Showing posts with label ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ban. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
BBC: France's opposition Socialists have come out against a law banning the burka - even though they remain firmly opposed to the garment.
The announcement comes ahead of a parliamentary report on the issue that is due out later this month.
Last summer, French MPs held hearings on whether to ban the Muslim veil, which covers the body from head to toe.
President Nicolas Sarkozy had said the burka was "not welcome" in France, home to Europe's largest Muslim population.
Mr Sarkozy has left open the idea of introducing legislation to ban the burka.
While the Socialist Party opposes the wearing of the burka, it was "not favourable" to a legal ban, said party spokesman Benoit Hamon. >>> | Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
BBC: The home secretary has said he will back any request from police or local government to ban a radical Islamic group marching through Wootton Bassett.
Alan Johnson said he felt "revulsion" at the thought of Islam4UK's proposed march through the Wiltshire town.
Wootton Bassett has become famous for its repatriation ceremonies for fallen British service personnel.
Islam4UK says it wants to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties.
Mr Johnson said: "The idea that anyone would stage this kind of demonstration in Wootton Bassett fills me with revulsion.
"I find it particularly offensive that the town, which has acted in such a moving and dignified way in paying tribute to our troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, should be targeted in this manner."
He added: "If the Wiltshire Police and local authority feel that a procession of this kind has the potential to cause public disorder and seek my consent to a banning order, then I would have no hesitation in supporting that request." >>> | Monday, January 04, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: The new effort to outlaw the full-length veil - niqabs and burqas - in public trumps earlier efforts to ban it only in some official buildings. The move comes at a time when French Muslims say they are being targeted as outsiders or not fully French.
Paris: The French ruling party of President Nicolas Sarkozy now affirms it will present a bill to ban full-length Islamic veils in all public places in France. It won't wait for the results of a parliamentary inquiry into the all-covering niqab and burqa to be published. The move adds fuel to an increasingly hot debate on French identity that has minorities here upset.
A nationwide identity debate, engineered by the ruling UMP party last month, has evolved into an embarrassingly unruly discussion about Muslims and northern Africans in France. And it comes on the heels of a surprise vote in neighboring Switzerland last month to outlaw the construction of new minarets at Muslim worship sites.
The UMP effort to outlaw the full-length veil in public trumps earlier efforts to ban it only in some official buildings, and comes at a time when French Muslims say they are being targeted as outsiders or not fully French.
Yet UMP party leader Jean-François Cope yesterday said veils that cover a woman’s entire face are a “violation of individual liberty” and a “negation” of one’s identity and that of others in a public milieu.
Under the proposed law, women would not be able to move in public with their faces fully covered. The legal rendering is that burqas and all-covering niqabs are a public order issue, and not a religious practice issue - as is the French ban on headscarves in schools, which has been carried out to uphold French secularism, known as laïcité.
Offenders wearing veils would receive a fine – though lawmakers now say there will be a period of mediation following the initial charge. Vote expected in early Jan >>> Robert Marquand, Staff writer | Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
BBC: An appeal against last month's decision by Swiss voters to ban minarets has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The appeal was lodged by Hafid Ouardiri, an Algerian-born Muslim and a former spokesman for the Geneva Mosque.
Mr Ouardiri wants the court to rule that the ban is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Some 57.5% of Swiss voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban last month.
The referendum proposal was put forward by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which said minarets were a sign of Islamisation.
Switzerland's federal government had urged Swiss voters to reject it, warning it would contravene religious freedom and human rights and could stoke extremism. >>> | Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
LE FIGARO: Un avocat a décidé de saisir la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.
Et si on annulait la votation ? Complètement déboussolée après le succès de l'initiative antiminarets, approuvée le 29 novembre par plus de 57 % des votants, la classe politique suisse étudie toutes les pistes : faut-il saisir la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, comme le souhaitent les Verts, soutenus par Daniel Cohn-Bendit, ou bien lancer une «contre-initiative», comme le proposent les radicaux ? Deux plaintes ont déjà été déposées au Tribunal fédéral. L'avocat Antoine Boesch, qui se dit soutenu par des clients de tous horizons et de toutes confessions, a, pour sa part, décidé de saisir la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Quant au Club helvétique, composé d'une vingtaine d'intellectuels, de juristes et de responsables politiques, il suggère de remplacer l'interdiction des minarets dans la Constitution par une «disposition sur la tolérance» . >>> Stéphane Kovacs | Mardi 08 Décembre 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
NRC HANDELSBLAD INTERNATIONAL: Dutch members of parliament have cancelled a scheduled visit to Turkey after the Turkish government refused to meet with the delegation if anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders was part of it.
