Netherlands considers burqa ban

A majority in the lower house of the Dutch parliament supports the ban on the wearing of a burka or abaya in public on the grounds that it hinders women's integration. The orthodox Islamic attire completely covers a woman's body, including her face.

The ban is an initiative of the independent member of parliament Geert Wilders, but it is supported by the governing Christian Democratic, Party and the Conservative Party, as well as the Pim Fortuyn group.

Integration Minister Rita Verdonk has opened an investigation into the feasibility of such a ban. She expects to receive the results of the inquiry in January.

The Dutch senate has also approved a law requiring immigrants to take a special integration test before they can enter the country.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk hopes to begin with the test early next year. The migrants,who are mostly from Turkey and Morocco, will be tested on their knowledge of Dutch, and Dutch society.The immigrants will have to pay 350 euros for the examination. Residents of the European Union, the United States and a number of other Western countries are exempt from the test. I note that the parlimentary leaders here have constant security guards with them because they are under constant threats from Islamists.

Mistake. They should enforce the ban based on security concerns. A burka is perfect cover for a bomb, poison device, gun, or long blade knife.

It's silly and misleading to pretend that Moslem women should have equal rights. If a Moslem Maiden wants equal rights, then it's up to her to dump the ideology.

I wonder whether focusing on largely symbolic issues like wearing the burqa is a good idea.

The risk is that the danger of Islam to free societies will be reduced to what looks like an argument over a dress code. I want a much larger frame around the public debate. People ought to be talking about whether multi-culturalism in Europe has been a success or failure (manifestly a failure, in my view), and whether Muslims ought to be prohibited from any further immigration into the Netherlands because their religio-political ideology is incompatible with freedom of speech and belief.

Creating a big flap over women wearing burqas seems like a typical politician's cop-out to avoid having to deal with the more serious questions. Besides, the liberal media will report the controversy without any context, making it easy to ascribe anti-burqa legislation to Islamophobia and giving Muslims a chance to claim they're being persecuted.

This isn't an argument for doing nothing; it's an argument for confronting the problem of Eurabia in its entirety, not in one relatively minor detail.

Word Herder:

Your arguements is quite reasonable but there is more to it. I think the msm articles on this may have to much of a narrow focus on what the Dutch Parlementarians are attempting to do. Clearly the burka, or abaya is one of many things they wish to confront in attempt to create some degrees of assimilation of muslims into Dutch society.

Note my comments above from an article I drew from the website of Ayaan Hirsi that points out the need for immigrants from Islamic countries to take a test on the Dutch, and Dutch society.

"I wonder whether focusing on largely symbolic issues like wearing the burqa is a good idea."
-- from a posting above

Quite right. Too much focus on the tangential as a way of avoiding the larger matter can be dangerous. Suppose there were no burqas. Suppose that women in Saudi Arabia could receive the same kind of education that would allow them to be -- oh, like Leila Khaled the "Palestinian" terrorist, like Hanan Ashrawi the islamochristian "Palestinian" propagandist, or like Dr. Germ, or Dr. Anthrax, who received their secular educations in the United States and in Great Britain, where they wore Western clothes, studied side-by-side with Western men, and when they returned to Iraq, put their special knowledge to use, which is how they received those names "Dr. Germ" and "Dr. Anthrax."

There is only one reason, for now, to focus on this or that aspect of Islam, including the mistreatment of women. It is a way to obtain a purchase on parts of public opinion that have remained closed to learning about Islam. In similar fashion, the endorsement of slavery in Islam, and the long Arab slave trade in black Africa, that started earlier, ended longer (where it did end -- and only ended in places becuase of the pressure of outside non-Islamic public opinion), and of course the mass murder, of Arab Muslims against black non-Muslims in thesouthern Sudan, and Arab Muslims against black Muslims in Darfur (for in Islam, a supposedly universalist relgion, the ideology of Arab supremacism is everywhere apparent) -- this too, while only part of the matter, can be used to get the attention, and then the sympathetic hearing on other parts of Islam, of black people heretofore unaware of the attitudes and practices of the Arabs in enslaving (and castrating) large numbers of black Africans.

