A woman’s freedom to wear the niqab…
Of particular interest to investigators is the relationship between Farook, a 28-year-old U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, a Pakistani national. While his upbringing and adult life in Riverside is chronicled in school files, work documents and other records, little is known publicly about her.
Authorities said Thursday that she was more than just an accomplice. At one point as the couple attempted to elude police, Malik fired an assault rifle out the back window of their sport utility vehicle at pursuing officers.
Federal investigators believe there is a “very serious” possibility that Tashfeen Malik, one of two shooters who murdered 14 people and wounded 21 others in San Bernardino, Calif. Wednesday, radicalized her husband and co-assailant, county restaurant inspector Syed Farook, Fox News has learned.
[…]
Investigators believe that on at least one of those trips to Saudi Arabia, one or both members of the couple made contact with suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. The exact nature of that contact was not immediately clear.
Hey, that big, black cloak of invisibility isn’t a signal of potential radicalization – it’s a fundamental Canadian value.
BREAKING: San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS on Facebook, sources tell CNN
— BNO News (@BNONews) December 4, 2015
A couple years back, I read a story in a UK paper that suspected terrorists sought by police had escaped from Britain by wearing burkas, knowing that the police would not search Muslim “women.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/04/suspect-burqa-counter-terror-restrictions
Women are evil. I keep telling you guys.
Below is an example of a comment CBC deleted:
I believe the path we need to take is to completely remove ourselves from the Middle East. They only want our money, not our culture or philosophy. If we close our borders to their culture we will protect ours. If people want to move here, great, but accept our values.
The media absolutely refuses to tell it like it is, they just keep on stressing it was an “American shooter” and look there is all kinds of other American shooters, this is nothing different.
Apparently, it’s easier to become a Canadian citizen than it is to get into the Star Wars movie. Cineplex won’t let you in if you are wearing a mask. I like their convoluted reasoning:
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/theatres-may-force-star-wars-fans-to-ditch-lightsabers-toys-1.2683913
Racists!
So, does that mean you support a state-enforced ban on the niqab? How do you square that with your professed libertarian values?
Yes, I support a state-enforced ban on the niqab. It’s a signal of totalitarianism, as contrary to “libertarian values” as slavery.
There’s ALWAYS a woman.
“Apparently, it’s easier to become a Canadian citizen than it is to get into the Star Wars movie. Cineplex won’t let you in if you are wearing a mask.”
I wonder if they extend those “health and safety” concerns to women wearing niqabs?
Just askin’!
Interesting that we do not yet have a mainstream media image of Tashfeen Malik even though she shows up on the web in social media photos.
Why when they come here we have to adapt to their ‘beliefs’ but if we go to where they come from we have to hide our culture. This is insane.
Islam is not a religion – it’s a cult; a cult of death. Submit or die. Glorifies a make belief porno paradise for the sexually depraved and the western leaders go all weak in the knees for this abusive, misogynistic cult. The more ghoulish their killings are the higher the honor for them – to get to ‘sharia paradise with 72 virgins for the moslem males’.
Seriously ?? You mean the Obama Federal Govt. doesn’t have a photo of this “fully vetted” immigrant ? Seriously ?? Obama allows Muslims into our country without photo ID’s ??
Where IS the DHS or INS photo of this woman ?
Where IS her VISA photo ??
@mojo:
Your quote should be
“Behind every successful man, there is a woman”
@ kt:
So, according to you, if one is a libertarian, one would uphold the right to wear a niqab. Since you imply that you support the right to wear a nigab, does that make you a libertarian?
I’m confused about your position. Please enlighten me. What do libertarians believe? Are you a libertarian?
“Yes, I support a state-enforced ban on the niqab. It’s a signal of totalitarianism, as contrary to “libertarian values” as slavery.”
A signal of (theocratic) totalitarianism — or at least patriarchy, or oppression, or subjugation — though it may be, how is a state-imposed dress code any less totalitarian, let alone pro-libertarian?
Sorry to bust your simplistic view of SDA’s readers, you microcephalic coprophile, but I personally do not support such a ban. A government that can legally tell a woman she can’t wear a burqa or niqab can tell me I can’t wear a shirt with the Canadian flag on it (as is already happening in parts of the UK). But then you already knew that, you miserable vomitous mass.
I do support a blanket ban on immigration from the Middle East and other third world countries, revocation of immigration status and deportation of all current non-citizens from such areas (with an exception for families directly sponsored by churches or other private organizations, who will be required to act as surety for their conduct) and intensive monitoring of existing Islamic organizations that’s consistent with existing Canadian privacy law. And a 24-hour cable channel where viewers can watch you trying to paddle your way out of a 7-foot deep swimming pool filled with pig feces.
