For starters no one knows quite what a jilbab is. You see the Koran describes it as a dress to cover the dirty women who are menstruating during Eid but there are no corroborative artefacts from the 7th century to back this up.
The dress that Begum’s brother wants her to wear is simply a “best guess” by a certain sect of Muslims designed in the ancient year of – 1970. No one is quite sure if between the 7th century and 1970 Muslim women wore anything like this at all. We cannot even remember if the well dressed oppressed lady in 1969 wore anything described in the Koran.
But it gets better. Not only does this modern version of a dress no one ever remembers hail from the decade that style forgot, but that this was introduced by the sect called the “Muslim Brotherhood”.
Yup, the same sect that fought alongside the Palestinians against Israel. The same sect that is banned in Egypt because if its stated aim of imposing Sharia law. The same sect that attempted to assassinate Nasser in 1954. The same sect that gave birth (to among others) al-Jihad and Hamas. That is – a sect that is as fundamentalist as you can get.
He also, correctly, highlights the fact that the whole case has been initiated by Begum's brother, who feels that the school dress, itself a compromise between the dresses of three other religions, in not "modest" enough.
RFS also highlights the fact that Cherie Blair, apart from being the closest thing that we have to a human pillarbox, is also a filthy, money-grubbing hypocrite with morals slightly more grubby than that of the proverbial alley-cat. No, it's not news, just more evidence..,
Yet we find the Victimhood Pyramid® in full effect here. We have a girl who is being oppressed by a male member of the family yet that most famous of Her Majesties Counsel Miss Cherie “Blair” Booth is not concerned with the civil rights of a vulnerable girl but of those of her brother who happens to be a member of the favourite victim group. Booth represents the girl (on the orders of her brother) to get the jilbab accepted as part of the uniform yet speaks in a personal capacity on her years of fighting the feminist cause. As we must assume that she was instructed in the case and that she chose to take it on for the money it is highlighting yet another hypocrite on the Left.
So, quite rightly, RFS has a nice little pop at feminists in general.
Feminists have been remarkably quite over the abhorrent treatment of women in Islamic society. They are constantly whining about glass ceilings and maternity pay yet have yet to say anything of any note on how half a billion men in the world treat their women on instructions from their holy book.
It's because they are too busy money-grubbing, RFS. Feminism was always an "it's about me" religion anyway, related to socialism in that it is a "I want what that person's got" movement*. Given the stark choice between campaigning for more of the filthy lucre and campaigning against the filthy Islamofascist religious practices, naturally they will go for the one which provides a return on the effort expended.
Besides, it's so difficult for oppressed groups to fight against other oppressed groups, especally if the latter are a minority: look at Tatchell's inability to understand Sir Sick-ball Sacranie's pronouncements on gays.
Mr Tatchell, the founder of OutRage!, added: "Both the Muslim and gay communities suffer prejudice and discrimination. We should stand together to fight Islamophobia and homophobia."
Anyway, finally RFS lays out the bare facts.
Meanwhile a girl is fighting to wear the religious garb of a fascist organisation in a public building.
Which cause should right-thinking liberals be throwing their weight behind?
Which side indeed?
* Braces himself for attack by many thousands of handbags...