In order to get attention to Islam generally, one must assess the audience (the "target" audience), and find those issues which will most interest it, and with which it can most identify. Having enlightened women about how they would fare under Islam (there are of course those whose "feminism" is skin-deep and whose support for Islam, as a vehicle of expressing hatred for the West, too attractive to let a little thing like mistreatment of women to get in the way. We see it with Leila Abu-Lughod and her approval of "portable seclusion" (burqa, etc.), and with the quick back-tracking, so as to prevent attacks on Islam, by such supposed but phony feminists as Leila Ahmad and Fatima Mernissi -- would-be charmers, both of them, each with a particular ploy or shtick (Ahmad likes to explain how back in Egypt she was once tempted "to become a Christian" but resisted-- to show how open-minded she is), but their charm, and their acts, are wearing thin on repeat listeners).

Start with the burqa, infibulation, the blowing up of schools by the Taliban, the prohibitions on women driving in Saudi Arabia, the lesser value of a woman's testimony or indeed of her life, according to the hudud, according to the shari'a, the lowering of the marriageable age of girls to nine by Khomeini, in emulation of Muhammad with Aisha. Start there, with some audiences. And then, once you have made your undeniable, irrefutable points, and they have to admit to them, go on from there -- and let them see Islam, as it presents itself, in Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and 1350 years of most disturbing history.

Perhaps the end is not nigh! I'm really surprised at Holland, showing even a glimmer of backbone.

I hope this is one step toward making their lives unpleasant enough so they leave. (but not come to the U.S.)

Seymour Paine writes:
"I hope this is one step toward making their lives unpleasant enough so they leave. (but not come to the U.S.)"

That's how I see it.

And, as I've said many times here, mocking this
cult ceaselessly is yet another way to make them
leave. It should be uncomfortable to be a muslim
in civilized countries. I am sad to say that I
even support physical harassment and intimidation, and extra legal measures, as in
many cases our govenrments are not ptotecting us.

Reciprocity, tit for tat, all that. Burn
churches, beat up lifeguards, gang rape nonmuslim
women, blow up vacationers in Australia and Bali? Complete this thought for yourself!

Note: "The proposal was put forward by independent politician Geert Wilders."

Geert Wilders -- the man almost universally labelled and vilified as an "ultra right-wing" politician.

Once again, it is representatives of those categorized as "far right wing" who have the brains and balls to name the problem for what it is and to propose rational action against it.

"Once again, it is representatives of those categorized as "far right wing" who have the brains and balls to name the problem for what it is and to propose rational action against it."
-- posted by Dr. Pepper

Liberals see the world as they wish is were; conservatives see the world as it is, and wish to make it better.

Never forget that Karl Marx faked the most important numbers that to this day lay at the foundation of Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Leftism/Liberalism/Progressivism.

Every Western country was worried about the lenience,and unwanted freedom Holland was giving to its Muslim community.Instead of being greatfull,the Islamists(mostly came as refugees) have become a terror wielding meance to the peace loving Hollenders.The Citizens were threatened in their own country,and living has virtually became a nightmare. The recent decision of banning the parda will be a most welcome and soothing news to its suffering citizens. The immigration minister,really has some back-bone. Will the rest of Europe,and America follow this example that teaches these Islamic intruders-'When you are in Rome,behave like the Romans"!.

A sail, a black sail!

Remeber

France tried to appease the muslim armies by not supporting our work in iraq..

then tried to Ban the Burka and the cars are still being burned in the streets 60 average per night...

When they do this i expect their cities to go up in flames as well...

You cant feed a crocodile and pet it at the same time...

It is a crocodile...
It will

Bite the hand that feeds it...
It cannot help it..

