Thursday, April 29, 2010

Nigerian Senator Marries a 13 a Year ...

Nigerian Senator Marries a 13 a Year Old Egytian Girl



 

Nigeria Senate has ordered investigation into allegations that one of its senators, Mr Ahmad Sani Yerima,  49, has married a 13 year old Egyptian girl after paying $100 000 as bride price. Mr Yerima, who as governor of Zamfara state was the first to introduce Sharia Law in 1999, is also reported to have married a 15 year old girl in 2006.


It seems Mr Yerima has a taste for spring chicks!


I am ignorant of the Sharia law that he helped introduce in his state or indeed what the Koran says about ‘child brides’ as a whole. I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian but I believe morality is universal. You don’t have to profess any religion to know that a 49 year old man who is a Senator to boot should be helping crafting policies and building schools so that kids can go to school and especially making sure that the girl child is not left behind.


It is numbing to imagine what kind of a wife a 13 year old girl can make to a sensible man three times her age , leave alone a 49 year old Senator who probably has kids older than the new ‘wife’. Mr. Yerima, what about having your own 13 year old daughter marrying a man your age for a change? Or it is only poor parents who have to bear the brunt of marrying off their children instead of going to school?


Nobody in his right frame of mind can even contemplate marrying a girl of that age. When I see a girl, 18 years old and below, I don’t see them sexually, I see them as innocent kids who should be loved and protected from sexually explicit content that can warp their still impressionable minds. But our honorable Senator thinks he should go ahead and act a real sex scene with a gal who is young enough to be his grandchild. What a shame! Marrying a 13 year old is not only robbing her child hood innocence but actually killing her dreams and denying her right to filial love, care, nurturing and parental comfort.


In my Kalenjin society in Kenya, men are allowed to marry young girls but not small enough to be their grandchildren. Secondly, you cannot marry a girl whose father is younger than you. It is a taboo for an old man to marry a girl who is younger than his own daughters. It is almost an abomination.  Mr. Yerima is simply a perverted punter.


How will Mr. Yerima relate with his 13 year 'wife'? In the African set up, children are regarded to belonging to society as a whole not individuals. So kids always look upon someone their father’s age as a father and they in turn reciprocate by treating them as they would their own children. This is Africa’s idea of society. So the 13 year old girl-wife will regard Mr. Yerima as father not husband and vice versa. Islam or no Islam. That is the pragmatic side of the equation.


What is a wife anyway? I thought a wife is somebody whom you can relate, guide each other, share life as a companion, share responsibilities, procreate and enjoy each other’s company. How many of these can our Honorable Senator do with his 13 year old ‘wife’?  My morality cannot allow me to imagine him in bed with that poor Egyptian child!  


Will Mr. Yerima proudly tug his prized Egyptian trophy to a state banquet soon?


I am not a doctor but I can just imagine the health implications of Mr Yerima consummating his $100 000 bride. Whatever angle you look at this act: religion, culture or otherwise, this is outright pedophilia and Mr Yerima should be behind bars as we speak. Or according to public court Sharia law, should be stoned to death!  


I pity this burly guy. As a Nigerian Senator, he is used to stealing money from state coffers and importing expensive cars, furniture and other chattel and wanted to sate his growing appetite with another sumptuous import: a 13 year old brand new wife from the oldest civilization and home to pharaoh; Egypt! What adventure money affords rich African rulers!


What is all the rage about rich Muslim men going for young Egyptian girls? In 2008, a 92 year rich old man from the Gulf wanted to marry 17 year old Egyptian lass! The Egyptian government was forced to enact a law that bars marrying of young girls by foreigners when the age gap is more than 25 years. There are exceptions though, if the husband-to- be deposits some huge money in the wife’s name, then the girl is his for the taking. The law simply restricts the luxury of young Egyptian thighs to rich geezers.


Nigeria too is not to be outdone when it comes to their ability to marry many wives. An 86 year old guy over there, Mohammed Bello Abubakar, is married to 86 wives and has 170 kids! Maybe our senator wants to keep up with the country’s reputation now that Mr. Bello is a doting granny. Maybe.


