Ah, the Idiocy Of It All
We posted yesterday on how the spirit of long dead Tom Paine stalks our cultural ghettos. People, said Tom, have a right to be whatever they want to be. It’s a “funamenal” human right. This has led many in the West to swoon in religious ecstasy, falling down before the claims of trans-genderism and trans-sexualism.
Further to this matter, a sensitive and sophisticated Auckland City councillor had laid a complaint against a shop in West Auckland which has allegedly discriminated against women and Muslims–at least in the mind of our precious petal councillor. The jewellery shop has a sign banning certain items of clothing:
Councillor Casey apparently believes it’s ok to ban customers wearing hoodies, sunglasses and helmets, but not burkas. Consequently, it must be OK to discriminate against those who wear hoodies, sunglasses, and helmets. No human rights violated there. Casey happily endorses discrimination against the desires and wishes and rights of those people.
Nevertheless, she has complained about the burka-ban.
But, Casey has apparently formed a fundamentalist, prejudiced view: she believes that burkas are worn only by women, and therefore the burka ban is discrimination against women. What ignorance! Where does it say anywhere in the Human Rights Act that a burka can only be worn by women.
Would Casey get upset if a female attempted to enter the jewellery shop wearing sunglasses, a helmet, and a hoody and was refused admittance? Ah, no. Why? Because Casey has assumed that these items of clothing are a-sexual. Why, then, has Casey jumped to the conclusion that the burka is gender specific? It is becoming camp amongst a growing number of Muslims for men to adopt female style cover-ups. Some do it to make a political point. What about a trans-sexual burka wearer? What about those Muslim men who dress up in burkas to disguise themselves when committing crimes?
The shop owner responded to an inquiry from the Herald.
When the Herald contacted the owner of the store, Llannys Burgess, for comment she said: “I can’t be bothered”. Go away and talk to someone who cares.” She said she put the sign years ago after a man came in and attacked a customer with a machete and she feared for her safety being a woman alone in the shop. “I have gone to the tribunal and won.”
How ante-diluvian, declaims Councillor Tut-Tut!
Someone with a bare modicum of common sense could tell you that the intent and purpose of the ban was to prevent crime. Thus, the burka ban must stand. Moreover, if a deeply conservative Muslim woman, whose husband required the full face burka, and who was interested in purchasing jewellery from the store, the the solution is simple. Why would she not send her husband into the shop to choose and pay on her behalf? After all, it’s the style, culture, and religious expression which she herself has accepted. Councillor Casey would, presumably, fully endorse such a solution or concession. It’s a woman’s right to choose, after all.
Councillor Casey–the thinking woman’s politician.