In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka’d women


by guest
2nd August, 2010 at 10:50 am    

contribution by Tehmina Kazi of British Muslims for Secular Democracy

In a recent episode of Top Gear, with appearances from Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Jeremy Clarkson responded to a question by his co-presenter about whether there actually is a case for the burka given that driving around drunk in the summer time will lead most men to stare at half-naked women on the streets, a potential driving hazard.

Clarkson then replied: “No, no, no. Honestly, the burka doesn’t work. I was in a cab in Piccadilly the other day when a woman in a full burka crossing the road in front of me tripped over the pavement, went head over heels and up it came, red g-string and stockings. I promise that happened. The taxi driver will back me up on that.”

Surely a statement like this humanises niqab-wearing women, and underlines what many of them have always said about these garments? That while they cover everything but their eyes and hands in public to please their Lord, underneath the burka they can wear whatever they jolly well like.

There is a worryingly high number of people who think that Muslim women continue wearing niqabs – and hijabs – in front of their families at home. Some headscarf-wearing friends of mine have actually been asked, “Do you wear it while you sleep?

While serious discussions should take place within Muslim communities regarding the theological basis of face-veiling, there is no reason why these issues should not be broached using gentle humour too. Comedy has always been the best way to diffuse tension and awkwardness, and amidst all the serious opinion pieces on the burka (plus awkward silences from well-meaning bureaucrats or over-the-top reactions from various politicians), there should be a space for light-hearted remarks like Clarkson’s.

What is genuinely alarming is the fact that public servants like Philip Hollobone MP are refusing to see niqab-wearing women in their surgeries, when we all know that writing a letter to one’s MP – in real terms – is not as effective as paying them a visit. The Clarkson incident has merely highlighted the need for feminists – including Muslim ones – to choose our battles wisely instead of getting caught up in trivialities.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Religion






68 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka'd women http://bit.ly/ceNpxZ


  2. Alom Shaha

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka'd women http://bit.ly/ceNpxZ


  3. Teobesta

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka'd women http://bit.ly/ceNpxZ


  4. Amir Rashid

    Pickled Politics » In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka’d women http://goo.gl/20L5 makes a lot of sense


  5. DemoCritic

    Coalition Profile: Liam Fox…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)


  6. Sonia Ali

    RT @sunny_hundal: In defence of Jeremy Clarkson and Burka'd women http://bit.ly/ceNpxZ


  7. DemoCritic

    Reforming the House of Lords…

    I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)




  1. Quiet Riot Girl — on 2nd August, 2010 at 10:58 am  

    I don’t think Clarkson’s statement is particularly noteworthy to be honest. He remains his unreconstructed self and is neither clever nor funny. The ‘joke’ is framed in the context that women cause road accidents because drunk men stare at them when driving-drunk.

    Maybe women who wear the burka feel liberated by Clarkson’s willingness to include them in his borish approach to women in general. I wouldn’t if I were them.

    There have to be some better arguments for supporting women’s cultural and individual choices than this?

  2. Don — on 2nd August, 2010 at 11:03 am  
  3. Don — on 2nd August, 2010 at 11:05 am  

    Damn, what happened to the edit function. Scroll down.

  4. damon — on 2nd August, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    I bradly agree with the post from Tehmina Kazi.
    Not because of what Clarkson said particularly as I don’t find him very funny. I presume most of his jokes are written for him, or at least practiced.

    But if people are going to wear niqabs in public, then at least they should be able to be mentioned by the wider public without embarrassment. And that should include gentle humour like was mentioned.

  5. MaidMarian — on 2nd August, 2010 at 1:17 pm  

    ‘underneath the burka they can wear whatever they jolly well like.’

    Well, maybe but surely you know that that is a thoroughly disengenuous way of looking at it.

    The ugly truth is that there is an inherent conflict with full masks that can not be laughed away. Jai put an interesting link up here recently about EDF members potentially wearing burkas. Provocative? sure. But it does show up the problem that too many wish to airily dismiss as prejudice.

    It is interesting that an awful lot of people seem to have been ready to denounce Hollobone for cultural insensitivity but rather less ready to tell him why he is wrong on a practical level.