‘Child bride’ is a thorny issue in the Islamic world and its time they address it before it can taint the reputation of an otherwise great culture and religion. Saudi Arabia holds the trophy for that kind of notoriety. The record is a 60 year old guy marrying an 8 year old girl. Mr. Yerima has a record to beat here!  Commercialization of marriage in Islam is to be blamed. That is why most geriatrics going for younger girls are men of means.  The Koran seems to be silent on this .Saudi Arabia’s  highest religious authority, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Shaikh, ruled in 2009 that it was not against Islamic law to marry off girls who are 15 and younger. Saudi Arabia has greater authority in matters Islam than Nigeria. Mr Yerima could be religiously right but morally and legally wrong. The verdict will depend on what law the Nigerian Senate uses to charge him. In the public court, Mr. Yerima is guilty as charged.


Is it that the younger a girl is; the pricey it is in the Islamic marriage auction, just like chickens?


Sunday, April 25, 2010

Zuma is HIV Negative; Too Bad for South Africa


South African president Jacob Zuma has revealed that he is HIV Negative. He said this when launching a government program for testing and counseling outside a Johannesburg hospital. Zuma has always insisted that he has tested for HIV but has never revealed his status.
Is this good for the fight against HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa? I would say NO. It is good news for Mr. Jacob Zuma and his harem but bad news for South Africa. We would wish somebody who has married five wives, has a baby with a mistress and has once raped a HIV positive girl, God should have rewarded him with the virus so that he serves as a warning against risky sexual behavior to the nation.
Zuma’s sexcapades read like a Hollywood movie or a piece out of Jackie Collins. He admitted having had unprotected sex with a family friend who was HIV Positive, a matter the girl claimed was rape but the courts ruled it was consensual.  This was at a time when he was Vice President and facing corruption charges that saw him axed by then president Thabo Mbeki. He claimed he knew the girl was HIV Positive but went ahead to have unprotected sex and took a cold shower as an antidote. 
To many young South Africans, now he has confirmed that he is HIV Negative, the Zuma Shower Antidote, though not having been subjected to any scientific proof, is an effective protection against the virus. This is because a person as powerful as the president is seen as a role model and the youth look up to him. The new mantra could easily be, ‘if Zuma made it, then me too.’ This will hamper the fight against the pandemic.
Since he became president, Zuma has married a fifth wife, is in the process of marrying a sixth and has fathered a child with a mistress who happens to be daughter of a close friend. Though Zuma is involved in all these sexcapades, the virus seems to elude him. The South African youth will try to replicate his success with women and elude the virus too. Am sure the attitude against polygamy and promiscuity has since changed since Jacob Zuma became president, courtesy of his influence.
If Jacob Zuma would have tested HIV Positive because of his public sexcapades, it would have been bad for him but good for the fight against HIV/AIDS in South Africa, Africa and the world over. Because his sexcapades make world headlines, it would have been a world warning against reckless sexual behavior.

Friday, April 23, 2010

MDC Wrong on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Visi...


MDC Wrong on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Visit to Zimbabwe


The visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Zimbabwe should not have been a concern to the MDC had they cared to recognize the fact that the cold war era ended. Iran, like any other state has a right to do business with Zimbabwe like any other state in the world unless the UN advises otherwise. Iran is an important trade partner to so many countries including China, and has important cultural and bilateral significance to any nation in spite of the standoff it is having with the West over her nuclear ambitions and human rights violations.


Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC boycotting of Mahmoud Ahamadinejad visit is tantamount to sucking up to the West and may vindicate Mugabe’s assertion that he is a stooge of the west. He was grossly misadvised on this. The West knows too well that Zimbabwe being an independent sovereign state has a right to choose who to trade and relate with. That Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visit will hamper efforts to lift sanctions by the west is neither here nor there. The sanctions were as a result of oppressions and human rights abuse by the Mugabe regime but were not based on Zimbabwe’s association with the so called axis of evil. The West will lift sanctions when Zimbabwe reverts back to elected democracy. Am waiting to hear MDC and Tsvangirai lauded by their svengali  for snubbing Ahmadinejad.


Tsvangirai and MDC failed to notice that modern diplomacy and multilateral ties have to be diversified rather than limited for the best of a nation.


