This welcome bit of Dutch anti-dhimmitude will provoke howls from the multiculturalists, but they persistently fail to recognize that the burka is only the most visible symbol of a comprehensive system that would completely overturn and remake Dutch society -- and subjugate non-Muslims in Holland as second-class dhimmis. The pluralism upon which the proponents of the burka base their case in Europe is all in one direction. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to JJ:
THE Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world.The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman’s face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.
Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.
The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.
No. The Government is trying to save Dutch society.
The howls of protest ignore some basic truisms in western jurisprudence, even religious beliefs and practices are trumped by compelling public safety concerns. The ability to hide anything from a huge IED to RPG's in clothing simply cannot be tolerated given Islam's recent history.
While I understand the desire for modesty, and the tradition involved, Muslim actions over the past few years require reasonable accomodations from the Muslim community.
This is a real test. If the hijab ban caused anger, I can only imagine the perfect storm of hostility this will generate. Muslims might want to gather their wits before reacting.
Firstly: YES!
One question though: Will they prevail when (not if) some burqa wearing islamic chick goes to the European Court of Human Rights and wins the case against the Dutch Government???
I can see three options:
1. The Dutch will take back the legislation
2. The EU will be in a real crisis
3. The European Court of Human Rights will rule in favour of the Dutch legislation (very unlikely)
The EU dhimmis will never let the Dutch get away with it, although it would be the best thing to happen in Europe in twenty-five years. Maybe the bellicose immigrants would be so outraged that they would stomp out of Holland en masse.
Somebody over there better get really tough and soon! I'm afraid the multicultis and the left-wingers will stop this proposal dead in its tracks; they want to destroy their own civilization. They are so close to realizing their dream of a "new" Europe, they won't let anyone stop them now.
No. It all has to go.
Hijab, Jilbab, bilbab, burkha:
Even the loudspeakers from the mosques that call the terror-brigades to the hate-sermons have to go.
All "babs" offend me. Every coffee-filter offends me.
(I still drink coffee, though)
"Reach out and shake hands with a musulman?" No way.
Cut the welfare-payments and deport them when they spit on the sidewalk.
Time for defense!
Perhaps those Muslim leaders might think twice next time when given the opportunity to shake Integration Minister Verdonk's hand.
Have they never heard: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you," or in this case, "Don't spurn the hand that integrates you!"?
Yep. I hope this is more like High Noon than the Gunfight at the OK Corral. Verdonk sounds like the kinda gal that won't blink. But, like Susanp, I'm concerned that the multi-cultis and pinkos will stand in the way.
And, of course, there's the fine print: She's going to "investigate where and when" the burka should be banned. So, there's the issue. And the loophole is: After study and analysis, we have decided not to . . . .
Perhaps the Dutch are beginning to remember their own history?
Masks and full-face covers are illegal in Italy, as I pointed out many times. I would be surprised if that was not the case elsewhere as well. Often, it is just a matter of applying the laws that exist - e.g. laws against "apology for crime" in Roman-law countries, against "incitement" in common-law ones, etc. Muslims have been given a free pass for far too long.
Hoooooo Raaaaaahhh!!!!
Hoooooo Raaaaaahhh!!!!
Hoooooo Raaaaaahhh!!!!
They screwed up big time with the murder of Theo Van Gogh. The Dutch don't forgive and forget easily - they still resent Germany for what they did to them in the war. The Van Gogh murder was a wake up call big time. I wish they'd ban them in the UK too. I've had enough of seeing a man striding ahead with about three or four covered females shuffling along behind.
Great News, If the Muslims dont like it; they could leave Holland. They were never invited in the first place. They are uninvited guests living off the hard working people of Holland. Good riddance.
Remember Theo Van Gogh!!! Its time Muslims are all repatriated to where they came from Burqa and all.
On a philosophical level, I feel the Burkha-ban is an infringement upon both religious freedom and free expression. But it's reached a point where civilizational self-defense necessitates a review of traditional precepts and standards of freedom.
One possible beneficial aspect to such a policy is just what Susan suggested...that Muslims will prefer emigration to a coerced assimilation.
