Amnesty International Complains About Anti-Muslim Bias

Child-Rapist bomb head: Mohammed.

There’s too much anti-Muslim bias in Europe, says Amnesty International. BBC obviously reports in very sympathetic tones.

All those good and hard-working Muslims treated as if they were as many criminals. Tsk,tsk…

I must distance myself from such prejudices. I am sure many Muslims are rather westernised, and don’t give a Mohammed for their religion. Alas, many others aren’t, and they do give a Mohammed.

To prove that there are no problems with Muslims (in Europe, or elsewhere) I will post here a famous cartoon. You will remember this cartoon did not originate violent riots in several Muslim countries, did not cause the assassination of several  religious and civilians, did not expose Islam as a dangerous religion all too likely to raise suicidal-homicidal hotheads, and did not cause any call for boycott of Danish products.

Therefore, Amnesty International must be right.



Posted on May 10, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Personally, I think they should be able to wear whatever they want. The people yammering for all these bans are the same ones who are trying to ban people from wearing crucifixes,

    • I allow myself to disagree, nannygirl.

      In my eyes, there can be no equivalence. If we upheld Christian values, we must recognise a prominence – nay, a dominance – of Christian values. Therefore, a cross or crucifix should be allowed, but this does not mean every Muslim garb should be allowed too. Beside the obvious security reasons, I see this at an indication of how we look at the world around us, and how we want to have it.


    • You can probably tell by my comment that I’m American and, of course, here you can pretty much dress however you want. I don’t think our government could ever get away with regulating things like that except for government issued photo ID’s.

    • Nannygirl, is the Niqab allowed in the US? In Italy it is forbidden, in Germany too. Law and order legislation, you see.


    • Yes, it’s “allowed” (freedom of religion). I think the only time one can’t wear a “mask” is if you’re driving or it becomes a safety issue on your job. Honestly, where I live, I’ve never seen anyone wearing one. Many of the Muslims who move here are trying to get away from that sort of thing.

    • Ah, interesting…

      but what happens ia a Muslim woman wants to keep her Niqab when she drives because of her freedom of religion? What happens if she does not want to show her face in an airport? What photo is in her documents?

      Here in the UK we have security mania, but most women with the niqab are not asked to remove it, a dangerous terrorist even escaped the country dressed a s a Muslim woman and with the passport of his sister. It is as mad as that (in the UK, I mean).


    • It depends on what state you live in here whether you have to show your face for a driver’s license. Some states don’t require a photo. At an airport she would be taken to a private screening area. Just about everyone gets patted down at the airport or x-rayed here.
      You have to understand that in America, we believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion as they see it. That’s why most of us are against any kind of law that would limit these things.

    • Ah, I see. The pitfalls of religious freedom I suppose…


%d bloggers like this: