A

s I reported this morning, the NY Times is not covering the beheading of an upstate NY Muslim woman by her husband – even though it’s a state story, even though he owns a TV network designed to overturn “stereotypes” of Islam … and even though IT’S A BEHEADING FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

My lib friend Dan Chmielewski chides me for chiding the NYT:

Being from Upstate NY, I hope you’ll give me some creds here. But unless is a major story, like the plane crash, the New York Times is not going to cover a local crime story which is what this is. Wonder why you didn’t blog on this story …

… and he links to a Fox News story on Jim Adkisson,a Tennessee truck driver who pled guilty last Monday to killing two people and wounding six others at a church because he considered the liberal church “a den of un-American vipers.”

Not wanting to disappoint Dan (who, I’m sorry, gets no cred for being from upstate), I am blogging on that story, but not as he would want me to.  I just re-checked the NYT, and it still has not posted a story on the upstate beheading murder, but lo and behold, it has run no fewer than three stories on Jim Adkisson’s case … way the heck out there in Tennessee:

• Hatred Said to Motivate Tenn. Shooter (July 28, 2008)

• Hate for Liberals and Gay People Drove Gunman, Police Say (July 29, 2008)

• National Briefing – South – Tennessee – Guilty Plea in Church (Feb. 10, 2009)

The July 28 article dedicated a full 28 paragraphs to the story, and the rehash on the 29th managed to come up with 16 more. Last week’s update on the guilty plea was just a paragraph.  Here’s the lead of the the first story:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,” Chief Owen said of the suspect, Jim D. Adkisson, 58. “We have recovered a four-page letter in which he describes his feelings and the reason that he claims he committed these offenses.”

The Chmielewski theory that the NYT doesn’t bother with local crime stories elsewhere falls apart here, since two killed with a shotgun, even in a church, isn’t as newsworthy as one person killed by beheading, Muslim or not.  No, what makes it newsworthy is that Adkisson had a “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”  Had a Unitarian shot up a Baptist church because of a “stated hatred of the conservative movement” – newsworthy as that would be on its face – rest assured the NYT wouldn’t have covered it.

The conclusion is irrefutable:  The NY Times will take any opportunity it can to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and it will avoid any opportunity to paint Muslims in a negative light.

9 Comments »

Note: This story has been updated with Tuesday afternoon’s post for consideration by the Watcher’s Council

A

Muslim unhappy with his wife’s quest for independence has been charged with beheading her and dumping her body in his upstate New York television studio.

Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, had filed for divorce from her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, on grounds of cruel and unusual punishment, following a marriage of humiliation, beatings, calls to the police, restraining orders and death threats, according to the woman’s attorney.

Here’s the irony: Muzzammil Hassan founded his TV network, Bridges TV, four years ago “to counter anti-Islam stereotypes.”

“Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a ‘Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent,’” Hassan said in the 2004 release. “But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell.” (Fox)

No word yet if the Hassan story will headline – poor choice of words there – today’s news on Bridges TV.

And no word on why the story does not appear on CNN, ABC, CBS – or even the home state paper, the NY Times.  (MSNBC does have the story.)

Update 1: As I reported this morning, the NY Times is not covering the beheading of an upstate NY Muslim woman by her husband – even though it’s a state story, even though he owns a TV network designed to overturn “stereotypes” of Islam … and even though IT’S A BEHEADING FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

My lib friend Dan Chmielewski chides me for chiding the NYT:

Being from Upstate NY, I hope you’ll give me some creds here. But unless is a major story, like the plane crash, the New York Times is not going to cover a local crime story which is what this is. Wonder why you didn’t blog on this story …

… and he links to a Fox News story on Jim Adkisson, a Tennessee truck driver who pled guilty last Monday to killing two people and wounding six others at a church because he considered the liberal church “a den of un-American vipers.”