On a philosophical level, I feel the Burkha-ban is an infringement upon both religious freedom and free expression
The burkha is a walking prison. It is never freely chosen. Women who wear it are either being coerced by their husbands, fathers or brothers or, if they 'choose' it themselves, are insane.
Religious freedom and freedom of expression don't come into it. It is a form of abuse.
Cornelius:
You are not for real!
"...On a philosophical level, I feel the Burkha-ban is an infringement upon both religious freedom and free expression..."
What are you saying?
A poor bitch that was not allowed to learn to read and write, raised to be breeding stock, nothing more than chattel, one that is unable to express herself, who 'has the right to give birth", who has to be willing whenever "HE wills", this poor thing that is now covered up "for Allah"-, of curse, with a tent all over herself, is expressing "religious freedom?"
On a recent thread a Mohammedan female came up with this gem: "Portable seclusion...!!!???"
It may be better than having stones thrown at you, being spit upon or having acid thrown in your face. But 'religious freedom' is something else....
But "religious freedom"???
You are starting to sound like "King Tolerance!"
Sheik yer'mani - to be fair, Cornelius is in favour of banning the burkha as incompatible with and threatening to our civilisation. However, his claims about religious freedom do need to be challenged in the context of an ideology that is not really a religion and does not allow freedom.
Hard cases make bad law, and Islam is a hard case. In France Sikh and Jewish schoolboys can't wear perfectly harmless headgear because of Islam. Islam renders problematic or dangerous what in Judaism, Sikhism or Christianity would merely be signs of devotion or modesty.
Moreover, there is the issue of female oppression. The burkha is not about freedom for women, it is freedom for men to cover 'their' women up. The extent to which women in Islam are seen as goods and chattels must never be underestimated.
susan and faqi
susan posted: Maybe the bellicose immigrants would be so outraged that they would stomp out of Holland en masse.
And they will stomp all the way to Britain. That is what 17000 Somalis did when their benefits were cut in Holland.
No muslim is ever going to go back to dar ul islam if he can help it. It is here that they have Welfare benefits and easy access to Infidels for harvesting and a ticket to paradise for themselves and their family.
The most public manifestation of our acceptance of institutionalised slavery in the West is the burqa or hijab. It is a symbol, that we as a Western society have recognised the institutionalised slavery of women in islam, as legitimate in the West. This is absolutely absurd. Freedom and slavery are mutually incompatible. One can only expand at the expense of the other. It is a tragedy that we have allowed in, into the domain of Freedom, a society that practices slavery, and worse we give it legitimacy under the guise of multiculturalism.
So here we are, in the 21st century, right here in the domain of Freedom, and we have allowed islands of slavery to become established within this domain. This is absurd. Freedom and slavery can never co-exist. Islam, in its practice, turns out to be the oldest totalitarian ideology of all - slavery, with just the added but genius touch, that it is divinely sanctioned by allah.
Gentlemen,
I happen to love the concept of freedom passionately. I'm weary of any law or culture that infringes upon it (hence, my hatred of Islam).
I acknowledge the new reality that the age of mass terror has foisted upon us...and the need for certain restrictions on our freedom. But I do so with reticence. I despise the symbolism of the head scarf...much less the Burka, but were it not for the security ramifications of hiding identity and/or contraband, I'd have even more trouble with the decision.
If you guys expect me to parrot your party-line on every issue, you've got another thing coming. Insulting me by comparisons to King Tolerance - and I do consider that an insult - will do nothing to alter my views.
I find many of you here nothing short of rabid in your opinions (I won't be specific as to whom I'm referring to). You vent your frustrations by offering solutions so extreme that they have absolutely no practical utility. That's one of the few things I agree with KT about.
Cornelius - the security issues are not the only reasons, or in my view the most important ones for banning the burkha, though it may be reasons that carry the most weight in law.
The burkha is simply not an acceptable sight on the streets of a civilised country. It would not be acceptable, for instance, for a man to walk down the street leading his wife along on a dog leash. In the privacy of their own home they may do that kind of thing, and I'm sure that, for a price, you can get that kind of thing in Holland, but not in the street.