  6. Quiet Riot Girl — on 2nd August, 2010 at 1:37 pm  

    damon – I think you and the author of the post miss the point of the joke. The idea that women are to blame for accidents fits in with a discourse of women-blaming, based on this idea that women’s bodies are some kind of red rag to a bull to men in our society. I don’t watch top gear or care about Clarkson but this article has brought it up as an example of a potentially liberating discourse for women. And I think that is bullshit. I wish we all would just ignore everything this man says or does.

  7. Jemmy Hope — on 2nd August, 2010 at 2:11 pm  

    Why does anone pay any attention to what this prick says?

  8. Alex — on 2nd August, 2010 at 2:29 pm  

    It’s only a surprising or amusing story if you assume Islamic women’s dress is oppressive in a vague sense of all-female-sexuality-in-general, rather than being very specifically focused on public exposure of the body.

    Yes, Clarkson is drawing attention to something very humanising, which is quite a funny image if you like slapstick and embarrassing bare arses, but the fact that his joke hinges on some kind of inconsistency or hypocrisy shows how little he actually understands what a burka is.

  9. anwar — on 2nd August, 2010 at 2:41 pm  

    Suprise suprise to see the BNP defenders (Damon) and extremist zionazis (Maid Marian) jumping to Clarkson’s defence !

  10. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd August, 2010 at 2:55 pm  

    The lingerie section of Harvey Nichols in Saudi Arabia does huge business. It’s easy to assume they’re all buying saucy underwear for their husbands and that really they hate it, but anyone who’s been to a women-only party in Arab countries will speak of scenes of make-up and gadgets that put Avon and Ann Summers to shame. Plus haute couture houses such as Jaan@Punjab Textiles in the UK selling trendy hijab wear, not to mention the D&G headscarves I see being sported in east London everyday, would suggest ‘covered’ Muslim women are every bit into fashion as the uncovered ones…

  11. anwar — on 2nd August, 2010 at 3:34 pm  

    Kismet Hardy
    “Th would suggest ‘covered’ Muslim women are every bit into fashion as the uncovered ones…”

    But who didnt think or know that anyway? Only ignorant people who exist on tabloid stereotypes rather than knowing the reality. Islam has always been a very “sex positive” religion and encourages the husband and wife to dress attractively for each other.

    Its bizarre that some men/women will dress really nicely and make a real effort when going out to meet strangers while dressing in a dumpy unattractive way in front of their spouses.. it should be the other way round!

  12. MaidMarian — on 2nd August, 2010 at 3:38 pm  

    anwar – Are you fishing for a reaction by any chance?

  13. anwar — on 2nd August, 2010 at 3:38 pm  

    MaidMarian
    “anwar – Are you fishing for a reaction by any chance?”

    says the resident zionazi nutter!!!

  14. Sunny — on 2nd August, 2010 at 3:44 pm  

    says the resident zionazi nutter!!!

    There’s no need for that.

  15. me — on 2nd August, 2010 at 4:52 pm  

    People cant even get the terminology right. The Burkha is worn by women in Afghanistan, in the UK a small number of women wear the niqab which is different

    Burkha
    http://www.instapunk.com/images/burkha.jpeg

    Niqab

    http://www.fashion-hijab.com/images/niqab-the-viel-003618.jpg

  16. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:01 pm  

    Fail, I’m afraid Me. A lot of women in the bangladeshi/Sylheti community in the UK wear burkhas

  17. earwicga — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:09 pm  

    I was in a cab in Piccadilly the other day when a woman in a full burka crossing the road in front of me tripped over the pavement, went head over heels and up it came, red g-string and stockings

    Nope, I don’t see being called ‘it’ as humanising. Next you will be telling us that SatC 2 wasn’t a racist film because it made people laugh…

  18. me — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:18 pm  

    Kismet Hardy
    “Fail, I’m afraid Me. A lot of women in the bangladeshi/Sylheti community in the UK wear burkhas”

    Really? I go to East London alot and have never ever seen a single burkha there..or indeed in the rest of the UK… Niqabs yes…

  19. Bill — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    I don’t see being called ‘it’ as humanising.

    “It” clearly refers to the garment, not the wearer.

