Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to join the FEMEN action against Sharia law and Islamism at the Olympics today as I am really sick and travelling tomorrow for a conference in Montreal (which I would most likely have missed since they were arrested).

Reza Moradi was there and filmed their action and the police’s brutal arrest. Interesting how the police were so pre-occupied with covering up their breasts and bodies.

British police: you did your Islamic morality counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan proud!

Talk about an upside down world. Regimes that have killed a generation, impose sex apartheid, and still stone people to death in the 21st century are given red carpet treatments by the Olympics Committee and this is what women’s rights campaigners get.

But not to worry, our day will come.



  1. women have the rights to bare chest at public same as men can do because we are both human and equal

    And I think Sharia law is very sexist it’s illegal for men to see women’s body but women have freedom to see men’s body

    my opinion

  2. I have met and spoken with Maryam in person and she is a thoughtful, kind, and courageous woman fighting a just cause in the best way(s) she knows how. She is one of my heros.

    However, this protest seems to be ill-conceived and I agree with everything KM has said on this matter. The police were not brutal but rather trying their best to contain a potentially volatile situation from possibly escallating. Brutality would be batons, pepper spray, rubber (or real) bullets, and tear gas.

    Hindsight is 20-20, but perhaps a more effective tactic would have been for the women to be overdressed in burkas (if that is possible) with placards and perhaps names and pictures of those who have been stoned to death. Standing. Silently. Montionless. Sometimes it is what is not said and what is not done that is the most powerful.

    It did, however, put FEMEN on my radar screen.

    2 cents.

  3. Martyn N Hughes says:

    What happens if mariam namazie and her atheist/communist protestors get power to rule the nations?

    Life will be a lot fairer than it is now for ALL people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, nationality or race.

    Dear Martyn

    Hurrah???; Utopia here we come; NOT.

    From historical experience; other benefits?? will be!.

    Those who don’t share the same cuddly communist ideology as you do (rational people, anyone who disagrees/values their freedom) will be given free long term holidays in logging camps at the state’s expense. What benevolence?;as a lover of the great outdoors I just can’t wait; Bring it on.

    Health care will also be provided for the mentally ill( rational people,anyone who disagrees/values individual freedom). A short stay at a re-education spa and resort will be followed (for the stubborn) by free medical procedures to remove the obviously diseased parts of their brain.

    The terminally ill (those who aren’t too keen on logging and haven’t responded well to their stay at the re-education spa and resort)will be given the right to die in dignity;i.e.** on their knee’s with a bullet in the back of the head**.

    ** Please Note, this option has only previously been offered by the Communists to Jews, Chinese, Russians, Tibetans, Cambodians, Angolans, Chechens, Eastern Europeans, Afghans and vietnamese etc. The uptake has been staggering, the graves are numberless.

    I am an Atheist

    Atheism encompasses the whole political spectrum. The cause of the recent problems in the atheist movement( and indeed most of the world’s problems) occur when believers in extreme and false ideologies such as communism; such as yourself, try to hijack other movements to advance those beliefs.

    If you think Communism can solve the world’s ills, YOU CAN FUCK OFF!!!!!!>

    1. No dear, I didn’t state that ‘Communism can solve the world’s ills’.

      I was thinking more along the lines that Maryam seems to care a lot about human individuals whilst focussing none on their ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender, et alia, but more on their welfare as human beings as a whole – something the religious lack.

      YOU CAN FUCK OFF!!!!!!>

      Well, I am not about to!

      1. Martyn N Hughes says:
        1) I was thinking more along the lines that Maryam seems to care a lot ………..

        2)…..You religious nut jobs are a threat to humanity. The sooner
        “YOU ARE ALL BEATEN DOWN”, the better!

        Me: I told you “peaceful” naked street protesters in real are devils

        bcskeptic says:
        1) I have met and spoken with Maryam in person and she is a thoughtful, kind, and courageous woman fighting …..
        2)…..I am an Atheist

        Mariam Namazie is one of the leaders of Iran’s Communist party.. (A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?)…next leader of Iran. Having communist ideology.

        Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc were also kind, thoughtful and courageous like Mariam Namazie before they got power to rule their nations..)

        Hope SHE will become one of the greatest rulers like some of the past communist/atheist thoughtfull KIND devils..

