Amsterdam Mulls Axing Dole for Women in Burqas

1 millionth part too little, 30 years too late.

This is like trying to stop raging floodwaters with cottoncandy balls instead of sandbags.

When in doubt,
Throw them out.

Until Europe learns this little couplet, they're sunk.

Under the demographic tsunami of Sharia cataracts.

The generous welfare benefits -- the free education, free health care, free or subsidizing housing -- of the Infidel nation-states of Western Europe, paid for by Infidel taxpayers, need not be made available to those who do not merely wish to remain outside or aloof from the local societies, but are taught to be actively hostile to them, and to work to undo them, some merely by procreating and then obtaining citizenship and using political power to further the steady islamization of the countries in which they have been allowed to settle, others to make constant demands for changes in the laws, customs, manners of the local Infidels. In no case should one expect any loyalty to be felt or exhibited to the Infidel nation-state; that would contradict entirely the teachings of Islam, where loyalty is owed only to Islam and to fellow Believers, to the umma al-islamiyya.

Why shoud Infidel taxpayers in Western Europe be subdizing people who do not wish them, their ways of being, well, and who would, if they would, impose Islam so that it would everywhere dominate, and Infidels be reduced, in their own countries, to what Infidels were reduced to everywhere that Islam conquered?

This inability to realize this, and the great ability to continue to refuse to realize this, reflects other promptings.

For some it is cupidity. There are businessmen eager for deals wtih Muslim countries, or who are directly or indirectly on the take, just as some government or former government officials have been all over the non-Muslim world, forming a small army of hirelings whose job it to minimize attention to Islam, and to maintain support in particular for Saudi Arabia. There are political figures whose greed is for votes, and who, as Muslims obtain political power in Western Europe, will pander to Muslim desires and demands, as long as there is no countervailing movement by non-Muslims to oppose, at every step, any politician who wishes to succumb to Muslim demands and desires.

For some it is stupidity. An inability to take in all of the ways of taqiyya and tu-quoque, an inability to make sense of Islam, an automatic respect accorded anything to which the word "religion" attaches itself, an inability to question the ntion that hundreds of millions of people may indeed be in thrall to a belief-system that, to the extent it is adhered to, makes them a present or potential menace to the wellbeing of all non-Muslims.

For some it is timidity. They just can't bring themselves to investigate, to realize, and then to do the most difficult thing: to express their alarm over what they have learned, or to support openly the most minimal measures of rational self-defense. It is as if it were impermissible to even think about the kind of things that were not only freely thought about, in all previous wars or policies of self-defense (see the Benes Decree relating to the Sudeten Germans in 1946), but that it is simply unacceptable even to think in such terms. Perhaps if Infidels ceased to think of themselves only now, in their pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding, and thought of what they had been born into, had received as a legacy, were part of, and how none of what was achieved, for example, in the Western world would have been possible under Islam, and it is unfair to all those thinkers, writers, philosophers, painters, sculptors, musicians, not to protect at least what they left because we are too stupid or uneducated or ill-taught or distracted to appreciate that legacy and feel the need to protect it.

The cure is knowledge: knowledge of Islam, of the nature, scope, and permanence of the menace; knowledge of the West (or whatever other non-Islamic civilization that would be equally threatened by Islam) and its legacy, its achievements, and the threats to its future.

Hell of a law,every infidel nation needs to do the same.Also every government that gives any many to an islamic country,should state you aint gunna get any money unless you outlaw islam.

It's difficult to convince someone that Islam is not what it seems. Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by just a few extremists, opposing multiculturalism is racism, immigration problems are caused by lack of tolerance, the West is responsible for every past and present problem in the world, only white people can be racists... these are all politically correct truths that you cannot question, so most people simply don't. I didn't really question them that much, until the cartoon rage started. Then I started asking some questions, and reached new conclusions. Many people don't like to reach uncomfortable conclusions, so no amount of arguing or evidence will ever convince them. You can't even publically talk about these things, unless you want to be seen as a racist radical who aims to start a Muslim Holocaust.