Dan gets no cred for being from Upstate – although he could score some points by providing some Snappy Grillers or Riggies.  But I don’t want to disappoint the boy, so I am blogging on that story – just not as he would want me to.  I just re-checked the NYT, and it still has not posted a story on the upstate beheading murder, but lo and behold, it has run no fewer than three stories on Jim Adkisson’s case … way the heck out there in Tennessee:

• Hatred Said to Motivate Tenn. Shooter (July 28, 2008)

• Hate for Liberals and Gay People Drove Gunman, Police Say (July 29, 2008)

• National Briefing – South – Tennessee – Guilty Plea in Church (Feb. 10, 2009)

The July 28 article dedicated a full 28 paragraphs to the story, and the rehash on the 29th managed to come up with 16 more. Last week’s update on the guilty plea was just a paragraph.  Here’s the lead of the the first story:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,” Chief Owen said of the suspect, Jim D. Adkisson, 58. “We have recovered a four-page letter in which he describes his feelings and the reason that he claims he committed these offenses.”

The Chmielewski theory that the NYT doesn’t bother with local crime stories elsewhere falls apart here, since two killed with a shotgun, even in a church, isn’t as newsworthy as one person killed by beheading, Muslim or not.  No, what makes it newsworthy is that Adkisson had a “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”  Had a Unitarian shot up a Baptist church because of a “stated hatred of the conservative movement” – newsworthy as that would be on its face – rest assured the NYT wouldn’t have covered it.

The conclusion is irrefutable:  The NY Times will take any opportunity it can to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and it will avoid any opportunity to paint Muslims in a negative light.

Update 2: As of 2:40 PST Tuesday, the NYT is still ignoring the story.

Update 3: The Bridges TV site tries valiently to keep probing eyes off the site.  The home page carries a brief statement of deep sorrrow and shock at the murder and arrest.  When I tried to go to the schedule page, it held for a bit, then flipped back to the  home page, so it took several attempts before I identified this “moderate” Muslim fare:

James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, holds forth on Mondays and Saturdays from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.  Zogby may be a moderate in that he’s never actually killed a Jew, but …

Zogby has two goals: to make Arab Americans more powerful than Jewish Americans and to be their preeminent leader. Zogby’s engagement in American politics is motivated, in part, by his concern with what he views as the problem of non-Arabs-and specifically of American Jews-occupying key positions making U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Zogby insinuates that as a result of their background, these officials are incapable of being fair. …

Zogby has come to the defense of extremist Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brethren, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, arguing that these groups are merely “politically” or “religiously” opposed to the peace process. He defends the American Muslim Council (AMC), a Muslim American organization based in Washington that forwards the cause of extremist Islamic organizations such as Hamas, as well as Islamic radical movements in Algeria, Sudan, and other countries. He also has the temerity to call upon Jewish organizations to follow his lead on these issues. ^…

Zogby also defends individual terrorists. When Arafat in 1995 appointed Ziad Abu Eain as the comptroller of the Palestinian Authority, Zogby publicly supported the appointment, still insisting that there had never been credible evidence against Abu Eain. When the U.S. government arrested Musa Abu Marzook, a Hamas leader, in July 1995 in New York on grounds of Israel’s warrant of arrest, Zogby characterized the arrest as “a huge mistake” and “not helpful to the peace process.”

[Read much more from this Middle East Forum article here.]

Zogby is a Maronite Christian, not a Muslim … but if his views represent moderate Islam, there are no moderate Muslims.

Every night from Tuesday to  Saturday, Democracy Now! [with an exclamation point, as if we don't have it now], the flagship news program from the radical Pacifica Network, gets the 9 to 10 pm prime time slot on Bridge TV.  You may recall this group from the news:  Founder/journo Amy Goodman, two producers and a videographer were arrested by police outside the 2008 Republican National Convention on charges of probable cause for riot.  Here’s typical Amy Goodwin-speak:

[Cherif] Bassiouni’s scathing 2005 U.N. report accused the U.S. military and private military contractors of “forced entry into homes, arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review, sometimes for extended periods of time, forced nudity, hooding and sensory deprivation, sleep and food deprivation, forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress positions, sexual abuse, beatings, torture, and use of force resulting in death.”

The piece lacks any mention of terrorist attrocities against the West (or other Muslims), but plenty of negative interpretations of the US response.

Bridges TV is no better a spokesperson for the chimera of the moderate Muslim than is its founder and chief beheader.