I am concerned that the Dutch may be treating the symptom rather than the illness itself. The Illness is too much immigration, too many muslims to assimilate. The burka is simply a result of this policy.

A dress code may be hard to implement. Do you ban women wearing black dresses or only those with black hoods? Who enforces this ban, the police? I am skeptical that the ever tolerant, polite and respectful Dutch would actually do something so meanspirited as asking someone to change their attire.

The Bee keepers outfit (Burqa) has no place in the west. If they do want it that way then let the savages stay in their own countries. All of Europe should ban the burqa as a mode of dress. If they dont like it they are free to leave.Period

There is a strong case for banning the dalek costume/black ghost halloween costume/beekeeper's outfit for reasons of security. In addition it is a hostile gesture towards one key aspect of Islam - control of women. It undermines Muslim men's control of 'their' women, and will thus make them feel less at home, less welcome. Hostile gestures towards key aspects of Islam are worth making - they need not be the only way in which Islam is tackled.

There are few sights more revolting than that of an Arab man swaggering down London's Oxford Street in designer jeans followed by one or more black moving objects. A signal needs to be sent out that this is not something civilised people tolerate, any more than a man would be allowed to lead his wife along on a dog leash outside. Like the dog leash thing, though, if consenting adults want to wear halloween costumes/dress as daleks behind closed doors, then no problem. There are clubs that cater for that kind of thing. Apparently.

"There are clubs that cater for that kind of thing."
-- posted by Interested

Never had you down for the kindy type, Interested. Are you a dom or a sub?

But you allude to a salient fact: Islam is a D&S cult.

ISLAM: GIANT D&S CLUB ISLAM: GIANT D&S CLUB ISLAM: GIANT D&S CLUB

Note: D&S is sex club slang for Domination & Submission, one of the, er, black arts practiced by the Sex Sophistos, usually in dank basements probably not unlike Mohammed's cave in the bowels of Mt. Hirat just outside Mecca.

Never had you down ...

Nope.

"Hostile gestures towards key aspects of Islam are worth making - they need not be the only way in which Islam is tackled."
-- from a posting above

There is no need to betray, by modifying, one's own laws, customs, manners, mores, understandings, in order to accommodate the unacceptable. We would not permit ourselves to treat women as this prancing Oxford Street Arab (not "street Arab") with his black-burquaed flock does. Why should he be allowed to do so, in London, buying bespoke, returning to his suite at the Park Lane or his apartment in Belgravia, or going to Hatchard's to order, in pointing to all the books on all the shelves, for his country estate "one of each"? It is they who should be changing and modifying and yes, betraying Islam, especially its treatment of women and non-Muslims, and its refusal to regard Muslims as free agents, capable of making their own decisions, including the decision, if they so wish, to leave Islam altogether without fearing retaliation that may range from complete social ostracism to murder.

There is no need for any Infidel to be the slighest bit apologetic in refusing to accommodate those who do not wish those Infidels well. There is nothing wrong, and it makes sense, to refuse to appease and yield and make constant allowances for Muslims. The policy of New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton, now enforcing the same policy in Los Angeles, of not tolerating and punishing even minor infractions, so as to prevent an atmosphere of lawlessness, deserves to be copied by Western peoples and governments in dealing with Muslims and Islam. Once you exhibit an attitude of timidity and willingness to yield on what may appear to be small matters, you will inevitably find much greater and more dangerous demands being made. By refusing to accommodate what all sensible non-Muslims have come to regard as unacceptable (for example, constraints on women, and polygamy, and honor killings, and all the rest of it, and of course the fear of Muslms in the West to leave Islam)we help defend ourselves, help to prevent a future that will otherwise be even more unpleasant, expensive, and physically insecure, as a result in many Western countries of a large-scale presence of Muslims who do not wish the Infidel nation-state well and do not offer it unfeigned loyalty, than it already is.

