The predictable outcry has already begun against this, but why is it that everyone, no matter what is point of view, values, or culture, has a natural right to enter France and thereby incurs no obligation to become French, but anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, and that is never questioned?
"French citizenship denied to man with veiled wife," by Stephen Kurczy for the Christian Science Monitor, February 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):
President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration today took another shot at the burqa, scoring populist points ahead of France's March elections, say analysts.France's immigration minister said he is refusing citizenship to a Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being," and forced her to wear a full veil in public, an announcement that plays well with French public support for a burqa ban.
"He has no place in our country," Prime Minister Francois Fillon told Europe 1 radio, in a decision that comes a week after a French parliamentary commission recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face. The ban still needs to be voted on, but it would apply in hospitals and on public transport. France already has bans for wearing headscarves in state schools.
Fillon said the Moroccan man, who had married a French woman, failed to respect the "values of the [French] republic."
"This case is about a religious radical: he imposes the burqa, he imposes the separation of men and women in his own home, and he refuses to shake the hands of women," Fillon said....
Yep.
Bravo Monsieur Sarkozy! C'est pas complique bien sur. Vivre la France! Vivre la France libre!
Very interesting...can you imagine a civil servant in the U.S. having the cajones to make such a decision based on an applicant's failure to respect the "values of the [American] republic"?
"This case is about a religious radical: he imposes the burqa, he imposes the separation of men and women in his own home, and he refuses to shake the hands of women," Fillon said....
Religious radical? Nah......just a good muslim.
Hooray for France! Let the carbecues begin.
I wrote earlier on Geert Wilders' trial:
Niqabed, hijabed women, minarets at mosques, persistent silencing of our freedom of speech are all symptoms of the same phenomenon of Islamic supremacy in the West.
It again applies here. The voluble show of ISLAMISM in European countries like France, England, Holland, Sweden, etc. is a show of Islamic supremacy using women and 'youths' to force indigenous peoples to bow low as dhimmis, as prescribed in the Koran (9:29). The head scarves, niqabs, burqas, like their minarets, are a show of force, of numbers, and of conquest. And if the dhimmi Europeans hadn't got the message to bow low enough, this is reinforced with car burnings, store lootings, rapes, muggings, child abuse, and general disrespect for the country's laws, such as mass 'prayer' meetings in the streets or welfare fraud, where they have settled as Muslim 'immigrants'. Rather call them Muslim 'invaders' to better clarify their intents towards Europe. They want to conquer from within, both bodily in numbers, and demographically in the womb, to create mischief and mayhem until Sharia is established in the land. Freedom be damned for these 'invaders' because they neither understand it, nor are capable of it in their suspicious cultural mores of total deceit. Islamics are unable to assimilate into European culture because they are there to conquer it.
Sarkozy and MPs of France are right to ban identity-restrictive women attire suggesting Muslim supremacy in public. They may already be too late. All European nations should take notice. The hundred years war is at hand.
"...a Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being"
Muslims LIE.
Let's go children of the fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody flag is raised! (repeat)
In the countryside, do you hear
The roaring of these fierce soldiers?
They come right to our arms
To slit the throats of our sons, our friends!
Refrain
Grab your weapons, citizens!
Form your batallions!
Let us march! Let us march!
May impure blood
Water our fields!
This horde of slaves, traitors, plotting kings,
What do they want?
For whom these vile shackles,
These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Frenchmen, for us, oh! what an insult!
What emotions that must excite!
It is us that they dare to consider
Returning to ancient slavery!
What! These foreign troops
Would make laws in our home!
What! These mercenary phalanxes
Would bring down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Good Lord! By chained hands
Our brows would bend beneath the yoke!
Vile despots would become
The masters of our fate!
Tremble, tyrants! and you, traitors,
The disgrace of all groups,
Tremble! Your parricidal plans
Will finally pay the price! (repeat)
Everyone is a soldier to fight you,
If they fall, our young heros,
France will make more,
Ready to battle you!
Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors,
Bear or hold back your blows!
Spare these sad victims,
Regretfully arming against us. (repeat)
But not these bloodthirsty despots,
But not these accomplices of Bouillé,
All of these animals who, without pity,
Tear their mother's breast to pieces!
Sacred love of France,
Lead, support our avenging arms!
Liberty, beloved Liberty,
Fight with your defenders! (repeat)
Under our flags, let victory
Hasten to your manly tones!