I do not support the revocation of Canadian citizenship for any reason, you self-fellating sodomite, but I do think we need to dust off the treason laws and start using them effectively.
I think people should stop wasting time posting at the CBC. Clearly they are not interested in promoting insightful disucussion on issues — only in propaganda and brainwashing. Very sad. People supporting the CBC (all those “I vote CBC” folks) need to wake up. They are a destructive force in Canada and are actively contributing to the sell-out to the international socialism. Freedom of expression is being squelched.
@kt:
I know you’re still there. I’m still waiting for your definition of libertarianism and to find out if you are one. No waffling now. Lay it out in straight forward fashion. I’m getting concerned that you might be avoiding the questions.
“So, according to you, if one is a libertarian, one would uphold the right to wear a niqab.”
Yes, that is my view of libertarianism. I welcome others here, especially those who self-identify as libertarians, to chime in either in support or dissent.
“Since you imply that you support the right to wear a nigab, does that make you a libertarian?”
No, it does not. Look up “affirming the consequent.”
“What do libertarians believe? Are you a libertarian?”
I’m not going to get into a whole detailed account of libertarian philosophy — that’s what the interweb is for — but shorthand: individual sovereignty is paramount, individual rights and freedoms should be maximized (and restricted only if they pose immediate harm to others), and government interference should be minimized.
I have some libertarian leanings, but since I generally support a more active role for democratic government in society than libertarianism would favour, no, I wouldn’t say I’m a libertarian per se.
“And a 24-hour cable channel where viewers can watch you trying to paddle your way out of a 7-foot deep swimming pool filled with pig feces.”
Would that be taxpayer-funded, or subscription-based? Nevermind, I think I know your answer.
“Seriously ?? You mean the Obama Federal Govt. doesn’t have a photo of this “fully vetted” immigrant ? Seriously ?? Obama allows Muslims into our country without photo ID’s ??
Where IS the DHS or INS photo of this woman ?
Where IS her VISA photo ??”
Of course the US Government will have all that. However, they’re not required to provide it to the media. If, say, CBC suddenly wanted your driver’s licence photo, should the provincial government simply give it to them? I think not.
But the media doesn’t have to rely on government-held photos anyway. There are a number of images of Malik on the web right now that could be used if they had a mind to.
@kt
“individual sovereignty is paramount, individual rights and freedoms should be maximized (and restricted only if they pose immediate harm to others)”
Does an individual has a right to live in a cohesive enough society to maintain his freedom? Being libertarian does not exclude one from being pragmatic.
btw… citizenship is a matter of a state more than anything else and we are not talking about Islamic State.
Thanks for you response, confusing though it is. I wish I had more time for this but other matters call. Maybe more later.
From your response, I gather that you’re a pseudo libertarian (i.e., when it suits you = “affirming the consequent.”) and that you believe your position on at least this one issue of wearing the niqab is consistent with libertarian values.
You’ve asked for others who claim libertarian values to weight in on the question. You’ve received one response already from Kate which you have rejected as not consistent with libertarian values. I suspect that you will also reject any further responses unless they agree with your position.
I’m not a libertarian. But even if I were, you really have failed to make any case for wearing a nigab. It’s this cultural equivalency thing all over again for you. I reiterate all of my previous statements by saying that all cultures are not equal and that islamic culture is the least equal of all. Women as chattel is not a value which is consistent with western culture and I doubt very much that it is a libertarian value.
“While his upbringing ( Syed Rizwan Farook ) and adult life in Riverside is chronicled in school files, work documents and other records, little is known publicly about her( Tashfeen Malik ).”
Watch the 1977 movie Black Sunday with Robert Shaw, Bruce Dern and Marthe Keller. I’ll bet that you would get a pretty good idea of her ( Tashfeen Malik )role in all of this.
David. “Women as chattel is not a value which is consistent with western culture and I doubt very much that it is a libertarian value.” If the libertarian truly feels this is a matter of natural rights across cultures, as a minimum requirement, as I do, then I would agree 100%. Activists and protagonists just bob and weave around issues, their wisdom final. The Arab mind will not agree, but there’s no need to debate either.
The niqab, truly an issue of identification, can morph to freedom of expression or religion, or cultural imperative, or anti-racism, whichever suits the moment. For further illustration, consider the recent SB terrorist attack. It’s not about global inspired terror, no – it’s about gun control. After all, if we had gun control, none of this would have happened For instance, nobody in Cairo would consider throwing a Molotov cocktail into a restaurant. Murderers, of all types will use the tools at hand. Then again, it’s more about global warming – when is the next conference?