        That’s why I told ‘you atheists are morally, physically emotionally, mentally NAKED (naked femen protesters at London Olympic area)…..

        btb I am not an Iranian.

        YOU atheists are seriously DANGEROUS jokers/wolves/evils.( I mean, Lenins, Joseph Stalins, Mao’s, Pol Pots etc..)

        Don’t think I hate you, like what you people do for religions..I am just responding, not threatening anybody.

        I really appose peacefully (criticizing with harsh words) all types of devil priests, Mullahs, monks, Gurus, Bhagwans and Atheists.

        I don’t threat like what all extremists do including Mr.Martin N H that says : “YOU ARE ALL BEATEN DOWN”, the better!

  4. The protest may have been counter productive, the participants may have been incoherent but so what?

    Semi-naked women running around shouting are a security threat? What kind of Kafkaesque thinking concludes that?

    The police action was out of all proportion to any possible threat.

    They should have stood aside.

    And for those above who don’t think they were brutal, next time you are suspended by your arms from behind, please come back and tell us how it felt.

    1. Of course with our advantage of hindsight these women present no threat.

      But for the police who are on the ground it’s very different. They have perhaps a second to decide to react to the situation. Their first duty is to protect the public and waiting to see how a situation pans out puts the public at risk. Andthe women only ended up being restrained because they escalated the police’s every attempt to calm them down.

      Being suspended by your arms from behind isn’t pleasant – I’ve had it done to me by a couple of over-zealous bouncers. It is, however, a valid and legal form of restraint if done properly. The police didn’t resort to it until the women’s resistance left them little or no choice if the police wanted to avoid the risk of injury to themselves and the women.

      Even if unjustified it is not a brutal method. It doesn’t result in injury, beyond a few scratches and bruises if the person struggles – it prevents injury. Brutal is being beaten by batons, being kicked, being punched. To call the restraining techniques the police used in that video brutal is to cheapen the true brutality suffered by other protesters on a daily basis.

      1. How much mission creep can you absorb?

        To start with the police didn’t have ‘seconds’ to respond. It is quite clear from the video that they were already interviewing one protester so they could already see that it was a protest. If they thought that it was something serious the last action to take would be to be distracted by semi-naked women running around, they should have been concentrating on what they were being distracted from.

        There is too much self-justification of over-reaction by all sorts of bodies to the cry of ‘SECURITY’. The idea that we have to instantly obey any policeman whenever they think it appropriate only worked when the police had judgement that could be trusted. That didn’t happen here, it was just a load of heavy handed police throwing their weight around, it happens too much and should stop.

  5. what happens if mariam namazie and her atheist/communist protestors get power to rule the nations?

    Lessons to learn from Atheists
    Atheists became ruthless killers whenever they get/got power to rule the nations.
    Russia atheist /communist “the great Lenin” killed millions (Russia communist Civil War exceeded the eight million deaths of World War I……
    Joseph Stalin an atheist/communist surpassed Lenin in killing. Joseph Stalin helped transform the Soviet Union into a military and industrial superpower, but at a staggering cost in human lives and suffering. In the words of scholar Stephen Cohen, Stalin’s rule was a “holocaust by terror” that “victimized tens of millions of people for twenty-five years.”
    Moa tse Tung an atheist/communist was another mass murderer
    In Stalin’s and Mao’s cases, one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (source: the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is responsible for the death of 17 million Russians, but only half a million were killed by his order. ….
    Cambodia’s Pol Pot AN ATHEIST/COMMUNIST killed almost 2hundred thousand people.
    The arrest of Pinochet in 2000 brings up the issue of which other leaders should be or should have been tried for atrocities committed during their rule.
    Recently drunkard Hitches (atheists darling) supported Iraq genocide which destroyed rich nation and massacred over 1.2 million innocents, 40% of them children.
    The above names are drop of the ocean.
    You atheists are seriously dangerous jokers.

    1. what happens if mariam namazie and her atheist/communist protestors get power to rule the nations?

      Life will be a lot fairer than it is now for ALL people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, nationality or race.

      Lessons to learn from the god mobs.


      The god mob have always been ruthless killers. Here’s just a list of some atrocities they’ve committed.


      Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 “spotless” men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

      *Today still rather insular, sexist and homophobic.


      Members of lndia’s Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.

      *Today still responsible for that horrific caste system, communalism and terrorism.