  20. sonia — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:38 pm  

    Jeremy Clarkson aside, it is a problem that people think just because you don’t like something someone is wearing, you can legislate against that.

    people might not like Goths, or punks, but do we want to legislate against this sort of thing?

    legislation is one thing. freedom to scorn is quite another thing. I see no reason why people shouldn’t freely come out with what niqabs make them feel like.
    and yes, people who wear niqabs are going to get the mick taken out of them, in the same way french stripey trousers get called pj’s!

    one’s acceptable, even if offensive to niqabis, and the other is legislating on useless items.

    there’s a brilliant piece in the Royal Academy’s Summer exhibition – its a black background, and a piece of material draped around so the whole effect looks like a veiled ninja. It’s titled “I’m nobody, who’re you’.

    the whole mix-up of sexuality and niqabs/veils that i find amusing, is that people seem to be surprised when niqabis are revealed to be sexual creatures, or could be sexually attractive. the central concern of the veil is very much tied up with sexuality = and this is seen to be undesirable. women are sexual objects and they {well the muslim ones anyway) must be covered up.

    TOP Gear – please can we not pay any attention to that rubbish piece of goodness knows what you can call it

  21. sonia — on 2nd August, 2010 at 5:39 pm  

    I can’t really understand the point of the article, i’m afraid Tehmina. I do think the BMSD ought to come out and make a statement on the burqa ban given all the talk about it. (with no reference to jeremy clarkson please! )

  22. earwicga — on 2nd August, 2010 at 6:54 pm  

    I don’t see being called ‘it’ as humanising.

    “It” clearly refers to the garment, not the wearer.

    Seriously?!? An item of clothing moves all on its own. Righto Bill!

  23. MaidMarian — on 2nd August, 2010 at 6:58 pm  

    sonia – ‘people might not like Goths, or punks, but do we want to legislate against this sort of thing?’

    Well, agreed, but surely the point is that one can not legislate for motive? Either masks are wrong or not. I make no value judgment here, there are good arguments in both directions. It’s just that motive is a bit beside the point for me.

  24. Niels Christensen — on 2nd August, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

    The joke is of course, that Clarkson (and his joke writers) twisted the
    easy way out, and didn’t make fun out of burkha drivers this time.
    The reason could well be that they don’t make cars.

    “There are certain countries at which you are allowed to poke fun. Germany heads the list with America and Belgium in hot pursuit. But Israel is right out and so is anywhere in Africa, anywhere in the former eastern bloc and so is China. And that’s a problem because this week’s car is the Skoda Superb which hits two of the four no-go areas. It is built in the Czech Republic using a chassis that was designed for China. Can I “do” China? Oh, what the hell. I went there once, back in 1986, and it was without any shadow of doubt the worst place in the whole world. Think of Greece without the cooking and you’re on the right track”

  25. Bill — on 2nd August, 2010 at 8:03 pm  

    Seriously?!? An item of clothing moves all on its own. Righto Bill!

    Yep. When you trip, your garments may “move on their own” given the usually-understood law of conservation of momentum.

    Or are you suggesting that the garment didn’t “move on its own”, but the lady in the anecdote grasped her burka and deliberately lifted it to expose her underwear?

  26. sonia — on 2nd August, 2010 at 8:12 pm  

    Or sorry, the end of the article is clear and spot on, i guess i meant i couldn’t see the relevance of the first bit /jeremy clarkson. but then i am biased against top gear!

  27. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd August, 2010 at 8:35 pm  

    WHY I THINK THE BURQA SHOULD BE OBLIGATORY

    Us men have had it hard long enough. It’s hard enough having to spend two seasons watching women cover up flesh, and in the other two seasons where we do get to see some flesh, the majority is displayed by pig ugly bitches.

    The thing about us men is that we want equality. Us men have long suffered being told by beautiful women ‘fuck off’. It’s time these beautiful women were stripped down naked, and all the ugly munters were covered up by burqas so us men didn’t have to look at them.

    Especially Asian women that make me feel embarrassed.