May your dying enemies
See your triumph and our glory!
Refrain
We will enter the pit
When our elders are no longer there;
There, we will find their dust
And the traces of their virtues. (repeat)
Much less eager to outlive them
Than to share their casket,
We will have the sublime pride
Of avenging them or following them!
Yep. This is not about "religious radicals" -- or it shouldn't be.
"This case is about a religious radical: he imposes the burqa, he imposes the separation of men and women in his own home, and he refuses to shake the hands of women," [Prime Minister of France] Fillon said....
So Muslims who do not impose the burga and who do not refuse to shake the hands of women are okay to admit into the West by the millions?
Aafia Siddiqui (see story below) who tried to murder American officers and federal agents with a loaded rifle, and who had studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University, didn't wear a burqa. Ingrid Mattson, who heads the Islamic Society of North America and who highly esteems Islamic supremacists Maududi and Qutb, doesn't wear a burga (though she does sport a modernized version of a head and neck covering that comically resembles something out of Star Trek). If Muslim women stopped wearing burqas and Muslim men stop imposing them on their women (though it is reasonable to suppose that most Muslim women proudly wear their burqas as a symbol of their fanaticism), would that make our societies any safer from the millions of apparently non-"radical" Muslims in our midst we would continue to allow in along with the millions who will have been bred in the meanwhile?
The burqa ban is a distracting band-aid affixed to a gaping, bleeding, metastatically infected wound spreading into gangrene.
Robert, ... "anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia"?
You mean there really are people in the world who would want to live there?
But but but... didn't Yvonne Ridley just declare that its all about choice and that she doesn't know even one Muslim female who has not chosen the burqa out of her own free will?
Curiously, this Iranian mullah also seems to misunderstand his religion:
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/02/03/iran/
Top cleric says women without veils must die
Tehran, 19 Dec. (AKI) – A top Muslim cleric in Iran, Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said on Wednesday that women in Iran who do not wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf, should die.
Can't even VISIT SA w/o a sponsor (unless things have changed).
For f*cks sake France, what took you so long?
Maybe France is embarrassed that they have 751 no-go areas for non-Muslims. These are areas that even police, fire, and EMS do not or cannot go.
Who Said What Should be Essential Reading for World to Understand the Violence, Hatred, and Destruction that Islam REQUIRES against Infidels
Unless France continues to fight back HARD, NOW, and relentlessly - the official language of France will become:
اللغة الرسمية لفرنسا الآن باللغة العربية.
why is it that everyone, no matter what is point of view, values, or culture, has a natural right to enter France and thereby incurs no obligation to become French, but anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, and that is never questioned?
Worse, it's a serious crime, I think maybe even a capital crime, to take a Bible into Saudi Arabia.
*** 9:71 ***
And that is a no-questions-asked rule despite the fact that the Arabians must allow hundreds of thousands of Infidels in to get the oil, this because Arabians are too lazy to do the oil production work and apparently too dumb to master the substantial technical skills required to produce and distribute oil.
And his - er - wife, the inferior being he married, is she French? I mean, you know, FrenchFrench rather than French by citizenship? What woman born in s free country accepts that she is "inferior"?
As Hersperado says, the problem is so much bigger than the burqa.
Indeed, getting rid of it in public might make some borderline anti-jihadists become complacent and think the battle is won, when it has hardly started.
For a start, no more bringing people into the country as spouses. If someone can't find a spouse in France, too bad. Let them get on with their terribly fussy search in Saudi Arabia or wherever, and stay there.
Then they can live out the full misogyny thing there, if that is what they crave.
Muslims are passionate about making up rules for us. Let us make up a few for them, in what we have the right to think of as OUR countries.
This is crazy, a Cristian who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, or he will be jailed.Why do these Muslims come to Europe ? Is there something I am missing? lol.Is the whole/ world blind ?
I checked the crazyislam site you provide that leads to maps and details of streets and areas comprising the 751 no-go areas in France, "the 751 no-go areas for non-Muslims. These are areas that even police, fire, and EMS do not or cannot go."
I have in recent years wandered around some of these areas, admittedly only in Lyon, Marseille and Paris, and saw nothing to warrant their being called no-go areas.
I further note that the crazyislam site also advises (correctly):
"Thousands of years of French history and culture, being decimated by people who wish to segregate and intimidate, not integrate and assimilate.
