Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how the North American mainstream media has consistently been mainstreaming the subject of Islam and veiled Muslim women as a friendly, feel-good kinda subject, nothing to be afraid of, something that may be "different" but that we are obligated to understand and accept? Specifically, the mainstream pro-feminist/pro-human rights media are arguing that Muslim women in hijab are "choosing" to face-veil themselves or to wear headscarves for religious reasons–and since North America is comprised of immigrants in search of religious freedom, such acceptance is actually part of our own tradition. We must understand that some Muslim girls and women are hurt, offended when we assume that they have been forced to veil when that might not be the case. Some Muslim girls are also quite happily attending women-only proms; they view hijab as "liberating" them from the sex object treatment reserved for uncovered women.

Hey, goes the unwritten subscript– these women are not terrorists. They are modest and kind , gentle and submissive, far more obedient than their (pesky, upstart) North American counterparts. Indeed, veiled or headscarved women can also be modern and educated–just the kind of citizens and immigrants who are, perhaps, more worthy than….your ordinary western slut.

For example: On the same weekend, Erin Andersson, in The Globe and Mail (June 6th), and Deborah Sontag in the New York Times (June 7th), both published stories about some modern, very talented Muslim women in Canada and America who are choosing to wear severe headscarves or to veil themselves. Before you jump down my throat, please rest assured: I know this is actually possible. I have no problem with any woman's religious or clothing choice. I believe in religious freedom. And, I know that many well educated Muslim women, including feminists in Muslim countries, do wear headscarves, and more, no doubt for a variety of reasons, including their desire to remain alive. And here is where I draw the line.

It is a Catholic woman's right to become a nun and shave or cover her hair; it is an Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish woman's right to shave or cover her hair; and it is a Muslim woman's right to cover her hair and her face–as long as those women who refuse to do so are not browbeaten, beaten, ostracized, stalked, stoned to death or honor-murdered. I have written about just such cases in the West right here, at this blog, cases in which young American- and Canadian-Muslim girls were tormented, then killed because they refused to wear hijab.

In Europe, where there are many more Muslims, there is a veritable epidemic of such exceedingly dishonorable and incredibly gruesome "honor" murders.

But there's something more. Let's face it: The Islamic face-veil and headscarf have become symbols of "jihad" and Islamic religious apartheid or intolerance in the West. And, it is spooky, even frightening to see women, (or are they men?), face-veiled or wearing full-body shrouds. Masked people, hooded people, have cut themselves off from human contact; they can see you, but you can't see them. You cannot see their expressions in response to what you are saying. I would not want to appear before a masked judge, study with a masked teacher, hire a masked lawyer, etc. Would you?

Whether I approve of their clothing choices or not, Hasidic (ultra-orthodox or anti-modern) Jews and Catholics are not threatening western civilization and are not out there be-heading those who leave Judaism or Catholicism. Nor are they force-converting Muslims and Hindus. Muslims are doing just that at this very moment in history when America's President has reached out to the entire Islamic world.

What's more, Jews and Catholics are not honor-murdering their daughters and wives because they refuse to veil their faces, their hair, or their bodies. Mainly Muslims do that.

And, when it comes to diplomacy, reciprocity is even more important than relativism. Why do Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wear "shmattas" when they accompany the President to Saudi Arabia or when they meet with Syria's President (whose own wife does not cover her hair?) Surely, since this is the case, we would expect the (non-existent) Arab Muslim female diplomats to the West or at least the male diplomat's wives to follow Western customs when they are in the West. However, this is not what they do.

Of course, Obama did not mention any of this–wanted to make a good dhimmi impression, did he? Or is he perhaps engaging in some clever taqquia (disinformation) tactics of his own? I certainly hope so.

Based on the exchange between President Obama and President Sarkozy, below, I fear that President Obama does not understand the difference between a free choice and a forced choice; the difference between womens' human rights and the subordination of women in the name of religion. Remember: He's the politician who is proud of his left-liberal feminist stands.

Here is a rather shocking exchange between President Obama and his French counterpart, Sarkozy, on this very subject. It was posted at the Chicago Sun-Times but is no longer there. This excerpt now appears at IslaminEurope and is dated June 6, 2009.

I have just returned from a trip out of town and have not yet comprehensively researched the Muslim feminist response to Obama's speech in Cairo but here's what Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to say in an interview with Jeb Golinkin for the New Majority.

In his speech in Cairo, President Obama threw Muslim women under the bus. He threw Muslim feminists, reformers, and dissidents under the next bus. Obviously, I will return to this subject soon again.