    By Nirpal Singh Dhaliwall

  28. Pucking_Punt — on 2nd August, 2010 at 9:57 pm  

    Hasn’t someone locked that Nirpal Dhaliwal yet? Very funny though!

    Anyway… where was I? Oh yes. Muslims again and again and again and again and again… Muz-z-z-z-z-z-z-lims… Muz-z-z-z-z-z-z-lims-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z…. z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z–z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-

    Are we not not bored shitless of this dreary stuff? I certainly am.

  29. ¬AFAR — on 2nd August, 2010 at 10:37 pm  

    Please not more of the right-on radical bullshit of earwicga and heer sisteren.

  30. damon — on 3rd August, 2010 at 2:21 am  

    Quiet Riot Girl @6, as I said, I wasn’t really talking about what Clarkson said at all (so I don’t know how this person called ”Anwar” can say I was defending him).
    My point was about whether the niquab can be mentioned less than reverentially on mainstream TV.

    I remember Bill Maher making fun of ”the burka” on his show last year, and I didn’t think it was very funny, as that is the national dress of women in much of the Gulf region.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIpdC0o3mdM

    But I also don’t think it should be a great big taboo about non muslims mentioning it either.
    I don’t want to see Bernard Manning type gags about it, but I also don’t think like ”me” suggests @15 that everyone has to get all the terminology right.
    For many people a niqab is a ‘burka’, and if you don’t like that it’s kind of tough as they are more or less the same thing. I don’t think that knowing all the names for other people’s religious attire is somthing people are obliged to learn.

    Just btw. Tonight’s Channel 4 news started with the story of four muslim men who had travelled from London to Blackburn to commit an ”honor crime” by burning down someone’s house and killing a married muslim couple.
    The victim’s families all gathered around while a family member read a statement – and everyone was wearing muslim religious clothes and there were a couple of niquabs being worn.

    Even when sympathising with them for their loss, the niquabs loomed large and were a distraction and I couldn’t help but be very aware of them.
    I suppose though it would have been the same if they were Amish.

  31. halima — on 3rd August, 2010 at 3:43 am  

    Come on – Jeremy Clarkson – when isn’t he saying something that is daft? He baits – that is his signature style, and because no-one is allowed to get away with un PC jokes on television, Jeremy does it on behalf of everyone else. I don’t pay attention to what Jeremy Clarkson says. He might’ve touched on something innocently, though, which is the assumption that women in hijab/niqab/burqas don’t have sexuality. Quite the opposite. Presumably if you can’t show off your assets in the obvious way, you compensate in other ways.

  32. Jennifer — on 3rd August, 2010 at 7:45 am  

    What amazes me that whilst some muslim women in the north of England (presumably of Pakistani heritage)wear the burqa as a statement of their religion the footage of the appalling floods in Pakistan shows Pakistani women burqaless with merely a scarf thrown over their heads, Not one burqa to be seen there altho’ I know that they are mandatory in Afghanistan and Saudi. One would not think these floods were in Pakistan given the television coverage that we see.

    Why the insistence of this garb in areas of northern England when it is obviously not required dress for their female relatives back in Pakistan? Curious – no?

  33. joe90 — on 3rd August, 2010 at 9:39 am  

    jennifer#32

    Why does it bother you what the women wear.

  34. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:07 pm  

    22 earwicga, spot on. people can’t seem to distinguish between an abstract ‘symbol’ – by all means which you can critique, and the hugely different step of limiting what an individual can do – in the name of what you feel about a symbol.

    you have to make a case which goes beyond just parroting you don’t like “a symbol”.

    i don’t like “islam” in the abstract (whatever that is, that is part of the problem) but i am hardly about to go about legislating that individuals don’t believe in it! (old style dictators and empires did do that,and what did it achieve?) – because that would be quite significant intrusion into a person’s life, even though i could use the SAME argument some people are using about niqabis being brain-washed, not making their own decisions etc. You could say all of that and more about ‘religiously brainwashed people’.

    Some people would do well to take note of that. this isn’t about defending the ‘niqab’ – by all means diss the niqab, draw offensive pictures of the “niqab”, but the significance of starting to legislate individual dress codes.

