The anti-Trump Brigade of “feminists” the Women’s March protesting against Trumps’s “Muslim immigration ban” executive orders are being very economic with the truth.
If not they are being altogether dishonest about the Order.
It was the feminist movement in the US and in Western Europe that first put Muslims under the spotlight and fired up anti-Muslim sentiments with feminists allegations condemning “Islam’s treatment of women”.
Christine Delphy prominent French feminist wrote in the Guardian not long ago:
“Is mainstream French feminism racist? I co-founded Nouvelles Questions Feministes (New Feminist Issues) with Simone de Beauvoir in 1977 and have long been involved with Mouvement de Libération des Femmes (MLF) but increasingly, it’s clear to me that French attitudes towards the hijab and Muslim women are not just incomprehensible, but reprehensible. The first openly anti-Muslim law was passed in 2004, banning schoolgirls from wearing a headscarf, based on the belief that ‘religious signs’ are contrary to laïcité – political secularism. But the ideological campaign against Islam started more than 40 years ago. Journalist Thomas Deltombe established that, between the 1980s and the mid-2000s, not a week passed without one or the other of the two main French weeklies asking ‘Should we be afraid of Islam?’ or ‘Is Islam incompatible with democracy?’
“Dailies, radio and TV programmes all exhibited the same obsession. It became worse over time, as the audience became convinced that western civilisation was being threatened by Islam in general, and that this danger was embodied in France by the 5 million sons and daughters of North African immigrants, who may or may not be Muslims, living in France”.
US President Donald Trump it is said by some was merely giving feminists what they have demanded all along with Islam.
Feminists appear to suggest otherwise.
The disingenuous bellicose rhetoric being spewed on the streets of American cities by “the Women’s March, reeks of hypocrisy and lies”.
Just as the French cried “women wearing scarfs on their heads could not be truly French”, so too the US feminists who backed Hillary Clinton raised the same voices in rabid anti-Islamic rhetoric when selectively attacking sharia law and Islam for decades.
Shireen Quodsi describes as “depraved hypocrisy” the Women’s March and in particular its Muslim prop Linda Sarsour who she says: “shamelessly oppressed pro-life groups by banning them from participating in the march, stating the march’s platform is expressly pro-choice and caters to only ‘a specific type of diversity.’ The ‘basic equality for all people’ Sarsour on the other hand speaks of stops at the threshold of conservative values. It doesn’t apply to women who believe in the indiscriminate right to dignity of all people”.
She goes on to add in her article in the Federalist criticising Linda Sarsour’s position on women and Islam thus:
“It is pro-life women who champion the greatest humanitarian issue: the right for all human life to exist. The Women’s March rages against building a wall along the border and expunging Muslims through an imaginary registry. Yet these women do not recognize the dignity of human life behind the wall of a uterus and radically defend their right to expunge that life when it’s convenient for them.
“The Women’s March mission statement advocates standing in solidarity to protect families, but it’s the right to life that is the first step in safeguarding the family. Protecting our children doesn’t begin when they’re on the street; it begins when they’re in the womb.
“The right to life is also sacred in Islam, which has very strict conditions for abortion. Yet Sarsour, who has carved a platform out of her Muslim identity, has debased that identity by openly defending the pro-choice movement, saying, ‘If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose.’ So which is it: is she pro-choice and not Muslim, or is she pro-life and no longer a leftist activist?”
Independent documentary film maker Richard Kallenbach and one of his subjects the notorious hacker Alexie Kuzentzov appear to have “stumbled” upon a large body of material implicating the Hillary Clinton Global Initiative in money laundering, arms dealing, ‘regime change’ and pay to play schemes when researching their documentary – ‘Draining the Swamp’.
The material details how the Danish, Irish and Australian governments, at a time when dominated by feminists like Julia Gillard (and Kevin Rudd) Julie Bishop, Gro Harlem Brutland and later Erna Solberg had all played a part in diverting state funds in the tens of millions of dollars (some say the figure may be as high as half a billion dollars from Australia alone) to the Hillary Clinton Global Initiative a slush fund (CGI).
The money from Australia was siphoned and false invoiced from government organizations AusAid Commonwealth funds earmarked for aid abroad, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Women’s Electoral Lobby and the Australian Labour party.
There appears to have been many more seemingly innocuous “aid for women” type foundations through which Australian state money was siphoned off to the CGI, and well-connected individuals mainly of the “power women elite” category.
The Daily Telegraph noted in one of its articles “Lo and behold, (Julia Gillard) became chairman (of the Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education) in 2014”, one year after being defeated in a leadership ballot by Kevin Rudd.
Whilst Australia’s government attempts to brush off the scandal by saying these reports are “old hat”, the legality of the Australian government funding an illegal slush fund and a foreign presidential election campaign without disclosures to parliament remains a live issue pregnant with questions of illegality.
Interestingly central amongst the CGI’s main undisclosed objectives in recent times was the overthrow of the Najib Razak government of Malaysia and false propaganda about Najib Razak and his family.
Australia’s government now reeling under on-going allegations of endemic corruption in Parliament and the judiciary (of the state of Queensland) is desperately seeking a distraction to avoid the heat of scrutiny of their actions with respect to the funding of the Clinton Global Initiative.
It was to avoid scrutiny of her activities using the foundation and to protect its many foreign donors that Hillary Clinton deleted over 30,000 emails claiming these were personal to her.
“Not so” according to Richard Kallenbach and Alex Kuznetsov.
Amongst correspondences Hillary Clinton deleted were those that made direct reference to Malaysia’s Bersih, the Sisters of Islam, Anwar Ibrahim’s family and organisations to which Marina Mahathir is involved.
Each of these were said to have been beneficiaries of the largesse of the ‘regime change’ driving Clinton Global Initiative.
Sayed Ali Khan – A MO reader