Ask not what your government can do for you, but what taxaction can do to you. And hurry, please, lots of taxaction – before we find out what phoney con artists they are!
Obama has explicitly stated ISIS is not an “existential threat.” (Is this some kind of poison pill for Hillary?) Existential? Maybe not – yet, but no doubt wishing to grow to that. The POTUS fails to acknowledge that gathering danger, instead meandering into the warm and fuzzies of international climate conferences and G20 meetings, with nonsense about recognizing Islamist Jihad for what it is somehow attracting terrorists, then making puffy deals with Iran and China, no doubt to secure his legacy. That other stuff, taking tough action against tough enemies, well that’s no fun and anyway everybody gets little stomach aches. America used to be a heavy lifter, now they’re light duty.
As Trump so indelicately put it, create a large black crater where ISIS used to be and the allure of international jihad will lose much lustre. This is not a war where you can claim victory and pick up and go away. That mistake has been made too often. Trying to hide behind gun control, climate change or other ludicrous rationalizations is what makes us much less safe.
Sharia appears to be a law of submission, a controlling force in the guise of religion of the cult variety for women only of course. Men blend in in our Western societies while SOME women go about covering themselves to varying degrees, from full tents to simple head coverings.
Muslims of the so-called “moderate” practice of Islam tell us it is not a religious requirement for women to wear disguises so we have more confusion. Who are we to believe?
“I suspect that you will also reject any further responses unless they agree with your position.”
Isn’t that just a less generous way of saying “defending one’s opinion”? Still, I’m open to changing my mind, if you can make a strong enough argument.
“…you believe your position on at least this one issue of wearing the niqab is consistent with libertarian values…I’m not a libertarian. But even if I were, you really have failed to make any case for wearing a nigab. It’s this cultural equivalency thing all over again for you.”
I’m not defending the niqab itself. I’m arguing that supporting a state-enforced ban on wearing the niqab is antithetical to libertarianism, a political philosophy to which Kate and many others on SDA have explicitly and implicitly professed broad adherence to. I welcome (while reserving the right to disagree with) the thoughts of those who think otherwise. Kate thinks otherwise — so be it. “Daniel Ream”, meanwhile, seems to agree with me (and by inference, disagree with Kate) on this one narrow issue, albeit in the most hostile terms possible.
And what of you? You reject the niqab, as is your right, but that’s not what we’re talking about. The question is, do you believe that it is the proper role of the state to forcibly ban — that is, to criminalize — the wearing of certain items of clothing by any of its citizens?
Where in Michigan are you? I have family in Grand Rapids.
The US needs to deport the Anchor Baby they dumped on the American taxpayer!
Not only did they use rifles & pipe bombs, in death they’re continuing to use biological weapons as well!
Daniel Ream”, meanwhile, seems to agree with me […] albeit in the most hostile terms possible.
I’m happy to discuss the subtleties of these issues with anyone, but you opened this line of conversation by insulting everyone here. So I’m just responding in kind. Or is that not how it’s done in the scabrous leper colony your mother turns tricks in?
From the comments on this story here and on MSM sites you can’t help but feel sorry for the Libtards that respond in defending this woman’s right to wear a niqab when these same people have removed her right to self defense by denying her the right to “conceal” carry a gun.
It is the same line of thinking that Canada must take in refugees to absolve their collective guilt and at the same time penalize the rest of us and their descendants by increasing taxes to pay the costs of programs for refugees that are of “unknown benefit” to the country.
Again it is the same reasoning that states “We won, get over it!” as if the past election was some kind of varsity game. It was not a game and you are not walking out of a stadium feeling good because your team won the championship. You were electing a government, a group of people, to carry on the affairs of state and to protect the collective interests of the country. With no method or recourse for a “Do Over” what we have done is elected a group that will dictate their demands on us and if the past four weeks are any indication of how this country is going to be run for the next four years then we can expect to see an inordinate amount of regret from the very people who are now, joyously announcing, “We won, get over it!”.
“I’m happy to discuss the subtleties of these issues with anyone, but you opened this line of conversation by insulting everyone here.”
Did I? Please, quote me the line(s) from my comments on this thread where I insulted everyone here. I think I’ve actually been rather pleasant.
“Or is that not how it’s done in the scabrous leper colony your mother turns tricks in?”
It is, though Mother is now madam to her own clowder of tarts. Enterprising wench, she is.
“The US needs to deport the Anchor Baby they dumped on the American taxpayer!”
Not an “Anchor Baby”. Both the baby and Syed Farook were born in the US.
well from personal experience they can have their 72 virgins…..alot more fun with the gently used woman and a lot less awkward moments….
well from personal experience they can have their 72 virgins…..alot more fun with the gently used woman and a lot less awkward moments….
well from personal experience they can have their 72 virgins…..alot more fun with the gently used woman and a lot less awkward moments….
well from personal experience they can have their 72 virgins…..alot more fun with the gently used woman and a lot less awkward moments….