When the matter was put to a vote in Dutch parliament on Wednesday, all parties opted to cancel the visit, which was scheduled for January, even though Turkish members of parliament and local social organisations had said they would meet with the delegation regardless.
"This was a unanimous decision. We deeply regret the fact that this will make an effective dialogue impossible, but if the Turkish government refuses to meet with us, the most essential parts of our schedule will not be able to go ahead," Harm Evert Waalkens, leader of the parliamentary delegation, said on Wednesday. One of the main reasons for the visit was Turkey's accession to the European Union.
A representative of the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs called the Dutch parliament's decision "unilateral."
"We have made our point clear," the spokesperson said. "We have not forbidden Wilders to visit, but we are unwilling to roll out the red carpet for him since the media attention he will garner by coming to Turkey will overshadow all other members of the delegation. But we are not praising God for the fact that he will not be coming. We will evaluate the decision of the Dutch parliament." >>> By Handelsblad’s news staff | Thursday, December 03, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
MAIL ONLINE: Italy could be the next European country to consider a referendum on the building of Islamic minarets following the Swiss vote to ban the structures.
Cabinet minister Roberto Calderoli, of the xenophobic Northern League, said Italy should confirm its Roman Catholic roots and hold a vote as soon as possible.
Like the Swiss, Italian voters can have a direct say on an issue if a minimum number of signatures are gathered calling for a referendum.
The League is expected to now start the process for a referendum, despite the Vatican expressing unease over the Swiss vote.
Official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano compared it to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights last month to ban crucifixes from Italian classrooms - a decision that provoked widespread outrage in Italy.
Calderoli said the Swiss decision was a triumphant 'yes to bell towers and no to minarets' that served as an important example for other European countries losing touch with their Christian identities.
He added: 'Respect for other religions is important, but we've got to put the brakes on Muslim propaganda or else we'll end up with an Islamic political party like they have in Spain.'
Others within the anti-immigration Northern League have called for a cross to be inserted on the Italian national flag to symbolise the deep Christian roots of the country.
Italy has one of the tallest minarets in Europe standing just a metre shorter than St Peter's Basilica, at the Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre in Rome.
The country has around 1.2 million Muslims, making Islam the second religion after Catholicism. >>> Nick Pisa | Tuesday, December 01, 2009
DIE PRESSE: Der türkische Premier Erdogan übt herbe Kritik am Schweizer Referendum.
Ankara/Genf/Rom. Die hitzige Debatte rund um das Ergebnis des Schweizer Referendums über Minarettneubauten geht weiter. Der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan ortete nun in Europa eine „zunehmende rassistische und faschistische“ Haltung. Vor der Parlamentsfraktion seiner Regierungspartei AKP zeigte sich Erdo?an [sic] besorgt über das Ergebnis der Abstimmung. Islamophobie sei wie Antisemitismus ein „Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit“. Die Schweiz müsse daher das Verbot zurücknehmen. Ebenfalls betroffen zeigte sich der türkische Staatspräsident Abdullah Gül, der das Ergebnis der Abstimmung als „Schande“ bezeichnete. Laut UN-Menschenrechtskommissarin Navi Pillay sei die Abstimmung „klar diskriminierend“ gewesen. Vor allem kritisierte Pillay, dass das Ergebnis nur die islamische Religion beträfe. Die Schweizer würden mit ihrer Entscheidung die Menschenrechte missachten. >>> APA/duö | Dienstag, 01. Dezember 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
DAILY MAIL: Far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders sparked angry protests today as he declared that Islamic culture is inferior to Christianity.
The MP was met by angry Muslim protesters when he arrived in the UK after winning a court battle to enter the country.
Around 40 demonstrators gathered near the Houses of Parliament as Mr Wilders, whose film Fitna criticises the Koran as a 'fascist book', arrived in central London.
Brandishing banners saying 'Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell' and 'Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment', the protesters were held back by police.
Abu Muaz, from Islam For UK, said: 'If I were to say some of the things he has said I would be arrested under the Terrorism Act. But because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride.'
Addressing journalists alongside UKIP peer Lord Pearson, Mr Wilders said his visit was 'a victory'.
