Not "compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society." Indeed.
"Belgian parliament bans burquas [sic] in public," from AP, March 31:
BRUSSELS-- A vote against wearing face-covering veils in puclic was unanimously established on Wednesday. This legislation represents a major legislative step, which could make Belguim the first European country to impose such a religious prohibition. [...]The parliamentarians are specifically targeting the body-covering burqa and face-veiling niqab, which are still very rare features in Belgian public life. "We have to act as of today to avoid (its) development," Bacquelaine said.
"Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said.
In Belgium, the proponents of the ban argue that such all-covering garb poses security issues as well as threatens democratic values. Some feared, however, that the bill would not stand a legal challenge.
In France on Tuesday, the Council of State, the nation's highest administrative body, warned that a prohibition on full-body Islamic veils in public risked being found unconstitutional. President Nicolas Sarkozy said last year that such clothing was "not welcome" in France.
Such a ban could also be challenged at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights.
And I am certain it will be.
From pictures I have recently seen of Belgium, this will affect a sizable portion of the population.
"Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said.
...................
Indeed. Here are burqas on the streets of neighboring France (Marseilles, in this case):
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld//files/2010/01/cr_mega_448_burqa.jpg
Their juxtaposition with the festive advertisement for champagne speaks for itself.
If these western governments are not careful, they are going to make Mahoundians feel unwelcome and unwanted...
Any Westerner who would defend the wearing of the burqa, a symbol of so many things wrong in a religion that would end freedom and equality under the law if it could, has such an open mind that his brains have fallen out.
There will be the usual threats of bringing down Belgium's economy a-la-Gaddafi style; and maybe even a 'veiled threat' (sorry about that)of jihad in Belgium.
Anyway, good news!
Yes, it had crossed my mind as well !
Ehh, I'm not too excited about these laws. This whole thing isn't a conflict between two groups, Islam and the West. It's between three: Islam, the traditional West and the politically correct multiculturalist(PCMC)elites. The PCMCs don't really care about preserving the values of the traditional West. They care about maintaining power and control in order to implement their leftist, socialist, multicultural society. And just like the Soviets, it's in their interest to keep a lid on civil unrest. They'll ban the burqa on one hand, and with the same motivation they'll ban criticism of Islam as "hate speech". Sure, they'll be happy to impose a left-wing police state onto the West in order to preserve their power, but I'm not convinced that they're doing it to preserve the traditional values of the West.
Finally, some good news! Now, if the free world could only ban muslims. We don't need any more trash.
Any Westerner who cheers for the extinguishing of liberty and freedom of choice and respect for modesty while simultaneously demanding legal restrictions to freedom of religion while claiming to be a liberal democratic socitey...read familiar?
Look in the mirror and ask what freedom is, what democracy is, what it means, then ask yourself why you are cheering for it to be extinguished.
To clarify my point above, I see it like this. There are three factors:
1. A large Muslim population
2. Western individual rights and liberties
3. Peaceful civil society free from violent conflict.
You can choose any two, but you can't have all three. I'm not that comfortable with giving up 2 and 3.
What I mean to say is that a NATION can choose any two, but cannot have all three simultaneously---or at least, there is no evidence of that ever happening.
Good comment. Banning the burqa probably does little as long as a PeeCeeEmCee elite is in power.
If it were a choice, it wouldn't be an issue. If there was a sect that walked their women around on dog leashes, with collars around their neck, and I had an epidemic in my town and worldwide of women who ended up scarred, dead or missing because they didn't wear their dog collars, I would ban women on leashes, too.
In Rochester NY, firefighters are supposed to always wear a tie. Clothing laws are not unheard of.
Yes, in a strict libertarian sense, it's "freedom". But put that same girl outside that Muslim family for six months and ask her if she'd like to continue wearing her burqa, if she knew nothing could happen to her, and see what she says.
"Such a ban could also be challenged at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights."
And this is possibly the bottom line. The ban may well have been passed in a cynical ploy by politicians to gain temporary cover from conservative citizens -- but with secret assurances to their Muslim constituents not to worry, it's only temporary until such time as it takes for them to be overruled in Strasbourg because it violates rules about religious discrimination or some such.
G-d it's becoming tiresome to have to view what otherwise should be very good news with such a jaundiced eye. But as we have learned, such seemingly simple victories have a way of turning to ashes when the PeeCee termites are given free reign to gnaw.
Click on the link and read the whole of the article. It contains this very telling passage:
'"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill. '
Bacquelaine is onto something. He's subliminally picked up on something about the burqa and niqab that truly irks free people - women as well as men - in the West when they are forced to interact with a Muslim woman whose whole face is hidden except for her eyes (but is it a woman? how can you know if you cannot see the face and cannot even properly make out the form?) - the rejection of reciprocity, the sneering "I can see you, O dirty kafir, and read your face; but *you* can't see *me*, you can't read my face and know whether I am telling the truth to you or not".