Iran is having trouble with the West over her nuclear ambition which according to them is aimed at making a nuclear bomb but which according to Iran is for peaceful energy purposes. US is pushing for tougher UN sanctions against Iran but China, Russia and even Brazil are refusing to play ball. Has the West cut diplomatic ties with these countries because of this? NO!  So, because Zimbabwe is poor, then the West has to dictate her friends? NO, this is a bygone era.


Even if I was the president of any country on earth, I will not treat Iran like a leper. Given it is neighboring a hostile state that is being supported by the West to terrorize her neighbors; I will be the last to deny Iran the right to develop nuclear capabilities to deter Israel from attacking them. I am tired with the West’s double standards. Why allow, abet and even assist Israel to develop nuclear capabilities and deny other Arab states the same?


I have issues with the state of democracy and human rights in Iran but then there is no way we can interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The much we can do is raise our concern and let progressive Iranians bring the necessary change to their country.


I wonder what informed Morgan Tsvangirai’s boycott of Ahmedinejad visit.  Ahmedinejad has even lectured a US university in the near past. And today he is on a visit to Uganda. Kenya, my country that has close ties with the US and UK, has diplomatic ties with this Persian country with a rich culture. And so too many other countries.


Why? The US has trade ties with China yet China has the worst human rights record on earth. China even had the effrontery to ship arms to Zimbabwe as Mugabe and his ZANU-PF thugs butchered  MDC supporters in the last general election. Would Tsvangirai and the MDC shun a visit by Hu Jintao , if it was to happen? Africa has to rethink the real meaning of independence. Relationship with any other country in the world, rich or poor, east or west, should be based first and foremost on respect for our independence, sovereignty and right to steer our destiny.


MDC, that was a missed opportunity to show your diplomatic credentials and is a serious misstep!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Sunday, April 18, 2010

William Ruto Using Referendum to Balk...

William Ruto Using Referendum to Balkanize Kalenjins


The first word on William Ruto’s mouth after the PSC Naivasha retreat was to urge the Kalenjins to vote for the draft constitution once a referendum is called. He has since changed tune to a NO vote in the referendum after he saw an opportunity via the plebiscite to consolidate his support amongst the Kalenjins. To this end, he has embarked on a mission to make sure the Kalenjins vote differently from the rest of the country and therefore not only achieve this goal but also settle imaginary scores with Raila Odinga. The logic being, if Raila Odinga is in the YES camp, then Kalenjins must belong with the NO camp. William Ruto’s attitude towards Raila Odinga has metamorphosized in two years from unexplainable anger, to bitter hate and finally to outright obsession.


If Raila Odinga was to hold a press conference to announce that the sky all over Kenya is blue, William Ruto and his Kalenjin courtiers will hold a rally the next day to fault Raila’s assertion and to explain why a blue sky does augur well with the people of Rift Valley and why the sky should be made white or else Rift Valley is not party to the scientific truism.

Such is the level of William Ruto’s perverted obsession with Raila Odinga that I am not surprised that William Ruto and his poodles are rabidly against the draft and are willing to sacrifice Kenya’s quest for a new constitution on the altar of petty personal differences. Their claims are mere petty excuses that cannot justify jettisoning of the whole document. The issues they are raising cannot affect the Kalenjin more adversely than it would any other community in the country. In any case, constitution making is give and take and no one constituency can get all they want.


Through a combined propaganda machinery of Kass FM and mouths for hire in the name of leaders, the Kalenjin community has been made to feel targeted for property alienation by the draft constitution.


In his wars with Raila Odinga, William Ruto has always tried to instill a victim syndrome amongst the Kalenjins. He sees the referendum as a perfect opportunity to continue this crusade. He is now telling the Kalenjins; ‘look, I told you this Jaluo does not mean well for us, after evicting us in the Mau, he now wants to use the new constitution to dispossess us of our land in the entire Kalenjin land’. He is telling them that by rejecting the draft constitution, they will be safeguarding their land.


Land is a very emotive issue in Kenya and especially in the Rift Valley. It is not only about the colonial injustices and later alienation of land by Gikuyus that make it emotive, it is more so because wayward leaders exploit the land issue to rally the Kalenjins towards a political cause of their fancy.