The burkha is a cruel and unusual punishment. Quite apart from the security threat, it does not belong in a country that claims to treat women as equal citizens.
On a slightly different point, the easiest way round the religious freedom obstacle is to have Islam declared a political movement, not a religion. This is what it is, after all. Public displays of swastikas are not allowed, so public symbols of aggression and oppression should also be banned. The fully veiled woman is such a symbol.
Unveiled.
Ha Ha Ha!
I get it.
I agree with Interested here.
The burkha is beyond modest, it's an instrument of torture and abuse. So much of identity is bound up in the face. Face the music, faceless bureaucrat, ashamed to show her face, and my favourite blessing
May the Lord bless you, may he make his face to shine upon you.
If a culture thinks it's the done thing, ladylike, for an adult woman, or a married woman to wear something on her head, well my own culture still retains remnants of that idea. I don't have a problem with a sheitel, or the business end of a sari, or a woolley beanie at all. But in a burka a woman cannot see properly, especially if she needs glasses. She cannot breathe properly. I read of athsmatic women in Afghanistan who never left the house, they would have died inside the hood. She is prone to accidents, trips, vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis, and for no good reason.
Flowers raise their faces to the sun. So should we.
"On a slightly different point, the easiest way round the religious freedom obstacle is to have Islam declared a political movement, not a religion."
Interested,
It is interesting how liberals are able to side-step the separation of church and state by declaring the study of Islam in public schools or the displaying of artifacts (including the Quran) in public buildings as "cultural."
But the thought of declaring Islam a "political" movement would send those same liberals into a fit.
Muslims themselves acknowledge that Islam is more than a religion, that it is a "way of life." It certainly encompasses the concept of polity, with a ready-made system of laws that govern all facets of society.
Too bad it'll probably take the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans before such a policy will be given any serious consideration.
Given the situation, we don't have the luxury of pulling dorm room philosophy all-nighters over "Freedom and The Bhurka". Let's just ban the damn thing (and the hijab, too, while we're at it) and rationalize it later. Why not?
Like Cornelius, I'm no fan of gratuitous bans on things just because they "offend" somebody (like banning Piglet, for eg), but I simply have to agree with Interested that the bhurka is a symbol of Islamic coercion and oppression without compare and banning would produce so many positives for our society that banning it should be a no brainer.
Regarding the "freedom" of Muslim women to wear the burqa, jilbab or whatever, the late TC Douglas, former premier of Saskatchewan and leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, once said that liberty without equality was the freedom of chickens to dance among the elephants and equality without liberty was the equality of galley slaves.
Anyone around here who can demonstrate that Muslim women are wearing the burqa because they are both liberated and enjoy the same status in society as Muslim men?
Cornelius:
Wanna get married?
http://www.putrid.com/taliban.htm
I've never understood how people can refer to Islamic dress as "modest". It is anything but. In fact, it amounts to nothing but outrageous arrogant over-kill, the Islamic equivalent of some self-centered, conceited *dandy* sporting a five-foot high tophat.
"LOOK AT ME", he screams!
Sheik Yer'mani - that is very funny indeed. It has cheered me up on a dull Autumn day and given me an excuse to put off some dull tasks.
John - good point. Certainly Yvonne Ridley, curses be upon her moustache, is a sack wearer of the 'look at me' variety. These Marie Antoinette hijabettes - female Western coverts who bang on about how liberating Islam is, are extremely irritating, and it's tempting to put a burkha over them to see if it will shut them up, as you shut up a parrot when you cover its cage.
How unsisterly of me.
As Shazia Mirza said "The veil comes in very handy for those days when a girl just doesn’t have time to Immac her moustache."
Certainly Yvonne Ridley, curses be upon her moustache
Interested, you had me in hysterics with this one ;-)
Arguments against the burka/hijab/chador always end in accusations of religious persecution. Many muslim women vehemently argue in favor of this chauvinistic oppression and sincerely believe that their pious "modesty" elevates them to a position of moral superiority. It is important to understand that they are thoroughly conditioned to accept their inferior status as the will of allah, and to them, it is perfectly normal. They consider the "other", us, the aberrant culture. A few who manage to retain the ability to conceive an occasional independent thought might resent their lack of personal identity and freedom, but the vast majority will never recognize the reality of their oppressive plight.