      The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.

      *Today still allows polygamy. A form of female abuse imo.


      The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.

      Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.

      The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.

      *What isn’t it still responsible for today?. Misogyny, homophobia, the condemnation of safe sex, the worlds largest orchestrated paedophilia ring and consequence cover-up, etc, etc.

      Christianity (again)

      When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

      *Today still responsible for Misogyny, homophobia, the condemnation of safe sex, inspiring far-right lunatics.


      Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all “sinners” and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, ‘Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.

      Again, what isn’t this horrific movement capable of?

      All of the above, is the simple answer.

      The above is a drop in the ocean.
      You religious nut jobs are a threat to humanity. The sooner you’re all beaten down, the better!

  6. When Maryam is running around naked in protest, I’m up for seeing that. She’s hot. Make sure you get a video of it for us.

  7. I have read many of the comments here regarding FEMEN’s protest at the olympics and regardless of whether we agree with the delivery of the protest or not is irrelevant.

    Their actions were reported on yahoo!, albeit briefly, but it still got people talking and when FEMEN appear in public next more people will know exactly why.

    That’s an achievemnet in itself.

  8. I don’t think that these protesters from ” were arrested during their protest at the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
    Peaceful protesters need not be arrested.

  9. How the hell does running around topless in public help fight against sharia law? If anything, it makes them think there is a need for it to stop women from doing such things.

    1. Everything.

      Shari’ah says women must cover all their bodies at all times. English law says you can cover your face if you are muslim, not if you are an EDL supporter.

      Shari’ah gives rules about women, equality etc. Have you never run around with a shirt on?

      Men may uncover their chests, head, faces but women may not?

      They are not ‘fighting against’ anything, they are fighting. They are protesting the right of any man to tell them that their chests are obscene.

      1. I was merely pointing out that FEMEN’s eforts would be better spent protesting against the introduction of Sharia Courts into the UK and in attacking the Labour Party; who introduced and support this pernicious evil.

  10. Why protest at or try to spoil the Olympics? ;an event that shows humanity at its best. FEMEN should be protesting outside of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia and the Headquarters of the Labour Party. It is they who are primarily responsible for the promotion, funding of and introduction of Sharia Law into this country.

    1. and yet, this “event that shows humanity at its best” has got rid of 2 young women for lack of political correctness, while accommodating groups who refuse to train with Jews, won’t let their female athletes go on the mat without a male guardian (afraid she might run away?) and are applying the shari’ah to the Olympics.

      THAT is what they are protesting – not the Olympics but the APPLICATION OF SHARI’AH to the rules of the Olympics.

      The German rower’s boyfriend is not a friend of the islam/left-wing pc – so she was made an example of.

  11. شما زنان که حرات بالای 37 درجه را تجربه می کنید .در حقیقت حق باشماست حجاب وسیله ای دست وپاگیر برای شماو مشتریان مردتان خواهد بود وهست . من نیز به نوبه خودم از شما وتفکرتان حمایت میکنم .شماها بایستی با پوشیدن یک سارافون ساده بدون کرست وشرت (سوتین)همیشه ودر همه حال در خدمت به مردان از خود هرزه تر قرار بگیرید ..ارادتمند شما راست مرد

    1. Maryam, I don’t want to seem rude to our guest, but it seems they are being rude to us by not writing in English. If they are evangelizing they are wasting their time because the only thing understandable to those of us who don’t know what the scribbles say is the number 37, which makes them easier to ignore than Xian evangelists (except for maybe you and a few others, because you know the language). However, if they are sharing thoughts about what you posted, then the only one who can understand is you and maybe a few others, which is also rude, but maybe that’s what they want. Personally, I think it’s rude to post in a language other than what the majority are speaking, because it prevents others from responding if they want to participate in the conversation, that is. If their English poor, then why are they bothering to say anything without fully comprehending? Maybe to troll? The scribbles still don’t help that much. Then again, they might be hoping you are the only one who can read their scribbles, which is still rude, IMO. If a private message is what they want, maybe they should try emailing you. Anyway…

      Is it too much to request that those who reply to your blog posts to respond in the common language of the post and comments, so that everyone can understand and comment in return, if they want? I mean, if you posted in Persian and everyone else was writing in Persian, I wouldn’t comment, because I wouldn’t have a clue about the conversation and would leave the conversation to those who do understand and can participate in the conversation. I would also assume you were directing the post at those who understand Persian, not to English speakers/writers.