15 Comments »

The Mullah’s Superbowl

I

started reading a new book today, Prayers for the Assassin by Robert Ferrigno (Kindle edition here), and was struck by the timing. Here’s how it starts:

The second half of the Super Bowl began right after midday prayers. The fans in Khomeini Stadium had performed their ablutions by rote, awkwardly prostrating themselves, heels splayed, foreheads not even touching the ground. …

Music blared as the cheerleaders strutted down the sidelines – all men, of course – knees high, swords flashing overhead. the Bedouins and the Warlords surged onto the field, and the crowd leaped up, cheering.

Interesting premise, eh? I’m about four chapters in (reading on the eliptical), and it’s off to a good start.  Here’s the article that tipped me off to the book, which I found today via What Bubba Knows. Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

W

ith Barack Obama, perhaps more than any president in recent times, symbols are important, from his very own logo to where he gives his first presidential interview. As such, the interview with the Al-Arabia TV network is symbolism of a very high order.

Comments on the transcript at Al-Arabia bear this out:

Great interview. Cant wait for the months ahead and the speech in the muslim country he talks about……….

Please do not miss the meaning of the fact that the very first interview he gives as President of the United States, is to Al-Arabiya.

This is the best Arab and Muslim world is going to get from West. He is I think sincere and want to change the relationships for good. Believe me he is taking a very high political risk and if Arab and Muslim world do not respond in Kind then I think no peace for next 50 years

well done Barack

Despite some reservations about what he said, I’ll echo that last comment: Well done, Barack. Not everyone agrees:

Guess who B. Hussein Obama is doing his very first formal TV interview as president with? Just guess. If I’m an Israeli, I would run, not walk, early and often, to vote for Binyamn Netanyahu for president there, because there ain’t no way that Obama is gonna support Israel when push comes to shove — so, therefore, the Israelis will need their leader to be a guy who is willing to do the pushing and shoving on his own regardless of whether the American president gives his okay. (American Spectator blog)

Certainly, friends of Israel have reason for concern both with the symbolism and the content of the interview. They would have preferred the interview be with Haaretz, but I see Obama’s point. He wanted something big and this was packed with more symbolism than any other symbol he could have chosen. Not that I didn’t clench my teeth when I read stuff like this:

But if we start the steady progress on these [Israeli/Palestinian] issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States — working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region — I’m absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

I’m sorry; did I miss it when he mentioned Israel? And there was this:

Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia — I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage — to put forward something that is as significant as that.

Significant? Like giving up land for peace? Tried that. Didn’t work out too well. But it’s an idea Obama likes:

… I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

That’s not change; that’s land for peace. Obama says in a portion of the interview that’s critical of Bush that he understands that words are important; these words are telling Israel, even with the obligatory “I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount,” that Obama will be asking them to trust the Arabs once again.

Kick the football, Charlie Brown!

I realize that saying “Israel aside, …” is enough to throw many of my readers into convulsions, and I’m certainly not ready to put Israel aside.  But, Israel aside, there is a larger picture. I would like to see little neo-con Americas springing up from Mogadishu to Tashkent, but since that’s not scheduled for this week, a different approach to the Muslim world is worth trying. I’m not at all confident it will work because history gives me no faith in the idea of Arabs working honestly and keeping their word when it comes to Israel, and because al Qaeda leadership doesn’t give a hoot about Obama and what he says.

But go ahead, Obama. Give it a shot. You might win. But if you fail, don’t fail Israel. Just learn a lesson about the limits of charisma.

Meanwhile, AP’s coverage of the interview was, in a word, disgusting.  It was all of what we’ve come to expect of AP of late:  Blame for everything wrong in the world lies at the feet of George W. Bush, and Obama is the beginning of everything right:

CAIRO, Egypt – President Barack Obama chose an Arabic-language satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message Tuesday to the Muslim world that “Americans are not your enemy.”

The interview taped Monday underscored Obama’s commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.

As I recall it, relations suffered under the previous administration because a group of guys from the Muslim world killed over 3,000 of us and would have taken out our president if it weren’t for a couple of our guys yelling, “Let’s roll!”