Having read the current draft constitution, there is no clause that explicitly or implicitly threatens Kalenjin land or put their ownership of it at risk. The draft merely gives parliament the power to set up a minimum and maximum size that an individual can own. This clause was particularly aimed at righting land inequalities whereby some individuals own huge tracts of lands that lie idle while majority of Kenyans don’t have a place to live or eke a living. It is targeting absentee landlords and land grabbers of the past regimes. It is by no means aimed at the Kalenjin community. It is borne out of the recognition that land is a basic source of livelihood to many Kenyans yet most are denied the right to own it. It is an oxymoron that the people of the Rift valley, who stand to benefit out of this are the one being told to reject it.

 

I wonder where Kalenjin MPs are planning to be the day parliament will be enacting the land ceiling and threshold law so that they feel they should reject the entire document now. If anything, the Maasais should be more concerned about this clause than Kalenjins but the Maasais have chosen to support the draft.


By insinuating that Kalenjin land is being targeted, Kalenjin leaders are pointing a tacit finger on the Gikuyus because they are the one who have encroached on the province. It does not help much since the Gikuyus are in support of the draft.  William Ruto and his cheerleaders are whipping raw passions against supposed schemes from Gikuyu expansionists to achieve their political ends.


If there was a way of knowing what William Ruto thinks in private, I bet my bottom dollar that to him , this has nothing to do with the draft constitution and its demerits but a mere score-settling gambit with Raila Odinga and to show the world that he holds sway in Kalenjin land.


I hope William Ruto is cognizant of the ramifications of this brinkmanship.  He is hoping that the majority of Kalenjins will vote NO and by that show Kenyans that Raila Odinga has no more influence amongst the Kalenjins. In case many Kalenjins vote YES, it will puncture his image and hurt his bargaining power in 2012. Raila Odinga is fully aware of this and will spare no effort to make sure that most Kalenjins vote YES for the draft. Because of this, Rift Valley and specifically Kalenjin Rift Valley will be the only place where the referendum will be fiercely and bitterly contested by the ayes and naysayers.


Another danger is that by voting NO as a bloc, Kalenjins will be alienated from the rest of Kenya. It is clear even at this early stage that the YES side will carry the day in the country. If this scenario obtains, the rest of Kenya will view Kalenjins as difficult, sulking, petty and ungrateful lot who want to be treated as special Kenyans. This will hurt Kalenjins’ future political prospects and alliance building. It is kalenjin leaders who are tasked with the duty of watching against this but instead they want to use the referendum to serve their short term political gains.


The other issues being cited by the William Ruto group against the draft are simply non issues and meant to provoke laughter in campaign rallies.

It is up to the people of Rift Valley to read the draft and make own independent choices irrespective of what their leaders tell them. At the end of the day, the proposed draft will better the lives of the masses; the classes have nothing to lose with the current constitution and this explains their opposition to a new constitutional dispensation.


 In all fairness, does it make sense to reject a better constitution that has taken twenty years to arrive at because of a single bad clause or two out of hundreds of good clauses?

 


Thursday, April 8, 2010

Mob Democracy: Kyrgyztan Uprising and Others Before

Is Jeffersonian democracy under threat from a savage distant cousin? Though at times touted and lauded by western prefects of democracy to pressure despots out of power, I am finding mob democracies, uprisings, revolutions, people power or whatever it is called very disturbing.

The Kyrgyz revolution is underway in Bishkek. President Kurmanbek Bakiyev has been haunted and shouted out of office by opposition mobs. Ms Roza Olunbayeva, former foreign minister has assumed leadership in the country, ostensibly on interim basis for the next six months. The revolution has the blessings of Russia, another rogue democracy.

Is this good for Kyrgyz? No. Democracy has no other better variant however its shortcomings. History has it that revolutions sweep despots out of power and install worse. Revolutions weaken the rule of law and set a bad precedent on how to ascend to power. The just ousted Kyrgyz president , Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was brought to power through an uprising, the Tulip Revolution, in 2005. He has now been ousted by the same sword. What does this say of the fate of the next president?

Democracy thrive best when it is rooted in stable institutions. Democracy is not just a question of installing leaders in power by a popular vote or uprising. In any case, most modern day revolutions are caused by at most a 100 000 strong city dwellers taking government buildings and officials hostage. In such cases, the rural folks are disefranchised. Millions are registered to vote yet a mere hundred thousand topple governments.