      It doesn’t seem to contribute much to the conversation if they don’t write in the common language and seems quite rude, IMO, especially when you post in English to begin with.

      1. I’m going to be more blunt than miriam: use English or go away. It absolutely IS rude to turn up and start writing in another language, unless you randomly find that one of the other posters is the same nationality and you write a few words in your shared language. It’s especially rude to use a completely different script.

        I even put the post through Google Translate and it came up with gibberish.

        1. How do you know they can write English well? Everyone in the world isn’t fluent in English. Writing it is much harder than reading it. I think it’s better to participate than not participate at all.

          1. I know some Spanish and my spelling is so bad in Spanish, that I have a Spanish dictionary in one hand and when I email someone in Spanish I make it clear that my Spanish is muy malo. However, if I were to post on a Spanish blog, I would at least try to post in their language and not English. I also state that my mother tongue is not Spanish and for forgiveness if I err. It’s just polite.

          2. Not everyone feels as comfortable as you in trying to use languages foreign to them. In fact, I don’t feel comfortable doing it because when I try to speak languages I’m not fluent in, I get ridiculed, so I avoid doing it. You’re the one being rude here for insisting that everyone speak in English. You come off like one of those right-wing Republicans insisting that people can only speak English.

      2. I find it rude to assume they’re evangelizing just because they’re speaking a different language and I find it rude to call someone rude for speaking a different language when they’re probably doing it because they don’t write English well.

        Are there some rules about English use only here?

        1. Obviously, they know some English or they would not comment. I just think it is polite to at least try to speak the language the original poster is using.

          1. Not everyone feels as comfortable as you in trying to use languages foreign to them. In fact, I don’t feel comfortable doing it because when I try to speak languages I’m not fluent in, I get ridiculed, so I avoid doing it. You’re the one being rude here for insisting that everyone speak in English. You come off like one of those right-wing Republicans insisting that people can only speak English.

          2. @Joe Blow I’m not a Repooplican and never voted as such. I’m not insisting everyone speak English. All I’m saying is, if the blogger posts in said language and everyone else is speaking said language, then the polite thing to do is to speak the same language so everyone understands. Either that or someone needs to translate. I don’t suppose you can translate, can you? How can you converse with someone who can’t or won’t speak your language without an interpreter? Personally, I would like to converse with the person, but I can’t because I have no clue what they are saying. Ignoring someone is also rude and to speak another language when the majority are not using that language hinders conversation and that is rude. I’m hardly being rude by requesting someone write in the common form so everyone can converse and it is rude not to speak in the language that is being used because it is not conducive to conversation. No one has responded to his comment, so how is that contributing? If he has something interesting to say, I’d like to know and since you insist on one person speaking a different language, then would you mind translating? Google Translate never translates in a manner that is not gibberish and I doubt he meant his comment to come off like that. Thus, why not translate, since you insist he may speak whatever language he wants so we can converse with him, because I’d like to know what he is saying and if I something to respond with, I’d like to respond. Thank you for your time and effort to translate.

          1. Like I said, the person probably is unable to communicate confidently in English, so the person isn’t. It isn’t up to you to tell people how to communicate. The only one being impolite is you.

          2. @Joe Blow Bueno, entonces voy a hablar español y se niegan a hablar Inglés

            Vaya, esto le da un nuevo significado a la Torre de Babel.

            Otra vez, tradusca por favor.

  12. I am utterly astounded at how many people on this thread are suffering under the delusion that it’s a crime for a woman to “run around,” “shriek wildly” and “aggressively” “like a lunatic.” And with tits, no less! How dare she.

    I’d be amazed if this kind of language has ever been used to describe men protesting.

    1. The tits are irrelevant.

      Find me an example of men doing the same thing and I’ll happily use the same language.

      And I think you’ll find that breaching the peace is a crime, assuming these women were even charged when they got to the police station.

      1. Umm .. have you ever watched a UAF protest in action?
        Running, shouting, throwing bottles and bricks – at one such protest (against free speech) there were hundreds and only 2 were arrested.