A ban on the burka, with the resulting liberty of young girls, will go far towards assimilation.

The rigid cultural controls over women is part of the supremicist script of radical islam.

Any muslim male, who upon the sight of an un-burka'd female, muslim or non-muslim, just cannot resist the urge to subdue, humiliate, and rape her, should be castrated on the spot.

"Once again, it is representatives of those categorized as "far right wing" who have the brains and balls to name the problem for what it is and to propose rational action against it."
-- posted by Dr. Pepper

I couldnt agree more Dr. Pepper, however I think it might be too little too late. Liberal appologists will continue to enable the spread of Islam to the detriment of Europe.

Europes only hope is the nationalist movement.

It's amazing how a few intractable and bellicose people can turn society on end. Muslims in the Netherlands represent only 6% of the total population, and they are dictating terms. Denmark has 3%, France has 7.5%, Germany 3.7%, Denmark 3%, and the UK, 2.7%. All these countries appear to be afraid of their Muslim populations...

Canada has 2% and the United States, with 1.4% has just a few years before they reach the tipping point. If one uses Europe as a model, only 2% Muslim population can cause havoc. Hmmmmmm.

Thats why the time to remove them, by force if necessary is now. Imagine what is going to happen when they allow Turkey into the EU.

Pig farmer et al, let me bring you up to speed, the Muslims also have a visceral hatred of those whom you label Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Leftism/Liberalism/Progressivism.

In fact they are downright fascist, which apparently is a characteristic you share with them.

Your problem dipsh*t is that you conflate together too many things that are not necessarily connected.
For instance from the OED.

liberal adj. & n.

— adj.
1given freely; ample, abundant.
2(often foll. by of) giving freely, generous, not sparing.
3open-minded, not prejudiced.
4not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.

and

conservative adj. & n.

— adj.
1a averse to rapid change. b (of views, taste, etc.) moderate, avoiding extremes (conservative in his dress).
2(of an estimate etc.) purposely low; moderate, cautious.

I, my friend am both, while on the other hand you are neither.

Your conservativism was de jure in Germany in the late 1930's, and de Jure in all Muslim lands.

It seems as if moderate muslims would be relieved at a burka ban, and the extremists would go scurrying back into the hellhole muslim countries.

Here's a better idea: Ban Islam and all Muslims from the West. Then that tricky little problem of the burqa will go away. You see, when there are no Muslims, there are no idiotic Muslim traditions and customs. How long will it be before a burqa-clad pig explodes in a pizzaria in London, Rome, Madrid or Paris? Wake up world, the aliens are attacking. Islam is eternal backwardness.
Third

The burka should be banned. I am amazed that no bank robbers / thieves etc have not yet used it to hide their faces in doing their deeds. I mean, maybe I have a devious mind, but think of it - commit a crime wearing a burka? The police won't investigate your crime to well as they are scared of PC repercussions (just in case the perps were Muslims), so not only would anyone NOT see your face, height, hair colour, etc, nor would they see you coming with your entire arsenal. I have heard Aussie WW2 diggers on talkback radio saying how (in less PC days) in the ME they searched some Muslim women and actually saw some smuggle the huge and bulky Bren Machine Gun in a Burka. Funny how London can ban people wearing hoods - but not the Burka! What's the difference? Can CCTV see through a Burka but not a hood???

After committing your crime, flee to a Muslim neighbourhood in your burka - just have some bearded friend to meet you there to accompany you on your travels. The Police WILL NOT follow you into the Muslim suburb. Sydney, London, Paris all show that the Muslims are a law unto themselves and that the police are cowards and/or powerless against Muslims thanks to politically correct laws and pollies and media.

But then again, why would a criminal think of this? Most are dumb to start with. Maybe that’s why so many crims are Muslim!!

"Here's a better idea: Ban Islam and all Muslims from the West. Then that tricky little problem of the burqa will go away"

So would the need for all the intrusive 'anti-terror' laws that delve into our private lives. Unfortunately the "powers that be" won't allow this.

quote: the peace loving Hollenders.