What is the difference between a military coup and a coup by mobs? Both lead to instability and chaos. In most cases, the military turn a blind eye or give tacit blessings to a civilian coup. This was the case in Thailand, Georgia and Kyrgyztan in the last decade.

The Kyrgyz revolution will obviously embolden the Red Shirts of Thailand to scale up their protests against the Abhisit Vejajiva regime who was also a beneficiary of another uprising. Abhisit lacks the moral high ground to stamp out the protests as he is a product of an uprising and an elitist conspiracy. It seems the vicious cycle will just continue.

The squabbles in Georgia can be attributed to the Rose Revolution that prompted the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze and the election of Mikhail Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution benefitted from the George Soros millions, I hope he has learned that revolutions and protests become habitual and has negative impacts on democracy.

Another country that is caught up in the uprising cycle is Madagascar. Elected governments are brought down by protests. Didier Ratsirika was bundled out of office by opposition mobs led by Mark Ravalomanana. A young city DJ, Andre Rajoelina, inspired another uprising that send Mark Ravalomanana into exile with blessings from the military. By the look of things, the drama is set to continue.

Not all revolutions are bad though. Sometimes people are defending democracy and in the process create a revolution. Attempts by Viktor Yanukovich to rig the Ukranian vote to stay in power in 2004 was met with street protests that led to the popular Orange Revolution. A second vote was called and Viktor Yuschenko was elected premier.


Most revolutions that topple elected governments, however proper and popular at the time, are harmful in the long term. They usurp the rights of the majority and give birth to shotgun democracies. In as much as some regimes are autocratic, we will be doing justice to democracy by defeating them through proper democratic processes.
Sent from my BlackBerry®

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Tiger Woods Tees Again: End of Interest in Him?

Tiger Woods returns to golf after a 4 months hiatus following the highly sensationalized sex scandal that has dented his spotless sportsman image. He will be looking to make his 15th Major by winning his fifth Masters.

Now that he is returning to golf, I cannot help wondering whether it will mark the beginning of the end of the media spotlight on his private life and consequently the public interest on him and golf.

Before the scandal and the relentless media splurge, I had never taken any much interest in Tiger Woods, in and off the field. I am a news junkie but even that did not include an interest on Tiger Woods. I blame it on his kind of sport and maybe his diffident personality. Pre-scandal Tiger Woods era, I just knew that Tiger Woods was the number one in golf, by how many Majors I had no clue. I also knew he had a lot of cash, how much he was worth, no idea. I could see him on CNN swinging away in an ad with a nice watch, the amount of money he made in the endorsements, I left it a blank.

Thankx to the scandal, I can now tell you that Tiger Woods is the first billionaire sportsman in the world owing to the millions worth of endorsements he had attracted and that he is chasing his 15th Major. These and a lot other goobledegook of golf that ordinary mortals like me would have never known had not Tiger Woods offered to take on us on a free crash programme.

Golf is an elitist sport. It is a boring gentlemen sport played in isolation, in well manicured lawns by guys donning neat clothes and caps with hankys at the ready. I am not sure whether these guys ever break a sweat to earn the millions they make. I am not sure it takes much athleticism to be a good golfer either. I see doting grandpas in the fields and few young guys. Worse still, there are hapless guys called caddies at the beck and call of these gentlemen, to make sure they don't do nothing. What is to be enjoyed swinging a stick, hitting an ever white small ball and watching it get lost past shallow ponds then follow it aint my idea of fun.


To many joe ordinaries and janes, golf aint no sport. A time waste. No wonder it took a long time to be considered an Olympic game.

The Tiger Woods melodrama helped confirm my dislike for golf. Unlike football, rugby, baseball, basketball and other games that the masses can understand and enjoy, our interest in golf will always be aloof, just like its high priests are unreachable. We cannoct connect with it because it was never meant to be.

Ask some African children in dusty playfields and muddy tracks who their role models are. Effortlessly, Usain Bolt, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Roger Federer, Serena Williams etc will roll out of their lips in unison. No mention of Tiger Woods will ever be heard. Some kids are either named after these stars by their parents or they nickname each other in the playgrounds.

Tiger Woods sexcapade was such a big news story not only because of Tiger Woods ersthwile clean image but also because of the nature of his sport. A clean, gentlemen sport not associated with rough, badass characters you can expect to see in football and other games of the masses.

