Buried at the bottom of an article about a new trial (on new terrorism charges) for the jihadist murderer of Theo Van Gogh comes the interesting news that women who can't get jobs in Holland because they refuse to doff their burkas may now face cuts in unemployment benefits.
This is eminently sensible. The dole was created for those who cannot work because of disabilities or some other legitimate impediment, not for those who refuse to accept the mores of the society in which they live.
"New trial looms for Dutch killer," from the BBC, with thanks to Van Impe:
Meanwhile, Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk has proposed a ban on the wearing of Muslim burkas - full-length veils covering the face - in certain public places, to prevent people avoiding identification.
Alarm about Islamist terror has increased in the Netherlands since the Van Gogh murder.A Dutch MP who campaigned with him against radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, defended Mrs Verdonk's plans in a BBC interview.
She told the World Today programme that CCTV cameras, used to help track down terrorists, must continue to reveal suspects' faces.
The CCTV operators "need to see their faces and if you cover your face you cannot be identified".
She said the wearing of masks in the Netherlands was also prohibited except during festivals and under some special circumstances.
She said Muslim women were not obliged to wear the burka, and denied that some burka wearers would be confined to the home.
"We have to find a balance between civil liberties and security - and that debate is raging on in the Netherlands," she said.
Last year several Belgian towns, including Antwerp and Ghent, banned the wearing of the burka in public.
Utrecht benefit cuts
The authorities in the Dutch city of Utrecht have reduced unemployment benefit for women who say their refusal to remove their burkas is preventing them getting jobs.
The measure was prompted by the case of two burka-clad women who said they did not attend job interviews.
Utrecht city council spokeswoman Sylvia Borgman said the 600-euro (£400) per month benefit was initially being cut by 10% in such cases. Further cuts would come if unemployed women continued to wear burkas.
If they will not remove their burkas at job interviews, they should be deprived of all unemployment benefits.
The burka is cultural garb, not religious.
They've immigrated to a new culture and should try to assimilate.
Force them to show where, in the Qur'an or Hadeeth, women are required to wear a burka.
There is no need to deport muslims. Just eliminate ALL the welfare payouts, free food, and free housing and they'll be gone in an New Amsterdam minute. Who would support them, the cheapskate saudis?
I don't know how the Dutch unemployment scheme works, but in Canada you aren't entitled to unemployment benefits unless you have already been working for a stated period of time and you are required to actively seek new employment. And benefits don't run on for an unlimited time period.
Claiming unemployment benefits in order to wear garments as extreme as the burqa, or to avoid coming into any contact with members of the opposite gender are not legitimate grounds upon which to claim unemployment benefits.
Some bloggers here may recall that Theo Van Dyke's murderer left his job and went on benefits because he claimed his religious beliefs required that he avoid coming into contact with women. Not well reported outside of Holland was that the SOB part of a ring that recruited "native" Dutch girls for the production of porn films or prostitution (can't quite recall which it was).
Why just a 10% cut and not 100%?
Great idea. Holland is starting to lead the way. But it needs to be more than 10%
But its a great start.
Some bloggers here may recall that Theo Van Dyke's murderer ...
Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious!
It's a jolly holiday with Muslims....
(Sorry, Waterdragon, couldn't resist.)
Possibly the worst Mockney Cockney ever.
o/t progress on arab child slavery front..from seattleTimes...oct 14..
Reuters..by H. Hashim ahmed
"Kuwait held its first camel race yesterday using robots as jockeys after children were banned from the sport in response to criticism by rights and the United states...25 Swiss made robots rode camels on a 6 mile run...rights groups say thousands of boys, some as young as 4, work as jockeys in the wealthy gulf arab region..."
can't find on-line link..but here's some photos of the robots(scroll down)
http://www.1000and1.de/news/actual.htm
..further down see another story..about Dresden depriving mothers of custody of children(girls)
to protect from genital mutilation..from April 05..
Read why women have to wear the burkha. She's really not supposed to ever leave the house. How can any society justify this kind of cruelty? And yes it is cruel..
