Witchy Woman

"A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.

The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.

It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils.

"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said.

The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and proclaiming that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".

Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations.

"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism."

*Headdesk.*

It's France, not Saudi Arabia. I highly doubt that they are being "forced" into this.

Who gets to judge what is considered "radically religious"? Considering they estimate that "only" 1,900 women in France wear niqab, this would indicate that the majority is attempting to dictate the wardrobes of a minority. Since Catholics can also be considered radical, does this mean that they can ban nuns' habits and rosaries as well? This is a slippery slope when attempting to control the rights of a minority.

How on earth is showing modesty considered an "excess"?! This from a country where nude beaches are de rigeur! Personally I think that the French have long had an obsession with the female form and find those who hold to strict traditions of modesty as offensive, at least was my impression when I visited Paris. Thus I would not be surprised if most of those pushing for this ban are male.

They are operating under the assumption that they have to rescue these poor, oppressed women who are quite loudly saying, "Don't touch my veil!" It's rather condescending for men to step in with the presumption that they know what is best for the rights of women, especially so when they are told to butt out.

The law that they want to write even includes a clause that patients cannot have a say in the gender of their doctor. I, obviously, do not belong to an orthodox faith, but I choose female doctors whenever possible. I have found that they actually listen to me more, and when it comes down to it, I do not want men who are not family or close friends touching me. Period.

In their "attempts" to liberate Muslim women from their clothes chains, they are saying with every ounce of their white male privilege, "You only have the rights that we say you can have."

"Given the hyper-sexualized advertising that Abercrombie & Fitch has long embraced, it is no surprise that the company encourages its employees to let their hair down. But is the company practicing discrimination if it won't hire a young woman who covers her head for religious reasons? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last week the EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie on behalf of Samantha Elauf, a 19-year-old community college student from Tulsa, Okla., who is Muslim. The suit alleges that Abercrombie "refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of the headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy," or employee dress code. The suit says that Abercrombie "failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy. These actions constitute discrimination against Ms. Elauf on the basis of religion."

Elauf, who had experience working in retail, interviewed for a position at a Tulsa Abercrombie Kids store in June 2008. During the interview, she wore a black hijab, or headscarf, in line with Muslim religious tradition. According to the EEOC, Elauf got word through a friend, who worked in the store, that the headscarf cost her the job. The EEOC alleges that during its investigation, Abercrombie & Fitch flatly told the agency, in a position statement, that "under the Look Policy, associates must wear clothing that is consistent with the Abercrombie brand, cannot wear hats or other coverings, and cannot wear clothes that are the color black." Elauf is suing for back pay and compensation related to emotional pain and anxiety. "If these allegations are true," says Chuck Thornton, deputy director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, "they are serious. In this day and age, it's not acceptable. Certainly, a headscarf is part and parcel of the Islamic experience."

When contacted for a response, Abercrombie & Fitch issued the following statement: "We cannot comment on pending litigation. We have a strong equal-opportunity policy, and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible. We are confident that the litigation of this matter will demonstrate that we have followed the law in every respect."

Was Abercrombie & Fitch within its rights to enforce its dress code? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire .... any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin," the law states. The key language, says Stewart Schwab, an employment lawyer and dean of Cornell Law School, is found in a 1972 amendment to Title VII. This amendment defined "religion." It reads, "The term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."

This case could hinge on a jury's interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship." If Abercrombie & Fitch had made an exception of its Look Policy for Elauf - a "reasonable accommodation" - would that move have hurt the Abercrombie brand? On the surface, that argument seems specious, at best. Would shoppers at that Abercrombie Kids store have been so jarred by the hijab that they wouldn't have bought the company's jeans? If the company makes that case, it doesn't think much of the religious tolerance of the good folks of Oklahoma."

I hope she takes them for as much as she can. Before I get into this can of worms let me say that while I am not Muslimah, I do dress modestly and cover my hair.