But no, to AP the problems all lay on Bush, even as they tried to push Obama’s choice to go on Al-Arabia as breakthrough while acknowledging that Bush had gone there before:

During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.

Again, no reference to the base cause of all this – Islamists – even though the interviewer opened the door by mentioning 9/11.

For his part, neither did Obama mention 9/11, but I can understand that.  He’s going for breaking new ground, and he’s right not to bring up 9/11 in interview number one.  But neither can he ignore it.  It’s there and all that it stands for – jihad, hatred of the Great Satan – is still very much a part of the Islamic world.

There was an other comment on the Al-Arabia transcript that shows just how difficult this all is:

Please Mr President … make sure you meet with and listen to Hamas.

Yes, the terrorists who hold the Gaza Strip. And the nuke-crazy mullahs in Tehran. And the radical mosque funding Saudis. And the resurgent Hezbullah terrorists in Lebanon. And the Taliban sympathizers in Pakistan. And the terror spawning grounds of Somalia and Yemen. And the school girl beheaders in Indonesia.

And on and on and on it goes. Not symbols, but really dangerous real world stuff.   Obama started symbolically, and more power to him for doing so. I really hope he can capitalize his change image and truly change the Muslim world’s view of us and of jihad.

But when that fails, and the chances of failure are very great, I pray that he doesn’t try to pull a dangerous agreement out of the failure, but rather, recognizes it for what it is and sees the need to make a change of direction we can believe in.

2 Comments »

H

illary Clinton spoke yesterday at a luncheon hosted by Emily’s List, the powerful political action group dedicated to getting pro-abortion women elected to public office. Here’s a typical gushing feminist write-up of the event:

Yet thanks to to Ellen Malcolm (perhaps the political world’s most cheerful ball-buster), a roster of 2008′s biggest lady winners and a rousing speech by Hillary Clinton herself, the luncheon turned out to be a feel-good celebration. And even without much mention of the failed presidential march of the still-senator from New York, the event was yet another in a string of recent moments in which we got to see the new Hillary Rodham Clinton: Toughened, burnished and somehow fortified by her loss, she is taking on the role not only of secretary of state, but of a reanimated, reborn, rollicking feminist superhero.

Oh. Kay. The piece didn’t actually quote that much of Hillary’s speech, but what it did quote was very interesting, coming out of the mouth of Obama’s incoming secretary (can we say “secretary?”) of state:

When women are vulnerable to economic, political and social marginalization, the potential for advancing democracy, prosperity and security is also vulnerable.  … I believe it is essential in renewing America’s leadership around the world, that we renew America’s leadership on behalf of women and girls.”

I couldn’t agree more.  The horrible repression, the clitorectomies, the sex trade, the forced illiteracy. the “honor” killings … there is no room in our world any more for this sort of cruelty to half the human population – the sensitive, beautiful and richly, subtly powerful half.

Unfortunately, when Clinton starts trying to enforce this thinking on the world, she will come up against the Saudis, the Taliban, the Somalis and various other misogynistic Islamic factions who are quite content to use everything from Imam’s harangues to acid in the face to keep their women back.  And when that happens, Clinton will be feeding the jihad machine.

I’ll go along with her. Promoting freedom for Islam’s women may make the jihadists all the more crazy, but slamming 7th Century Islam with 21st century rights for females will win us friends with about half the population of Islam.  It’s not a bad strategy, but I’m not sure if Clinton sees it as a strategy against jihad and not just the right feminist thing to do.  Without the right vision going in, the right results can’t be expected to come out.

There’s one other side to this that has to be said.  As long as societies repress their women, we will be far superior to them economically and militarily.  American business has the benefit of women’s brains and power, and our military has been able to assimilate females without becoming feminized in the least.

Were Islam to decide it was time to dump the Koran and fully assimilate women (I know, I know), Muslim countries around the world would begin to have improved economies, and maybe even better governments.  That would make them more formidable foes, but the societies would be so tranformed in the process, they might not want to fight as much.

