 |
| Avoid rape - dress sensibly | |
Followers of the Religion of
Peace are often keen to convince others of their great capacity for
tolerance. It is also refreshing to see someone - anyone - advocating personal
responsibility. Unfortunately, this time the tolerance is for rapists, and the personal
responsibility is borne by the rape victim. The Sydney Morning Herald
quotes
Sheik Faiz Mohamad as saying ".. A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No
one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world
. . ." Huh? Yes, gentle reader, the rape victim is to blame for displaying
her beauty. She has to take personal responsibility for her actions in choosing to
wear
"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts,
translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal
to his carnal nature." The thought of all those women spending all that time, effort and money to
just appeal to a man's carnal nature is something that gives most of us a
warm inner glow, and a definite sense of self (or at least of gender)
importance, but clearly the Sheik doesn't think so. She has to take
responsibility for her actions. The rapists on the other hand? Well ..
"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No
. . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this
precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves."
Mere animals can't be responsible for their actions, so no responsibility
for the rapists. Feminists have long
portrayed men as unthinking, uncivilized brutes, so they seem to have something
in common with the proponents of the Religion of Peace. Maybe that's
why women's groups have been strangely quiet in condemning the statements, leaving
it up to the likes of Bob Carr, Peter Costello, John Brogden and (horror of
horrors!) John Laws to criticize the Sheik. Once again it falls to the men to protect women, while getting little in
return except criticism from women's groups. The Sheik has of course defended his statements in the usual way. When such
statements are made in Arabic, the standard defense is 'mistranslation', but
when the statements are in English, the standard 'out of context' is a little
harder to sell. Out of context? Absolutely. This is twenty-first century Australia. If you don't like it Sheik, you can leave.
| 