Dont rejoice (yet)
It's a commission that voted a proposition . Belgian parliament will vote about it in about a month time.
Sorry
Recently, on two separate occasions,I have had to step back
out of the way of niqab clad(female) drivers making right turns.There is obviously peripheral vision restrictions by
wearers of this garment.
Look in the mirror and ask what freedom is, what democracy is, what it means, then... pick up the quran and if it in one detail agrees with your answer then you got everything wrong.
Good Lord, a mohammedan zombie lecturing infidel on democracy and freedom! Hilarious!
What's next? Treaty of Hubbadyiah as the model for international treaties?
Or maybe Mohammed's "Memoirs of a Paedophile Pig" as the textbook for primary school teachers?
Look in the mirror and ask what freedom is, what democracy is, what it means, then...
Does it make a difference if one is wearing a burqa?
Well, Tommy boy, let's play a game, it's called "Democracy 101" and Schmuck the whining idiot...you play the part of Schmuck, okay?
Gee, Democracy 101 purports to protect certain things, "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" and people like you voted to set it up...hoooray for our team!
"But wait a minute," Schmuck whines, "...you mean, we can't force our degenerate values onto others carte blanche!? Boo hoo, no fair! Let's use our Democracy to violate the rights of others all the while pretending we are so high brow and noble! Freedom for all, as long as its the kind we define..." Thus spaketh Schmuck, the whining idiot.
The choice of modesty of dress of another human being is a protected right...just as the right to dress like whore is granted...it's a two way street, you can't have one without the other...freedom, "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"
Are you with me, Schmuck?
Treaty superceded law, and when a treaty is violated the terms of that treaty are enforced on those who violate it...as well as treaties that engage other nations, even secret treaties...remember WWI...well, remember what you read about it, okay? All those secret treaties...and, wow, most of those were set up by progressive democratic societies, that is other than Austria-Hungary.
Class dismissed...Schmuck, you can take the dunce cap off now, and do whatever makes you happy...its a free country...oh yeah, don't hurt anyone, plan to hurt anyone, engage in activities that could potentially hurt anyone in pursuit of your ideals.
The burqa has absolutely no statement of 'Style', it is the
expression of hopelesness, complete with a void of persona.
Would you like to go out dressed in your pillowcase every
day? Now it is good news coming from the Belgian Parliament,it shows there is a movement against the movement of Belgian societal destruction, ever how small.
I might think the compromise to allow it occasionally
should mandate wearing cow boy boots with it, now that
would be a fashion statement...............William
Gee, Democracy 101 purports to protect certain things, "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" and people like you voted to set it up...hoooray for our team!
Right! hooray for MY TEAM. Not yours, mohammedan simulation of intelligent life.
Your team has been too busy following the revelations your degenerate pig-prophet received on regular basis from that little charlie manson-like ape inhabiting the bilge of his rotten brain when he was taking a break from raping children, murdering, betraying, stealing and torturing. But sometimes also while he was engaged in these typically mohammedan pastimes.
Now, Democracy is ours, not yours, and it is, indeed, our team that designed that instrument to protect OUR life, OUR liberty and OUR pursuit of happiness. If your team is an obstacle to these three things, as it is the case, then OUR democracy doesn’t prevent us to tell your team to either obey the customs and mores of OUR civilization, or to collect your praying rag, your hideous kooran, your three pebbles (you know, that sophisticated contraption conceived by your pig-prophet for personal hygiene) and get the f**k out of OUR world back to your mahommedan sewer from which we so unwisely let you crawl out. Why can’t you understand it mohammedan moron?
Before I quit I want to tell you that I have a rule to never engage in discussion about izzlum versus civilization, before I ask the other party a very simple question which is: do you agree that mohammed was a PIG?
If I don’t hear a loud and clear “Yes” I am not interested in further exchange.
I did make an exception in your case, because sometimes when after a few drinks I am in a mellow, relaxed mood I like to have a bit fun urinating over your pig-prophet and your horrid cult. I won't make the exception again. Once is enough, mohammedan low life.
And now, bugger off to your kaaba latrine.
Good insight...........William
Poor Tommy, fails to grasp the simplest concept...you have the power of choice only, not the luxury of command.
Tommy, the poor thing, suffering delusions of grandeur are you?
You have nothing other than the power of choice.
Democracy, its a choice, you know...