Imagine if Tiger Woods was a footballer, musician or a basketball star. We would have long forgotten about it.

Could Tiger Woods have changed the image of golf? I doubt not. He is desperately trying to win back the image that is associated with. If not, he would have confessed his sins in sordid details in open press interviews not the small doses he is serving out. A sportsman of a different sport would have been back in the field the following day with a smile. Tiger Woods is just keeping up with the character of the sport.

Sent from my BlackBerry®

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Burqa Ban in Europe is a Veiled Attack on Islam

The move by Belgium to legislate against the wearing of the full face veil by Muslim women is alarming and a manifestation of growing Islamophobia in the west.

A Belgium official was quoted as saying that he is proud that Belgium was on course to be first European country to legislate against the burqa. This pride is misplaced as the burga does not constitute a serious threat to any society whatsoever. It is hard to figure out how a burqa ban can be seen as victory to the Belgian society in any way. Instead, it should be seen as an affront on civil liberties. The big question is: the burqa ban symbolizes victory over what, If not the trampling of religious freedom, propagating religious intolerance, an attack on civil liberties and cultural diversities.

Belgium has a Muslim population of around 500 000 and only several dozens wear the full face veil. Is it logical to enact a law that targets the lifestyle of a few dozen people? Is the religious practice of a small minority impact on a society to warrant a law in parliament? If anything, parliaments should instead be enacting laws that entrench and safeguard the rights of minorities.

The arguments against the burqa in Belgium and Europe in general have always been spurious and far fetched.

That the full veil constitutes a security threat is erronious. Suicide bombers don't carry bombs on their faces. In any case, they don't come out of it alive so they don't much care hiding their identities.

To argue that the law will protect Muslim women rights is equally falacious. It is true that some Muslim men force their women to wear the burqa in their misguided interpretation of the Koran. The Taliban enforced the burqa in Afghanistan.

It is also true that some Muslim women wear the burqa on their free volition. It is foolhardy to rob this women of their freedom of dress. What governments should be doing is to legislate against forcing women of whatever faith to wear what they don't like. It makes more sense. Why are there no heated debates on the jewish skull caps?

I agree that burqa clad women don't make a pretty sight. But then, there are a million other things that people do that I find obnoxious to me. Since everybody is entitled to their rights so long as they do not infringe on my own rights, there is little I can do. I exercise the right to see what I like only with my TV. If we were to dictate what others eat, drink, dress etc, society will be impossible. The basis of society is harmony through tolerance. And that includes religious and cultural inclusiveness.

Let the Muslim woman wear what they like without force or coercion. Since nobody decides what Christians should wear, they also should not dictate what Muslims should not wear.

Since 9/11, the west has become more intolerant to Islam. Harrasment, torture, hate, discrimination and derision is the order of the day. So many cases are documented with a recent one that saw an Egyptian killed by an attacker in a German court.

It is this kind of legislations that entrench hatred against Muslims in the west. Instead of governments promoting tolerance between faiths, they instead play to the urge by the largely Christian majorities to further discriminate against Muslims and their faith.

Muslims are feeling targeted by governments in the west and rightfully so. The burqa ban joins the list of injustices being meted on Muslims. Governments are doing little to safeguard their rights to practice their religion in peace. Governments are captive to Christian fundamentalism that in turn breed Islamic fundamentalism.

After the burqa is banned, many Muslim women will wear it to express their rebellion to the law. The burqa will be elavated to a symbol of religious rebellion. It is already happening in Egyptian universities.

Western governments have a tendency to get everything to do with Islam wrong. The Middle East issue is a case in point. They have pampered Israel to a spoilt kid status. Peace talks are now impossible because of this.

France, Britain, Italy and Germany are either debating the burqa ban or in various stages of implementing it. Switzerland held a referendum late last year to ban the building of new minarets in mosques. One wonders what minarets have to do with security. This is pure Islamophobia.

All kinds of phobias are unjustified and founded on false emotional notions. The west is busy lecturing Africa and Asia on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Recently they have included homophobia. I am now calling them to as well rein on Islamophobia in their countries.

Muslim women should be able to wear what they like without fear, coercion, intimidation or inhibition. Matters of dress are personal choices irrespective of your religious affilitiation. The law should respect and promote this freedom all over the world.
Sent from my BlackBerry®