Often, when I refer someone to this site, they reject it because it's "biased." What does that even mean? Biased compared to what? If Jihad Watch is biased, then the official truth must be based on some kind of scientific data. I wonder where I could see this data.

I would deny citizenship to anyone wearing that atrocity, never mind just welfare benefits. What the hell are those walking letterboxes doing outside of Saudi Arabia in the first place? I loathe the sight of them.

"There are political figures whose greed is for votes, and who, as Muslims obtain political power in Western Europe, will pander to Muslim desires and demands, as long as there is no countervailing movement by non-Muslims to oppose, at every step, any politician who wishes to succumb to Muslim demands and desires."

Now there is me thinking that this could be our very own Jack Straw!

Back to the Burqa clad refusniks.

Pay them...but only on condition that they attend classes in Dutch history, art, and the values of secularism and why it exists. What it means to contribute to a society rather than leech from it, and the importance of maintaining individual thinking and actions within the freedom of democracy - not theocracy. Challenge them to understand and accept that unless they are part of all this they don't get a bean. And if they don't like that ... then assisted passage to the Islamist shith;le of their choice, at a time chosen by the Dutch authorities.

Go on people of the Netherlands get on with it!

Patriot4, I'm in agreement about outlawing islam if you want our money.

I don't understand how these countries believe that the practicing muslims are being persecuted in their own muslim countries and need asylum. That's just stupid.

I'm sure these muslim men are healthy, they need to be working. The old saying, "idle hands" is very appropriate here. Even if they are ditch digging, they could work.

Birth control. There is no need to have someone on the dole who has a child in Jan. and then another in Dec. That's ridiculous. And there needs to be unannounced visits to the home by social workers just to see how many wives there really are. And to check how things are going at the homes.

I'm all for sending an immigrant to adult classes to learn the language. I'm also for assimilation of their species.

If after a couple of weeks of being in the country, the women are still in burkas, then they know they aren't assimilating and need to be shipped out.

Talking of the 'conquest of the womb' Bin Laden himself has 53 brothers and sisters. He also has 27 children of his own. That makes 80 children from him and his father. My God, if he's a role model to the Muslim masses, then God help us!

freewoman-

It ain't the costume, its the play.

In this case: "Sharia- a tragedy".

Opening everywhere.

I wonder if saudi arabia will retaliate by denying dole payments to non native practising Christians who decide not to work and openly preach hatred against their hosts?

Oh I forgot, there aren't any.

Jesus Christ Supercop.

Carefully chosen words. My compliments.

In the UK we have the main parties in a state of funk because it is the BNP who have grasped that things ain't right and have hit a vein. I hold no torch for the BNP. I will never vote for a racist party. Problem is PC has disabled questioning thought or discussion to a large portion of our population. Consider the pledges regarding respecting diversity you have to make if you work in the public sector. However worthy this is the the PC'fied self loathing whitey does not need much help to avoid discussing the things you point out.

Back to the main parties....the BNP will take seats in the local elections. People who vote for them do not have to be racist and many will feel guilty...but they will be condemned by the arrogant and cowardly political elite that are frightened to break ranks and name the main reasons why people are outraged and vote this way. Not scared, outraged. They should get a grip of threats to freedom of expression. Dismiss as non founded the charges of lacking undertanding of - in many case trumped up - "sensitivities". Stand up and defeat religious intollerance. Thye should stop thinking it's racist. It is not.

When in doubt,
Throw them out.

Beard, you dare to disagree with Bill O'Reilly? Bill sez that it's impossible to remove 11 million illegal aliens from the United States of America. Can't be done. And he holds an actual degree from Harvard.

So it would be impossible for Europe to purge its bile.

Please notice the name of the Alderman proposing this measure. Ahmed Abu-Talib. Somehow, it does not sound to me like a blond Dutch Calvinist - and it strikes me that the "throw them out" rhetoric of at least half this thread would strike at the good Alderman at least as much as at any woman in or out of a burqa.