Kegner, I've been trying without much success to follow your train of thought in the exchange with Thomas_h. The ad hominems came through OK. But your invoking democracy, which is a method of choosing political leaders from among those who are to begoverned, is clearly a case of your misunderstanding a concept and its domain of applicability. In fact, it's not clear what your position is on the subject of the story, which is nicely summarized with the onomatopoeic headline "Banning of Burqas in Belgium". Do you agree with the measure, or not? Thanks.
"If there was a sect that walked their women around on dog leashes, with collars around their neck"
There already is such a sect. It is called wahabism. I know someone who was in Saudi Arabia a few years ago and saw a local barbarian walking a woman on a dog leash. Asking the tour guide for an explanation elicited the response: "She must have been misbehaving."
In case any of you missed this other bit of good news, the province of Quebec in Canada is also presently in the process of banning this primitive face-veil. There are also calls for the other Canadian provinces to do the same. As usual the Islamists and their loyal dhimmi PC sympathizers are howling like the mad rabid dogs that they are.
We shall see what shall come of this latest legal attempt to muzzle the Islamist beast.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/26/barbara-kay-the-burka-not-worn-but-borne.aspx
Resident Muslim Kegner Bifresye infers banning the burka is a restriction on the Islamic religion:
"Any Westerner who cheers for the extinguishing of liberty and freedom of choice and respect for modesty while simultaneously demanding legal restrictions to freedom of religion while claiming to be a liberal democratic socitey...read familiar?"
However,
"There is nothing in any of the primary Islamic religious texts, including the Qur'an, that requires women to cover their faces, - not even in the controversial, ultra-conservative tenets of Sharia law.
Considering the fact that women are in fact forbidden from wearing burkas in the grand mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest site, it hardly makes sense that the practice should be permitted in Canada, Belgium or anywhere else."
"Indeed" and "I am certain it will be," Robert - is that all you can say on this significant development? If it was a rejection of such a ban I'm sure you'd have plenty to write. One gets the feeling that bad news is grist for your mill but good news is not.
I don't call forcing women into ugly black tents 'modesty'. Only a stupid misogynistic Mohammedan savage like yourself calls that modesty. I assume you approved when Saudi mutaween 'religious and morality police' forced schoolgirls back into their blazing school buildings to retrieve their hijabs resulting in 15 of them being burned to death. Of course, that is what you savages want future generations of Western girls to go through, and because we value future generations of Westerners, we want barbarians like yourself OUT, and sent back to your Pakistani dunghole.
Exsgtbrown,
Please, look again at that:
"Any Westerner who cheers for the extinguishing of liberty and freedom of choice and respect for modesty while simultaneously demanding legal restrictions to freedom of religion while claiming to be a liberal democratic socitey...read familiar?"
Why do you bother to address that imitation of an argument?
Can’t you see the mohammedan specimen is too dense to present a clear, coherent argument and instead pretends doing so by loudly disgorging syntax-hostile, jumbled heap of parts of phrases pilfered from other contexts counting on goodwill of a nice guy like you to impute a meaning to his gibberish and address it.
And then at the end of that cretinic paragraph the mohamedan android belches out triumphantly: “…read familiar?” - ?
Yes, it definitely should “read familiar” to you.
Familiar of dawa, taqqyiah, kooran, stupidity, shamelessness, vulgarity - in short everything so perfectly represented and advanced by izzlum.
All I can say is_it's about(insert expletive here) time! The strangest thing is that sections of the usually secular(if not frankly atheistical) far left has taken to flacking for jihadism see Morning Star, march 31st 2010)-perhaps because they and the jihadists sing from the same anti-Western hymnsheet!
Terry
This is about curtailing the spread of lunacy in a western society. Here in Florida, a woman demanded to wear her burqa for her drivers license photo. Although I found it amazing that her male keepers let her drive at all.
A good argument for prohibiting the burqa, by Daniel Pipes can be read here....
http://www.danielpipes.org/4783/ban-the-burqa-and-the-niqab-too
ADMIT ISRAEL INTO NATO
Eastview,
Banning of Bikinis on Beaches....what blog screaming would we see here if this were the case? Over the top, I tell you...a meltdown.
This proposed Belgian law would be unconstitutional in America as it constitutes a restriction of civil liberties based upon religious descrimination and that can not and will not be allowed to occur in a democratic society like America, that protects individual liberty and freedom.
I thought that point was clear?
Draw a line in the sand. Muslims should understand that metaphor.
If face masking is allowed to proliferate, it is just an invitation for the next stage in jihad, perhaps one of the "rights" for which some UK muslims are agitating, such as use of loudspeakers for making calls to prayer (something that Ataturk banned). One concession does not buy peace, it is just the prelude to another demand. The road to a state governed by Sharia Law is paved with a sequence of concessions by the appeasers.
To borrow another old metaphorical saying, "a stitch in time...".