It is not an undue accommodation to allow a headscarf: it's a scrap of cloth, not a hoopskirt. It's not like she wears niqab or something that hides her face, preventing a rapport with customers. Scarves are ridiculously popular right now. Hell, she could even wear one that A & F carries, and she would practically be an expert on giving tips on how to wear it!

They might have a sliver with the "undue hardship" because many Americans are still pissing their pants over idiots who can't blow up his underwear properly, and I can readily believe that some little air-headed bippy twats might be afraid of the Terrorist. At first, I sighed and gave in to despair due to the fact that this is in Oklahoma, until I read that they had a previous encounter in the school system where the courts upheld the rights of a young hijabi.

So there is some hope for Elauf, and I wish her the best. And before anyone comes along saying that she's forced to wear it, Muslimahs should dress like Paris Hilton just because they're in the West, she should leave, blahblahblah.

1. She is in the US, not Saudi Arabia.
   
2. She has the right to wear as little or as much as she wants. If Brittney can flash her kitty to the whole world, Elauf can cover her hair.
   
3. Many Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and even Pagans wear headscarves. Are you going to kick out the Mennonites, Amish, Orthodox Jews, and every other woman who chooses not put herself on display for the random passerby to drool over?
4. Freedom of religion means freedom for all faiths, not just your own.
   

"An arrest in which several punches were thrown has triggered an accusation of brutality against Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, police from the mother of the 18-year-old honor student who was taken into custody.

Police, in a criminal complaint on the incident, say "closed fist strikes" were used by the undercover police officers, but only to subdue the teenager as he tried to get away.

His mother said she plans to file a civil rights claim against the officers.

Terez Miles said her son, Jordan Miles, who is black, thought his life was in jeopardy when three white men jumped out of a car on the night of January 11 as he walked not far from his home.

"My son tried to run thinking his life was in jeopardy," Terez Miles said. "He made three steps before he slipped and fell." After that, she said, the police used a stun gun and beat him, pulling out a chunk of his hair.

The criminal complaint says the officers, considering Jordan Miles' appearance suspicious, got out of the car and identified themselves as police. He tried to flee, fell, and then struggled to escape.

The officers "delivered 2-3 closed fist strikes to Miles' head/face with still no effect," and then a "knee strike to Miles' head causing him to momentarily stop resisting," so that he could be handcuffed, the document says.

Miles' mother said the officers did not identify themselves as police to her son, a viola player and student at the city's Creative and Performing Arts High School.

The complaint says the police officers believed Miles was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed with a "large heavy object." The object turned out to be a bottle of Mountain Dew.

Miles was charged with aggravated assault, loitering, resisting arrest and escape."

I, too, would be afraid for my life if three white people jumped out of a car and ran after me, and I am white! He was walking from home to his grandmother's, he could have been coming home or simply taking a walk. How the hell is that loitering? Considering that the kid is not that big, I highly doubt that he was thinking "I could take these guys." So why is he the one being charged with aggravated assault after he took three steps and fell?

What is even more ridiculous is that they felt it was necessary to beat him after Tasering him. In college, I had a roommate who was studying criminology and had essentially an apprenticeship with the local police force and academy. Before you could carry a stun gun, you first had to be hit with it in order to know what it feels like so you wouldn't go around hitting people with it willy nilly. (Or at least that was the requirement here). Trust me when I say that immediately after being Tasered, even at a low setting, you aren't capable of doing much unless you are on PCP, speed, or some other insane drug. So why did the officers feel that it was then necessary to beat him when he was already pretty much as subdued as he was going to get.

Even if the officers did announce themselves as such, it would have still been hard to believe them since they were plainclothes and (I am assuming here) in an unmarked car. As if their actions weren't already questionable enough, they did not even show for the hearing.

"A Eugene man says he could be $800 in the hole when he was just trying to be a good Samaritan.

"I was getting ready to go into the Post Office and I paid my meter," Ben Bond tells KEZI 9 News. But as he was sliding his quarter into the allotted slot, Bond noticed a meter maid headed his way. At that point, he says he noticed the car's meter next to his flashing zeros. Bond says, "I put money in it and the meter maid said she was still getting at ticket."