JJM >
“Not an “Anchor Baby””.
It’s her baby, Tashfeen Malik was not a citizen – so she had an Anchor baby in the US. No one has a clue as to who the father was, until DNA testing is completed. “He got to know Malik through an online dating service”.
Of course you’re free be an apologist all you wish, but people would respect your opinion more on the matter if you volunteered to raise the little jihadi Anchor Baby yourself, on your own dime.
Volunteering, or are you volunteering the taxpayer’s to do it?
Posted here without comment, but nobody in the media seems to have picked this up…:
from: http://shoebat.com/2015/12/03/88800/
Interesting but not necessarily accurate (i.e., it’s speculation). What really is interesting and to my knowledge hasn’t been a topic anywhere that I know of, is the fact (well, at least according to the MSM) that the happy moslem couple were both wearing GoPro cameras during their murderous assault, something that all good terrorists do (I understand at least one of the moslem terrorists in Paris had one too).
I have one of those puppies and they are good…. and not cheap either. They record sound as well as video. Very durable. Excellent field of view (unlike a phone camera). Even if the cameras were hit by bullets in the shootout, the sim cards are very likely still intact. The FBI should be able to see and hear the entire assault from approach to departure and maybe more.
And no, I’m not being morbid. It’s evidence and it’s insight….. and just one more reason to mock and ridicule the MSM’s ludicrous efforts to call this anything but a moslem terrorist attack.
I said “sim cards” above. I meant memory cards.
Are we a little twitchy today Knight? JJM is more likely right than not. You can do better than this. I’ve seen it.
“Are we a little twitchy today Knight?”
More than a little twitchy, he’s just plain ranting.
The citizenship of Farook and the child are not in question. I might add the obvious too: regardless of the parents’ actions, a six month old infant is entirely innocent. So Knight can stuff his “little jihadi Anchor Baby” routine right where… never mind.
The goverment also isn’t obligated to give out personal tax returns, but the Clinton’s had hundreds. So the raggedy-headed harpy is DEAD ! Why would the government have a need to withhold her photo? Islamophobia ? Don’t make me laugh. Americans have a collective RIGHT to see the face of their enemy.
kt, I support a ban on islam. remove them all from everywhere.
That’s the solut5ion, problem lies in the how.
It’s not going to happen by allowing more and more Islamists to flood into our Western nations far removed from the stone age under false pretenses. They can call themselves refugees or the UN can deem them to be such but it’s up to us to stop the blind trust which can be a dilemma in Canada since the Trudeau Charter gives them the rights and freedoms to practice their doctrine. By the time we find out who and what they are it’s a tad late.
My comment at 8:10 AM was a reply to old white guy!
David in Michigan >
“Are we a little twitchy today Knight?”
No not at all, just tired of reading the Islamic apologists like JJM carrying water for these terrorists everyday.
These are the clowns that babble blank-faced in the streets as Rome burns while everyone else runs around putting out fires.
So yes, go ahead and agree that JJM nailed it with the American Citizen shtick, although no one even has a clue who the mother really is or where she came from – definitely not “America”, well except for JJM who seems to think that the killings were everyday workplace violence by pissed off average apple pie Americans.
Resorting to pure fantasy again, I see.
When all else fails…
JJM >
When all else fails?
Mother NOT American has baby in America and dumps it with Jihad “Granny” who has already raised at least one Jihadi terrorist son. (Sorry JJM “disgruntled worker”, or “disaffected youth” since you appear easily offended by the terms Jihadi or Terrorist)
Is American born Jihadi terrorist father of Anchor baby? No one knows, baby could have been fathered by goat herder wearing a suicide vest in some Pakistani village. Of course prior to “poor little soccer mom” utilizing US open immigration policies, along with legal Anchor Baby insurance.
But of course they’d never lie to a good Dhimmi like you JJM.
Leftists seem to thirst after “submission to God” (which is the meaning of “Islam”), thirst with a desire which is immoderate and unshakeable. The call of God to the atheists seems irresistible.
But why, why Islam? I am convinced that both Christianity and Judaism offer better and certainly more merciful understandings of God. Probably the leftists think they are calling up evil.
Hah! Just remember that US security is mostly in the hands of the Fuddled Bunglers and drooling Imbeciles society. It is even their top priority, according to Wikipedia. Yes, the very same Fuddled Bunglers and drooling Imbeciles who ignored Russian intelligence, who informed them about the Tsarnaev brothers.