"it strikes me that the "throw them out" rhetoric of at least half this thread would strike at the good [Muslim] Alderman at least as much as at any woman in or out of a burqa."

If it would be feasible to establish a kind of loyalty test that could distinguish assimilable Muslims from authentic Muslims, and if that loyalty test could be given punitive teeth whenever an apparently assimilable Muslim later reveals him/herself to have been practicing deceit -- then, perhaps, we could moderate a throw-them-out program.

However, sometimes political actions have unavoidable collateral damage, and the good Muslims may just have to suck it up (analogous to the countless good Muslims who would have to patiently submit to profiling at airports, etc., in full and ungrumbling awareness that this is necessary for the common good).

Islam is a trans-national Super-Nation. Not only that, it is a Super-Nation structured by a totalitarian regimen of mental and behavioral rules based on a literalistic religious eschatology hostile to all other non-Muslim groups. No other such sociological entity exists on Earth.

This Super-Nation of Islam has its own "borders" -- the entire world: transcendent borders that therefore collide with the borders of non-Muslim nation-states that have gone through their own sociopolitical evolution and progress outside of the narrow historical horizon of the obsessive-compulsive disorder of Islam.

Islam's metastatically transcendent hostility seems to be attenuated not (for the most part) by good will or rationality on the part of Muslims, but only by a combination of accidental features (human imperfection, lack of power) and tactical features (taqiyya and truce during times of weakness). We don't really know -- nor perhaps ought we risk assuming -- that this good Muslim Alderman is not practicing taqiyya for the greater good not of the dar-al-harb, but of the dar-al-islam. At any rate, it may come to the point where it doesn't matter if the good Alderman is really a bad Muslim (i.e., wants to uphold an Infidel nation's laws), and he may just have to suck it up and accept the consequences of belonging to, and implicitly supporting, that Super-Nation that, despite his own personal, schizophrenic, Private Islam, is intolerably inimical to the real world outside Islam.

I wrote: "No other such sociological entity [as the Super-Nation of Islam] exists on Earth."

Of course, Communism was, for the 20th century, such a sociopolitical entity. Though in a state of disarray and dissolution today, the Communist Super-Nation could be revived by an ideological alliance with Islam (see Alexandre Del Valle on this). And just because such an alliance would be ridiculous and untenable doesn't mean that there are not proponents that would nonetheless pursue it, at the very least because of a common Enemy (that Enemy being, of course, Western Christian Jewish Masonic Globalist Capitalism).

Turbinhead

"Problem is PC has disabled questioning"

This so true, you have eloquently described what is happening in our Politcal system throughout the west.

"but they will be condemned by the arrogant and cowardly political elite that are frightened to break ranks and name the main reasons why people are outraged and vote this way"

Again ! A very accurate description of our politcal system.

I was led to believe that the House of Commons was a place where these issues could be discussed, but it seems that the truths are being suffocated under a subtle political pillow of PC proponents.

I believe that if you take Libralism to its extremes you get tyranny, and as a result free debate becomes a subset of true freedom, because we only discuss those topics which are designed to offend no one.

It is Orwellian in nature, and "Newspeak" is now the language of our time.

Alarmed Porcine Farmer-

It would take time to deport so many people. It took time for them to infiltrate. But I'm in no hurry. A thousand a week? That's surely feasible?

In the U.S., the 10-12 million figure strikes me as nonsensical. A scare tactic sum used to paralyze any response. It may be 3, it may 8, it be more, but numbers aren't the deadly issue. It is the threat from jihadists. The Mexicans can wait their turn.

Muslims, legal or illegal, in the U.S. are the primary problem, as the advance guard for the Islamic Imperium. Theocratic-termites gnawing at our laws, culture, ethics and educational system.

The illegals from elsewhere can be dealt with differently- since most are Christian lawbreakers just trying to mooch off a numbskulled sucker named Uncle Sam.