Explaining his controversial views on Islam, he said: 'I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom we get.'
Mr Wilders was allowed into the UK after successfully overturning a Government decision to bar him from Britain. Far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders jets into Britain and declares Islam 'a bad religion' >>> | Friday, October 16, 2009
BBC: After successfully overturning a ban on his presence in the country, Geert Wilders was never going to slip quietly into the UK.
The controversial Dutch politician sent a text message to Associated Press as he cleared customs at Heathrow to ensure the world's media had got the message.
But even he cannot have anticipated the scenes waiting for him in Westminster, as he swept into a side street opposite the Houses of Parliament.
His plan to stage an open-air news conference around the corner on College Green had to be abandoned when about 40 protesters arrived on the scene chanting "Wilders go to hell" and waving placards saying "Sharia for the Netherlands" and "Islam will be superior".
The MP, who is an outspoken critic of Muslim ideology and has called for the Koran to be banned, was bundled through a gate in the high stone wall surrounding Abbey Gardens, an outpost of the House of Lords which was to be the venue for his hastily rearranged conference.
The young Muslims outside, held in check by a line of police officers, chanted "Wilders running scared" and "Wilders come out" - but they were far outnumbered by reporters and photographers, many from the MP's native Netherlands, who seemed even more desperate to get into the overcrowded venue. >>> Brian Wheeler, Political Reporter, BBC News | Friday, October 16, 2009
THE GUARDIAN: Geert Wilders hails 'victory for freedom of speech' / Press conference moved inside Westminster amid safety fears
The Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders expanded on his controversial views on Islam on arrival in the UK today and described the decision to allow him into the country as a "victory for the freedom of speech".
At a press conference moved inside the Houses of Parliament because of fears for Wilders's safety, the Freedom party leader said that Islamic culture was inferior to western cultures.
"I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get," he said.
Wilders, who won an appeal this week against a decision to deny him entry, will not be screening his film Fitna, which criticises the Qur'an as a "fascist book", on this trip. The film had been intended to be shown at the House of Lords in February. He said he still intended to screen the film in the Lords in the future.
"Being here is a victory," Wilders said. "Not a victory for myself but for the freedom of speech. It is ridiculous that the UK government thought my presence would in any way lead to violence. I have nothing to do with violence, I am no extremist, I am a politician who is democratically elected."
Wilders said he had "nothing against" Muslims, but had a problem with the "Islamification of our societies". >>> Adam Gabbatt | Friday, October 16, 2009
Geert Wilders, the right-wing Dutch politician who compared the Koran to Hitler's book Mein Kampf, was met with protests as he arrived in the UK.
Police held back a crowd of Muslim demonstrators as Geert Wilders met Ukip peer Lord Pearson opposite the Houses of Parliament.
Explaining his controversial views on Islam, he said: ''I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies, the less freedom that we get.''
The leader of the Dutch Freedom Party was allowed into Britain after overturning a Government decision led by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to bar him from the country.
It was feared that his outspoken views on Islam could spark religious violence, but this was rejected by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on Tuesday.
Mr Wilders denied responsibility for the publicity which has greeted his visit.
The 46-year-old said: ''If anybody has responsibility for this publicity, it is the UK Government and the Home Secretary and not Geert Wilders.''
Mr Wilders, who wants the Koran banned, insisted: ''I am not extreme, I am not a racist either.'' >>> | Friday, October 16, 2009
THE GUARDIAN – View picture gallery here.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
THE TELEGRAPH: Egyptian politicians have demanded that an ‘Artificial Virginity Hymen’ kit be banned in the country, calling it a “mark of shame”.
Artificial Virginity Hymen is distributed by a Chinese company called Gigimo and sells for about £19. It consists of a pouch which is inserted inside a woman’s vagina before sex and leaks a blood-like substance when broken during intercourse.
Its website says, in broken English: “No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your first night back anytime... Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through undetectable.”
Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood political party, said: "It will be a mark of shame on the ruling party if it allowed this product to enter the market."
"This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage.
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a prominent Islamic scholar, agreed. He said: "I think this should absolutely not be allowed to be exported because it brings more harm than benefits. Whoever does it (imports it) should be punished." However, the product has met with some support. … >>> Tom Chivers | Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Related:
Pakistani family shot dead in 'honour killing' after wedding >>> | Monday, June 29, 2009
Study alleges 'honour killings' conspiracy >>> Jonathan Wynne-Jones | Sunday, February 03, 2008
Monday, October 05, 2009
THE SCOTSMAN: PRESIDENT Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the ban on gay people serving in the military, according to a top aide.
