeeelings, strips them of free agency and tells them what to think and believe. Indeed, there’s a growing body of evidence to suggest that Islam’s Allah is not derived from the God of Christianity, but is an altered version of a pagan Arabian moon god; the moon is almost always associated with the feminine in polytheistic religions."

Jay,

Muslims who are not only offended, but zealously prone to avenge any insult on their religion can't realistically be compared to the beta males of the left. When you compare an ISIS ghazi to you average social justice warrior, the similitudes can only be argued in an abstract fashion as is done in this article. The uncontrolled emotions and eventual systematic conditioning of indulging their feelings don't contain in themselves the prelude to label them under a gendered orientation of classification. Are sport fanatics part of a feminine creed too