These need to be deported when they are found to be criminals of the more dangerous variety (rapists, robbers, killers, drug lords, etc.), and then the actual 'honestly' working members of the illegal underclass have to be seriously tallied, given unfakable temporary work visas, fined for their crime, and then put at the end of the immigration line, after all those who are quietly and decently following the existing border laws.

And, over a decade or so, they can work their way through to possible citizenship- if they:

A) learn English (and we shpuld then dump ALL bilingual wastes of money in the current system, everywhere, forever); and

B) the borders need to be CONTROLLED.

HARD.

TECHNOLOGICALLY.

AND WITH MANPOWER.

The last detail needs to come first, or the rest is a joke.

O'Reilly is talking about Mexican, Guatemalan, etc. illegals, mainly, and not terrorist Islamic infil-traitors, so, tactically and economically, I am forced to agree with him in this instance that it would be a waste of our resources to try to deport millions of people who we foolishly allowed Big Business (meat packing, agribiz, landscaping, restaurant, etc.) to smuggle in to essentially destroy the lower wage job scale of our nation, and weaken unions, all the while forcing the average taxpayers to fund their "serfs'" invasion with free hospital, schooling and housing benefits. And more expensive prison/police programs to handle their scum.

Probably a million of them are actual criminals who would need to be deported for good. If we did 10,000 a month, that would take less than a decade to accomplish. It took twenty years to permit this mess to get this bad (since Reagan's previous "amnesty, and then real border controls" folly), so that expulsion estimate seems like a fair amount of time to solve a growing cancer on the body politic.

Muslims (the imminent danger) as Television notes, need to swear a loyalty oath. But....

Television-

There is no such things as an "assimilated Muslim" in a Western country. Their faith forbids it.

The oath of citizenship is a de facto obstruction for any true Muslim becoming an "American"

To take it, they must be lying.

Which voids their citizenship.

And also voids that of any practicing Muslim, since no "nation" means anything to them. Loyalty is a farce. Only the Ummah exists.

We are just a speed bump in the path of the Juggernaut of the Caliphate.

But it will take many hundreds of thousands dead to bang this point through the admantine heads of enough Americans... now swimming in the p.c. pool of Daftness.

"Noble" Bush and "Holy, Holy" Rice are making it almost impossible to face the infil-traitor problem honestly.

But they'll be gone in two years.

Hopefully, in the meantime, a jihadist disaster leads to a better political choice in 2008.

A Churchill, instead of a Mosquepit.

Peter,

That phenomenon you and Turbinehead describe is mainly fueled by two prongs:

Prong #1: the fact that Muslims are non-Western, Third World, tend not to be white, wear cool ethnic clothes and sandals, belong to a religion (better yet, a non-Western religion), and engage in non-Western "cultural" practices that otherwise our dominant Leftists feel warm and fuzzy about when they indulge in "world music" concerts and "multi-cultural arts" fairs and "cross-cultural" "bridge-building" conferences (not knowing that Islam is itself hostile to those other "ethnic" cultures).

Prong #2: the West has convinced itself over the past 50 years to bend over backwards to stamp out all things that even hint of criticism against the features of #1 (whether or not they pertain to Islam doesn't matter, even though it obviously should).

That Islam happens to have, superficially, many features that fall within a penumbra of "Third World" "ethnic" cultures that are part of the wonderful multi-cultural rainbow only helps to solidify and congeal our present state of political madness, ignorance & inertia in the face of the dangers of Islam -- a system which is, in fact, the most hostile to that Rainbow so precious to the Leftists and their duped fellow-travelers.

profitsbeard,

"There is no such things as an "assimilated Muslim" in a Western country. Their faith forbids it."

I agree that their faith forbids it; but nevertheless, as with any other ideology or faith, there are innumerable members who are lax and don't follow all the tenets, for any variety of psychological and sociological reasons.

At the end of the day, our conclusions dovetail about what we might need to do with Muslims: i.e., if there exist lax Muslims (as I maintain), those lax Muslims may have to be grouped into the category of authentic Muslims, for the simple reason that we Infidels cannot distinguish them sufficiently for our purposes of safety and expense.