  13. I’m sorry Maryam. I’m a supporter of yours, and may well agree with what these women were protesting about if I could tell, but this was plainly just an incoherent publicity stunt which seemed to have no objective other than to get arrested and try to make capital out of that. Your claims of police brutality are ludicrous.

  14. KM, your dhimwit taqiyya garbage is so fun to read. Nobody here is falling for it … mmmmk? My guess is that had this been Muslim women protesting FOR Islam, you’d be completely supportive and be screeching against the police.

    1. What’s taqiyya? Could you stick to English please?

      If you’re assuming that I’m Muslim, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a white English atheist with centrist liberal political beliefs. I abhor the idea that Sharia law might be forced onto anyone.

      And who’s “noone”? 80-90% of the people posting here agree with me that the protest was silly and counterproductive, and that the police were far from brutal and in fact highly professional.

      If you want to debate, then please debate and pick out my points and explain why you disagree with them, or make new points and explain your reasoning behind them. Don’t just turn up and insult me, giving no reasons or justification. It just makes you look foolish.

        1. lol! 🙂

          (I’m guessing you’re joking as your comments have mostly been along the similar lines to mine!)

        2. lol! 🙂

          (I’m guessing you’re joking as your comments have mostly been along similar lines to mine!)

        1. Thanks Ozzy for that interesting & informative link. It just goes to show how unhinged by hate and ignorance Islamophobes are that one of them assumes that a white English atheist with an Irish name is a Muslim just because he doesn’t share the same bigoted hateful views!

          The similarities between Islamophobes now and antisemites in the early 20th Century is growing, and worrying.

  15. Where’s the police brutality? Yet again another incoherent blog post. Seems to be the rule here rather than the exception.

    At least we got to see some boob.

  16. Oh no! Women in 2012 going topless and making a point about some fascist, misogynist regimes? Women protesting for women’s right around the world? It has long ceased to amaze me how many of you come up with such very gooooood reasons to support the suppression of such protests and sentiments. I doubt there have ever been as many good reasons for anything else as there are to keep the status quo for women with all its disadvantages and cruelty in many places.
    I would want to see any man arrested from now on that runs around topless in the UK please as otherwise I think that we have a real problem of misogyny on our hands. And to all those who come up now with the claim that there is a difference, well then you haven’t understood the first thing about EQUALITY. And why don’t you and your police buddies go into any cornershop and start covering up the endless display of bare breasts on front pages of newspapers and magazines? I bet none of you has ever uttered a word about that.

    1. Did you actually read any of the above comments?

      There isn’t a single person who has disagreed with the subject of the protest or with the right to protest about it at the Olympics.

      Pray explain though, how the police and bystanders were supposed to understand what the protest was about? As far as I can tell, the whole thing only makes sense in the context of the above blog.

      If the protest made any sense and wasn’t so fast and aggressive then I would agree with you. It didn’t make sense though, so I don’t.

      1. I didn’t realize the right to protest included a “must make sense to police or random bystanders” clause. Making up new rules for women: hey, why not!

        1. Firstly, a protest that makes no sense is pointless and only serves to annoy people. It’s not illegal, it’s just idiotic.

          Secondly, I think you’ll find that the right is for PEACEFUL protest. You can’t run around yelling nonsense in a public place and expect the authorities not to stop you just because you’re protesting. Especially if your protest is so bizarre that it’s not obviouse you’re a protester in the first place.

          As I said in another post there is already a law against breaching the peace. Noone’s making up laws. Your implication of sexism is just silly.

          1. Just because a protest isn’t peaceful doesn’t mean it’s violent – that’s like saying that a person who isn’t silent is noisy.
            A disruptive, aggressive protest may not be violent but it isn’t peaceful. Such protests are only justifiable when truly peaceful protests are suppressed, and that didn’t happen.

    1. So are you saying that whenever people run around aggressively shouting nonsense, the police should just stand by and watch and wait until someone gets hurt?

      As for showing respect, if the girls had shown the police some respect instead of running around aggressively shouting nonsense like a bunch of lunatics then I’m sure the police would have shown some respect in return.

      It’s people like you criticising the police whenever they do their job and maintain public order that makes them afraid to take action when needed, resulting in situations like last year’s riots. I don’t know what country you’re from but in the UK we believe in policing by public consent. The police have my consent to arrest anyone who runs around shouting like an aggressive lunatic anytime.