No Comments yet »

W

hat hope have we of long-term peaceful coexistence with Islam if Islamist leaders use the Koran’s death sentence for apostates as rationale for killing a politician who dared to work with others for peace?  Not much.  Here’s the story, from BBC:

Relatives of Abdirahman Ahmed – also known as Waldiire – told the BBC he did not have a lawyer present during his trial in a Sharia court.

They say he was arrested about a week ago and they were informed of his death sentence on Thursday morning.

Sheikh Hassan Yakub – the spokesman for Kismayo’s Islamist administration – told the BBC’s Somali Service that Mr Ahmed had admitted during his interrogation that he worked with those backed by Ethiopia.

This, he said, was the basis for the court’s opinion that he had changed his religion.

The relatives said they had asked the authorities to allow Mr Ahmed to go into exile.

But he was executed after afternoon prayers on Thursday.

After the shooting, his brother pleaded to be able to bury his body, however, he was told the burial had already been done.

Done, no doubt, to cover signs of the horrific torture that proceeded Ahmed’s death.

Ahmed’s executors are the same folks who in November stoned a 12-year-old girl to death for adultery, even as family members pleaded that the poor girl had been raped.

No Comments yet »

L

isa Valentine didn’t take her husband’s name – he’s Omar Hall. When confronted with a difficult situation, she swore at an officer of the court.

These are odd behaviors for a Muslim woman supposedly so devout that being ordered to remove her head scarf before entering court in Georgia made her feel “stripped of my civil, my human rights.” I thought Muslim women were supposed to be submissive, nearly invisible, even incapable of the rational thought required to talk and remember at the same time.

From the picture, you can see that this is no mere scarf.  Its a large and flamboyant affair that clearly qualifies as headgear, and the courts in Douglasville, GA have rules that headgear is not allowed.  Asking her to take off her hat may be a civil rights violation, but it does not strip her of human rights; those rights are on a decidedly higher plane.

Other religions have altered their religious requirement to not run afoul of U.S. laws.  Sikhs are required by their religion to carry a small sword, a kirpan, on their hip, but they have foregone this requirement in light of needed U.S. security measures and have worked with TSA on an education program for screeners who confront a Sikh who has forgotten to pack his kirpan in his suitcase.

Marijuana use is a part of the Rastafarian religion, but in America followers of the religion realize that they cannot pursue this aspect of their religious beliefs in public without counsequences, and they’ve modified their behavior in order to comply with the norms of the culture that they’ve chosen to live in.

Even Islam has bent its religious traditions to avoid trouble in America.  Animal sacrifice is a part of Islamic ceremony still, but after some run-ins with local authorities in the U.S. who were quick to slap animal cruelty charges of the offenders, the practice was either stopped or went underground.  (BTW, check out this picture of two Muslims getting a cow ready for sacrifice on the Eid-al-Adha holiday.  One is wearing traditional garb – like a hajib – and one is dressed in western clothes, and no one’s having a cow except the cow.)

Wearing a hajib is no more a mandatory requirement of Islam than is sacrificing animals; it is a custom that varies widely depending on the local culture (and degree of exploitation of women).  Yet pushy Muslims, who insist on forcing their culture onto ours, have made it a cause celebre, and CAIR was on Valentine’s case seemingly in minutes, getting her sprung quickly from her 10-day contempt of court sentence and urging federal civil rights authorities to investigate this and other cases in Georgia.

Frankly, it’s a bit of a tempest in a teapot.  If Valentine could get through the metal detector with her bad hair covered by headgear, she’s probably no threat.  What’s she going to do, use it as a garrote? If that’s our fear, neck scarves will have to be banned next.  But there are larger issues here – societal norms, respect for the courts, Muslim cultural intolerance – that are in play and put me on the court’s side, not Valentine’s.

Her civil rights may have been tweaked, but not her human rights.  She must recognize that she is a member of a minority religion that, because of its own massive problems and the considerable violence it perpetrates in the name of its god, is very unpopular here and in most of the non-Muslim world.  She needs to recognize that she’s going to suffer because she follows an unpopular religion, just as most evangelical Christians (myself included) have suffered because of their faith.