"If people aren't willing to fight for their own culture and society, it's unreasonable to expect others to help."
If the French people are prepared to accept that all these areas are dangerously out of bounds and are unwilling to enter them, then I claim that they are in effect unwilling "to fight for their own culture and society", they have allowed themselves to be intimidated, they are in effect paying the jizya and are already feeling subdued.
We have more than enough cause to fear Islam in Europe without having to exaggerate things. Way more, as the Geert Wilders travesty shows.
Again I challenge, has anyone reading JW been in these "no-go" areas? What has been your experience? Contradict me by all means.
Are there any such areas in the USA? If not, why not?
Let's hope that Holland's only hope, MP Geert Wilders, soon to be PM Wilders, does well in court. Let us hope that Holland does not turn into a France, with 751 areas that non-Muslims musn't go.
Holland or Hollandistan
Sounds like Sarkozy is taking the bull (Islam) by the horns. Bravo! Get those murderers out of the West.
"...why is it that everyone, no matter what is point of view, values, or culture, has a natural right to enter France and thereby incurs no obligation to become French, but anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, and that is never questioned?"
Easy. The Saudis make no pretense of being a multicultural society.
In a sane world, we would either brand mono-cultures like Saudi Arabia (and most of the rest of the Muslim world, for that matter) as antithetical to everything we stand for...or we would jettison multiculturalism as a necessary step in the preservation of our own culture.
But of course, it's not a sane...etc, etc.
"but anyone who wishes to live in Saudi Arabia must conform to Saudi values, and that is never questioned?"
Who the hell would want to live in Sowdi Arabia?
"Are there any such areas in the USA? If not, why not?"
Because the Mohammedans haven't reached critical mass.
Or, is anyone here from Dearbornistan?
"France's immigration minister said he is refusing citizenship to a Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being"
To: Muslim male
YOU are the "inferior being," you knuckle-dragging backward primitive savage Stone Age misogynist Creep. Get it?
I wish I could say that to your disgusting bearded face, Creep.
Sounds like Sarkozy is taking the bull (Islam) by the horns.
Not.
Unless France continues to fight back HARD, NOW, and relentlessly - the official language of France will become:
اللغة الرسمية لفرنسا الآن باللغة العربية.
Sarkozy: “Arabic Is the Language of the Future”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3591
...can you imagine a civil servant in the U.S. having the cajones to make such a decision based on an applicant's failure to respect the "values of the [American] republic?
No, I cannot. And I'm a dreamer. But lately the dreams have been portentious nightmares.
*** 33:21 ***
Are there any such areas in the USA? If not, why not?
This is a question of central importance, and here are some answers:
1) With HUD Section 8 in force, the federal bureaucracy naturally distributed our new Moslem neighbors across a dispered map, into wealthy suburbs as much as into inner city apartment complexes. Not only do our new Moslem neighbors get free nor near-free rent, some of them get to live in nice suburbs built mainly by enterprising white person Infidels.
2) Moslem Men (oh, such Maculine Men) are given the de facto green light from the state bureaucraces to practice bigamy. One county wife, 3 mosque wives, the latter on AFDC welfare which helps pay for the full sized recent model Lexus sedans you see the four riding around in, the gals in their hijabs.
3) Moslem Men (oh, such Maculine Men) are given Dept of Commerce SBA loans to buy their cabs, start their stores, what have you. Not so much for the white men (oh, not so Masculine Men) who fund the SBA with their federal taxes.
4) Moslems are given free healthcare via a variety of channels, mainly MedicAID. Included in this fine package are free clitorodectomies for pre-pubsescent Moslimas as they come of age. Illegal for civilized persons, including tax paying Americans, mainly JudeoChristians, but de facto legal for Moslems American Parents.
*** 92:8 ***
So what's for them to complain about? It's called Islam-meets-GloboSocialism-meets MultiCulturalism. It's ideal, and it's working like a charm, like a lucky charm.
www.veteranoutrage.com
1. I am surprised that a french politician showed some balls
2. He isnt willing to follow french law then he shoudltn be allowed in..
3. his wife also isnt willing to abide by french laws but isntead wants to be treated as a slave to this muslim man
So fine she can play the part of being treated like an animal (just not in france)..
She can wear her veil in somalia,
Again we're being diverted from the real problem by "burqua ban" headline. The real issue here is: "Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being".