General James Jones, the president's national security adviser, said yesterday: "I don't think it's going to be – it's not years, it will be teed up appropriately."
The Democrat-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law, although no action is expected until early next year. The largest number of homosexuals ousted under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged.
This month Senate majority leader Harry Reid wrote to Mr Obama and defence secretary Robert Gates asking for a review of the cases of two US officers discharged from the military because of their sexuality. "At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country," he said[.] [Source: The Scotsman] | Monday, October 05, 2009
Related: Gays in the US Military – Mark >>> | Monday, September 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
If this Labour government could find its balls, it, too, would ban this symbol of subservience and darkness. Women haven’t fought for their rights over all these years only to be taken back into the Dark Ages by a people who are totally unenlightened and benighted. Emmeline Pankhurst: Eat your heart out! – ©Mark
THE TELEGRAPH: Muslim women have been banned from wearing the body-concealing swimming costume known as a burqini in the northern Italian town of Varallo Sesia, according to a report.
Women wearing the garment, made up of a veil, a tunic and loose leggings, face a fine of €500 (£430) if they are spotted at swimming pools or rivers, the ANSA news agency reported.
The anti-immigration mayor of the northern Piedmont town said: "The sight of a 'masked woman' could disturb small children, not to mention problems of hygiene.
"We don't have to be tolerant all the time," Gianluca Buonanno said.
Justifying the move, Mr Buonanno added: "Imagine a western woman bathing in a bikini in a Muslim country. The consequences could be decapitation, prison or deportation. We are merely prohibiting the use of the burqini." >>> | Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Hat tip: The Anti-Jihadist >>>
TIMES ONLINE:
Why not read this ridiculous article by Daisy Goodwin while you’re at it? >>>
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
MAIL Online: Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department.
The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public.
Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.
In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.
Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.
Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.
And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.
The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom.
My parents moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions - but they also understood that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion.
My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes - the salwar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn around the neck or over the hair.
When she found work in England, she adapted her dress without making a fuss. She is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but she swims in a normal swimming costume and jogs in a tracksuit.
I was born in this country, and my parents' greatest desire for me was that I would integrate and take advantage of the British education system.
They wanted me to make friends at school, and be able to take part in PE lessons - not feel alienated and cut off from my peers. So at home, I wore the salwar kameez, while at school I wore a wore a typical English school uniform.
Now, to some fundamentalists, that made us not proper Muslims. Really?
I have read the Koran. Nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman's face and body must be covered in a layer of heavy black cloth. Instead, Muslim women should dress modestly, covering their arms and legs.
Many of my adult British Muslim friends cover their heads with a headscarf - and I have no problem with that.
The burkha is an entirely different matter. It is an imported Saudi Arabian tradition, and the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of creeping radicalisation, which is not just regressive, it is oppressive and downright dangerous.
The burkha is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it is alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask. >>> Saira Khan | Wednesday, June 24, 2009
THE TELEGRAPH: Muslim leaders in Britain have warned that President Nicolas Sarkozy's calls for the burqa to be banned in France risk fuelling hostility towards Islam.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said Mr Sarkozy's claim that the head-to-toe garments worn by Islamic women signify subservience were "patronising and offensive".
Its criticism comes after Mr Sarkozy used a policy speech on Monday to declare the burqa was "not welcome" in France.
In a move which threatens to reignite the debate over religious clothing in the country, Mr Sarkozy said: "The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.
"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity."
The MCB reacted by calling on Mr Sarkozy to "desist from engaging in and promoting divisive politics" towards France's Muslim population.
Dr Reefat Drabu, assistant secretary general of the MCB, said in a statement: "It is patronising and offensive to suggest that those Muslim women who wear the burqa do so because of pressure or oppression by their male partners or guardians."
Speaking for the umbrella group of more than 500 Muslim organisations including mosques, charities and community groups, she added: "Such suggestions can legitimately be perceived as antagonistic towards Islam.
"Instead of taking a lead in promoting harmony and social cohesion amongst its people, the French President appears to be initiating a policy which is set to create fear and misunderstanding and may lead to Islamophobic reaction not just in France but in the rest of Europe too."
