Bare-headed TV anchor sparks anger

Bare-headed TV anchor sparks anger

The unprecedented appearance of a female newsreader on Saudi state television without a headscarf has caused a scandal in the lunatic Islamic state.

The unnamed anchor, who has previously worn a hijab in clips circulated online, was reading a bulletin from London for the Al Ekhbariya channel.
Strict Islamic dress codes in Saudi Arabia require women to dress “modestly” – usually with headscarves, veils and full-length abayas.

While women do sometimes appear without head coverings in programmes broadcast by state-controlled channels, newsreaders are never seen without the hijab.
Saleh Al Mughailif, a spokesman for Saudi radio and television, told Al Tawasul news the correspondent was reading the news from the broadcaster’s British studio.

She was not in a studio inside Saudi Arabia and we do not tolerate any transgression of our values and the country’s systems.

He promised that all measures would be taken to ensure there is no repeat of the incident after many viewers expressed outrage.

Al Ekhbariya, which has offices in the Middle East, Europe and America, is known for its use of female anchors after having its maiden broadcast in 2004 presented by the country’s first female news presenter.

Social networks in the Saudi kingdom largely commented on the unusual sight of an unveiled woman reading the news, Gulf News reported, and some condemned it as transgression of national traditions.

Others said the issue should not be blown out of proportion or welcomed it as a sign of growing women’s rights.


16 responses to “Bare-headed TV anchor sparks anger”

  1. Dave H says:

    Calm down, calm down. She was not an undercover reporter.

  2. why do i have to share this planet with religious idiots says:

    Brave Lady. I hope she is offered asylum in the UK when the Saudi Spooks grab her and sentence her to obscene levels of physical and mental punishment.

    I know a guy just got back from working in Saudi. He tells me the Saudi authorities are petrified that all the trouble they have sponsored and stirred up around the will be imported back into Saudi in the near future. They are on the cusp of revolution and bloody violence.

  3. Trevor Blake says:

    Her crime was forgetting that the Quran only allows a woman to go unveiled around her family and her slaves. Qur’an (33:55) reads: “It shall be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled.”

    Now regarding the Quran passage that condemns slavery… well, there isn’t one. So it is better to own slaves (not forbidden) than for a woman to go unveiled before non-slaves (forbidden).

    May I now be outraged at this slave cult? Or is it islamophobic to oppose slavery?

  4. barriejohn says:

    The woman was reading the bulletin in a London studio. Why can’t people actually read articles before posting comments?

  5. Matt Westwood says:

    When I worked there in the early 90s, it was de rigueur for Saudi women leaving Saudi Arabia on the plane (plenty of them did) to strip off their bin-bags and facemasks as soon as the plane left Saudi airspace, and continue their flight in conventional Western garb (usually trouser-suits, IIRC). The thinking (correctly) went: if we’re not in Saudi, then the laws of that land no longer apply to us. Everybody knew that. Clearly this newsreader, being in Britain as she was, saw fit to tell it like it is. Obviously it’s more important for Saudi Arabia for the rest of the world to *think* they’re religiously righteous than for them to *be* religiously righteous. And in fact that is precisely the case. They are the custodians of Mecca.

  6. L.Long says:

    “….after many viewers expressed outrage.”
    Of the 3 million muslins, there was this dud and 5 other extreme bigots.
    A real outrage.
    PS: the numbers are made up, just like his outrage.

  7. barriejohn says:

    Matt: When I belonged to the Brethren, younger women were continually harangued by the matriarchal types for “snatching off” their headgear as soon as they left meetings, as they always put it. Some were publicly reduced to tears over the habit (typical loving Christian behaviour, of course), but it just showed that this “subservience” was only endured under sufferance. Those throwing their weight around never seemed to reflect on the fact that any victory that they enjoyed was not really achieving anything at all if attitudes remained unchanged.

  8. Norman Paterson says:

    She was not in a studio inside Saudi Arabia and we do not tolerate any transgression of our values and the country’s systems.

    These are two unrelated assertions. Except that the first is relatively unprovocative while the second is a statement of international intolerance. Why is that acceptable?

  9. Canada Dave says:

    A good thing they do not permit this site to broadcast in Saudi Arabia.
    Would surely end up with their nickers in a twist.

  10. Robster says:

    Jees, if those randy Saudi fellows are getting half a mongrel out of an unbagged newsreader, how do they go with Rupert’s page three girls? To calm down the frisky male population, they need to use the “Strip Poker Plan”, that is to slowly reveal the newsreaders by reducing the covering just a wee bit each night. The first week would be taken up with getting the bobby pins out of the newsreaders up until now unseen hairdo. Then the excitement of getting the big black bag off the newsreader piece by piece could begin with some gentle unstitching. Ratings for the target demographic (men) would shoot up, advertisers would be happy and the girls I’m sure would be happy to be out from under so much clothing in a country where the average temperature is forty degrees Celsius.

  11. Paul Cook says:

    This is an outrage. Why is she working anywhere but the kitchen?

  12. Rob Andrews says:

    How dare they beam their infadel radio signal down on our country!

    OOPS!!!… Maybe it’s our fault for having the dish pointed at the wrong satellite. Or maybe the censor was out to lunch or something.

    Question: What does a good Muslim do when the dishwasher stops working?
    Answer: He slaps her around a bit.

    i won’t even mention the way gays are treated in the Kingdom of saudi Arabia.

  13. Paul Cook says:

    Now Insanity arabia says their men cannot marry certain foreigners.


  14. barriejohn says:

    Paul Cook:

    Comments on the the Pakistani Dawn newspaper site range from accusing the kingdom of racism to suggesting “our women are safe now”. (My emphasis)


  15. Matt Westwood says:

    “Jees, if those randy Saudi fellows are getting half a mongrel out of an unbagged newsreader, how do they go with Rupert’s page three girls?”

    Not a problem. It is taken for granted that non-Muslim women are fair game as the sexual playthings of a Muslim man. They *love* naked “Western” women. It’s only when the woman in question is of Arabic origin (and therefore Muslim (spoing)) that they upset.

  16. Robster says:

    Hello Matt Westwood, I didn’t know that! I thought that muslim men all felt threatened by a mm of female skin or a lock of hair, hoping they may need to not exercise some self restraint which seems to be very difficult for men of that particular religious demographic by insisting the girls wear black bags with a slit.