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=8101
PRCS,
The burka is cultural garb, not religious. ….Force them to show where, in the Qur'an or Hadeeth, women are required to wear a burka.
Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2005 03:12 PM
I am afraid your angle is wrong here.
Whether the burqa is cultural, or religious may interest a few tailors with anthropological hobby, but in that particular situation everything should be done to make it clear to Moslems that we really don’t give a hoot of burka’s origin.
In fact, we should never enter such pointless discussion because it implies that any moslem injunction, no matter how idiotic, trumps the law of the non-Moslem country.
Really, if the Koran, or any other holy Moslems crap, indeed required woman to cover her face should that convince us that we now must amend our laws to meet up to another Moslem lunacy?
Thomas,
I've got to disagree with you.
Religious clothing which does not impede ones ability to seek or perform work isn't the issue.
If Jewish men are allowed to wear skull caps at work, then Muslim women should be allowed to wear religiously dictated clothing which does not adversly affect their job performance.
But the burka is not religious garb and should not be considered as a part of reasonable religious accomodation.
We need to start winning these arguments with logic and facts.
The truly idiotic excuses must be challenged first, to get them out of the way in order to concentrate on the more difficult arguments.
If they won't remove their burkas in order to go to work, end their unemployment benefits.
Waterdragon:
The benefits being cut seem to be more like welfare than UIC (a Canadian term). But then, I'm not in the Netherlands.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C10%5C14%5Cstory_14-10-2005_pg7_47
Thanks to C.A.G.E at
http://www.acage.org/news/?day=10142005&id=0004
More reasons why the burqa should be outlawed.
A clear case of oppression!
This is why Muslims have some many grievances:
The burkha is modest dress and elevates women to a higher status!
Portable seclusion it is, every woman should try it, to be respected within the ummah and to please Allah!
But seriously: No benefits should be given to those who are making themselves unemployable due to "religious" indulgence.
Governments who are spending their peoples tax-money for madrasahs and for building mosques, centers of hate and sedition; are betraying the covenant between the people and the government. All of this has gone on for much to long:
We know by now that -ALL- Mohammedans come with hatred and the idea to make the world Islamic.
We are dead-set against it and will have to get organized to show our governing idiots which way the wind blows...
The actual object of Hijaab is concealment and to stay indoors. The object of Hijaab is not to just don the veil and parade the shopping malls and shows where there is intermingling of sexes. Wearing the veil is not a license for coming out of the house as it is misunderstood, but only under extreme necessity if a woman has to come out of her house, then she must don the Hijaab (veil) and under this context does this Aayat fit, i.e. O Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)! Instruct your wives, your daughters an the believing women to draw over them their outer garment (veils).’ Otherwise, the law for a woman is she has to remain indoors as we have quoted the Aayat previously, ‘remain indoors’.
This is what they want for all women...and if you don't double bag you are a target for rape.
PRCS,
Religious clothing which does not impede ones ability to seek or perform work isn't the issue. But the burka is not religious garb and should not be considered as a part of reasonable religious accomodation.
It seems we are talking at cross purpose.
I think I said it clearly that we should never allow ourselves to be dragged into a specious argument of the origins of burqa in order to rule its suitability in our society.
So, again, should we allow burkas HAD it been religiously, rather than culturally, dictated? Of course not!
The only consideration we should have is the concern of security and, as you say, work performance.
Had the Jewish skullcap been as serious impediment to perform a job, or was as identity-concealing as burka it would have to go regardless how religiously motivated. We accept it for the same reasons Israeli society accepts it – it has not a slightest adverse effect on work or security.
Also, Jewish skullcap besides being great deal less obtrusive than burqa has been with us for the past 1000 years. We would be more aware of its sudden absence than we are of its presence.
What I am saying is that in a free society one’s religious obligation is one’s private business and should stay so. When religious obligations override the laws, rules, OR collide with centuries old traditions, customs, mores etc.… of a society, then society ceases being free.