Mr Sarkozy's presidential address to a joint session of France's two houses of parliament stood in stark contrast to comments made by US President Barack Obama earlier this month. Muslim leaders condemn Sarkozy over burqa ban >>> Murray Wardrop | Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
BBC: California's Supreme Court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage - the latest twist in a long-running saga.
The judges rejected a challenge from gay-rights activists to overturn the result of a 2008 referendum which restricted marriage to heterosexuals.
Prior to the vote, same-sex marriages were legal for six months, during which 18,000 couples were married.
The judges said their ruling was not retroactive - meaning those couples will remain legally married. California Backs Gay Marriage Ban >>> | Tuesday, May 26, 2009
LOS ANGELES TIMES:
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology >>>
YOUTUBE: California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
YOUTUBE: Protest Across California After Supreme Court Supports Gay Marriage Ban
YOUTUBE: New York City Rally in Protest of California Marriage Ruling
LE FIGARO: La Californie maintient l'interdiction du mariage gay
Cette décision de la Cour suprême de l'Etat a provoqué mardi un face à face tendu entre police, et défenseurs des unions homosexuelles, et la consternation du tout-Hollywood.
L'annonce a été accueillie par les cris de déception des manifestants rassemblés devant le tribunal de San Francisco. Mardi, la cour suprême de Californie a validé le résultat d'un référendum interdisant le mariage homosexuel. Comme on pouvait s'y attendre, six des sept juges ont estimé que cette consultation était légale et ne devait pas être annulée. (Voir la vidéo ci-dessous)
«Bien que je pense qu'un jour le peuple ou les tribunaux reconnaîtront le mariage gay, en tant que gouverneur de Californie, je respecterai la décision de la Cour suprême», a réagi Arnold Schwarzenegger dans un communiqué.
La plus haute instance juridique californienne a toutefois validé les unions conclues avant l'entrée en vigueur de cette mesure. Quelque 18.000 couples gays restent donc mariés. >>> J.C. (lefigaro.fr) avec AFP et AP | Mercredi 27 Mai 2009
NZZ Online: Homo-Ehen in Kalifornien bleiben verboten: Deutliches Urteil des Obersten Gerichts – bereits geschlossene Ehen bleiben gültig
Das Oberste Gericht in Kalifornien hat das Resultat einer Volksabstimmung vom November für gültig erklärt, in der eine Mehrheit für das Verbot von Homo-Ehen gewesen war. Das Richtergremium fällte einen deutlichen Entscheid.
Die Anhänger der Homo-Ehe in den USA haben vor dem Obersten Gericht Kaliforniens eine Niederlage erlitten. Die Richter erklärten das Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung vom November für gültig, bei der eine Mehrheit für ein Verbot der Ehe zwischen gleichgeschlechtlichen Partnern gestimmt hatte. Die rund 18'000 Homo-Ehen, die vor dem Verbot geschlossen worden waren, sollen aber weiterhin gültig bleiben, hielt das Gericht in dem am Dienstag veröffentlichten Urteil fest.
Eine Verfassungsänderung?
Mehrere hundert Anhänger der Homo-Ehe, die sich vor dem Gericht in San Francisco versammelt hatten, reagierten mit Empörung auf den Richterspruch. Sie skandierten «Schande, Schande!» Schwulen- und Lesbenverbände hatten das Verfahren gemeinsam mit anderen Bürgerrechtsgruppen angestrengt, um das Ergebnis der Volksabstimmung annullieren zu lassen.
Sie hatten argumentiert, dass ein derart schwerer Eingriff in die Rechte von Minderheiten einer Verfassungsänderung gleichkomme und deshalb nur mit einer Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit im Landesparlament verabschiedet werden dürfte. Die Richter wollten dieser Auffassung aber nicht folgen; sie bestätigten das Verbot im Verhältnis sechs zu eins. >>> sda/afp | Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
THE TELEGRAPH: A Muslim-owned jewellery shop has decided to ban customers wearing veils after being targeted by robbers disguised as Islamic women.
Everyone entering ATAA Jewellers in Glasgow must reveal their faces under planned new rules to protect staff from further attacks.
The store owners decided to act after two Asian men wearing traditional Muslim women's clothes – including niqab veils – made away with thousands of pounds worth of jewellery earlier this month.
The pair, who were also carrying handbags, pretended to be interested in buying some items but attacked staff with pepper spray when cabinets were unlocked.
Now the Sadiq family who run the shop are planning to put up a sign informing customers that they cannot wear any headgear that covers the face. >>> By Matthew Moore | Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)