Jurors were told the defendant was born in Somalia and moved to Kenya at the age of eight during the civil war in Somalia. She was 16 when she came to the UK and was later granted British citizenship.
The defendant described what had been done to the girl as “Sunnah”, meaning “tradition” or “way” in Arabic, and said it was a practice that had gone on for cultural reasons for many years.She's 39 years old. And it's as if she was still in her backward original country and not England....
A dog born in a stable does not become a horse.
ReplyDeleteJaded
Having worked in a predominantly Muslim area for many years,dO learnt that this "tradition, for cultural reasons" is solely to prevent the female enjoying sex, while also having the entrance to her vagina tightened to enhance the sexual pleasure of the Muslim male. The fact that this may cause excruciating pain, injury, or even death while giving birth is irrelevant, as are The concerns about women generally in the Muslim world. The pleasure of the Muslim male, while having sex, is paramount. I wonder who came up with this cultural tradition? Bet it wasn't a woman.
ReplyDeletePenseivat
Why isn't this bitch deported? Along with all her relatives.
ReplyDeleteI’ll just point out a few “uncomfortable truths” to Anon 10.22.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn’t men who ‘enforced’ the “binding” of feet in Japan. It wasn’t men who accused the “witches” in Salem et al. It isn’t even men who demand ‘you’ wear uncomfortable, damaging “fashionable” high-heels (wear plastered on make-up, pierce half your body and cover the rest with doodles, whilst wearing skimpy, slutty ‘fashionable’ clothing).
In every country and culture throughout the world (and throughout history) it is the women who enforce the norms, values and “practices” of that country/culture. They do so, not because the men demand it, but because it allows them to ‘compete’ with other women (for status, attention and to virtue-signal/feel superior).
You can pretend it’s “all the mens fault” but the truth (as you know full well, and are bitter as a consequence) is that, in almost every case, it wasn’t men at all (even when involved men are either incidental, peripheral, an after-thought, or just ‘the prize’), but ‘women doing this to other women’ to … justify their own mistakes, have power (through jealousy and/or spite) and … get rid of the competition. [What, you think the current mean-girl fad of pushing/promoting mutilation and scarification ‘fashion’ is … because they think it’s ‘nice/pretty’? Nope, it’s to uglify the competition].
In Japan, the practice of ‘binding feet’ was portrayed as only stopping when men were told “If you want this then ‘you’ have to do it to your daughters”, as if their ‘distant’ demands were the only reason it occurred at all. The reality though, was that in demanding men ‘take notice’ of what their wives and mothers had been doing (and allowed without ‘wishing to interfere’ in ‘womens stuff’) resulted in its immediate cessation [and it was 'only' the older women who screeched in anger about 'that'].
Here? Notice it’s the “mother” wanting, demanding, conspiring and actually doing all this, or is that an “inconvenient truth”?
Be careful what you wish for. If men are, not just to be used as a convenient scapegoat/excuse, and actually required to ‘get involved’, you may not like the results! (because ‘all’ your crazy would be stopped in a heartbeat). The usual "Look what you made me do" excuse doesn't work any more.
Of course our enlightened civilisation does indulge in slicing and dicing of both males and females to facilitate their gender transition.
ReplyDeleteAlarming to think we're as uncivilised as the barbarous Mahometans.
Anon at 12.52,
ReplyDeleteI have no knowledge of the Japanese binding of women's feet though, from my years in Hong Kong, I understood it was a Chinese practice from Emperor Xing complaining that a courtesan's feet were rather large. Perhaps that practice travelled either way.
I also have no real knowledge of the fashion industry, apart from never wearing socks with sandals, so just accept what you say.
I do have a lot of knowledge of the Muslim faith and, irrespective of which branch of Islam is concerned, women have very little rights, only those given to them by men and which can be rescinded at any time. It is only fairly recently that the Saudi Arabian government accepted that women are human beings. They have to wear all encompassing clothing, while men can wear western clothes. They have to dress like this in case men are unable to contain their sexual lust at the sight of a female's body. Note that it is the men who can't contain their lust, yet it's the woman's fault. It's always the woman's fault. Under Sharia law, a female rape victim requires three male witnesses to support her story, or else the allegation is ignored. In an adulyerous relationship, it is the woman who is tried, and executed, often by stoning if in the villages, while the male evades any punishment. Islam came to prominence in the 6th century and has not progressed further than that date.
Anon 19.25
ReplyDeleteWhat was it that a ‘certain cult’ used to say? “Give me a child until aged seven and …”. And who is it that ‘has’ those children, male and female, in muslim countries until then? [as everywhere else, the ‘rise’ in the trans cult is another perfect example because “A transgender child is like a vegan cat, we all know who is making those lifestyle choices”, Hint: It isn’t the men].
Yes, women in islamic countries ‘officially’ have zero power (just like all those ‘poor’ Victorian women, including the rich and powerful ones, let alone the wives who ran their families, households and … husbands), but let me ask you a question. Who ‘exactly’ is it that ‘reports’ these women for failing to ‘properly’ wear their lust-prevention bin-bags? Who stands around and demands her punishment, and delights in her destruction? That’s right … other (usually older) women. [I find it 'less than honest' that you focus solely on the powerless female victim, yet conveniently ignore the powerful female 'accusers'].
It’s … almost as if you’ve never met any women (or are in denial), you know that women, that even here ‘will’ back-stab and delight at the utter destruction of some “pretty young thing” who threatens their status or relationship. Where “fashion”, the ‘art of fitting in’ is seen as the ultimate achievement. Orwell said it best with “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy”. [men use ‘violence’ to attack what they see as a threat, women use rumour, innuendo and ‘othering’, the removal of all “social support” and … encouraging men to use violence against what they see as a threat – mostly other women].
So answer me this, in those "adulterous relationships", where the reality is that yes, the adulterous man gets off scot-free for the 'crime', but the adulterous woman is murdered - who exactly 'benefits' the most? It couldn't be the 'wronged' women, the (usually older, less attractive) wife, now could it?
N.B. I am ‘not’ in any way, shape or form, stating that muslim men are ‘innocent’ (or anything other than barbarians) but … that muslim women are ‘as’ guilty, in all things. Pretending they are (as per usual) all sweet, innocent victims is not just wrong, but a blatant, destructive lie. [muslim men are, almost without exception, barbarians. But … so are muslim women. The 'whole' edifice of islamic "culture" is a hellscape that in a sane world would be eradicated for the pestilence it is].
"A dog born in a stable does not become a horse."
ReplyDeleteIndeed so.
" I wonder who came up with this cultural tradition? Bet it wasn't a woman."
You bet right! But as anon points out, they are driving it now.
"What was it that a ‘certain cult’ used to say? “Give me a child until aged seven and …”."
Another saying that's proven true over and over and over...