    The french may not be bothered because they are already in ‘mob mass mentality’ anyway and they do what they’re told, but anarchist Britain should be very wary of all this. What there is to learn from a nation who claim to have got rid of God by chopping people’s heads off, I’m not quite sure. But apparently its “french” tradition now to “not believe” or “to reject religious symbols” but of course this so-called tradition has only been achieved by Revolution, and it is quite ironic the juxtaposition of Revolution and tradition.

    “oh we’re revolutionary by tradition” is hardly going to win you respect in this age, is it? It ought not to.

    the french are a good example of the “west” being not much different in many ways to what is pointed out as being illiberal in the “East”. (whatever, i know, these facile terms are rubbish) Cultural hegemony isn’t the domain of a bunch of religious mullahs.

    what i would like to know is what individuals in France are thinking. we’re always told the “French” toe the line their ‘state’ and country tell ‘em to – but how true is this. Where are the french individuals who are thinking for themselves, or have opinions which don’t hark back to ‘tradition [only since the Republic of course, Not Before!]. just their opinions because they thought so. (of course they’re probably talking about this on the internet in french so we can’t understand).

    most amusing really. the french getting their knickers in such a twist about some ninjas – this is great material for a monty python esque sketch.

  35. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:14 pm  

    Jennifer, (are you the fashion police?) women wear what they think they are supposed to wear, you ought to know what women kow-tow to the most is peer pressure – i.e. what their female peers think they should wear.

    You may as well ask why girls in the North of England go out in freezing winter in miniscule skirts, no tights, heels, and no jacket. (when all the blokes are warmly wrapped up!) No sense in it is there/? Of course not.

    there’s never any sense in ‘fashion’.

    this is so obvious. All the Frenchies had to do is get an ‘islamic vogue’ magazine, get some ‘rogue’ niqabis in disguise, who ‘re-brain-wash’ the Niqabi wearers. Ah, but now that would be too subtle and sophisticated for them, ha ha.

    Either you realise clothes/fashion are group constructed = or you don’t. if people are going to expend SO much energy on clothes, (what next, why do Goths down South insist on wearing LONG BLACK COATS in the summer) for goodness sakes, deconstruct it a bit further back than just rabbiting away @i don’t understand THEIR fashion sense whilst wearing something ludicrous yourself, no doubt.

    that’s why all this annoys me, why should we interfere in other INDIVIDUAL’s choice of clothes? And act as if the same things don’t apply to ourselves. Look at all the blokes in suits and ties in the Underground in boiling heat, and you may ask them why the hell they are conforming.

    Some of you people claim you don’t want other individuals to ‘conform’ to THEIR thing, but at the same time, you want them to conform to YOUR thing. that’s just dishonest. all you can do is create conditions where INDIVIDUALS can make their minds up for themselves as much as possible, and leave ‘em to it.

    all this strong -group thing really annoys me.

  36. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:16 pm  

    The only useful thing to come out of this is: fashion sucks, it is group=constructed, and none of us should be brainwashed by groups into wearing something they consider ‘civilised’, unless we want to for our own sweet selves.

    No more matching socks people! No more ironing!

  37. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:20 pm  

    Halima interesting point. I’d say the cunning thing about the niqab is one must feel like such a Sexually tempting creature by just donning that garb. after all, its a sign (let’s say) that you are so powerfully attractive, (i.e. womankind) that you must SIMPLY keep yourself covered up and your sexy gaze lowered, because otherwise! what will happen if a man comes your way.

    Sexuality and feeling sexy is not about revealing maximum flesh (we could tell this to both the Mullahs and the Pornographers) its about a flash of the eyes and any victorian could tell you a glimpse of an ankle among frothy layers of lace was far more erotic than seeing an entire back is now.

    i’d say the niqabis are going around in disguise, having far more sex with men who are not their husbands, than the rest of us realise. and maybe that’s good for them, but as far as i can see, its no different to going around in a tiny skirt. one is just as likely to feel sexually objectified in either extreme.

    But you don’t change that by banning a piece of cloth/or the mini-skirt , DOH! you change people’s attitudes, which take s along fucking time. the clothes, they mean nothing in of themselves.

