Deadly hijabophobia in Germany
Many westerners suffer from an irrational fear of headscarved women ('hijabophobia'). But fortunately very few have gone as far as a 28-year-old German identified only as "Axel W" who last week stabbed and killed a hijab-wearing Egyptian woman, along with the three-month-old fetus she was pregnant with.
And he did this inside a German courtroom, of all places.
I do not understand why anyone should want to "protect" this guy by withholding his full name.
The fully-named victim, 31-year-old Marwa Sherbini, received no useful protections at all for her life or that of her fetus during her time in the courtroom, where Axel W was appealing a fine of 750 euros ($1,050), imposed for insulting her in 2008, "apparently because she was wearing the Muslim headscarf or Hijab."
I also can't understand how Axel W managed to get a knife into the courtroom and then to use it 18 times against Ms. Sherbini's person, killing her and the fetus, before the police were able to gain control over him. Where were the police all that time? Were there no guards standing anywhere near him during the hearing-- and this despite his previously proven hostility to Ms. Sherbini?
Ms. Sherbini's husband was also present, along with their three-year-old son. The husband tried to save her but was reportedly injured both by Axel W and when a policeman opened fire in the courtroom. What a fiasco for the German "justice" system, and what a horrendous tragedy for Ms. Sherbini's family and friends.
"I do not understand why anyone should want to "protect" this guy by withholding his full name"
Well, you know how violent those Muslims are. (Irony alert)
You do know why this man's name is being witheld and it is a sad comment on the infectious nature of lynch-itis that you should pretend otherwise.
It is terrible that this happened but murder, lynchings and the relishing of revengeful thoughts are all of a piece. I thought that Quakers understood as much.
If this man did kill the victim, it should be remembered that, he did so, within a general cultural atmosphere that has been poisoned, at great expense and employing all the resources of our culture, (not least popular entertainment), with the most virulent, licensed racism of islamophobia.
This man was simply the instrument of a wave of hatred deliberately concocted, nourished and encouraged. It goes a long way to account for the apathy with which the public greets the studied indifference and callous diregard of the most extraordinary excesses : A million or more dead in Iraq; the regular and contemptuously justified massacres of Afghan village populations and the extermination raids into Gaza.
A population which is encouraged, by its leaders in government, religious and intellectual life, to accept such killings (on the grounds, always implied, ocasionally stated, that the victims are part of a murderous, hateful culture) not surprisingly includes many individuals ready, in the wrong circumstances, to make the leap between the grey theory, that muslims are dangerous, to the practise of killing the more vulnerable.
I am sure the Germans will let the perp free on insanity grounds. That is what they did when a German fan stabbed Monica Seles during a tennis match. She survived but her career did not.
Maybe this is even the same stabber...
The ultimate irony is that Sarkozy is trying to ban burkas in France for the benefit of the moslem women, he would have been right in this case.
The ultimate irony is that Sarkozy is trying to ban burkas in France for the benefit of the moslem women, he would have been right in this case.
Quite wrong. This is not Sarko's initiative; he has expressed doubts about it.
Secondly, it seems to me to be profoundly illiberal to forbid a woman from wearing what she wants. If she wants to cover herself up, then she should be free to do so. The evidence that anything else is the case in France is very slight.
It may be that the men, and they are men, who are behind this, will vote it through, but if they do, it will be a vote against freedom.
Wrong ? Ban burkas for the benefit of women is what the following reads:
In a speech at the Palace of Versailles, Mr Sarkozy said that the head-to-toe Islamic garment for women was not a symbol of religion but a sign of subservience for women.
"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," he told members of both parliamentary houses gathered for his speech.
Sarkozy says the burqa is 'not welcome' in France
France to consider burka ban
Al-Qaeda threatens France with revenge over burka stance
Muslim leaders condemn Sarkozy over burqa ban
Why the burka is part of Britain
He added: "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic."
His comments follow an appeal last week by 65 French MPs for a parliamentary commission to examine whether Muslim women who cover themselves fully in public undermine the secular tradition in France as well as women's rights.
The MPs represent parties ranging from the Communists to Mr Sarkozy's UMP.
The call won instant support from members of Mr Sarkozy's centre-Right government but was opposed by the Socialists, the main opposition party.
