The right to style

On the eve of the massacre in Norway, the Belgian parliament joined France in its intolerance to Paransge, adopting a law prohibiting the wearing of clothing, which "hides the face entirely or partly in such a way that it cannot be identified." Rather, the law entered into force on Saturday, and the massacre occurred the day before on Friday, and both events reached us in a somewhat confused form. First about the massacre in Norway, and then about Pararange in Belgium. On the other hand, Pararange was prepared as an event and really earlier. Breivik - what? It was shied into his head that he was supposed to act in such a wild way, so he spoke, he could earlier, later, and about the ban on Pranji systematically spoke for several years, and this was a very respectable discourse. How the phobia of the war of civilizations worsened, they immediately spoke about Paransha. Well, how does a moss with a grenade launcher sneak under it?

According to observers, approximately 300 women fell under the law on the ban on the territory of France and Belgium. That is, to the total women of Muslim religion, the law created some inconvenience. Which, however, makes us the following arithmetic: approximately three hundred parliamentarians of the metropolis created inconveniences of about three “people who came here” by Muslim women. Moreover, each parliamentarian created the inconvenience of one “who came up” to a woman in Paransge.

However, if you take two parliaments - France and Belgium - then the two parliamentarians created inconvenience to one woman in the burqa, which, in my opinion, is not a very reasonable waste of time and state money, if not at all a statement of loss in the “war of civilizations”. Since the real terrorist or ideological enemy of forces is already not enough.

However, such a reasoning is not entirely correct. Everyone will tell you that the inconvenience was created not by specific women in the burqa, namely, abstract marten, stolen with grenade launchers under the guise of women in a burden. And there may be many more than three hundred officially registered women in a burqa in France and Belgium. Suppose there are darkness and darkness there, then it will turn out to be quite normal wasolation of the admin resource, and the beloved city, Brussels, Paris, can sleep peacefully. On the other hand ... Shahidok in the aforementioned cities may not be at all.

This reasoning I ran into, sitting in a car with my always opponent in life. The opponent objected: “That's right. Well done Belgians. It's time for a long time. We came up, so let them accept the norms of a civilized Western society. ” What I habitually shook: how does it actually differ from when in our old -regime Soviet times, oppressed the dudes and long -haired ones? Isn't it the right to style in clothing that is the fundamental right of a person? “So the dudes had clothes,” the opponent in life was angry, “and these are the declaration in the burqa. Like, we do not want to mix. So the question is, what did you come? "

No, I argued again, we also had a declaration. And exactly the same - we do not want to mix with the commies, our lighthouse is the West, which is why we carry long hair under Beatles and claw trousers. And from these positions to catch and beat the foreign Komsomol squads was not at all a west. They dealt with the enemies of the Fatherland, potential destroyers of the Soviet Union. Recall the Russian history. It was not a west and under Paul I. Remember, Aldanov had in a “conspiracy”: “Only now he noticed how he was dressed. The warm things that he put on, leaving the house, an overcoat with a sable collar, a black Casimir Confediatrician with a mushka bend, were strictly forbidden .... Staal knew what fury the emperor brought violations of clothes about clothes and what strict punishments were supposed to be for this. ” However, if we recognize the right to a stylistic declaration in the Western spirit by the original right of a person, therefore, we must recognize the right of women even naked, even in a burden.

And at this time, the announcer turned Breivik on the Norwegian Komsomolets, who, in turn, set a new direction of the cultural dispute - multiculturalism and the safety of society. It is curious that Brayvik himself turned into an argument of two opposite concepts: both for multiculturalism and against multiculturalism.

After all, in fact, what brought Brevik to death? - other commentators reasoned. Multifulhturalism, the inaction of the authorities about the Muslim "came" to Western society. There would be no multiculturalism, he, perhaps, lived his whole life a peaceful layman. But tolerance brought, all evil from her.

With several suspicious intonations, the Literary Gazeta, the newspaper of writers, writes : “... people, Europeans, and without the apocalyptic atrocities of the sedant terrorist in recent years, are in a state of confusion and anxiety, taken by the rampart of change, caused by the continuously growing number of migrants who carry their own, sharply different from European performances The norms of life, culture, human values ​​are not going to part with them at all. They want to live in Europe, but according to their own laws. The European authorities, which have not managed to cope with this stream, cannot offer nothing but calls for boundless tolerance. ” In other words, the situation naturally gave rise to Breivik.

But on the other hand, again, because it is himself, Breivik, and not a mall in the burqa, took up the machine gun and crushed everyone into cabbage. The “Shahida” in Paransge, maybe peacefully twisted somewhere shopping, and a white scumbag, who wants to live according to some “his laws”, with a face at least immediately on the cover, killed people with packs. Yes, even then ask: would Breivik be a peaceful layman, would he be a good person, for which he should turn the West into a pure white race? Recall that Hitler was invented by Europe, so to speak, absolutely on local material!

Again two topics, a fork. The first is Paransa as a symbol of the oppression of the “new” European woman “who came up with her husband Tiran, how should Western society look at it? Should it prohibit the burqa, solely to prevent the expansion of totalitarian consciousness and free the working woman of the East? The second: show me the face, gulchitsky, for the eyes are the mirror of the soul, and the passport is registration.

The first one can argue that the “tyrant” and “Tiranian woman” still do not live in vacuum. In Europe, they need to work, enter into relations with various administrations and neighbors, receive benefits, free metro tickets, and there would be the desire of the “Tiranian Women” to free themselves from “slavery”, all the power of the state machine of law, plus the public would have stood up to defend it. So she does not need to be “released” through a fine and arrest. Because in this case, the European state, on the contrary, is in solidarity with her husband Tiran, or even with Breivik, and recreates totalitarian thinking cleaner than the Muslim.

At the second ... that again they don’t shoot Colt, as Samuel Colt said, and, moreover, not a burden. It also proved to us Breivik. Breivik shoots. On the contrary, forced leveling of social differences supposedly to the standards of the political majority can greatly confuse and so not very understandable social relations in the world, it would seem to destroy the long -tested criteria of “correct” and “wrong”.

After all, you need to be afraid of your own intolerance, and not clothes, appearance. In one of the satire of French television (or maybe there was even a “hidden camera”), someone dressed ... a horse approached the policeman. With a big horse head. And he began to be interested in how to go. The policeman, as is customary in the free world, was not at all surprised and began to politely explain to a man-adhere. Everything is fine. At this time, women in a hijab passed nearby. Standing, FAS, whistle ... costs? But do we now also have to prohibit the film “Angelica and the Sultan”, where the beautiful Michelle Mercier with a coquettishly covered face, but naked breasts? Remove the discs of rock groups with "causals" on the cover? To prevent white medical masks in public places, although previously they themselves were recommended in connection with bird flu? Drive out advertising animals from McDonald's? And what do you say about the patriotic special forces in a black mask with slots for the eyes - about this indispensable character of the defending West and the Russian East, in fact, the same West? I do not mind that they are also banned, but still Breivik did not hide his face, finding a different way of social mimicry. He dressed as a police officer ... And he could dress Michael Jackson, good Dr. Aibolit, and the parliaments did not interfere with him ...

Terror exists, terror is a political reality, but it is not treated with medical disadvantaged state counter -terror against the rights of each individual in the name of, so to speak, common “national interests”. Moreover, the basis of these “interests”, the rule, is the anti -Christian motive that undermines an open society - to separate and not share the benefits of its civilization. This was also proved to us by a young Brayvik, who also crossed out the commandment “not to kill”. For my part, I can object to Breiviks obvious and secret only one: and we - the people of the world - will try to continue to stand on my own ...