Phyllis Chesler isn’t very impressed with Naomi Wolf’s shallow defense of Muslim oppression of women.

[Wednesday afternoon update]

Naomi isn’t very happy, and demands an apology, which she isn’t going to get.

[Bumped]

[Thursday afternoon update]

It’s round three. Someone needs to take the shovel away from Naomi before she gets to China.

[Bumped again]

[Update a couple minutes later]

Don’t miss the link to the Jamie Glazov piece:

Reminiscent of creepy and pathetic tales that fellow travelers told (about what they had “learned”) upon their returns from Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, Wolf comes back to share the news. Many Muslim feminists, she implores, apparently told her that they wish that we Westerners would focus on examples of women’s rights in their societies rather than on “what they wear.”

Sorry Naomi Wolf, the mere fact that someone told you something does not erase the reality of how tyrannical structures employ dress codes to wield various forms of oppression. If Jews were, for instance, once again forced, in any given society, to suddenly start wearing particular articles of clothing to identify and distinguish themselves from other people, should those of us who are concerned suddenly become unconcerned merely because a Jewish person in that society told you to tell us not to worry about it?

Not that you know or care anything about history, but there is a reason why despotisms and apartheid structures create dress codes. The enforcement of such codes plays a crucial role in keeping the structures of tyranny and the enslavement of a people in check (e.g., Maoist unisex clothing had a ruthless purpose). Ms. Wolf, do you really fail to grasp the fact that dress codes in the Islamic world, such as the niqab and the burqa, play a crucial role in keeping the chains of gender apartheid in place, and that this is precisely why the guardians keep them in place?

No Ms. Wolf, I won’t stop worrying about what Muslim women are forced to wear. I care about the Muslim women who have had acid thrown in their faces, or who have been raped or killed or set aflame, because of the dress code they chose not to follow. I know you don’t care about them, because they eluded you somehow during your political pilgrimage and you have yet to utter one of their names and tell us, with heartfelt concern, what happened to them and why.

As I said, someone needs to get her to quit digging.

Van Jones is (or at least was) a Truther. How unshocking.

Thoughts from Daniel Henninger:

the lumpen electorate works, and the lumpen bureaucratariat spends. They get away with it because they have perfected the illusion that no human hand causes these commitments. The payroll tax just happens. Entitlements are “off-budget,” presumably in the hands of God. This is government without the responsibility of governance.

Unable to identify who or what has put them in hock to the horizon, national electorates are attempting accountability by voting whole parties out of power. Rasmussen recently found that 57% of voters would throw out Congress en masse if they could. Gerrymandered districts ensure that they can’t.

Problem is, the lumpen bureaucratariat can’t stop spending and borrowing and won’t incentivize growth. Amid the phenomenal spending on the financial mess here, they tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill whose centerpiece was an auction of carbon credits to flow trillions of dollars toward the bureaucracies. Mr. Obama’s people seem weirdly oblivious to the scale of their outlays, programs and dreams.

Something has to give.

[Update a few minutes later]

Will Obamacare be to Obama what Spain was to Napoleon?

In comments over at Maguire’s place. Is there anyone who voted for McCain regretting their vote? Judging from the polls, I’ll bet there are a lot of Obama voters who are, but I’ll bet you’d search far and wide to find a remorseful McCain (or more likely, Palin) voter. As I’ve noted before, I doubt if there were very many people who voted for John McCain last year. Most of them were either voting against Obama, or for Palin.

At long last, Canada has come to its senses:

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.

The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

Will this put Richard Warman out of business? And does it affect the case of the pastor who has been enjoined from saying or writing about homosexuals?

In its ongoing national effort to be “nice,” Canada hadn’t seemed to notice that it was becoming fascist with a smiley face. I hope that this is the beginning of a reverse of that trend.

[Late afternoon update]

Thoughts from Mark Steyn:

This is the beginning of the end for the Canadian state’s policing of opinion: Judge Hadjis has repudiated the “human rights” regime’s entire rationale as well as a couple of decades of joke “jurisprudence”.

I confess I wasn’t optimistic when the thought enforcers decided to pick a fight with me, but Ezra Levant persuaded me that the thing to do was go nuclear on this disgusting racket and re-frame the debate. We succeeded. There’s a lesson here for American conservatives, particularly as the president and his allies, with the “fairness doctrine” and bills to control the Internet and whatnot, are tempted down a very Canadian path.

Let’s hope it augurs other, future victories in rolling back Leviathan.