      If those girls had just calmly taken their clothes off, unveiled some placards and done some chanting then I doubt they’d have been arrested at all. The police response was entirely proportionate – if a bunch of guys took off their tops and ran around shouting aggressively, what do you think the response would have been? That’s right, they’d have been arrested.

      1. “If those girls had just calmly taken their clothes off, unveiled some placards and done some chanting then I doubt they’d have been arrested at all.”

        Their protest might make more sense then, esp with the placards, and add more meaning to it. Meaningless protests do little to change things, but meaningful ones might help change things. The placards would inform people what the women are protesting and maybe get people to think. As is, it meant nothing an said nothing because the protest didn’t tell anyone what it was about. Might as well go back to the the 70s with streakers suddenly running down the street- “Don’t look, Ethel!” I never understood that either and no one could explain it to me, except, “Oh they’re just running down the street naked.” Meaning, not even the adults knew what it was about.

  17. Dear Maryam

    Your comment about the police being brutal is nonsense. In fact, the video of the arrest would be suitable for training police officers how to take a resisting individual into custody with a minimum of injury to the person arrested and the officers making the arrest.

    Protesting sharia law is essential to keeping the crap out of Western societies. If the women want to protest sharia law, good on them, but yelling incoherent nonsense and being a nuisance won’t get their message across.


  18. This wasn’t much of a protest. The slogans were unintelligible gibberish. The methods were not intended to communicate anything comprehensible to passersby. The only possible effect that this protest could generate was a strong police response, which they got.

    Suppose the police had not reacted in any way? Suppose they had permitted this handful of people to wander around half naked shouting gibberish? What new understanding of the dangers of sharia would the people in the area come away with? None. What political action would they be considering? None. They would more likely come to the conclusion that a carload of schizophrenics was wandering the area.

    1. I have to agree, Jim. It made no sense, even to me, who protests religious oppression of women and the 1% (WASP rich males et al) oppressing the 99% (the rest of us not rich), and other human injustices. It is not clear at all what is happening in the video or what is being protested.

  19. I abhor Sharia and am generally very supportive of Maryam Namazi’s campaign. However, this particular protest was completely counterproductive. Everyone with any sense knows that a woman baring her breasts and shrieking wildly and aggressively will be arrested, especially at an Olympic venue where security concerns are understandably incredibly high. And then to attempt to make capital out of an obviously false and desperate claim of police brutality: I watched the whole video and there was no police brutality at all. The police behaved professionally, talking calmly to the woman and restraining her and then cradling her head gently to prevent her bashing it on the ground. They covered her breasts, obviously to protect her from the many photographers attempting to take salacious pictures; that was to their credit. For Maryam Namazi to call the arrest ‘brutal’ and to claim that this makes them the moral counterparts of repressive Islamic police is truly pathetic.

    I am very disappointed in Maryam Namazi. I have been seriously considering whether to give financial support to her campaign, such is my strong objection to Sharia. As a measure of how counterproductive her reaction to this protest has been, I’m afraid to say that I will now look for alternative, more rational organisations to support (perhaps the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science).

    PS – Hand cuffs help protect the police, members of the public and, potentially, also the person who is cuffed, while also preventing an incident from escalating. They do not cause injury, only perhaps a little chaffing if the cuffed person resists, and are used when a member of the public is resisting arrest, i.e. they were used appropriately in this instance.

      1. They’re not. Running around aggressively shouting nonsense like a lunatic is.

        As I said in another comment:

        “If those girls had just calmly taken their clothes off, unveiled some placards and done some chanting then I doubt they’d have been arrested at all. The police response was entirely proportionate – if a bunch of guys took off their tops and ran around shouting aggressively, what do you think the response would have been? That’s right, they’d have been arrested.”

          1. I’m not an expert in protest history so no, I don’t have any precedents to hand.

            So yes, I am making an assumption, but just as much as you are in assuming that these women were arrested for showing their breasts. I don’t think they were. Neither of us has any way of proving otherwise without a male comparison or without speaking to the arresting officers.

          2. It looked like you were responding to my post, no? At least with your previous comment asking for me to post links of comparable protests involving men.

  20. Islam is NOT a religion! Any alleged religion that has as a tenet of its faith; conversion, dhimmitude, or death, is a totalitarianism. We spent the bulk of the last century fighting totalitarianism in the guise of Fascism and Communism, should we accept this ism without a fight?

