Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Grab the Popcorn folks!

Keep Calm and wear your hijab

Imagine the scenario, a guy studying at a university asks his professor not to share study groups with any females (why? “because…penis”, obviously). This being a university in a modern western democracy obviously he was told “No”, because that would be sexist, and obviously no male, liberal college professor is going to risk his tenure against the massed hoards of feminists that exist in pretty much every western university.

The problem comes when the student says “because I’m a Muslim”, then all of a sudden the whole liberal ideology comes crashing down around their ankles because two pets of liberalism (feminism and Islam) are now crashing together with their respective demands.

Now, fair play to Professor Paul Grayson of York University in Toronto, because he told the student “No” straight out and in fairness to the student he said “Oh, OK”. The fun part is that the university itself is now telling the Professor that it is not okay and he has to respect the students religious beliefs.

Cue rapidly escalating liberal apocalypse as the inherent contradictions of their support for feminism comes into direct conflict with Muslim totalitarianism, chickens coming home to roost seems an apt metaphor.

Link to CBS Canada Report

*crunch* *crunch* – Hmm! Tasty!


  1. RAB says:

    Real live Wimmin with Is-shoes trump a belief in the ravings of an imaginary Sky Fairy in my book. But then I am not reading from the same book, am I?

    The only Equality I recognise is the Equality of Opportunity. Outcomes will differ from person to person obviously.

    The Professor is right and the toady creeps in the administration are wrong… one so called Human Right should not be given greater weight than another, either they are Universal or they are nothing at all.

    I look forward to a gutsy lady student at York University demanding to be taught in mixed classes. Then we will see how firm the Left’s love of real Liberalism is.

  2. Cheeryble says:

    Rights are universal?
    Perhaps this reifies them more than is healthy.
    Aren’t rights simply decided on for the good of all….or at least most?
    In which case it would be reasonable to give an order of precedence? (Guess what mine would be)

  3. Cheeryble says:

    So you’re not kept in suspense:
    1. Anyone who refuses to be in class with a woman can go elsewhere.
    2. Any Muslim refusing 1 is shown the door, hopefully with a kcik in the arse.
    3. A word in support of any moderates in Iran who have no reason to do other than detest the governments who overthrew their democratically elected Mossadeq, the segue being that Iran has a particularly eloquent female university population….despite the fact I think they should all turn around one day to the men…handing them their purdah-gear…..and say “OK it’s your turn for a thousand years!!”

  4. John Galt says:

    RAB – Not sure that I agree with you. It is not equality of opportunity that is the founding principle, for that is the bastion of male privilege and you are clearly an oppressor, with your penis and male privilege :-)

    Why should faggotry, feminism or Islam get to trump civil rights for all regardless of gender, race, religion or whatever?

    Why should a minority alien religion, that I find offensive be able to dictate terms at the point of a gun over western civilisation?

    As Homer Simpson famously said:

    “Did we lose a War? ‘cos that ain’t America.
    That ain’t even Mexico!”

  5. John Galt says:


    How’s about an even simpler rule?

    Your religion (whatever it is), doesn’t trump my civil rights and my only civil right is to do whatever the hell I please and my only civil responsibility is to accept the consequences.

    The problem with creating numerous rights and responsibilities for various groups, genders, religions, whatever is that they play one off against another as we are seeing here with feminists versus Muslims.

    Better to portray blind justice and say “all are equal before the law” and then the various biases (gender, race, religion, etc.) become moot.

    However, this would also require that legislation be unbiased as well, which is clearly isn’t at the present time.

  6. Lynne says:

    Better to portray blind justice and say “all are equal before the law” and then the various biases (gender, race, religion, etc.) become moot.

    Perfectly reasonable. Which is precisely why we ain’t got it.

  7. John Galt says:


    Do you imagine this ridiculous state of affairs can continue much longer? Because the house of cards is crumbling.

    This is just the latest in a myriad of previous examples and it might be the most recent, but it is not the worst. Reality is like gravity, the liberals of this world might choose to legislate against or opt-out from gravity, but gravity, like reality will ignore any such impositions.

    In a world gone mad, what template can define sanity?

  8. RAB says:

    Penis envy? Moi? I thought that was a Wimmin’s thing? I admit I wish mine was a tad longer and stouter, but I have never been tempted to stick it in a glass tube and vacuum pump it, as suggested by various spam e-mails I have received. ;-)

    Yes Blind Justice is what I was groping towards… The stuff I was taught in Law School many years ago, but has now been thrown out in favour of a spurious quest for “Equality” which perversly makes us all the more unequal.

