You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

The introduction of the AfPak plan — so named because rather than focus on Afghanistan it also incorporates Pakistan and the Pashtun populated border — seemed a big step forward for the Obama administration. According to South Asia experts, this plan was bound to succeed and seemed to have it all. But as time elapses the realities on the ground are raising questions about the wisdom of the plan — even if it was meant to be.

This proves that charting out a plan is different than implementing one. It’s certainly a positive step that Obama has “thinkers” on his side, but the reality is that academics, experts and academics are a dime a dozen. The US needs an implementation strategy, as well as someone willing to take charge and responsibility. Right now the plan has been to combat the Taliban. But if you want to kick the Taliban out of Pakistan, you need to understand Pakistan as well the NWFP, the intra-tribal friction, FATA (the Federally Administered Tribal Area), and of course the Arab influence.

The reality is the FATA has always been “sharia inclined”, meaning that the stage was set for what the Taliban were trying to gain. The society is already conservative. But the more cruel face of “Taliban-introduced Islamic law” started taking root during Musharraf era. Sufi Mohammad, the founder of Tehreel-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM), a Pakistan militant organization vying for implementation of Sharia law, was not confronted then and is not confronted now. I mentioned Musharraf because that was the time when the army should have acted to stop the radicalization of the area, but they did not are now finding it difficult to prevent rapid seepage. So technically the infamous Swat “peace” deal is with the TNSM and not Taliban. It is also pertinent to clarify that the deal was signed by the President Asif Ali Zardari after it was passed by the parliament and under a lot of pressure by the NWFP’s provincial government. Though the provincial government is led by a center-left ruling party, they have been acting in diametric opposition to their stated position and beliefs. Their submission to religious parties or groups shows that they have lost control and are operating at cross purposes with the locals.

This is the same Sufi Mohammad, BTW, who was financed the overthrow Benazir Bhutto’s first government. This indicates that this problem has a history prior to the events of the past several weeks. Reports in the Pakistani media confirm that the provincial bureaucracy has been involved in protecting Sufi Mohammad and his like-minded minions. In fact, the Commissioner of that area is considered one of Sufi’s followers. Why hasn’t the Pakistani state government acted against such people? The growing strength and influence of Taliban proves that Pakistan government is not able to take any actions.

It is important to point out that this radical interpretation of Islamic law is a transplant of Arab, Tajik and Uzbek influence. This form of fundamentalism, which is not to be confused with the religious conservatism of the Pashtuns, is not Pakistani in origin.

So, the US strategy should not be to force the government of Pakistan to “do more” but rather to do what has already been asked of it. There is still time to confront Sufi Mohammad in Swat, instead of striking out peace deals, given that Sufi Mohammad is the leader of TNSM and not the Taliban, a misunderstanding which has been propated in the media. Sufi’s son-in-law, however, is the leader of the local Taliban, which makes him like-minded of their ideology.

Not many know that when the Taliban try to took over Buner not only did they faced resistance from the locals but that again neither the state nor the US were there to support them. The Taliban were kicked out but were called back in by the help of the local bureaucracy, contrary to the will of the people. During their week-long takeover, they helped strengthen their local supporters in Buner, not only taking out their “enemies” but established headquarters in their homes. The idea that the Taliban have left Buner is a hoax. But there is still time to take on the insurgents before they move on somewhere else.

What needs to be done – along with military action by the US (and only when it is absolutely necessary and there are no options) – is to pressurize the Pakistani government to support the locals against the Taliban.

The absence of local leaders – whether they were killed or fled the area because of threats from the Taliban – has created a leadership vacuum. This needs to be filled by educated and broadminded individuals to represent the local sentiment but instead is being filled by the power hungry, illiterate Taliban.

Here are the particulars:

President Obama’s nominee to be the State Department’s legal adviser has ignited a fury among conservative critics who say his views are a threat to American democracy — an accusation the White House on Tuesday called “outrageous” and “completely baseless.”

Former Clinton administration official Harold Koh, who has been dean of the Yale Law School since 2004, once wrote that the U.S. was part of an “axis of disobedience” with North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.

Obama nominated Koh on March 23 to become the State Department’s legal adviser — an appointment that, if confirmed by the Senate, will give Koh far-reaching influence over the extent to which international norms affect U.S. law.

“This is not a desk job. This guy will be the face of American international law around the world,” said Steven Gross, legal expert and fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“The top legal adviser at State travels extensively and is involved in international legal negotiations, treaties and in major United Nations conferences.

“The president should have the right to choose the most conservative or liberal legal advisers to give them advice, but this is much more than that. The concern is that he cares as much about — if not more about — international law and integrating that into the American judicial system than he does about protecting American prerogatives and American sovereignty,” Gross said.

The White House vehemently defended Koh’s nomination on Tuesday, telling FOXNews.com that he is “one of the most respected members of the legal community.”

