For the First Time, the National Organization for Women Considers Sharia Law

Posted on by ( 2 comments already! )
Spread the love

Loading

Submitted by Ditto:

Now, the two Resolutions that NOW did not pass are even more interesting than the ones that did.

The Board was going to pass a resolution that would essentially favor gay men (and wealthy couples who do not wish to risk pregnancy or wealthy women who cannot bring a child to term). This resolution would have supported the hiring of “surrogate wombs” because, as the resolution stated, “be it resolved that the government cannot define or control if, when, and how one has a family.” Thus, the evisceration of motherhood and the commodification of women via “third party reproduction” is actually being considered by a major feminist organization.

I fail to see how this empowers women or corrects a female-specific injury. It was tabled probably because those who supported it failed to get the necessary votes. I fear the vote may have been close.

And now for some possibly good news.

Believe it or not: Someone—bless whoever it was—actually tried to pass a Resolution against “Culturally Oppressive Laws Against Women and Girls.” All the resolution called for was a public education campaign. However, it specifically singled out Sharia law and listed the human and women’s rights violations performed in its name: forced veiling, forced child marriage, normalized beating, honor killing, purdah, stoning to death, hanging, and flogging for non-compliant women.

Please listen to the language of NOW’s resolution: “Whereas, one of NOW’s official priorities is to eliminate violence against women…we urge NOW members to educate law enforcement, educators, medical professionals, and community leaders to the danger of Sharia law.”

This resolution was defeated; actually, like the surrogacy resolution, it was tabled for further discussion.

Oh, to have been a bug on the wall for that debate.

More

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Female Genital Mutilation? It’s Guilty White Liberals Who Make it Possible

After years of silence, the British establishment has finally acknowledged the ‘national scandal’ of female genital mutilation (or FGM, as it is called by those in the know), which has been practiced on up to 170,000 women and girls in the UK, and 140 million worldwide… (snip)

…Each time, the left-wing media stopped short of rounding on the wrongdoers and their degenerate lifestyles, because they were members of a designated victim group, which serves an important role in defining the liberal identity.

Suffice to say, there is no such thing as an honest relativist, because relativism is a fraud. Its purpose is not to present the philosophical case for equal treatment, but to rob dominant ideas and institutions of their legitimacy. This is why leftists are so harmful to interests of this country: because they despise its values, its character and its culture, and identify every opponent of Western society as a comrade in arms.

They don’t see it this way, of course, because they reckon multiculturalism and ‘social justice’ enjoy (or deserve to enjoy) popular support. But beyond the walls of the Left’s ivory towers, things like liberty, free speech and old fashioned values still matter, and most people recognise multiculturalism and moral relativism as being incompatible with civilised order.

Still, perhaps times are a-changing. Thanks in part to the success of the UK Independence Party, a lot of previously verboten subjects are back on the table. The Left still shrieks “bigot” whenever its orthodoxies are challenged, but with diminishing returns. Conservatives are emboldened and the progressive thought police find themselves on the back foot.

0
Reply

Well, they tabled their one official thought about how non-white women are treated worldwide.
They really don’t care unless rich, white men can be blamed.
Remember this?
The left was quite interested in Shaima Alawadi, back when they fell for her husband’s lie that she had been killed by some anti-Muslim bigot… instead of by him.

When Shaima Alawadi was found beaten to death in her own dining room with a tire iron, CAIR and countless Muslim organizations rejoiced, and not just for the usual reason that Muslims rejoice when a woman is murdered.

A note lying on the floor read, “Go back to your country, you terrorist;” which clearly meant that Shaima Alawadi’s murder was a hate crime.

Then the truth came out and the left lost interest in Shaima once they learned that her killer was a Muslim.

New information in the Shaima Alawadi murder case in El Cajon, Calif., suggests that the family was cracking over a forced marriage for daughter Fatima, 17, and that Alawadi herself was preparing to divorce her husband.
If female freedom turns out to be at the heart of the murder, it will highlight not so much the intolerance of Muslim immigrants by Americans, but the cultural restrictions [READ: Sharia] on women in those communities and what happens when those restrictions clash with the relatively permissive rules of Western society.

So, being all open-minded simply means Sharia goes from something bad ”over there,” to something bad here.

0
Reply