“Rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said women shouldn’t be either required to wear such face coverings, or banned from doing so if they choose.”
That’s interesting. Has Ravina Shamdasani ever spoken against countries such as Afghanistan where women have been brutalized or even killed for not wearing the veil? What has she said about the Islamic Republic of Iran imprisoning women for ten years for not wearing hijab? Does she have any suggestions for how Switzerland can protect itself against criminal activity committed by people with face coverings? Does she have any recommendations for how Muslim women in Switzerland who are being forced to wear the veil and threatened if they don’t wear it can be protected?
“UN rights office laments Swiss ban on Muslim face-coverings,” Associated Press, March 9, 2021:
GENEVA (AP) — The U.N. human rights office has expressed dismay that Switzerland will join a few countries where “actively discriminating against Muslim women” is legal. It comes after Swiss voters over the weekend narrowly approved a ban on face coverings like burqas and niqabs worn by some Muslim women, as well as ski masks worn by protesters. Rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said women shouldn’t be either required to wear such face coverings, or banned from doing so if they choose….
born saturday says
i wonder how much was the baksish for her statement…
gravenimage says
This dhimmitude is widespread.
Rob Porter says
gravenimage – and note how the U.N. human rights never comments about violent Muslim “discrimination” – i.e. stabbings and murder – against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and then Christians. These U.N. liars and fools are not to be taken seriously. They look stupid and are stupid.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Rob.
Goofy says
Muslim women do not choose anything themselves, least of all whether to remain Muslim.
Michael Copeland says
“For things which have been stipulated in the texts of Islam, the Ummah possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey,”
Dr. Salah al-Sawy,
https://wikiislam.github.io/wiki/American_Muslim_Leader_Issues_Fatwa_Against_Democracy.html
Bikinis not Burkas says
They can’t choose because they are the property of a male, first their father then their husbands which technically makes them slaves with no right to free will.
PRCS says
Dear Ms. Ravina Shamdasani,
The veil actively discriminates against filthy kuffar women–including you.
Michael Copeland says
“Any woman without a headscarf is asking to be raped”
Imam Shahid Mehdi, Copenhagen
gravenimage says
Spot on, PRCS and Michael.
Wellington says
Well, I would be OK with no veil ban in any Western nation IF Islam were properly and accurately described as the one major religion which is totalitarian in nature, an absolute enemy of free speech and true freedom of religion, and is, as well, both in its theology and practice, misogynistic to the core.
No need to ban any heinous ideology as long as the heinous ideology is accurately described and characterized as a heinous ideology. Freedom can openly tolerate enemies of freedom. What freedom cannot, nor should not, tolerate is characterizing an enemy of freedom as somehow not an enemy of freedom.
James Lincoln says
Wellington says,
“What freedom cannot, nor should not, tolerate is characterizing an enemy of freedom as somehow not an enemy of freedom.”
Perfectly stated – a homerun…
Wellington says
Thank you, James.
Bikinis not Burkas says
Ideology not a religion, Allah was a stone statue, I wonder where the statue is now?
PRCS says
The ideology: theocracy.
Hoi Polloi says
I felt “dismay that Switzerland will join a few countries where “actively “…. banning a misogynistic symbol of barbaric treatment of women brought out enough voters to enforce sanity. I celebrated. Some of the beautiful old self-preserving, self-respecting Switzerland still exists and demands that women and forces like antifa neither evade scrutiny nor bow to barbarism.
Ade Fegan says
Isn’t it ironic ….. don’t you think
gravenimage says
veil ban is ‘actively discriminating against Muslim women’
“Rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said women shouldn’t be either required to wear such face coverings, or banned from doing so if they choose.”
…………………
Has Ravina Shamdasani ever opposed forced veiling? Not that I have seen.
Crusades Were Right says
Now that Switzerland has the reputation of being a country that “actively discriminates” against Mohammedans, presumably we can expect Mohammedan immigration there to come to an abrupt halt, and that all the Mohammedans living there will immediately return to their countries of origin.
lol
Keith O says
So now, according to the UN, infidel ski masks covering face and preventing identification a bad thing.
Mudslime veil imprisoning women and subjugating them through taking away their identity is a good thing.
Did I somehow cross into the Twilight Zone?
James Lincoln says
Yes, Keith O.
We are all now living in the Twilight Zone…
somehistory says
Recently, while in a business establishment where masks are not enforced, unless another customer demands it, a manager and I were discussing different things in life, and I mentioned that I had read about a recent crime and part of the description of the perp was “he was wearing a mask.”
The manager then said that her establishment had been burglarized a few days prior. The perps were seen leaving the area and wearing full face coverings.
Why are the crooks not complaining of discrimination? What about those people who ski? Perhaps they are protesting on their way to the slopes.
The people at the u.n…..many of them mo slums…and other world orgs, will argue on behalf of mo slums when these are being restricted in any way….covering their faces in public, using carving instruments on young girls, taking young girls into a situation of daily rape, etc. as though mo slums are meant to do anything they please, anywhere they please, anytime they please, no matter who may be injured by what they are doing.
The “rights’ person doesn’t look like someone who would dare cross a mo slum; and who knows how much pressure was exerted by the many, many mo slum males at the u.n. But as long as she is not really affected by someone wearing a face covering that is meant to hide identity, or make identification more difficult, she’s likely fine with the statement.
Rod says
Yes, some history, I’ve been protesting for years about laws which require men to wear trousers in public.
A man wearing a mask once removed my appendix. I’ve been trying to find him ever since, and demand that he return it, but I never saw his face.
Even worse, I’ve been turned away from a restaurant because they insisted that I put on some shoes.
Yet a friend was refused entry to a bank, until he took off the balaclava he wore to keep his nose warm.
Lunatic inconsistency everywhere.
It’s all the fault of these Chri stians and their strange religious convictions.
gravenimage says
Does “Rod” have a problem with forced veiling or the murder of those who will not veil? Not so he says.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
Rod is doing what he does best – deflecting…
gravenimage says
So true, James.
Hoi Polloi says
Well, your examples might work if they illustrated and illuminated the problem, but they don’t. Public health demands a certain standard. Imprisoning, raping, and killing women over a square of cloth benefits whom? Let’s note that the shirt, shoes, hat policy still provides that man a means to see and be seen and to eat publicly as well as to be fully identifiable, but the full coverage Islamic gear does not. I suppose you are volunteering to live with all the repercussions of the standards you demand for women who are not allowed to refuse. Will you live the same way as you expect women to live?
Rod says
Robert Spencer thinks it appropriate to condemn Ravina Shamdasani for what she
“has not said”, rather than what she “has said”. That’s weird.
Spencer should know that, as a spokesperson for the UN Human Rights Office, she has spoken out against human rights abuses in many parts of the world, including Papua, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, to name but a few.
Was it, perhaps her condemnation of brutal outrages against Rohingya Muslims, which have been described as ethnic cleansing, which irritated him?
But if it’s now legitimate to condemn folk for what they “have not said”, let’s think of a few cases where the revered Robert Spencer might not have lived up to his own standards. I don’t believe he’s ever spoken out against mistreatment of refugees in Australia, China’s mistreatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, the arrests of peaceful protestors in Russia, child labour in Swaziland. There must be many more examples where this gentleman hasn’t lived up to the standards he expects from Ms Shamdasani.
Alternatively, we could dismiss this article as just another example of Mr Spencer’s petulant and unwarranted denigration of somebody he doesn’t like.
Hoi Polloi says
If her job is to deal with rights abuses, failing to address Islamic treatment of women is abject failure. Anyone with eyes is disgusted with the ongoing pretense that Islam can be discussed without fully addressing its 1400 years of hateful and abusive teachings and practices regarding women. Had she also at least begun with addressing the issue with regards to compulsory dress and demands for freedom from said compulsion, she wouldn’t have subjected herself so fully to ridicule.
Finally, RS and friends have a particular and specific purpose and cannot be held as human beings to all purposes under the sun. They write knowledgeably about their chosen subject. The above condemnations are like unto the condemnation of an engineer for not also being a full time cook, bus driver, nanny, surgeon, astronaut, and beachcomber. If you see an area that needs light, the web is wide open.
Ecosse1314 says
Rancid Rod is sadly aff his chuffing trolley.