We are called the "Dutch" ;).

Futhermore, as a Dutch conservative, I want to say that Geert Wilders says actually quite moderate things about islam compared to what most of the Dutch population think about muslims and their so-called "religion of peace". Do not forget he is a liberal and NOT a neo-nazi or worse, a socialist.

Explosions.

Coming soon to a Dutch bus, restaurant, nightclub or market near you.

Of course the burka should be banned. It is simply a matter of common sense and simple logic,
weapons can be easily carried and humans, male and female, can be disguised under this voluminous bag. If you want to be secure, the burka won't cut it.

But many are right here, it's bigger than the burka, and seeing the whole picture is needed since what we confront is a self-proclaimed enemy whose whole life is geared to making war on us for the sake of a tribal warrior god. They believe we must give up our culture, our religions, our life under various national constitutions, our hard earned freedoms, to return to sanctified slavery, master/slave strong arm totalitarianism, the reduced rights of women and children, the total lack of equality between the believers and the rest of the world. All this and more must be seen in the big picture.

Marxism (Eduord Bernstein,) Communism (Josip Broz) Socialism (Golda Meir,) Leftism (Jean-Paul Marat,) Liberalism (John Stuart Mill,) Progressivism (Teddy Roosevelt.)

When we don't pay attention to the words we use, using them meaninglessly, we can become like a semiliterate Goethe alluder who doesn't get any deeper than his deepest thought into why we're having this struggle with Islam in the first place. When the words we use are so much porridge that all looks the same in the bowl, then we're losing the battle from the start.

One might hold the average American pig farmer to a different standard than an obnoxious poseur who delights in showing off his ignorance in each and every post. Yes, one would hold the average American pig farmer to a higher standard, to one that recognises him as able to learn and gain from his newfound knowledge and awareness.

One of the beauties of this site isn't simply the knowledge one gains from the facts presented, it is the beauty of Spencer's mind at work for all of us to see and learn from in its methods if not its content. That's true too of Hugh and many other writers here, those who teach by example.

This site is one that is unlike any other I've encountered, both relevant in its details and also instructive in its underlying, probably unconscious, pedagogy. Then again, there are those whom one can lead to the fountain of wisdom where some will drink and others will gargle.

Hmm...

While some here may know what some words originally meant, there are others who have gained power and influence and have changed the definition. In effect "hijacked", corrupted, or subverted.
We can only know those words or labels by those who represent them today-- yesterday does not matter now, the meanings have changed. In some instances into something diametrically opposite.

Labels, ideologies, and parties are prisons of the mind.

l know the burqa ban would be a good start, if it would be enforced. when you free half the muslim population (women) the rest will come. l know that is the way to assimilation to the western culture.
my sister is a social worker, and with the increasing muslim population in our area, she has worked with more muslim families, and most of the daughers do not wear the burqa, or head covers. they chose to be free! so here to the Netherlands going in the "right" direction!!

Nariz notes the definition of liberal.

That's why I like to distinguish between Leftist and Liberal.

The Leftist is a Liberal who has, through a complex socio-historical process over the last couple of centuries, perverted liberalism to the point where now (cf. Yvonne Ridley, et al.) whitewashing or even defending Islam -- while blaming the West for all ills -- is de rigeur.

If the millions of PC Leftists in the West would only rediscover the liberalism of their tradition, they would find the condemnation of Islam to be a no-brainer. But they can't do so, because they hate their West too much to admit that the Judaeo-Christian Christendom and then the Western Imperialism after that gave birth to and nurtured Liberalism; and they find (consciously or semi-consciously) that the Muslims share most of their anti-Western arguments.

Females in western countries should come to the forefront in the fight against Islam. Please go to this link to witness the depravity of Muslims who come to the West and how the Muslim Imams condone all the depravity.

Females.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646