Koh “earned wide bipartisan praise as assistant secretary of state and he’s universally respected by legal scholars,” White House spokesman Reid Cherlin told FOXNews.com. “The president looks forward to working with him at the State Department. He’s a strong believer in the Constitution, and the president nominated him because of his firm defense of the Constitution.”

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid also offered praise for Obama’s nominee.

“Dean Koh is universally respected for his legal scholarship and previously served as an assistant secretary of state — and was praised for his work by Republicans and Democrats alike,” Duguid said. “President Obama and Secretary Clinton strongly believe he’s the right person for the job.”

Know what I find interesting? That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not quoted here. I mean, it just seems to me that if Koh is going to be the Legal Adviser to the State Department, maybe someone should have asked her what she thought. Ahem.

There is more:

Koh, like Obama, is a strong opponent of the Iraq war and the use of harsh interrogation techniques that some consider torture. He has fiercely criticized former President George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003 and has accused the Bush administration of trying to “block public release of more Abu Ghraib type pictures.”

“We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the commander in chief’s power to be expanded into a wanton power to act as torturer in chief,” Koh wrote in an article published in May 2006 in the Indiana Law Journal.

Koh also advocates a “transnational legal process” and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to “obey global norms.”

In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, “What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th — most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries ‘the axis of disobedience.’”

And in a Stanford Law Review article published in May 2003, Koh wrote that supporters of the International Criminal Court should bring pressure to bear on U.S. opinion “with an eye toward persuading U.S. officials that the ICC actually serves U.S. interests.”

I believe the US does have to work well with the international community, and that international law is important. But what REALLY concerns me is this:

A March 21, 2007, blog posting on National Review’s Web site shows a letter written by New York attorney Steven J. Stein to Koh, challenging Koh for supposedly saying during a speech to the Yale Club of Greenwich that year that Islamic law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.

“In your discussion of ‘global law’ I recall at least one favorable reference to ‘Sharia,’ among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the U.S.,” Stein wrote in his letter addressed to Koh.

Cherlin said Stein’s version of events is “not accurate,” and that the host of the event in question disputed the account. Stein could not be reached for comment.

Koh’s critics insist his legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.

And that’s just it. Sharia law can be imposed here in the US?? SERIOUSLY?? Holy freakin’ cow. Every woman in this country should be shaking in her boots at that thought. I am not kidding you. Following this article is a video interview of an Arab woman describing in more detail just what Sharia law is. I can sum it up here: it is scary shit.

And then there is this concern, also no small matter:

John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute, told FOXNews.com that Koh’s views have “a very big practical effect on American foreign policy and on American democracy.

“This is international imperialism. Under Koh’s plan, the Constitution would become secondary and international law would take precedence regardless of what Americans said about the matter.”

See, I have just a wee problem with subsuming our Constitution. I realize that Obama has been hell-bent on that from the get-go when he refused to provide his actual birth certificate, or ANY documentation about his background, not to mention when he engaged in bullying, intimidation, and fraud to get his way. Oh – and firing the CEO of a privately held company has to be a problem. Then there is his connection with ACORN and its receipt of US Taxpayer dollars to engage in partisan politics as well as voter fraud (if you didn’t see the Lou Dobbs video I posted recently on this, here is the LINK). So, yeah – I realize he does not seem to hold it in high regard, his minions claims of him being a Constitutional Scholar notwithstanding (just because someone CLAIMS to be an expert doesn’t mean they ARE an expert, after all).

And for the other side:

Supporters tout Koh as a leading expert on public and private international law, national security law and human rights.

He served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1998 to 2001, and previously had served on the secretary of state’s Advisory Committee on Public International Law. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and testified before Congress dozens of times, and he’s received more than 30 awards for his human rights work, according to Yale’s Web site.

Cherlin described Koh as “an American success story.” (His brother, Howard Koh, was tapped by the president two days later for a position in the Health and Human Services Department.)

“He’s the son of immigrants. He’s a dedicated teacher and professor, and does great work. We don’t have any question whatsoever about any of these issues raised by critics who are sworn opponents of the administration,” said Cherlin, who said the conservative critics’ opposition was “ideologically driven.”

So, because he is the son of immigrants, we should just throw the Constitution and our laws aside? Because he’s such a nice guy, it’s okay that he doesn’t mind Sharia Law imposed here? I’m sorry, but that’s just a smokescreen to attack his critics with a broad brush without dealing with the issues raised, and they are serious issues, indeed.

As promised, here is the video mentioned above:

While Harold Koh may be a great teacher and all that, it does not make up for his willingness to supersede US law in a State Department position. Once again, Obama is pushing a candidate who is not the best choice, not for the country, or for the Constitution. And most definitely, not for women.

UN ‘Human Rights Council’ bans criticism of Islam

The UN ‘Human Rights Council’ decided this week that it is forbidden to criticize Islam because “religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” From now on, only religious scholars would be permitted to broach ‘religious matters’ before the Council.