    1. Don’t be absurd. Have you actually read the Bible, especially the bits in the Old Testament condoning ethnic cleansing? Your argument could be equally applied to Judaism and Christianity. I also suggest that you read up on the Crusades. Before Christians raped and pillaged the Islamic world, Islamic culture was highly tolerant of other religions and allowed Christians and Jews to practice their own beliefs unmolested. It was Christianity that introduced intolerance to Islam.

      I am disturbed by the anti-Islamic bigotry that is becoming more and more prevalent in the West. Masking such bigotry with moral concern for those who live under oppressive Islamic regimes does not make such bigotry acceptable.

      1. @Kieran Madden: Re your comments about the bible.

        You are correct, the torah and the bible both contain fascistic, misogynistic ideologies on which Muhammad based his quoran.
        All three so-called Abrahamic religions worship a god who claims to have created women to serve men. Albeit not necessarily the same god.

        However, I am unable to understand why this means that protesting against any of these religions is a bad thing.
        Any women who fails to denunciate a religion designed to keep her submissive and enslaved must be a masochist.

        1. I never said that the women shouldn’t have been making a protest on the subject they chose. They can protest about whatever they want to protest about as far as I’m concerned.

          What I take issue with is their weird and counterproductive methods, and Namazie’s attempt to twist the actions of the police to make them appear brutal when they were anything but,

          And as an atheist, I have no issue with people protesting or criticising religion in general, whether abrahamic or otherwise.

          I do however take issue with people such as sapperdustfield picking on one particular religion, and all believers in that religion, as somehow being worse than the others, and somehow fundamentally evil. Surely the darkest period of 20th Century history has taught us not to make that mistake?

          Attack fundamentalists, attack bigots, attack misogynists in all their guises and all their religions by all means. But don’t isolate an entire sector of society and demonise them. To do so is to go down a dark and dangerous path and to become far worse than those you’re criticising.

          1. most religious laws only apply to members of that religion – shari’ah law applies to everyone (at least according to muslims).

  21. Oh come off it.

    The British police can’t win.

    When they do something about nutters running around breaching the peace, they’re being brutal and oppressive.

    When they let a situation run its course, they’re weak and too soft.

    The vast minority of British police officers are good, honourable men and women trying to do a difficult job in difficult circumstances where pleasing everyone is often impossible. Put yourself in their shoes. A bunch of women start running around shoting aggressively at the Olympic park where security concerns are very high, shouting a nonsensical slogan that provides no clue what they were protesting about. You try to restrain them but they resist (and they WERE resisting). What else are you going to do, when your first duty is to protect the public?

    This was a stunt that had the intention from the outset to make our police look bad. The protesters didn’t give many clues about what they were protesting about (running around naked shouting “kill a generation” could mean anything, but most people are going to come to the conclusion that the protesters are just nutters). Our police have sometimes behaved in a shameful manner but this was not one of those occasions – they clearly did their best to restrain these women in the best way possible, minimising the risk of injury to the women and to the officers.

    Comparing what the British police did to Islamic morality police is nothing less than insulting hyperbole. Protesting against extremist interpretations of Sharia law is a worthy cause but this stunt was silly and counterproductive.

    1. The cops are just enforcing the law here. The politicians make the laws. The people elect the politicians. I’m not a fan of cops, but I don’t see them using unreasonable force here.

  22. What is the young woman screaming? It sounds like something Russia, but I can’t understand what she is yelling. Does anyone understand what she shouted from the start of the video and her arrest too?

      1. OK. It might help the protest was made more meaningful- that is the reasons for the protest made more clear and obvious to more people. Seems to me the Occupy movement, which I appreciated, was a little more clear than this one. If it was in retaliation to Islamic oppression of women, it wasn’t very clear, from my perspective at least. If no one said this is what this protest is about or insinuated that that is what the protest was about, I would have no clue what the women were protesting, esp in the video. As some may know, I’m all for fighting religious oppression, esp of women, but I think it needs to be made clear that that is what a protest, whether it is in writing, a statement, action etc is about in order to gain support for the protesting. As is, the video in and of itself is confusing, as well as what she is allegedly shouting in the video. Without more input or Maryam’s explanation, it makes one wonder who killed a generation and why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.