We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata mystery quote of the day

Something horrible flits across the background in scenes from Afghanistan, scuttling out of sight. There it is, a brief blue or black flash, a grotesque Scream 1, 2 and 3 personified – a woman. The top-to-toe burka, with its sinister, airless little grille, is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. It transforms any woman into an object of defilement too untouchably disgusting to be seen. It is a garment of lurid sexual suggestiveness: what rampant desire and desirability lurks and leers beneath its dark mysteries? In its objectifying of women, it turns them into cowering creatures demanding and expecting violence and victimisation. Forget cultural sensibilities.

– Before you click on this link to see who wrote this about burqa-clad women, take a guess…

8 comments to Samizdata mystery quote of the day

  • Flubber

    As the very old saying goes: Leftists have double standards else they would have no standards at all.

  • Tom

    Flubber: if standards are good, double standards are twice as good! I didn’t click through, but I’ve read that Polly used to hate burkas before the cool girls said they were ‘in’.

  • Polly may demand banning the burka, or banning all criticism of it, or even banning both, but she can be relied on to ban something. So she can call it a “sinister, airless little grille”, and remain a lefty Guardianista heroine.

    Boris made it wittily clear he was against banning the burka but even more against banning criticism of it. So his calling it a ‘letterbox’ must be punished.

    It’s all about ‘Power to the PC’. It’s all about whatever reduces freedom.

    (Yes, I am repeating myself. So are they. And when others run out of things to say about this absurdity – which I hope will not be too soon – then I’ll likely post something similar. This is not an issue on which we should endure their having the last word.)

  • Paul Marks

    Polly T. of the Guardian – this example has already been extensively discussed here.

    Something is allowable – till the second the left decide it is NOT allowable (and even Polly T. herself would not get away with saying this now), so TECHNICALLY it is not a matter of “double standards” as Polly T. herself would not be allowed to write this now. Any more than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be allowed to oppose “Gay Marriage” now – although they both publically did only a few years ago.

    The most disturbing aspect of this affair is the failure of the Conservative Party leadership (including both the Chairman and the Leader – Prime Minister May) to just tell the P.C. brigade to GO TO HELL. Instead Mrs May has actively cooperated with the P.C. Marxists – perhaps (as Perry suggests) out squalid political motives (a desire to “get” Boris Johnson), perhaps because Mrs May really believes this Marxist P.C. “Anti Hate Speech” stuff herself.

    Certainly the Conservative Party “Code of Conduct” (as exposed by Mr Ed) is an absurd document – politics is NOT about treating opponents with “respect” and “creating an atmosphere of tolerance” – Winston Churchill and others would have used such an absurd document for lavatory paper. The “Code of Conduct” is almost the exact opposite of what real political speech is about – which is about attacking opponents, and “creating an atmosphere” where various bad situations will NOT be tolerated – but (rather) will be ENDED.

  • lucklucky

    If the Marxist defined opressor is the white western world the Marxist is pro Burka.
    If the Marxist defined opressor is the patriarchal eastern world then the Marxist is against Burka.

    So they can be for and against it at same time depending on one the narrative they choose to employ at that moment they feel it improves their societal status.

  • Jacob

    “is more than an instrument of persecution, it is a public tarring and feathering of female sexuality. ”

    Well, seems Polly got this right.

  • ben david

    I thought burkas liberated women from the objectification and eating disorders that typify Western misogyny. Or was that last week?

  • Paul Marks

    Let us see if “The Secret Barrister” has the courage to write what even Polly Toynbee wrote a few years ago – my guess that “The Secret Barrister” will not do so, but I would be happy to be proved mistaken.

    I doubt that “The Secret Barrister” will have the courage to write the truth even under the protection of his fake name (fake name – as I doubt the name “The Secret Barrister” appears on his birth certificate), but he is only too happy to smear and try and help destroy people who do try and oppose Islam (and to mock them for using other names – even when they are happy to show their face in public, and “The Secret Barrister” does NOT seem to have the courage to show his face in public). But, again, I would be happy to be proved mistaken.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>