I'm afraid the West can't have it both ways. If our laws guarantee freedom of religion and the burka is a bonafide element of Islam, which it is, how can we prohibit it? Our elite, out-of- touch leaders are not affected one way or another by these "trivial" issues and most of them do not realize that they represent stark contradictions to the freedoms we claim to cherish. Muslims were invited to invade the West, encouraged not to assimilate, so it's a little late to tell them that we don't like their time-honored, albeit archaic, medieval traditions. Multiculturalism presents many condundrums that are virtually irreconcilable, and these conflicts will continue to proliferate. More often than not, the dominant culture will make concessions to the minorities until the people become enraged and revolt. After all, their cultures are more valuable than ours; to hear some tell it, we don't even have a definable culture.
I'm all for banning the burka; it is a despicable, archaic and demeaning religious symbol, but the dhimmis and muslims will argue that burkas are equivalent to nuns' habits, voluntarily donned as a statement of faith. When muslims were allowed to invade the West, Pandora's box was opened. We are now experiencing the joys of pandemonium. The self-hating, cultural Marxists will never rethink their multicultural agenda and the civil liberties sharks will defend anything that threatens or demeans the status quo. It's only going to get worse, much worse.
Susan - to that I'd say - better late than never. Of course it was a mistake to allow so many Muslims in, and even more of a mistake not to force them to integrate more. But something has to be done.
The burkha can be banned on health grounds and both the burkha and the niqab can be banned on security grounds.
In the long term it must be taken on board that Islam is a political ideology, not a religion, and therefore is entitled to none of the protections that other religions have. Muslims freely acknowledge that Islam is more than a religion, so this should not be too difficult to prove.
These Marie Antoinette hijabettes - female Western coverts who bang on about how liberating Islam is, are extremely irritating, and it's tempting to put a burkha over them to see if it will shut them up, as you shut up a parrot when you cover its cage.
How unsisterly of me.
Posted by: Interested at October 13, 2005 10:05 AM
Great post, Interested! LOL
Wilhelmus van Nassouwe--
Ben ick van duytschen Bloet.
Den Vaderland Getrouwe....
Saulte to the Netherlands!
Good. I didn't know the Dutch still had it in them.
Still, these are dangerous times, the oens where a state is forced to legislate on what its citizens can or cannot wear. These measures do neighbour the far-right, but unfortunately the worst consequence of terrorism is to abdicate from a certain degree of freedom in the name of one's safety.
Facial masking (except on Halloween) is simply unacceptable in OUR culture...if you are a wanted criminal, e.g., you are not permitted to hide out in a black tent and slither among us unrecognized..nor will we allow male jeehadis(possibly toting AK-47s etc.)
to slither about masquerading as females..like it or lump it!
A Western woman who wore a halter top and miniskirt in an Islamic country would probably be raped and/or murdered. Muslim men are already raping women in Europe based on the way they dress. So I have no problem seeing the Burka banned. Muslim terrorists have been known to disguise themselves in burkas and so-called modest Muslim women are not above hiding a bomb belt or machine gun under these shrouds.Muslims are living in the West and need to adapt to Western ways of dress and customs. If they are unwilling to adapt let them move back to the ME.
re: Security issues - India first female bomber
A senior security official had this to say -
"It is easier for women to pass the security forces because they are not checked as thoroughly and often hide arms under the full body coverings, traditionally worn by Muslim women, said one senior police official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the subject."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_re_as/kashmir_female_bomber_2;_ylt=Al5yuOMwmkGwJJIkxvrrpOvGe50v;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
No real argument here. Given the reluctance by security personnel to even look at a muslim woman, it is easy for her to carry weapons or explosives to jihadis ,or use them herself.
What a bunch of immature twerps. If Muslims said what you guys say, you would erupt in a firestorm.
