The Burqa was a clue

Even wet leftie champion of the racistly oppressed Raybon Kan can’t stomach the incursion of Islam into New Zealand.

“We’re joined by Yasir Mohib and one of his wives. Hello, Yasir,” said Heather du Plessis-Allan, on TV3.

Cross live to a suburban couch, in Auckland. A man, dressed for the 21st century, sits next to a woman, her face masked entirely by a scarf, burqa-style. Only her eyes can be seen.

She is about to say, live on TV, that her husband shouldn’t be punished for hitting her.

He has pleaded guilty to assaulting her with a hammer, only to be discharged without conviction. (This discharge has been overturned by the High Court, who found it “plainly wrong” and another sentence will drop soon.)

The circumstances seem to involve an argument about holding hands, while watching a movie. So, in a way, it was a sweet, romantic assault. It was date night.

The stupid woman. ?What else did she expect? ?If you don’t hold your husband’s hand (when it’s your turn, because he has another wife also), he is totally entitled to correct your mistake with a hammer. ?

[HDPA]?asked: “Did you hit your wife with your fist, Yasir?”

“Yes, yes I did.”

When asked for her version, the wife said: “I think my husband has already described what had happened, so I just wanna clarify that there was no hammer involved, like he said that, um, a third party was involved and they had already given a statement and then they, um, persuaded me to give their statement.”

Duncan Garner: “How many times did he hit you, how bad was this?”

Her answer didn’t answer.

“Well, to be honest this thing happened almost a year ago, didn’t it,” she said, looking to her husband. (For the correct number? Or was it a look that said, “darling.”)

She continued: “And I don’t remember how many times, but yes, I won’t deny he did hit me cos we had an argument, but there was no hammer involved, no weapon, he just hit me with his hands.”

It’s not for me to judge whether this was the script of a hostage situation. For all we know, under the veil, she’s mouthing: “Save me.”

What she did say, while sitting next to her husband, was: “To be honest, I don’t think he should be punished.”

I give up.

I’m no fan of the burqa. It’s subjugation. A woman whose face is covered, is like a document with all the words blacked out.

A woman in a burqa has been redacted from society. A burqa says, don’t look. Nothing to see here. Her identity is unimportant.

Her smile, her frown, all her expressions, are on the cutting-room floor. (God knows how she’s meant to eat, or drink.)

And don’t get me started on other forms of cutting.

And when this burqa silhouette is out and about, at the mall, on the street, what message do her children receive, unable to see her face?

The message is power and identity – and she has none of it. A woman in a burqa likely isn’t voting, and damn sure isn’t running for office.

She is generic. No wonder her husband can have more than one wife. How to tell the wives apart anyway, their faces covered? Do burqas have a licence plate?

I hope the liberal left are waking up. ?The “nasty” right hasn’t been nasty at all. ?We actually happen to be right: ?this has no place in New Zealand. ?This can not integrate. ?Tolerance does not make it work.

All we are doing is segregating our lovely country.


– Raybon Kan, NZ Herald