Bond says he simply continued on his way. Once he was finished with the Post Office, though, he says he saw the meter maid down the street, continuing to ticket more cars. Bond says he confronted her, unhappy that she gave the car neighboring his a ticket, despite his attempt to keep it from happening.

"I went two blocks ahead and put money in the meters," Bond says. That confrontation ended with Bond handcuffed and charged with harassment and obstruction of justice.

"They basically said that they got him for harassment for filling the parking meters because he was doing a random act of kindness," says Juaqin Hildebrandt, who saw the whole ordeal unfold through the window of his nearby restaurant.

"They about slammed him up against the wall," Hildebrandt continues. "I dont know [why] what he was doing wrong. They obviously thought something was wrong, putting quarters in parking meters is like some horrible crime."

Bond says he was given the choice of going to jail or being ticketed for $800 -- $530 for the obstruction of justice charge, another $270 for harassment.

"I was just trying to save people from getting tickets," says Bond. "I just want people to have a heart. Wake up. We're all in it together."

KEZI 9 News called the Eugene Police Department for comment, but our calls weren't returned."

I just love my local police department, and they'll get to hear just how much! /sarcasm

"Jim Simpson would have to be the toughest man to ever pick up a pair of knitting needles.

The former prisoner of war, who spent more than 19 months in Germany's World War II prison camps, not only survived interrogations and torture but managed to knit arguably Australia's most valuable war artefact, outside a museum.

Jim's rug is a perfectly preserved 1.83m x 1.9m knitted woollen blanket, featuring the map of Australia and the Coat of Arms.

"I knitted it with straightened handles from the camp's cooking pots; they looked like pieces of number eight wire," Jim says.

"The cook agreed to give them to me if I knitted him a pair of socks.""

The toughest knitter.

"The elusive erogenous zone said to exist in some women may be a myth, say researchers who have hunted for it.

Their study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine is the biggest yet, involving 1,800 women, and it found no proof.

The King's College London team believe the G-spot may be a figment of women's imagination, encouraged by magazines and sex therapists."

My first thought was: "Were all of the researchers men?" No, seriously. I can find mine just fine. I have found those belonging to my ex-girlfriends just fine. But no, we poor widdle women are just confused by whatever Cosmo tells us.

Then I thought, "No, that's not fair. Most of my male partners have been able to find it just fine." The cynic in me (I know, it's shocking because I'm such a Pollyanna) wonders if they set out to find evidence to support their own lack of sexual prowess and knowledge in order to bolster their own pathetic egos. It's more likely that the test subjects did not find a clinical and sterile environment to be conducive to enjoyment and relaxation, as anyone who has ever had an annual will tell you.

It's not surprising, however, considering we females are so stupid that we can't even tell when we are aroused. Gee, it couldn't be at all related to the stigma that men are expected to be sexual creatures and women are not, unless there is a ring on her finger. Any witch worth her salt could tell you that most women are not in tune with their bodies, living mostly in their head, as a result of being told that we are too fat and too ugly our entire lives. Inundation of "You are not good enough" produces a schism between one's mind and one's physical being that carries over to the soul itself.

Now, if you don't believe in "New Agey crap" just imagine how this translates psychologically. The minds of women are trained over time to first divorce their mental image of themselves with their actual appearance, then dissociate the mind from the body. And we wonder why cases of eating disorders are skyrocketing.

1. Read the label backwards. A product is required to be at least 95% organic for certification, and if you remember from home-ec the ingredients are listed in descending order of overall percentage. If the final ingredient is "organic spice extract" you are good to go.
2. Just because it says organic does not mean that it actually is. Chips, for example, may have been made with organic corn, but the oil might not be. While this has not yet *knocks on wood* been a problem for me, your mileage may vary. When doubt look for the little green and white symbol, it will become your friend.
   
3. If it contains anything you cannot reasonably pronounce, don't eat it.