You embarass yourself, with your immature, ill conceived, self righteous ejaculations.
Be very careful, if one can justify banning symbols of Islamic belief, then the Muslim can turn around demand the banning of Crucifix, Yarmulka and Sikh Turban.
I'm all for banning Islam from the west,period, but don't know how to go about it, without banning all religions (perhaps not a bad idea,where those religions go beyond the personal and become poltical), but Ghandi covered that base when he said "Anyone who doesn't think religion is political, doesn't understand religion"
So now we are trapped in a never ending war of Gods. No winners there folk. Not even nukes can turn the tide in that war.
And I chastise you Robert, for provoking this class of kids with your slam against multiculturalists. America was built on multiculturalism, my own ancestors were from different cultures, German Jew, Choctaw, Irish, Scots Irish and English (and that's just the ones I know about). Irish is a culture, Italian is a culture, Spanish is a culture, Mexican is another culture and all Melkionite Christians from the middle east are another culture.
Maybe you should come up with another, more accurate term, to describe the problem other than multicult.
And by the way, Im sick and tired of the kids and morons on this forum, ranting against liberals and leftists as if they, and they alone are the problem, they aren't. Look in the mirror and look at your hero, the man you guys elected President and his party.. they are in bed with the Arabs and take their money freely, and the same with Europe.
It isn't the leftists and socialists in Europe that is driving the engine of Eurabia, it is hard core businessmen, capitalists, with an eye on profits and the bottom line, a bottom line that gets healthier, as stock prices rise, and what causes profits and stock prices to rise?Why reducing the cost of production (cheap Muslim labor) and increase sales (market access to Turkey and Arab countries).
Capitalists are selling the rope that will hang hang them, and you clowns blame it on leftists.
Yet it is the leftists, and only the leftists, that have stuck their necks out to fight and denounce Islam. Spell Fallaci, Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn here.
Congratulations, Dutch people. Just when I thought it was lights out for the Netherlands, the government shows it has some spine.
After the Burqa, ban the Koran from bookstores, and eventually ban the presence of Muslims, kick the savages out of your land.
Be very careful, if one can justify banning symbols of Islamic belief, then the Muslim can turn around demand the banning of Crucifix, Yarmulka and Sikh Turban. - posted above by Nariz
You don`t know they have done this for the last few thousand years. Multiculturalism has gone to your head.
The Head Of the Organization of Islamic Countries (or OIC) has this to say:
`
Non-Malays living in the vicinity of mosques in Kuala Lumpur hear this call to arms against the non-Muslims through high-pitches megaphones often enough`
`Dato' Seri Najib kicked the ball first to insist to insist none should openly debate if Muslims could slander the followers of other religions`
http://mggpillai.com/print.php3?sid=2049
You have 60 years of experience with little knowledge on this subject. This kid knows more than you.
As for leftist doodah the western decadency is very well represented by this obese, venal, drunkard of capitalist:
http://www.ytedk.com/
Truly decadent capitalist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1454890/posts
Another decadent multi-culti, liberal slob:
http://www.sorostrading.com/picture2.html
Another decadent lumbering capitalist:
http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html
The capitalist who encourages murder:
most ineffectual president since Warren Harding, and has not won over any new fans of his executive record among historians or political idealists
http://www.redbridgereview.co.uk/html/martin-fields_carter.html
No one above seems to have taken issue with the accusation by the so called "human rights groups" that banning the burka is pandering to the far right. FAR RIGHT!
Can you think of an ideology more FAR RIGHT than the purdah, the extremist ideology of misogyny and gender segregation that says a woman's place is at home, and if she has to (and is allowed to) go out she must cover herself to save the public from the offence of seeing her; and that says homosexuals, "adulterers" and dissenters must die: who can find an ideology more Fascist, more misogynous, more totally conservative and more FAR RIGHT than that? And now it's "pandering to far right" to resist it?
Interesting that "human rights groups" (which ones?) are fighting for the "right" of women to be packed into invisibility; when did anyone last hear about a human rights groups fight against forced burkas? Since when is wearing a burka a human right, while having a public face obviously is not?