Headlines like "French citizenship denied to man with veiled wife", can only serve as politically correct diversions from the real issue of muslim male's age long enslavement, abuse, oppression, rape, and murder of women, whom they deemed stupid and dirty just because they were physically inferior.
France should take accept this woman on asylum, and provide her with all possible social services, while kicking her fanatical husband out, then it would be worthy of headlines, and claims of rejecting the veil...
Darcy,
I think you should stop pulling your punches and just come out & tell us how you REALLY feel!
Just kidding, YOU GO GIRL!!
Islam is incompatable with Western values.
Islam is incompatable with human Civilization.
Kudos Sarko!
Vive la France!
I have come to admire, Hesperado, how, like a bull dog, you don't let go of your major premise which is that no Islam is acceptable, that all Muslims (even a woman in a mini-skirt, never mind a burqa) are to be treated as individuals adhering to a belief system which is inimical to Western liberty. And I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning. Very.
My concern (as I think you know by now) lies with the specific steps that must be taken or can be taken to achieve what you envision as optimum------Islam gone from our midst, which is a beautiful sentiment I might add for I see absolutely nothing in Islam which can benefit the West, enrich the Judeo-Christian ethic, make democracy stronger, insure continued equality under the law, enhance the rights of women or enlighten the mind in any manner whatsoever.
Sheikh Yermani and Kozlodaev: I think I'm with you guys on this one.
In this case, official France seems to strain at gnats while still swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24)--and camels of the gigantic, prehistoric type rather than modern dromedaries-- in its dealings with Islamicism. It was, after all, the Western country that first threw Israel under the bus and broached the possibility of a "Eurabian" alliance.
Further, its utter bureaucratization, which goes so far as to decree what names people may give their children, is all but the antithesis of the libertarianism embodies in the American Revolution. It's approach to religious freedom is also "Islamic": Christians (those dhimmis under the protection of the statist Culte Naturelle) are allowed to bow down to a common harlot enthroned as the "Goddess of Reason"; but the devotees of that same harlot may not repent and turn to Christ. it saddens me to say this, but that is how I see it.
One of a rare thing an EU country has done right
...
..
...
I hope the EU doesn't last long, just stopped playing a game that depicts the EU surviving well into the 22nd century
France's immigration minister said he is refusing citizenship to a Muslim man who called his wife "an inferior being," and forced her to wear a full veil in public, an announcement that plays well with French public support for a burqa ban.
"He has no place in our country," Prime Minister Francois Fillon told Europe 1 radio, in a decision that comes a week after a French parliamentary commission recommended a partial ban on any veils that cover the face.
.................
Good for him. I just hope this isn't overturned, somehow.
more:
Fillon said the Moroccan man, who had married a French woman
.................
*A French woman*. One wonders if this woman is nominally French—that is, that she is Moroccan, or Algerian, and her family moved to France at some point, and remained long enough, and at some point "became French"—in the legal sense, if in no other way, but remained Moroccan, or Algerian, and most of all, remained *Muslim*.
Then again—it is also quite possible that this woman was born a true, free French woman, in every sense of the word, but out of—what?—a desire for the "exotic", or to prove her multiculturalism, or simply because she couldn't handle all that French freedom, sought out an oppressive system of "religion", and along with it, a 'husband' who would consider her "an inferior being".
Statistically, the former is probably the greatest danger—a part of the Muslim invasion, the "moving from south to north", the imposition, or intended imposition, of Islam on Europe.
The latter, though, presents an even greater existential peril—when a free people look into the horror of Islam, and some of them—God help us—*find it attractive*.
Minarets, veils, and all the external trappings of Islam are objects of fear and derision. But isn't that dancing around the real issue, which is Islam itself? Yet only a few exceptional leaders, like Geert Wilders, have the wherewithal to attack the real problem head on. At least we're getting closer.
"Are there any such areas [no-go zones] in the USA? If not, why not?"
Of course there are, and have been for decades. But until recent years they were not Moslem areas. Remember the videos of the black thugs ["guards"] at a polling place in, I believe, Philadelphia, in the 2008 election, threatening the white TV crew?
And, darcy, Dearbornistan is a suburb of Detroit, which is full of no-go areas, and has been for 50 years or more.
