“YEP. A scarf or any other piece of clothing does not degrade -or empower-. One who degrades is the one who forces to keep the veil (eg. Iran), or forces to take it off (eg. France). Empowerment comes from the fact that you can dress up the way you want, no matter what rulers (people in power) say.
JEP. Huivi tai mikään muukaan vaatekappale ei alista – tai voimaannuta – naista. Alistaja on se, kuka pakottaa pitämään huivia (esim. Iran), tai pakottaa riisumaan sen (esim. Ranska). Voimaantuminen tulee siitä, että voi pukeutua miten haluaa, sanoi valtaapitävä mitä tahansa. https://t.co/9zXvXojIUN
— Eero Mäntymaa (@eeromantymaa) January 2, 2018
There’s so much wrong with the statement that YLE employee Eero Mäntymaa regurgitates (a partial translation from a tweet by Islamo-huckster Qasim Rashid posted) on Twitter.
The original tweet by Rashid that caught Mäntymaa’s eye:
The hijab is a symbol of Islamic (sharia) supremacy, it needs to be equated with the symbols of Marxist socialism (hammer & sickle) and Fascist socialism (the swastika). The first signs of Islamic supremacism in any Muslim area is the emergence of the head scarf. Governments of non-fundamentalist Muslim states KNOW the significance of the head scarf, that it means political (post-hijra) Islam is here, “take notice of us”, which is why they do, and ban it.
The hijab is always imposed upon women, regardless of their acceptance of it or not, it comes from the top, the position of power traditionally inhabited by men. They make the rules, they impose the shame and intimidation upon those females unwilling to conform to their world view, this should never be confused with actual freedom of choice in a liberal democracy. Women who choose to wear a short skirt during personal time do not run a risk of being rounded up, nor those who refuse to wear any such clothing.
The biblical character Mary, the mother of Jesus, more than likely wore a veil while praying, she was an observant Jew. There is no documentation that I’m aware of (nor is Rashid), of Mary wearing a headscarf outside of religious life. Taking church images of Mary as proof of habitual head scarf wearing is pure intellectual dishonesty. The entire argument by Rashid and other Islamic apologists is based upon a false premise and comparison, yet YLE employee Mäntymaa thinks it’s a worthy point, so much so that he disseminates it further.
David Wood, from Act17Apologetics debunks Qasim Rashid rather easily, which leads me to wonder about YLE’s credibility, employing journos who haven’t the head sense to spot charlatans and the common sense not to repeat their blatherings. With ‘quality journos‘ like this (radical leftist anti-Israel activists)