Also, there is an extra aspect to the matter.
Islamic rules are not native to the West. There is a great deal of brazen chutzpa, contempt and provocation for a person who was graciously granted sanctuary in a foreign country, received all possible assistance and access to all its wealth, to demand that the host accommodates himself to that person’s alien and often distasteful customs.
It is an attitude of a conqueror - not of adoptive son.
"I think I said it clearly that we should never allow ourselves to be dragged into a specious argument of the origins of burqa in order to rule its suitability in our society."
I never said we should. But we should challenge ridiculous excuses in order to get them, once and for all, out of the way of the bigger issues.
"So, again, should we allow burkas HAD it been religiously, rather than culturally, dictated? Of course not!"
Sure. But in what type of employment? Auto assembly line? Probably not. Astronaut? Nope. Deep sea diver? Long haul trucker? Well, I guess the employment opportunities for burka clad women in our Western society are about as good as they are for them back home. But that's not a very good excuse to claim unemployment benefits.
The burka is, to the best of my knowledge, not a religiously mandated garment. If Danish Muslim women won't remove them in order to seek employment, why pay them unemployment benefits.
Incidentally, Rajiv Ghandi was murdered by a woman suicide bomber. She wore a bomb belt, but no burka.
No offense intended, but I, like you, am entitled to my opinion.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious!
Always did wonder how the hell to spell that word.
ADDICTION BEHIND THE BURKA: HOW AFGHAN WOMEN USE DRUGS TO COPE WITH LEGACY OF WAR
By NICK MEO IN KABUL
http://www.shuhada.org/news/daily/040930_3.htm
Burka clad women (and men) have been known to smuggle drugs, explosives etc.
PRCS,
But we should challenge ridiculous excuses in order to get them, once and for all, out of the way of the bigger issues.
That is where, I think, you are wrong.
Considering the endless availability of ridiculous excuses we will never be able to get them, “once and for all, out of the way”. We will be busy for ever challenging them and be deflected from tackling “the bigger issues”.
A correct approach is to point out the irrelevance of the “cultural or religious” debate. It is infinitely more effective to dismiss the whole category of arguments as ridiculous than for ever demonstrate the ridiculousness of each individual argument.
Well, something tells me we will have to continue disagreeing on that one. Probably it is my failure to clearly get my point across, so let’s leave it at that…
No offense intended, but I, like you, am entitled to my opinion.
Non taken.
BTW, have I anywhere indicated my opposition to your entitlement?
Not so much my entitlement as you method.
Not so much my entitlement as you method.
Hmmm, I admit I don't understand that one.
Well, whatever. Have a nice weekend.
A further and more compelling reason to ban the burqa.
A poster "Olivia" on Fjordman's site wrote this.
Time and time again, we see the real justification for banning the veil in Western countries. It has nothing to do with the Muslim woman's misguided perceived need to show piety, but it is about protecting women from being viewed as whores and okay to rape by these savages, simply because she doesn't follow impractical, outmoded Arab fashion.
The veil teaches Muslim men a sick way of viewing women. If they want to think like that in their own Islamic dung heaps, then that's their own business. But in MY country, where we have the freedom to enjoy the wind in our hair, and the sun on our shoulders, we should not have to put up with such evil, warped views.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10961808&postID=112922710543035201
This is one of the Rules Of Life, which I learned over at www.bartcop.com:
If someone "makes a mistake" and they make money, look for them to make the same mistake again and again.
So basically, in a place where the unemployed aren't allowed to just starve to death, it works like this:
Get a job.
Lose job.
Start wearing burka so no one will hire you.
Kick back and wait for the checks to come rolling in.
This way, the idiot Infidels will PAY YOU to stay home and produce more Muslims. And between pregnancies, just imagine all the free time you'll have for Dawa and spreading lies about Israel.
Exactly, kj. A very good argument against the welfare state in the US.
It's a start anyway. In the UK, the social workers would be at their door personally delivering the welfare cheque and encouraging them in their "diversity."