So if you have a problem with a practice that is barbaric and inhuman you can’t ask the UN Human Rights Council to intervene. Not if that practice just so happens to be sanctioned by some nutjob that believes the practice is blessed by what he calls God. And yeah, I know that these same nutjobs believe that they also have the right to put out a hit on me for making the allegation. I am not only a non-believer, I am an infidel. An infidel that couldn’t care squat what some wacko Grand Sheikh says.

The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested, interrupting the AWE speaker, David Littman, with no less than 16 points of order, and succeeding in getting the Council’s proceedings suspended for over half an hour.

It is especially peculiar that Shia Iran aligned itself with the Sunni nations of Egypt and Pakistan.

Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, the representative from Pakistan, echoed the ever-echoing refrain of all Islamic apologists in the West, when he complained that Littman’s initiative on genital mutilation, stoning and child marriage amounted to an “out-of-context, selective discussion on the Sharia law.” He asked that Littman not be allowed to speak: “I would therefore request the president to exercise his judgment and authority and request the speaker not to touch issues which have already been debarred from discussion in this Council.”

So there are certain things we can’t bring up at the dinner table we call the United Nations? Even if it is a chat about barbaric practices sanctioned by the radical offshoot of a religion by some Grand Poobah that issues a fatwa and justifies it as something consistent with Sharia law?

This is a form of madness, in my opinion.

I thought that the word Islam was supposed to mean peace. But for radical Islamists, peace requires remaining silent on the matters of genital mutilation, child marriages and the stoning to death of female adulterers. If you ignore those and of course those pesky little jihads then radical Islam is pretty chill. Unfortunately, diplomats from Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran are enabling the radicals by refusing to challenge these extremist views.

This is about the Sharia law.” Pakistan’s Siddiqui added: “I would like to state again that this is not the forum to discuss religious sensitivity.” Why not? Again sounding notes that are increasingly familiar in any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists and Sharia supremacists use to justify oppression, Siddiqui explained: “It will amount to spreading hatred against certain members of the Council. I mean, it has happened before also that selective discussions were raised in the Council to demonize a particular group.” He addressed Costea: “So we would again request you to please use your authority to bar any such discussion again, at the Council.”

Oh! So we cannot discuss these matters because it might make some people look bad. Isn’t that the fricking point? Is it now considered not ok to address some of the most horrid abuses of human rights because if we did so it might offend someone?

Free Speech Dies at the UN

After more discussion, a recess, and another warning from the representative from Egypt, Littman was finally allowed to proceed. After noting that “almost 90% of the female population in the north of Sudan undergo FGM which, in many cases, is practiced in its most extreme form known as infibulation,” Littman declared: “We believe that only a fatwa from Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Sayyed Tantawi – replacing the ambiguous fatwas of 1949, 1951 and 1981 – will change this barbaric, criminal practice, which is now growing even in Europe.”

At this point Egypt interrupted, complaining that “this is an attempt to raise a bad traditional practice to Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar [Sayyed Tantawi] is the president of the largest and the biggest and the oldest Islamic university in the world.” He exclaimed: “My point is that Islam will not be crucified in this Council. That’s why we are challenging this ruling” – that is, Costea’s decision to allow Littman to deliver his address.

Crucifying Islam? This is at best a reprehensible statement. Islam does not practice Christianity. But these folks and their radical interpretation of Islam apparently believe that it is okay to make a mockery out of Christianity. Who would anyone complain to after all?

According to these insane people and their heinous form of religion, the mutilation of female genitalia is an honor. Yes, you read that right.

An honor.

Yet an Islamic legal manual endorsed by Al-Azhar states that circumcision is required “for both men and women” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3). And Tantawi himself has said, according to Geneive Abdo, author of No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam, that female circumcision is “a laudable practice that [does] honor to women.”

So line up ladies. And let these self declared ministers of peace honor you. After all, it’s a religious tradition and you wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

Would you?

Not only does this shameful episode bode ill for the human rights of women in the Islamic world; it also represents another victory in the war against free speech that Islamic supremacists have been pursuing with particular energy lately, calling on Western authorities to prosecute Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his film Fitna and Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for his drawing of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and in general to outlaw what they perceive as insults to Islam.

You might imagine that with a name like Pagan I might understand a thing or two about discrimination and distortion of what I practice as a religion. As old as my religion is there is one thing that has been a principle from the start. Men and women are equals. And the law applies to everyone.

So if my point of view offends you please know that I am the one offended. Because my religion requires that I speak out when anyone is treated with less respect than which they are entitled by the Goddess. This latest incident at the UN is a sad reminder that the task of rooting out the hatred that fuels much of the terrorism is difficult and, ironically, being thwarted by the very people who suffer its consequences. We need to be able to talk about difficult things in international fora. If we cannot discuss the matter then what other alternative remains but to fight? That’s not a guaranteed path for world peace if you ask me.