Some posters above say the burkha totally oppresses the bearer - true enough; but there's more to it: let's not underestimate those women's "agency"; let's admit: there are those who want to wear it. Terrorists' wives wear burkas. Women terrorists wear burkas. Muslim Brotherhood women wear burkas. They wear it to make a political statement, a "fuck you" statement against all of us Infidels and "whores". It's a sign of sympathy to OBL&Co and their political agenda. It's a Fascist statement.
To resist this pervert twisting of political vocabulary, we need to call things by their real names; we need to use, again and again, the phrase "Islamic far right" about the burka-wearing and sharia-abiding fundamentalists, because far right it is. That will make it a tiny bit harder for jihadists and their sympathizers to label as "far right" anyone who questions their Fascist ideology and practices.
I like the sound of Rita Verdonk: she sounds like one tough cookie! Europe needs more politicians like her.
I hope Mrs Verdonk also includes mosques as sites where the burqa or a face covering may not be worn.
This has the advantage that it shows that Mrs Verdonk is also concerned about the lives of muslims. It is well known that sunni muslim suicide mass murderers target shia mosques.
In addition, it gets right into the heart of where the incubus is, while at the same Mrs Verdonk can claim that she is only concerned about safeguarding muslim lives.
Subversion using the tools of PCness is the key.
rahel posted Muslim Brotherhood women wear burkas.
Also muslim men have been known to wear it. Now if this was only for sexual pleasure, cross dressing if you like, then I would have no concerns. But there are other reasons as well why the burqa or facial covering must be banned.
Doesn't Germany also have a law about masks? So shouldn't the burka be banned by that?
Barnabus Fund reports that in West Papua, Indonesia, the Indonesian military is destroying houses, churches and whole villages where Christians live, torturing and shooting the inhabitants. In West Java, again Indonesia, churches are being forcibly closed by muslim "extremists" at the rate of 30 a month.
So this is the thanks we get for billions of money for Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami.
Again I plead that any donations you may make, do consider some of it for the most persecuted minority in the world - Christians in muslim nations.
The link below catalogues the grinding oppression that Christians in muslims nations have to undergo. It also shows how you can make a contribution that will help the work of the Barnabus Fund. Even a small contribution goes a long way after currency conversion.
http://www.barnabasfund.org/
I made a donation to the Barnabas fund recently specifically for the Kashmiri earthquake. Barnabas has received a specific request from Christians known to them there, who will be pushed to the back of the queue when aid is distributed. Quote project reference 41-592 .
The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in Europe. During the past few years, I have questioned the wisdom of Dutch policies such as legalized prostitution, marijuana, gay marriage, etc. But I have to say that the Dutch have their act together when it comes to dealing with oppressive cultural aspects of Islam within their borders.
Who really wants to hire a woman who is wearing a Burqa? The closest description of a Burqa is to say that it resembles a woman wearing a bedsheet over her head. This strange type of dress for a woman may be suitable if asked to play a ghost in a Halloween party, but it does not really bode well for a woman building good personal relations in the Netherlands, a country that has a robust business economy. The burqa is an oppressive outfit for a Muslim woman that should be banned in any civilized country. Thank God that the Netherlands is a civilized country.
In the Netherlands, there are generous welfare benefits. A Muslim woman can come to the Netherlands from the Middle East, collect monthly beneifts from the hard working Dutch people, and then refuse to work based on a conflict with religious values. When asked to work, she can say that work conflicts with their religious beliefs. Then she can complain about how decadent and terrible the West is because it is not Muslim. What a disgrace.
The Dutch are the leaders of Europe in handling the oppressive aspects of Islam within their borders. I am rather impressed with how they have decided to handle the issue of banning burqas. I hope that other Western countries will learn from the Dutch how to deal with oppressive aspects of Islam.
Nariz, you disappoint me. America was NOT FOUNDED ON MULTICULTURALISM. Since you are infinitely wise, experienced, and possess an enviable intellect, why don't you define the word "multiculturalism" for us.
I await your erudite reply with bated breath.