By now, you’ve probably all read about Islam’s new London mayor’s ban on “body-shaming” ads on public transport. Ostensibly, this ban is intended to protect women from being shamed.
“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.
“Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”
We are to believe that Khan’s religion has nothing to do with it. But if his intention is to introduce Sharia by stealth, what better way to start than by promoting issues with which Muslims and feminists share common ground?
Most corporate media outlets have ignored any possible Islamic motivation behind this law. But David Li, of the New York Post, writes:
London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a ban on body-shaming ads on public transit, a moved praised by gender equality groups — but blasted by some who said it’s the start of the “Islamification” of the city by its first Muslim mayor…
But some on social media said the decision was “as per Sharia law,” saying Khan was “using feminist talking points to enact Sharia policy” and “turning London into a Muslim city,” according to RT.
Added Sharene Kirchler to the BBC’s Facebook page:
“What happened to free speech? What happened to not being offended by everything. Why is it a matter of state to decide when something so subjective is to be allowed or not?”
According to Snopes, the initiative came as a response to “massive public outcry” and Change.org petition that garnered over 70,000 signatures. The main piece of evidence, cited by Snopes, is the statement (quoted above) by the mayor himself. They also point out that only a small fraction of London advertisements will be affected. Of course, Snopes has no way of ascertaining the true motivation behind Khan’s initiative. Khan could be lying, and the fact most of London’s advertisements aren’t (yet) affected means nothing; even stealth Sharia must start somewhere.
I don’t claim to know Khan’s true motivation, but I’m pretty good at spotting propaganda. The Miami Herald has a slide show about this new law. Here’s one of the slides:
Notice it uses the fact that “Germany recently banned ads in response to a rise in the number of sexual assault cases within the country.” Apparently, the Herald doesn’t expect its readers to actually click on the hyperlinks. The hyperlink for “Germany recently banned ads” clearly shows that the ban was in response to attacks by Muslim men.
Let’s rephrase that, just to show how perverse it really is:
Critics of the ban say that it forces Khan’s Muslim beliefs on everyone, but Germany recently did the same in response to attacks by Muslim men on its women.
As for France, Israel, Italy and Spain, they didn’t exactly “enact similar measures.” Rather, according to the New York Times, they “enacted policies aimed at preventing models with stick-thin bodies from working in the industry.” Obviously, the model in question is not “stick-thin,” nor do such policies amount to bans on “body-shaming” on public transport.
So shame on the New York Times for misleading its readers, and shame on the Miami Herald for taking such propaganda to even lower levels.
Personally, I agree with the spirit of the policies of France, Israel, Italy and Spain; anorexics should not be held up as the female ideal. However, it’s hard for me to sympathize with overweight people when I see their atrocious eating habits every day. Some people are overweight through no fault of their own, but too many are that way due to their own bad habits and lack of discipline. The Protein World model has a very healthy-looking body, and women should definitely be encouraged to try to emulate her. By the same token, men should be encouraged to emulate svelte male models too.
Incidentally, where’s the outcry over buff male models being shown in public?