You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘prime minister’ tag.
Natalie Behring-Chisholm/Stringer/Getty Images
This week French President Sarkozy called for a ban to be placed on Muslim women who choose to express their faith by observing hijab and donning a burkha. The French have been the most vocal and active in the arena of attacking religious freedom. In 2004 they outlawed the use of headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps in their state schools. The French defend their law which is designed to strictly adhere to their ideas of separation of church and state, but French liberalism is coming dangerously close to ending religious freedom. Even worse it seems to be spreading to other parts of Europe. Italy, Turkey, three Belgian towns and seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves. While speaking in Cairo President Obama said it clearly, “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” Members of the French Parliament, from both the left and right called the burkha an “oppressive dress that breaches individual freedoms”.
Individual freedoms? According to whom? There are many in the world who would consider Western women oppressed because they feel compelled to don a style of dress that is made to entice and attract men. Indeed, upon hearing the new French policy the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said, “Unfortunately, there is a pressure on women to dress skimpily in the West.” I agree.
Perhaps the burkha could provide greater freedom than a skimpy bikini ever could. It can be said that the burkha is a tyrannical and repressive piece of clothing forced on the women who wear it, but the same could be said of a bikini. Both the burkha and the bikini are worn to indulge the whims of men in the society they represent. The burkha is worn to mask and conceal that which belongs or could belong to the men, and the bikini is worn to expose and display the same. Both articles of clothing find their impetus in their effort to control and subjugate women.
Women long to adopt a carefree and liberating expression in their choice of clothing. There are few women that can wear a bikini and feel comfortable in it. Even supermodels lament because they feel their thighs or behinds are more ample than they should be. Donning a large black covering in the morning could provide a liberation few Western women have experienced. To arrive at work, school, or social occasion without first applying makeup, dressing the hair, and fussing over clothing would be a dream come true!
One need only to read the comments and remarks made about Hilary Clinton’s appearance to long for this type of freedom. During her run for the democratic presidential nomination, what Mrs. Clinton said was never as important, as how she was dressed when she said it. The criticism made about Mrs. Clinton’s hair, makeup, body type, and clothing took precedence over what she was saying. Her legs were compared to tree trunks, her clothes called frumpy, and her hair and makeup was the topic of many water cooler gatherings. In the same vein, such discussions did not take place about Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi when they were Prime Ministers of their countries. The political pundits debated their political agendas and viewpoints, not their choice of clothing or makeup. Perhaps this was because the males in their countries were conditioned to view respectable women in a non-sexual way, and therefore these women were taken more seriously than Hilary Clinton.
Men will be unable to view women as equal—as long as women continue to exercise their right to seduce men, and therefore objectify themselves. If women will dress in a manner that does not engage a man’s libido and instead engages his mind, they will be able to experience true freedom and liberation. Both women and men should be disturbed by this fact: the American voting public is unable to elect a woman even as a vice-president. While India, in 1966 and Pakistan, in 1988—countries thought by the West to have little equality for women, had already elected women as Prime Ministers!
obeygiant.com, 2011
When President Obama made his tour of Europe soon after his election, he was greeted with open arms, cheers, welcoming placards, parades and smiling children. For many Americans it was a relief to gain favor in the eyes of our European neighbors.
The election of President Obama, agree or disagree with his political agenda, was an amazing moment in American history. It took America almost 90 years to abolish slavery, 188 years to pass the Civil Rights Act and over 230 years to elect a black president.
Since the 1720 establishment of Sir Robert Walpole as the United Kingdom’s first prime minister, to the election of Gordon Brown, over 285 years have passed. The UK is yet to elect a minority to the most powerful position of prime minister.
The first modern chancellor of Germany in 1867 was Otto von Bismark. Of the 34 individuals who have served as the elected head of state in Germany, each one has been from the racial majority.
Since 1848, France has had various titles for the elected head of state and for 161 years, all the French presidents have been caucasian.
Italy is no different. Italians have elected 81 prime ministers! Not one of them has been from a racial minority.
While President Obama has enjoys immense popularity with our EU neighbors, one point is clear—While the Europeans claim to love and respect Obama…
They would have never elected him as president in their own countries!
Obama loves the Europeans and they say they love him—but not enough to elect him or someone like him. If Obama was running for president or prime minister in Europe, it is quite doubtful he would have won the election.
No matter what the citizens of the EU try to “teach” Americans about being open minded, or morally upright—it is Americans who are leading the way to correct racial inequality. All Americans can be proud to be a part of a nation that elected Obama.
what people are saying