    Some people are clearly too dumb to have worked that out. I guess the french are the top of that list! Ha. As are the Mullahs who ban miniskirts. Oh if only they had any idea how similar they’re being, hilarious.

  38. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:21 pm  

    Woah there son. Fashion doesn’t suck. People like looking good, and it gives the poorest children in the world something to go to work for.

  39. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:23 pm  

    Ha ha Kismet dear you would say that you purveyor of women’s fashion You :-)

  40. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:25 pm  

    anyway this is great to make fun of the french.

    “we have had a revolution and from now on, what we decide =this is “french” tradition! We are modern because this is now our tradition to do so! Modernity is tradition for us! aNYone who does not comply will have his/her head chopped off !

  41. Muslim — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:27 pm  

    Fascinating to see the fasiqs and fasiqas with Muslim names, the latter who dont have the iman to wear hijab or niqab , slander those sisters who do. Such is the way of the munafiqeen.

  42. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:42 pm  

    Munafiqeen. Is that the band with the muslim dude with the tash that sang bismillah no we will not let him go?

    Sorry, I’m just being fasiq-teous

  43. Muslim — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:46 pm  

    sonia
    “i’d say the niqabis are going around in disguise, having far more sex with men who are not their husbands, than the rest of us realise. and maybe that’s good for them, but as far as i can see, its no different to going around in a tiny skirt. one is just as likely to feel sexually objectified in either extreme.”

    “Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty”(24:23)

  44. Muslim — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:47 pm  

    The Prophet (SAW) stated, “Avoid the seven deadly things: associating anything with Allah, magic, killing one whom Allah has declared inviolate without a just case, consuming the property of an orphan, devouring usury, turning back when the army advances, and slandering chaste women who are believers but indiscreet” (Bukhari and Muslim).

  45. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:48 pm  

    heh Kismet, you always make me laugh./

    Muslim, why don’t you come out of the closet, you uncontrollable man you, because of you ‘sisters’ have to wear tents! What an incestuous lot you must be.

    ( i always thought that was a hilarious juxtaposition:calling all women sisters and then insisting you’re so turned on by them they’ve got to be veiled up!) Weird.

    Mind you,not so weird as that fatwa on breastfeeding – that was brilliant, did you hear about that Kismet?

  46. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 12:48 pm  

    Don’t bother quoting that here Muslim, there’s plenty that can be quoted back at you. :-) and then you will run away and Hide! Everyone should be educated about the context of veiling, then they will stop worrying about niqabi women.

  47. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    Post 44: The Prophet was in SAW? Jesus, the SAW franchise is getting weirder by the sequel…

  48. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:01 pm  

    fatwa on breastfeeding?! Nestle be praised

  49. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:26 pm  

    oh wait till you hear, its much better than that i assure you..adult breastfeeding no less! to get around the problem of mixing with ‘non-mahrem’ men..heh heh certainly a novel solution if there ever was one! the Sun would have had a field day for sure

    http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/07/01/112770.html

  50. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:27 pm  

    47: Kismet hardy you are the funniest person on this planet..!

  51. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

    43: Muslim, slander? Why i praise those women, plus i’m not handing them over to the neighbourhood Mullah for judgement, unlike some of you :-) You go prate your pretty phrases to the Iranians who are busy trying to stone women, why don’t you.

    Plus what the niqabis are doing that you don’t know – won’t hurt you, its none of your business, had i known people like you were lurking, why i wouldn’t be giving the Niqabi game away.

    if its the only form of ontological judo they can get away with, good for them!

  52. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:31 pm  

    the Prophet was in SAW and 7 (seven deadly sins)? gosh

  53. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:35 pm  

    More on the Adult Breastfeeding creates Maternal relations ‘controversy’ ha ha :from Open Salon

    Recently, the Saudis have issued a fatwa that forces women who come into contact with unrelated men on a regular basis to breastfeed them so that they can be considered “relatives” and not potential lovers. The strangest part is, this isn’t the actual issue at hand. The issue is, how do the men get the milk? I know, it just gets weirder.