    The Human Rights industry is completely out of control. It is a licence to make it up as you go along. If you are offended by anything at any time and anywhere, it is your “Right” to persecute the alleged offender without any regard to objective fact whatsoever. And without objectivity and universality (no exemptions allowed whatsoever for gender, Religion, political bias) our Laws are fucked, and we along with them. Ipso Facto, at this point in time, and for the forseeable future, we are fucked.

  9. Johnnydub says:

    This just process how incoherent the whole equality bullshit is – it’s isn’t equality, it’s a hierarchy.

    Muslim rights trump feminism. Black rights trump feminism (e.g. feminists ignore rap music). Black rights trump gay rights (e.g. Black homophobia is ignored)

    It’s just like diversity. Does this mean tolerance of a diversity of points of view? Does it fuck. There is only opinion (pro multiculturalism, welfare, immigration etc.) that is allowed.

    It’s all just bullshit.

  10. CountingCats says:


    If rights are not universal they become nothing but entitlements.

  11. John – it is a fatal contradiction, but only if the left are sincere.

    At the low levels them may be – at the high levels they are not.

    The Frankfurt School (the inventors of cultural Marxism) never were sincere – the concern for various “victim groups” (women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities – whoever) was just a means-to-an-end. German industrial workers had “failed” the Revolution – so replacement groups were needed. Needed as tools to attack the “capitalist West” with.

    If reason indicates that some of these “victim groups” contradict (for example feminism and Islamism) so much the worse for reason – it is just “capitalist” reason (the National Socialists played the trick by dismissing logical reasoning as “Jewish reason”), it does not matter (only the collectivist cause matters. Edward Said (the old Frankfurt School were a bit wary of Muslims, partly because many of them were Jewish, Edward Said was the man who really made Muslims the most favoured new “victim group”) would have (he was still alive) no problem with this – he even lied about his own life (all of it). And based his entire academic life on a grand reversal of the truth – taking the word “Orientalist” (which actually meant someone who respected other cultures – who thought they had value) into someone who despised and undermined other cultures to further evil-Western-Imperialism. Said would have no problem at all in pretending that Islam and feminism were compatible.

    What is the most P.C. nation on Earth? Sweden is – and in Sweden most (NOT all) “feminists” actually help COVER UP the Islamic immigrant rape epidemic. Feminists who help COVER UP rapes, who down play them – think about that. They are not sincere (not in a “capitalist logic” sense) – everything is secondary to the Progressive “cause”.

    Remember “Double Think” was not invented by George Orwell – Plato detailed it.

    For the purposes of navigation we will teach that the planets move, but we will also teach that they do not move – and we make the young believe both these things.

    Plato – in what we call “The Republic”.

    Make the young (the university students and so on) pro feminist (and pro Gay Rights) and pro Muslims – all at the same time?


    “But this is irrational – contradictory”.

    That is just “capitalist logic”. All problems are due to the rich and big business;

  12. RAB says:

    Would that Germaine Greer was living at this hour!

    Oh fuck, she is! I won’t hold my breath for The Female Imam to hit the bookstands then.

  13. John Galt says:


    Penis envy? Moi? I thought that was a Wimmin’s thing?

    Yes, quite correct. I changed that when I realised, getting my feminism mixed up with my Freud. You’ve still clearly got a penis though and as a member of the male patriarchy that is oppressing the divine goddess that is a modern feminist then you are clearly just another rapist (because all men are rapists) attempting to deny your privilege and maintain your oppression. :-)

    @Paul Marks:

    What is the most P.C. nation on Earth? Sweden is – and in Sweden most (NOT all) “feminists” actually help COVER UP the Islamic immigrant rape epidemic. Feminists who help COVER UP rapes, who down play them – think about that.

    Not only have I thought about it, I am constantly amazed by it and the deliberate lack of coverage afforded to events such as the rape and murder of Elin Krantz (a pro-immigration activist) by, you guessed it an Ethiopian immigrant who was given refuge in Sweden. Most Swedish papers didn’t even mention his name or picture (since that would have given the game away) and simply referred to him as a 23-year old.

    This is the same Sweden which in 2005, seriously discussed a Pigovian tax on the externalities of the Y-chromosome to pay for wymin’s shelters and other such nonsense. Fortunately for the average Swedish bloke, the legislation was derided (even in Sweden), but it probably will be passed one day if the radical feminists have anything to do with it.