Truth is - that it is a battle.

In London there are women who work in clothing stores wearing the hijab (I think) - the black dress and black head covering - with the face showing. It does look odd. And you sometimes get the impression that these girls are not making the decision to dress like this themselves.

We also have Hasidic Jews - how wear the curls and the black hats - if one of them could not find a job, I am sure they would still be eligible for benefits.

But with the burqa, with it full face covering; everyone knows that this is the more extreme form of Islam, by way of the Iranian/Saudi influence - which holds the primary view that the West should be destroyed and replaced, with their vision of the perfect world.

It might work, but I could see a few problems. As the woman might just remove her face covering while in the government office in order to receive the money? And how would they ensure that this woman has been looking for a job at all.

Islam teaches its women that they are not worth very much and in turn these women believe that they are not worth much and so the main aim of these women would be to get married. In this sense, there should be outrage as they can not afford their lifestyle. Were all the other young women are asked to work and she gets government money to do nothing, because of her religion.
_____
The French are dealing with the subjugation of women, for example, if you wish to gain French citizenship and you are a Muslim, the women are no longer allowed to be locked away in the house, without learning French. And if a French citizen wants to marry a person from outside the Union, then the French citizen has to prove that they are working and have the means to support the spouse. Previously an Islamic person, who was not working, could marry a cousin or someone, from outside the Union, and they would both claim benefits or welfare within in France. That’s finished. In addition the new spouse is now observed for four years, to determine whether they have integrated into French society and should be allowed to become French citizens or not.

In France, the woman would not be allowed to wear the burqa in a government building any way.

While in Rome!

TV-

Let them realize that they are essentially apostates to the serious Muslims and join the freedom loving people, whose benefits they enjoy by living among us.

Mohammad's deadly serious followers will only force these wavering 'moderates' into swearing false obeisance to its dismal dogmas if Islam wins this clash between Civilization and the Koran's Sharia Stone Age.

The time is now for all wavering Muslims to choose:

-anti-freedom (Submission) or liberty.

And to remember:

-only we give any choice.

We'll let them leave. They can go stone Shaitan in Mecca for as long as they like.

But their "brother" Muslims will behead them if they "leave" the flock.

(Headless, to match the brain power of their pedophile "prophet".)

Their intellectual and moral dishonesty is what bothers me most.

Sickens, actually.

Tell me you are a jihadist and fight.

Or give up the cult of the child-molesting warlord, but don't play that there is a middle-ground.

The curtain has rung down on that farce.

free woman posted : I don't understand how these countries believe that the practicing muslims are being persecuted in their own muslim countries and need asylum. That's just stupid.

In Britain, this has been the case for along while. Any muslim claiming persecution in a muslim country automatically gets asylum, then follow all the welfare benefits - housing, free everything, including driving lessons!

OTH, a Christian family from a muslim country claiming persecution, is denied asylum and sent back.

There are two reasons that I can think of for this perverse behaviour

1. The authorities genuinely believe that islam is a RoP and that the Christian family is lying.

2. They know that islam is NOT a RoP but political imperatives make it necessary to claim otherwise - and thus a genuinely persecuted Christians from muslim countries are sacrificed (literally in some cases) on the altar of PC or political fear.

Bravo.A step in the right direction. May it not falter or fall under the PC Brigade. Have an antipathy to Burquas which deny a woman her true self,mobility and Vitamin C.Ban Burquas in all Western countries please.

sofia posted : That is the story ,where ever these Muslims live. Whether they got something to eat or not, they just sire like the forbidden animal,and send it over to other Non-Islamic nations to survive,and fend for themselves. We ,as fools,provide them with free education,free sustenance,free medical care,and free every thing

Britian provides shelter, free education and all the other goodies to the numerous offspring of the likes of Hamza, Qaradawi (who by the way, is resident in the Emirates but his 6 or 7 children are in Britain), Qatada, Bakri (again out of the country but wife and children supported by the taxpayer here). This is just Jihad by leaching Western economies.
------------------------------

Paolo:

I had noted the name of the author of the policy. It does not bode well that native Dutch can say nothing to protect Holland, and that only Ahmed Abu-Talib or Irsi Ali can say such things without being condemned outright.
-------------------------------

The real problem is not the burqa or the hijab or whatever. It is, that as muslims grow rapidly in numbers, they demand that society be changed to accomodate their beliefs. If their demands are not met, then lawful Jihad begins.