The French parliament is expected to consider both the burqa, where the eyes are covered by a fabric mesh, and the niqab, which has an eye slit.
France's Muslim Council said last week that the proposal "stigmatised" Islam.
In 2004, the country passed a controversial law forbidding any conspicuous religion symbols from state schools, including veils, which are also banned in government offices.
You do know why this man's name is being witheld and it is a sad comment on the infectious nature of lynch-itis that you should pretend otherwise.
The reason this man's name is being withheld is likely because the court has ordered it withheld due to the severity of the crime. see here for a similar case:
http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/qk20081127_1bvq004608.html
what are you insinuating?
I certainly agree, Titus, that sitting in Texas, or wherever it is that you sit, and reading the British Daily Telegraph, of all papers, you are much better informed than me on the ground in Paris, with these issues all around me.
I certainly agree, Alex, that sitting in Paris and watching al-Jazeera that you are much better informed that me here on the ground in Israel, with all these issues going on all around me.
Alex, exactly what are you claiming the telegraph reporters got wrong? Seems like their account is exactly as reported here:
http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/0101575749-burqa-creation-d-une-mission-parlementaire
The answer to your point, Vadim, is that I did not say that the Telegraph story was wrong, simply that it is an unreliable source. They are constantly slanting stories to give twists that are not justified.
The slanting of the Telegraph story can be seen in the choice of photo, of a woman in a burqa in Afghanistan, not in France.
Sarkozy did indeed make that speech, but he has also been reported to have expressed doubts about the project. I suspect that he made the speech and appointed the commission, to satisfy his supporters, and to kick the ball into the long grass.
I have talked to a lot of Muslim women here in France about why they wear hijab, or to go further, wear niqab. My Muslim women students, my Muslim cleaning lady (whom I talked to at length about it), even the Muslim friends of my daughter, when she was at school. In every case, the response was free choice, as an expression of their religion. I have never even heard of one single case of forced oppression, though no doubt there are one or two. Yet, the numbers of women in the street wearing niqab is increasing day by day. Hard to believe it's the oppression of society, in France.
The position is different from that in Afghanistan, to take an extreme example.
Well, I won't go on. Just to make the point that the AFP story, as published in Libé, only talks about forbidding face-covering. Could be that a traditional French compromise will be reached, in order to preserve laicité, and only face-covering forbidden, and even that not enforced.
Your friend Titus has got things completely wrong.
The slanting of the Telegraph story can be seen in the choice of photo, of a woman in a burqa in Afghanistan, not in France.
We have no idea where that picture was taken, but you highlight an interesting detail of this controversy; that burqas (as opposed to the niqab) are hardly ever seen outside of south/central asia, making the entire issue seem a bit silly.
As for insights gleaned by interviewing your cleaning lady: why should any woman from a conservative religious background admit to a male outsider her private religious beliefs or hint at coercion from her family? Surely you're aware that anti-suffrage arguments eg have often been taken up by women in exactly those terms (we don't want it/need it/it's part of our tradition so butt out.) Including Switzerland as recently as the late 20th century.
Titus' point is that in general, politicians speak out against the burqa on behalf of the wearer, and nothing you have said contradicts this.
Seems like Axel W is from Russia who immigrated to Germany only in 2003. Were we to consider the largest group of immigrants from Russia to Germany in recent years, it is not difficult to draw conclusions.
Were we to consider the largest group of immigrants from Russia to Germany in recent years, it is not difficult to draw conclusions.
kassandra, how much do you know about russian immigrants to eastern germany? I don't know where you and bevin are heading with your insinuations, but if it's where I suspect you may be in for an embarrassing surprise.
Yep Vadim, Kassandra is an out and out anti-Semite. No doubt about it.
Several days later...
Vadim's
We have no idea where that picture was taken
just shows his ignorance. That kind of burqa is only worn in Afghanistan. I didn't expect much knowledge from men, but at least they should hesitate before showing their ignorance.
just shows his ignorance. That kind of burqa is only worn in Afghanistan
erm, alex old chum, did you miss this:
burqas (as opposed to the niqab) are hardly ever seen outside of south/central asia
& as indicated the burqa depicted is worn in pakistan as well as afghanistan, but it's completely possible that the photo was posed in New York or Paris. For an academic, you really are a sloppy reader.