    “Another high-profile sheik, Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini, believes that the men should suckle the breast milk directly from the woman’s breast. Now we are talking! How is it that you can get close enough to suckle, though, without getting thrown in jail? If the genders aren’t allowed to mix, how could you do this without the religious police on your ass? This is serious stuff! Under this strict Islamic law, women aren’t allowed to vote, drive, or leave the country without the consent of a male “guardian”.”

    http://open.salon.com/blog/twodaymag/2010/06/07/women_forced_to_breastfeed_adult_men_in_saudi_arabia

  54. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:53 pm  

    Oh. It’s not that women can’t breastfeed children. That would be horrific. But it’s so random men can have a go on tit? That I approve of

  55. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:56 pm  

    “While serious discussions should take place within Muslim communities regarding the theological basis of face-veiling, there is no reason why these issues should not be broached using gentle humour too. Comedy has always been the best way to diffuse tension and awkwardness, and amidst all the serious opinion pieces on the burka (plus awkward silences from well-meaning bureaucrats or over-the-top reactions from various politicians), there should be a space for light-hearted remarks like Clarkson’s. ”

    well-said Tehmina, spot on.

  56. sonia — on 3rd August, 2010 at 1:57 pm  

    kismet :-)
    i’m sure the Sun would love it as well. Line ‘em up and get their tits out and suck them dry!

    //

  57. halima — on 3rd August, 2010 at 7:23 pm  

    Sonia @ 37

    Did you see the progamme about the Armish teens when they went to Kent to meet the Kent teens? I thought it was an interesting exchange.

    Are women that powerful ? I haven’t figured it out yet. On the one hand, you’d think with all the economic inequality and structural inequality in the world in place, the female sex is less powerful. On the other hand, religions like Christianity and Islam invest so much power in women’s sexuality – that I am starting to wonder. Perhaps it was MANkind’s downfall, or Humankind’s ascent that Eve bothered to defy everyone and have a bite of that elusive apple… Either way, I think Jeremy Clarkson wasn’t going on about the Burqa, but about women causing road accidents, because men just cant help themselves. He touched on one truth at least – the amount of idiot male drivers I’ve seen on a hot summers day stopping when any woman wearing a sleeveless dress walks by – even when she’s pushing a buggy.

    “Sexuality and feeling sexy is not about revealing maximum flesh..” true, true, but on the whole leaving aside, the kinky victorian or hijab fantasies, most men reading Loaded are probably thinking the less, the better. There is the lowest common denominator, I don’t have such a low opinion of men, but have noticed they tend to stray quite easily when a good looking girl enters the room and even more so if she’s wearing a hot, tight black skirt ( excuse me, I have been reading Lucy Kellaway, just secs before PP) – and it doesn’t matter who the man is in question – it’s just a knee jerk reaction. He doesn’t even know he’s doing it, and it shouldn’t matter that he is looking, in my humble opinion…

  58. Guru Napak — on 3rd August, 2010 at 8:02 pm  

    The homo Guru Go-bend Singh was in Erasure.

  59. persephone — on 4th August, 2010 at 11:14 pm  

    Perhaps France as the fashion capital is the best place to embrace it, like here… http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/06/john_galliano_carolina_herrera.html

  60. persephone — on 4th August, 2010 at 11:30 pm  

    @37

    I geddit. Burkhas are really a form of suspenders.

    Women should reclaim them and with them their power.
    By being rebranded in this way, wearers are perceived as the uber sexy. I can now see hoards of patriarcial males doing an about turn and whisking it away as they see a power shift going in a direction they don’t like…

  61. damon — on 5th August, 2010 at 1:25 am  

    Halima @31

    Jeremy Clarkson – when isn’t he saying something that is daft? He baits – that is his signature style, and because no-one is allowed to get away with un PC jokes on television, Jeremy does it on behalf of everyone else. I don’t pay attention to what Jeremy Clarkson says.

    Good for you that you take no notice of him, because anyone who does get wound up by Clarkson is seriously thin skinned.
    The man isn’t particularly funny, but it’s how he makes his living.
    Like camp as bunny Gok Wan does on his ”How to look good naked” silly programme, when the guy is actually a bit of a regular geezer and likes to watch football in the pub with his mates, drinking pints and hates ”gay drinks”.
    It’s an act.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.