Burkas Finland Finnish blogosphere Leftist-Muslim nexus Lefty Morons


A mixing of apples and oranges by a very dumb woman.


Sanna Ukkola, a blogger at the Finnish state broadcastor, YLE, makes a fool of herself in trying to compare females who wear miniskirts, with women (many forced into) wearing oppressive bag-like suits as the burka or niqab. In a free society, citizens choose their own lifestyles and habits in accordance with their own likes and dislikes and traditional customs, as long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights and safety of others.

In our modern societies, it’s a given that females of age have the freedom to chose the style of dress, whether it be a short mini, or a long dress or even slacks, that they’re comfortable with. Using this line of logic one would have to assume that this would also include the wearing of the oppressive burka and niqab.

There’s a valid argument to be made against the wearing of the burka and niqab, as well as wearing the simple head scarf, due to its being forced upon a good number of women and girls around the world, including within the West. Those arguing in favor will tell you that any such violations of civil /human rights should be addressed by the court system, but as we all know well enough, most courts will refuse to address the issue.

What I personally think should be addressed however, is the issue of public safety, whether it be walking as a pedestrian on a busy city street with children in tow, or driving a car, or entering a store or bank where one’s identity should be easily viewed, or simply being a security risk in this day and age of Islamic terrorism. This is something that the snarky Finnish blogger misses completely in her rant against the Finns MP, Vesa-Matti Saarakkala, who recently proposed in the Finnish parliament a ban on the wearing of the Burka and niqab.

I understand his concerns for human dignity and civil rights violations etc., but in the end I agree with his ban but for different reasons. However, linking Saarakkala’s proposal with the highly dubious (Muslim Brotherhood concocted) term of ”Islamofauxbia”, and calling it the ”new black” is intellectually dishonest, and yes, highly stupid. Ukkola must not be very bright, otherwise she would have admitted that many Muslim states around the world, worried about the rise of fundamentalist Islam, have also issued the very same concerns in the past about the need to ban these garments. The Islamofauxbes, shame on them.

But what would one expect from a woman who finds it troubling that a politician would want to safeguard a physician’s right (from religious or other ethical concerns) not to be forced into conducting abortions. I suppose that given Ukkola’s penchant for cognitive dissonant thinking, she would not find it hard to reconcile her extremist positions where Muslim doctors (male and female) working in Finland are concerned.

NOTE: The mini-dress (and other provocative wear) is worn by females who are not forced in anyway to wear them, and are in fact, highly manipulative of the male sex (feminism on steroids). The burka, niqab and the headscarf however, are very much the work of oppressive manipulative males (misogyny on steriods), and women bear the consequences in terms of poor health and bodily harm.

sanna ukkola on the burka 7.5.2013

YLE: A financial penalty, is therefore, for any women who goes to public places in skirts revealing their knees. High heels to prison!

When the parliament was flooded after a major win with a section of politicians “critical of immigration”, I guessed that the debate about what Muslim women can and can not put on top would begin with us. True Finns sharp blade, MP Vesa-Matti Saarakkala who introduced a bill last week: According to the Finns representative veils covering the face covered used by Muslim women,  should be banned under penalty of a fine.

Saarakkala justified the legislative initiative, among other things, that individuals should have the right to decide their own style of dress. To ensure that there would certainly be an equal right to decide on clothing, Saarakkala proposed a state levy of a fine for improper dress. The burka police to the streets to inspect for black robes. Real logical.

Saarakkala said he was concerned about women’s rights and gender equality. Feminist within themselves unexpectedly found that the Member of Parliament has in the past, among other things, supported the doctor’s right to refuse to perform abortions.

“I would burka and niqab-veiled persons observing visually objectionable, because I would experience such a culture can be a threat to Finnish social system and policy, with emphasis on gender equality. Moreover, referring to the creation of a sense of insecurity,” Saarakkala argued the matter on his blog in January.


But that does not matter. Islamophobia is the new black. A piece of fabric brings to mind terrorism and murderous religious beliefs.

5 Responses

  1. “Who’s afraid of the veiled woman?”

    The people whose shops are robbed by “women” in burkas (who knows, maybe they were women), who suddenly bring out weapons.

    The children abducted from school by some man/woman wearing a burka and pretending to be the child’s mother.

    Entire societies are the victim, when terrorists are able to flee the country using a burka and their sister’s passport. Entire societies when “women” in burkas are arrested for dangerous driving, and then claim that they were not driving the car and it can’t be proven because they could not be identified because of the perp wearing a burka.

    These are all documented cases from the past few years.

    True Finns are mistaken in choosing this ground of “freedom for women” as the basis for outlawing the burka. It needs to be outlawed a) as a security concern, b) as a sign that the wearer is a very late stage Mohammedan (i.e. a follower of the Mohammed who committed genocide, rather than the early Meccan Mohammed, whose female followers wore no veil), c) as a fascist uniform.

    1. I agree with you Joe, on the first part, that alone is enough for me. Great points.

  2. As an Iran woman with islamic background, I want people to know that no one should never agree with “women shroud”…

    Veiled women means: islam. The word “islam” means “submissive”. It is the real traduction.

    Never forget that sharia takes off all women rights, sharia kills homosexuals, agrees with death penalty, children mutilations, women stoned to death… And so on..

    Never forget that “the supposed to be prophet Muhamed” married an 8 years old little girl!!! What a shame!!!

    Coran tells that “muslim” shouldn’t have jews and christians friends, sharia and islam is against human rights. People have to know that “Daesh” and “islamic state” only follows the islamic rules and laws! They don’t do anything else but following coran!

    1. thank you Sabine, this is going front page. much appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.