One would have thought that the existence of such areas would have been a lesson and a warning for our "leaders" about the dangers of having large numbers of people of cultures antagonistic to our own in our country. But no, we have encouraged their immigration in (very)large numbers, so that we now have well-established Latino no-go zones in many cities, and are fast creating Islamic ones through the importing of hordes of Somalis, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc. One set of no-go zones wasn't enough for us, we had to create more.
GRAVEN: "Then again—it is also quite possible that this woman was born a true, free French woman, in every sense of the word, but out of—what?—a desire for the "exotic", or to prove her multiculturalism, or simply because she couldn't handle all that French freedom, sought out an oppressive system of "religion", and along with it, a 'husband' who would consider her "an inferior being"."
It seems that most Western women who marry Muslims are - dare I say it - homely looking and emotionally dependent (e.g., Sarah and Amina's mother). Many simply couldn't get a man from their own culture.
"What woman born in s free country accepts that she is "inferior"?
I wonder if psychologists are studying this phenomenon. I'd certainly be interested in what experts have to say about the matter.
There are women (and they are few, thank God) who crave a dominant man, even up to and including the point of spousal abuse. Why? Who knows? Maybe it's some kind of sexual kink. Maybe it's a desire to physically belong to a man. And as someone else suggested, it might be an aversion to freedom and a desire to be told what to do in every situation.
In the latter case, perhaps depression is a factor. One of the symptoms of depression is a difficulty and/or inability to make decisions. Whatever it is, it's sick and sad.
OT@Kepha:
I'm sorry I got so pissy about the Nineteenth Amendment joke. My ex-husband would say I was "having a moment".
Cornelius: You nailed it! Any sane western woman which marries practicing muslim voluntarily must be a masochist, or a sadist (to her children and family).
Using "french freedom" as an example isn't very convincing tho, look at Robespierre, implementation of his ideas, and his ultimate end...
Hesperado wrote:
The burqa ban is a distracting band-aid affixed to a gaping, bleeding, metastatically infected wound spreading into gangrene.
.................
Graphic statement-and very true, Hesperado. It *isn't* enough, not in any way, and I know you are often frustrated even with people here—including myself—who get giddy over such small things.
But until recently, few even took note of that wound at all, let alone explored its true, horrific dimensions.
The comparison has been made before, of course, but I can only refer the situation with Islam to that of Nazi Germany. Some few people had been concerned with events in Germany since the 1920s, and spent the 1930s becoming both increasingly alarmed with the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, and stunned that so few others saw what was so obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention.
Most were ignored, and some—like the redoubtable Winston Churchill—were even vilified for their warnings.
But when the West finally woke up, it woke up fast and fought back hard.
When I see things like a ban on burqas or minarets, or increased airport screening for those from Muslim countries, or some political commentators actually referring to "Jihad", I agree that they are woefully insufficient in and of themselves.
But they seem to imply that that people are finally paying attention, and that the tide may continue to turn.
"YOU GO GIRL!!"
Why, thank you.
And George - YOU GO GUY!
*
"And, darcy, Dearbornistan is a suburb of Detroit, which is full of no-go areas, and has been for 50 years or more." - ebonystone
Detroit must be a pretty unpleasant place at this juncture.
no
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Islam is incompatable with Western values.
Islam is incompatable with human Civilization.
---------------------
Islamic culture is incompatible with Western culture.
Islamic dress is aesthetically displeasing in the Western scenery and atmosphere.
Mosques are aesthetically displeasing and do not fit the Western skyline.
OTH, mosques, Islamic dress and culture, eminently suit and match the cultural atmosphere of an Islamic country.
A French Muslim organisation has condemned a weekend attack on a mosque north of Paris. The phrases “Islam get out of Europe" and "France is for the French" were scrawled on the walls and entrance of a mosque in Crepy-en-Valois.
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/122/article_6731.asp
via
http://sheikyermami.com/
"He has no place in our country," Prime Minister Francois Fillon told Europe 1 radio"
Damn right. He has no place in any civilized country.
Wow. Thank you, France, for standing up for the rights of women everywhere to live in peace, free from the threat of violence, and to be equal under the law.
Any woman who voluntarily has anything to do with a Muslim barrow hasn't got the sense of an Obama bin Barry voter.
Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé
Entendez-vous dans nos campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras.
Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes!
Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Quoi ces cohortes étrangères!
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!