This is America and she’s free to fight for some perceived right to wear a hajib.  But we’re free to fight back, and I hope we do.

(source)

No Comments yet »

O

h, what shall we do about the Somali pirates? What shall we do? Well, here’s a little suggestion that just might keep the buggers from hijacking the next ship that happens by:

Pirates caught redhanded by one of Her Majesty’s warships after trying to hijack a cargo ship off Somalia made the grave mistake of opening fire on two Royal Navy assault craft packed with commandos armed with machineguns and SA80 rifles.

In the ensuing gunfight, two Somali pirates in a Yemeni-registered fishing dhow were killed, and a third pirate, believed to be a Yemeni, suffered injuries and subsequently died. It was the first time the Royal Navy had been engaged in a fatal shoot-out on the high seas in living memory.

By the time the Royal Marines boarded the pirates’ vessel, the enemy had lost the will to fight and surrendered quietly. The Royal Navy described the boarding as “compliant”. (The Times)

If the price of pirating is quite possibly being ripped apart by machine guns and SA80 rifles, it should be a good deterrent, reminiscent of the bombardment of Algiers in 1816, which brought at least a temporary end to raids by Muslims to enslave Europeans.

Seizing European slaves in the 1800s … seizing Europeans ships in the 21st … what is it with these people?

Oh, that’s right. The religion of peace.

No Comments yet »

J

ails in Orange County are considering dropping their bans on hijabs – the head scarves Muslim women wear – because of pressure from the ACLU, reports the OC Register.

The current jail policy bans all headwear, so allowing hijabs will turn Muslims into a special class with extra rights not granted other Americans or other religions.

It’s obvious to see why a hijab ban is needed, just as it’s obvious that belts must be prohibited in jail. The scarf could be used as a noose or a garotte. Find a handy rock and it could become a sling or a club. It also provides a nifty place to hide contraband or weapons. That’s why OC Register readers voted 77% to 12% in favor of continuing the ban, with 11% casting the Kumbayah vote, thinking some sort of compromise will be possible with Muslims so fixed in tradition they make this an issue.

The hijab is not required by the Qur’an; in fact, the word there is used merely to mean a separation between men and women to ensure privacy. In Turkey, the hijab was banned for years; now it is optional. In Afghanistan, the hajib was not nearly enough for the Taliban; a full burkha was required and any woman seen with just a hajib would have been in for some serious bodily harm. In short, there is no Islamic tradition requiring the hajib, and it is only since the 1970s that it has become a symbol of Islamic pride.

Islamic pride is not religious mandate, but for many Muslims that’s a moot point because in their hearts they see it as a mandate and that’s the funny thing about religion – if it’s in your heart, it’s real.

I prefer an outright ban, but I don’t like endless ACLU litigation and I see the possibility here to force some cultural assimilation onto the Muslims. I’m not proposing a compromise; I’m proposing a policy offered female Muslim prisoners; take it or leave it. And if you leave it, you’re left with a much less viable lawsuit.

Women who can show they are Muslim will be issued a jail hijab for their use while being held. It will be made of paper or flimsy cloth, with perforations that ensure it will fall into pieces if anyone tries to use it as a weapon. Women wearing the hijab will be subject to a hijab-search (by female guards, without male guards watching) whenever jail officials deem it necessary.

That should do it. If anyone wants to fight that, their fight isn’t about wearing hijabs.

1 Comment »

My recent post on the Cal. sanctity of marriage proposition, Prop 8, Gay Marriage and the Spread of Islamofascism, generated a rather different comment:

Hi; May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this. My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.

I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.

I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’ All my paperwork has been changed.  Legally, I’m female.  But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don’t need that level of disclosure.)

So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can’t go —

-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman?

-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?

-Am I immoral?

-Am I a paedophile?

-Am I tearing down western society in support of a deviant agenda?

-Am I selfish?

I eagerly await your responses; Hazumu Osaragi

Obviously, there’s a bit of a set-up happening here, since my post wasn’t about trans-sexual issues at all.  Nevertheless, I took some time to give Hazumu a thoughtful answer.  I’d be interested in your thoughts …

13 Comments »