To Hugh's point and Television's, about our inability to see the threat of Islam for what it is:

Hitler is to blame. That's right. He screwed us big time. What the Nazis did to the Jews, based on race/religion, mortified the world. (Well, not the islamic world, they liked it, but I digress)The holocaust perpetrated by a right wing government essentially made any action or thoughts with racial/religious overtones taboo.

After the war, with the introduction of the children of the war generation, the boomers, the Left came to power and went on a rampage to "de-nazify" the West. That means that the white western world was the bad guy that needs to be restrained, and everyone else became the good guy the needed to be promoted. Thus those policies were put into place, written in law.

That was the beginning of PC correctness from which we now all suffer. Thus, someone from an arab nation was now a good guy, his customs were good, his religion was good, and by extension his politics were good. So, should any of those come into conflict with the customs, religion, or politics of his western host, the western host, being the bad guy, would yield as the one that was wrong.

Essentially, the Left, which always complained about western imperialism, now set out to facilitate imperialism of the non-westerner. And that imperialism comes in the form of unfettered immigration, dhimmi laws, chastising cartoonists, etc.. The Left is out to do for the non-westerner, what he was not able to do for himself or his culture, namely to make it the dominate force in the world. Thus the reason why the Left has allied itself with the Islamic imams when they chant that Islam will rule the world. The Left wants exactly that.

So like I have said before, the battle should not be with the islamic rable rousers, it should be with the Left here at home.

Oh my dear bloggers, these are indeed all great words.
But what do we gonna do when the shit really hits the fan?
Call Bruce Willis ??

"A strong body makes the mind strong.
As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun.
While this gives moderate exercise to the body,
it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind.
Games played with the ball, and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."
Thomas Jefferson

thethinker,

I agree with your analysis, though I would add that it didn't start with the West's knee-jerk post-War reaction to Nazism. The seeds were sown long before that, in a long and complicated process, which will make its sane reconfiguration that much more difficult.

I believe muslim women would be those who welcome such a law most. A great part of them are forced by their families to wear the burqa after all, which constrains the body much more than a veil, and for them, it would be a relief. Other countries should follow, e.g. with human rights classes at school or evening courses for foreign women.

actually in Turkey, women and girls are not allowed to wear a veil at school or uni either, the same in many jobs there

Often, when I refer someone to this site, they reject it because it's "biased." What does that even mean? Biased compared to what? If Jihad Watch is biased, then the official truth must be based on some kind of scientific data. I wonder where I could see this data.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at April 23, 2006 11:35 AM

When the bleeding-heart, left-wing hypocrites start whining "biased", that means somebody dared to tell the politically incorrect truth. You must understand that the doctrine of cultural Marxism prohibits open, honest discourse if the truth might offend someone. Revisionist history is a good example of this clever technique. Even our lexicon has been revamped, with new words like "Islamophobe" and many other equally ridiculous epithets designed to confuse, obfuscate, and deceive, or to leave one utterly numb and neutral. Relativism neatly ties up loose ends; moral judgments are forbidden because all beliefs are "equal" and evil does not exist. This is supposed to encourage "tolerance" and discourage conflict. Of course, it doesn't work except in the deluded minds of the social engineers.

What is all boils down to is that some people are more susceptible to mind control, brainwashing, and propaganda than others. Many are so smug and comfortable with their twisted ideas that they refuse to venture outside their vacuums. They are the truly stupid ones. Many are capable of seeing reality if they are exposed to it often enough.