Quoi! ces phalanges mercenaires
Terrasseraient nos fils guerriers!
Grand Dieu! par des mains enchaînées
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient
De vils despotes deviendraient
Les maîtres des destinées.
Tremblez, tyrans et vous perfides
L'opprobre de tous les partis
Tremblez! vos projets parricides
Vont enfin recevoir leurs prix!
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre
S'ils tombent, nos jeunes héros
La France en produit de nouveaux,
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre.
Français, en guerriers magnanimes
Portez ou retenez vos coups!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes
À regret s'armant contre nous
Mais ces despotes sanguinaires
Mais ces complices de Bouillé
Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère!
Nous entrerons dans la carrière
Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
Et la trace de leurs vertus
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre!
Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté, Liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs!
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
I HOPE FRANCE WILL KEEP THIS DECISION AS A POLITICAL STATE, AND NOT FOR CIRCUMSTANCIAL ELECTIONS.LA REVOLUTION FRANCAISE EST EN DANGER,L ISLAM MENACE SES PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX...AUX ARMES CITOYENS...VIVE LA FRANCE.
That would be the right thing to do. But it wont happen here. UNFORTUNATLY.
I HOPE FRANCE WILL KEEP THIS DECISION AS A POLITICAL STATE, AND NOT FOR CIRCUMSTANTIAL ELECTIONS.LA REVOLUTION FRANCAISE EST EN DANGER,L ISLAM MENACE SES PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX...AUX ARMES CITOYENS...VIVE LA FRANCE.
Good post, Cornelius!
It started me thinking. If the Multi-Culturalists would be logical and honest then they should eventually want the whole world or the bulk of it to be Multi-Cultural. I mean if they think we should be non-ethnocentric, should not want to impose our own culture on others.
Now when people like Wilders and many others try to defend and nurture their own culture, then the Multi-culturalists are much more angry at them than they are on the People in the world who are among the most ethnocentric of all, the Muslims in the Islamic world!
If you are for multiculturalism and against etnocentrism, or imposing ones own culture/ religion on others, then there you see many of the biggest culprits! For me it is the multiculturalists ultimate hypocrisy that their own compatriots are considered responsible, reproachable people, but the Muslims are not! Are they then too simple, primitive to be held accountable in the same way as Wilders and co?
But, I thought, oh, the Muslims in Islamic countries are in the comfortable position that only a negligible number of people from other cultures, especially the Western, WANTS to migrate to their countries. Then I thought; WHY is that?
Is the huge attraction of Western civilisation to Muslims, that is so one-sided (where for instance do so many prospective brides want to go to and from where are they coming?) not a sign that the Western culture is more successful? And that it should be emulated in the less successful culture and not the other way around?
But of course when asking such questions I am always told that it is more complicated than that.
This is the day to defend civilization. Be awakened, people. Prepare yourselves, arm yourselves, stand firm. Remember Aqsa Parwez. Remember Amina and Sarah Said. We did not defend them, but we can atone for this. All those who defile civilization, may they be written in the dust.
gravenimage,
I understand your point and do not deny there is some pragmatic value to these various baby steps. I also believe that without a number of us (the more the merrier) generating impatient and uncomplacent energy -- persistently refusing to settle for less -- those baby steps may well not evolve into the larger steps we need to best protect ourselves from Muslims following their Islam.
Take it one step further, gravenimage.
When I see things like a ban on burqas or minarets, or increased airport screening for those from Muslim countries, or some political commentators actually referring to "Jihad", I agree that they are woefully insufficient in and of themselves.
When Muslims show real humility in the West, instead of their pompous arrogance, and some actually publicly speak out against their co-religionists' Islamic ideas to criticize their fundamentalist Islam, then we may begin to feel that the tide has turned. But until then their arrogance and socially imposing identity-effacing restrictions (individuals do not exist in Islam, especially for face-covered women), then the battle is on. And the bitter civil war between our freedom loving civilization and their enslaving submission ideology is upon us. Restricting the veil in France was just the first shot. Vive la France!
it's really quite simple.
islam is slavery. Slavery cannot be tolerated to exist by free men/women. Slavery in whatever form is a threat to all those that embrace freedom. Period. Tyranny is always plotting the demise of liberty.
The slave rags the women of islam are forced to wear are visible symbols of that tyranny.
islam will not reform. It must be extinguished. The ummah must be made free.
The world must be made safe.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.