Hoi Polloi says
Agreed.
john smith says
Rancid Rod, very appropriate name.
Rod says
Thanks Sophocles. As the ancient Greeks told us, an insult is worth a thousand rational words.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Hoi Polloi.
Rod says
It seems, Hoi, that you want this lady to address the human rights issues that concern you, before anybody addresses any others. I haven’t done the research, but I know she has condemned the Saudi government for some abuses against women taking place there, and she is just one spokesperson for the uN Office..
You’re aware, I hope, that her Office exists because there are many human rights abuses taking place around the world today. Can you explain why you and Mr Spencer think your selections should take preference? Ahead of, say, alleged ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people, or the horror stories coming out of Xinjiang, which relate to matters rather more tragic than rules about dress?
tgusa says
As a rule i don’t respond to your moronic posts Rod but I will this once. You seem to support good ideas or do you?
First of al,l I wont speak for Hoi Polloi but all of us here are against abuse of humans and human rights of any sort. Are you? I know that HP supports equal treatment for everyone. Do you?
Second, of all the Chinese are nor as gullible or tolerant than the west.Now that your mother has let you out lets spend the night debating.
Ecosse1314 says
As much as I admire the Greeks their culture and history I have to admit to having no hellenic blood at all.
Sadly Rancid Ron has no understanding of sarcasm.
I had previously explained to the idiot that I used the name Ecosse1314 due to the fact I was Greek. The Bawbag believed me.
gravenimage says
“Rod” *still* will not condemn forced veiling or the imprisonment or murder of women and girls who do not veil. This scarcely surprises, though.
And look at his implication–that it is not possible to condemn mistreatment against any group unless you also champion things like forced veiling.
Just bizarre. And then he asks why anyone should be allowed to be concerned about abuse of women–after all, it is a much lesser issue than other concerns–even if the women in question are Muslim. But then, this is an entirely Islamic point of view…
Hoi Polloi says
Concern me? Women are half the world’s population. Rules about dress?? Islam begins its treatment of women with the declaration that they are half human and sinks to far greater depths from there. You repeatedly try to distract. Why? Start your own websites bringing attention to all the issues. It is a matter of honor that RS & Co. are focused, accurate, and scholarly. If RS and friends spoke untruth in their mission it would be another matter. As it is, this website and the likeminded are bringing light into dark places and the darkness hates the light.
Rod says
Thanks for the abuse folks. Tells me a little more about your intellectual capabilities. Sophocles, who seems to know all about sarcasm, but nothing about derision, deserves a special mention.
But sadly, you have, as expected, avoided my question and a chance to back up your opinions.
So I’ll give you another opportunity to “bring some light ” into our discussion –
Can you explain why you and Mr Spencer think your selections should take preference? Ahead of, say, alleged ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people, or the horror stories coming out of Xinjiang, which relate to matters rather more tragic than rules about dress?
Hoi Polloi says
Where “rules about dress” in fact equals pretext for rape?
gravenimage says
How does asking “Rod” to condemn violent forced veiling constitute “abuse”?
I suppose he considers *any* criticism of the bloody horrors of Islam to be ‘abusive’. Good grief…
vcragain says
I don’t care who wears what as long as they are not showing their private parts, or hiding their face since we need to know who they are if there is a crime committed ! Simple – no point in having cameras to keep track of crooks if we let some people hide their identity with an excuse of religious belief ! If you do not like those rules, then just stay home !
OTTER. says
The UN is one giant body that subscribes to dhimmitude. They have never, ever criticized Islam as a doctrine and never ever made a statement about the forced wearing of the hijab. The UN has an Islam whitewashing initiative called ‘Alliance of Civilizations.’
Check it out. Of course, it was intended to counter the ‘clash of civilizations’ but given the state in which Western civilization is, one could say it is the ‘surrender of civilizations’ -Western that is.
Hoi Polloi says
Thanks. Will read about it.
Bikinis not Burkas says
25% of the U.N. are Muslims as they have subjugated 25% of the world.
Look up OIC.
gravenimage says
+1
tgusa says
Silence? What say you Rod or should I say Rhonda, which is it? You and I both know.