    Islam and feminism may not be good bedfellows, but they certainly deserve each other.

  14. The Tutor was offered a 4 year Scholarship to attend York University back in the mid 70s. He declined – apparently it’s fucking cold up there at the Steeles Avenue Campus. He attended The University of Toronto instead.

    Personally, I would have asked the male student to define ‘female’ while including:
    Swyer Syndrome?
    5-Alpha Reductase deficiency?
    Androgen insensitivity syndrome?
    X, Y Chromosome Aneuploidy?

    These interesting ‘genders’ always flummox the christian god-botherers. No reason why they wouldn’t confuse the allah-botherers too.

  15. John Galt says:

    Personally, I would have asked the male student to define ‘female’

    Sorry, but that’s bullshit CJCA!

    That’s basically saying you accept in principle, just need to agree the terms and conditions.

    The professor was right first time “NO!”, because you don’t give ground on principles – EVER!, because as soon as you do you create a mechanism for cretins from every walk of life to make their own rules that only apply to them.

    It’s that sort of double-think / cognitive dissonance that got us into the fucked-up situation in the first place.

  16. “…..That’s basically saying you accept in principle, just need to agree the terms and conditions…..”

    The exact opposite! I do not accept it at all. I agree with you and the professor’s first response – even though he’s a loser from York University. I am merely stating that these religious idiots define something – male or female – which is not definable, though their religion states it is so! Once the Muslim/Christian understood what Swyer Syndrome is, I’d ask it, “Is this person male or female?” No matter how they answer, I’ll show them the other gender is equally valid. My point is that there is no gender. And defining a gender is wrong. A slightly bi-modal distribution is all there is.
    And use the phrase “sterculian rhetoric” instead of the word, “bullshit”, looks classier.

    “………because you don’t give ground on principles – EVER!…….”

    I’m not too sure about this. What if the principles change? Do you ‘give ground then?
    “Four legs good. Two legs bad”


    “Four legs good. Two legs better”

    What if the change is made retroactive? – former heroes become villains, or vice versa. What if it becomes obvious that the premise upon which the principles are based is flawed? Is it giving ground or changing the principle when change is effected? Giving ground is sometimes prudent if you attain a higher better ground, Innit?
    Besides, this is all academic
    There are but two truths/facts:
    The Laws of Physics, those we currently understand and those we have yet to understand and the truth and beauty of mathematics.
    Everything else, EVERYTHING else, is anthropogenic rubbish.

  17. Mr Ed says:

    And, may I ask, who is paying for all of this?

  18. RAB says:

    What did you NOT understand about the principle of saying NO to one who would be called a carping whining little Misogynist in any other circumstances, but because he plays the “cos I is a Muslim..” card, you would possibly contemplate making an exception for him?

    A principle as basic as that warrants no exception whatsoever. Not on gender, race, colour or grounds of political affiliation.

  19. The Tutor is Canadian, and I have been here in Canada for a few years. Canadians fear, above all things, terrorism. This is just the beginning. We should wait and see how far certain ‘special’ groups push for ‘Special Status’ in The Great White North of the Canadas. The construct, “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.” is foreign to the citizen of Soviet Canuckistan – these puck-slapping, maple-syrup swilling moose-mounters will trade all freedom for a false promise of security.

    John Galt,
    On further reflection, I do understand how you would think I meant what you thought I meant. The problem was with me – I failed to elucidate well enough. Apologies.

  20. John Galt says:


    “On further reflection, I do understand how you would think I meant what you thought I meant. The problem was with me – I failed to elucidate well enough. Apologies.”

    No apology necessary, we’ve all been so indoctrinated by our various liberal education systems in the double-think of multicultural propaganda that even the best of us struggle to clear through the fog and say “No! Sometimes it is black and white and there can be no exceptions”, especially to Rule #34.

    If Counting Cats exists for anything, it is to throw back the veil on the consequences of an overbearing state and to shine a light into the dark corners of the world.

  21. Mr Ed says:

    In the UK, the law would analyse the situation as follows: a Muslim student is complaining of indirect discrimination as the Uni has imposed a condition, male and female co-education, which is a practice with which the Muslim cannot comply (without violating his religious beliefs).

    The law in the UK never permits direct discrimination on the grounds of sex, e.g. Barring women from classes because they are women (but it does allow female only or male only jobs for domestic carers etc. as a genuine occupational requirement) so the Uni cannot bar women from groups without directly discriminating against them unlawfully, so the practice of segregating groups would never be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (Unlike a strength test for infantry soldiers etc.).

    When it comes to religious belief, such beliefs are surely ultimately voluntary. You choose to believe X, and claims rights accordingly, which is nonsense. I would ask the student to prove what would happen to him if he were to violate his beliefs.

  22. John Galt says:

    I must admit Mr. Ed, that as a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic I have a bit of a disconnect with regard to those who are persons-of-faith, but I don’t think that my lack of faith should allow me to impose my essentially secular views on them any more than they should be allowed to impose their religious views on me, live-and-let-live is a pretty good principle in life.

    What does annoy me is when we get preferential treatment for various groups and find activists and trouble-makers playing one group off against the other for fun and profit.

    In actual fact the most egregious examples of this aren’t the traditional religions, but pseudo-one’s such as Scientology (a tax dodge for L. Ron Hubbard disguised as a religion) and the Westboro Baptist Church whose primary income is the fees earned through its legal challenges.

    These organisations only exist because of the legislation that enables them.

  23. Paul Marks says:

    The latest twist is that various American academics (and European ones also) are attacking the IDF for NOT raping people.

    You see to rape means you regard the victim as a fellow human (according to the latest twist of P.C. ism) whereas the evil Jews are so RACIST that they do not feel sexual attraction for Muslim women – and thus do not rape them (as a normal decent people would) seeing them as nonhumans.

    Thus when Islamists rape people in Norway and Sweden it shows they are integrating – in a very literal way.

    Whereas the lack of rapes by the evil Jews proves how racist they are.

    It all makes perfect sense…..,,,

    If one is a P.C. academic.

    Give the academics more taxpayer money – you know you want to.

  24. CountingCats says:


    Do you have a reference for that?

  25. John Galt says:


    It’s true and relates to a paper (in Hebrew unfortunately for most of the Goyim here), produced in 2007/2008 by graduate student Tal Nitzan under the tutelage of her PhD advisors led by Zali Gurevitch. Very difficult to find reliable sources in the wider mainstream media :-)

    However, if you really think about it from the Bizarro world viewpoint of the leftists, it makes perfect sense and isn’t really much of a revelation, because the alternative viewpoint would be to accept that members of the IDF don’t rape Arab women because they are decent people and that couldn’t possibly be true. :-)

    The best I could find was the article from the Jewish Press, which the leftists would have us believe is the Israeli reincarnation of the Völkischer Beobachter, given its conservative editorial policy.

    Guilty By Reason Of Innocence: New Insanity From Israel’s Academic Leftists (Jewish Press)

    Ex-Israeli Soldier Denounced on US Campus for Not Raping Palestinian Women

    Complete Story of No Rape = Racism Essay

  26. @CJCA:

    “On further reflection, I do understand how you would think I meant what you thought I meant. The problem was with me – I failed to elucidate well enough. Apologies.”

    No apology necessary, we’ve all been so indoctrinated by our various liberal education systems in the double-think of multicultural propaganda that even the best of us struggle to clear through the fog and say “No!

    I have not been indoctrinated by any liberal education system. I am from Myanmar, and from the Ruling Class thereof. For instance Aung San Suu Kyi is nowt but a Cacausoid-lovin’ whore! My failure to elucidate was not because of a lack of understanding of the concepts in play, Left or Right leanings, or some pernicious Western cultural manipulation, but simply because the Queen’s is not my mother tongue, and I suspect I do not communicate well in/with it. I do believe I still have not explained my point adequately, because had I done so, you would know I am not at all ‘indoctrinated’. Suffice it to say, we are in agreement, though I still believe you are the indoctrinated Librul wanker here, compared to me at least.

    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
    Senator Barry Goldwater

    From my point-of-view, Mr. Goldwater was a bleeding-heart Librul! I am not being flippant either. My politics and World View will become evident as the coming weeks and months unfold. I can’t help but think that Mr. Mohamed Atta would have agreed with Mr. Goldwater’s Cow Palace remonstration above. Granted, Mr. Atta would have defined ‘liberty’ very differently(“Liberty” to surrender to Allah perhaps), but I can see him quoting that, followed quickly by “Allah Akbar”, just as the plane hit and he was vapourised.

Leave a Reply