Your reply to Thomas_h is a mantra rendered boring by repetition. You've used it elsewhere in jihadwatch.
"The power of choice" is in any case just plagiarism of the advertising copy for John Deere tractors.
"The luxury of command" is explained by Col. Chris Hughes
in the context of US army doctrine, thus:
"As a commander I issue intent and allow my subordinate maximum time and top cover to do the right thing. This luxury of command only comes from tough and realistic training and subordinates who are willing to take the hard right over the easy wrong."
http://www.leanblog.org/2008/01/teaching-how-to-think-not-what-to-think/
We need such doctrine, particularly the willingness to take the hard right over the easy wrong, to permeate judicial and legislative spheres as well as the military, and of course the determination of right and wrong will not be decided by a perverted interpretation insisted upon by those with a vested interest in subverting the whole system.
As I said, you only have the power of choice, choose wisely.
You lack the luxury of command.
I think that I remember a movie from the 1960's. It's title was If It's Tuesday It Must Be Belgium. Well now we can say If There Is No Burka On Display It Must Be Belgium.
Tom Billesley,
You are told by the mohammedan zombie:
... you only have the power of choice, choose wisely ...
Right, choose to wisely to ignore that mohammedan ninny who lacks even the most basic wits to meaningfully assemble the soundbits he has plagiarized.
Encapsulate the imbecile in a sound-proof burqa, so his simian howling won't be heard outside of it.
But but but--Muslims do it all the time-even murder for the sake of extinguishing freedom.
Kegger, even among those who are most sympathetic to allowing the introduction of offensive Muslim customs into the West there is a growing, albeit grudging, recognition that the burqa and niqab, in fact, the wrapping of the face in any way so as to conceal identity, are not only at odds with norms of civilized behavior, but they constitute threats to security and public safety and should be banned. Hopefully this recognition will grow and crystallize into laws that make it a crime for anyone wearing such garb to drive a vehicle on public roads, attempt to enter a bank or board an airplane, etc.
And FWIW, Thomas_h and Tom Billesley have pegged you pretty accurately. You're here not to discuss but to argue for the introduction of unacceptable Muslim customs into the West. Unfortunately, since you have only Islamic logical tools to work with (consisting mostly of knee-jerk responses and overworked cliches), and they don't span very much of the space of reality in any case, you're limited to a very small number things to talk about. You've already pretty much shot your load on this topic, and your arguments, such as they were, were poorly framed to boot.
I find your ad hominem comment funny…since the motive for everyone here, including the author of the blog, is to post in the “knee jerk” manner …the very source of his income is a “knee jerk” the only motive for your responses are the same.
Your position is egocentric, as you think only your experience in Western Civilization is the benchmark for defining civility, and you are sorely lacking in that opinion.
Since the machinations of those who support this blog, and its warped world view, are directed solely at attacking Islamic customs, as well as the religion directly, I feel they are all doomed to fail on the world stage as well as the constitutional platforms of many nations because common people everywhere will see through this thin veil.
You are correct, I am not here to sing along with TH and TB, I am an open public opponent…if you understood Yiddish you could have guessed that on your own.
Now lets move on to the next “knee jerk” article from your hero, “Super Spenser” the defender of Judaism and Western Civilization from the “creeping Sharia” menace…
"...you think only your experience in Western Civilization is the benchmark for defining civility..."
Your assumption is incorrect, as I have lived for extended periods of time in non-Western cultures, in hemispheres East and West, North and South, which have provided me with a perspective and a keen appreciation of the comparative virtues of Western civilization based on first hand experience. My experience is that civility is the norm between individuals, regardless of the culture, although such civility may only be superficial since in most cases it doesn't involve challenging deeply held beliefs. This is the level where PC and MC operate. It is at the deeper levels of cultural differences where conflict arises, and this is the level under discussion here.
Your comments on this and other stories on JW are laced with the projectionist vocabulary of the Armchair Liberal Left ("Zionist," "Colonialist," "Racist"...), who deal primarily in theoretical abstractions selected to advance a particular sociopolitical POV, and this provides a clue to your background. With respect, I get the sense that you have very little actual experience with the things you write about.
Eastview,
Unfortunately, since you have only Islamic logical tools to work with (consisting mostly of knee-jerk responses and overworked cliches), and they don't span very much of the space of reality in any case, you're limited to a very small number things to talk about. You've already pretty much shot your load on this topic, and your arguments, such as they were, were poorly framed to boot.
How very elegantly expressed!
Especially his last hilarious attempt at coherence and originality confirms your observation most compellingly. One could think you pay the muttonhead to keep on collecting your eggs on his face.
Eastview,
I couldn\t resist it:
…if you understood Yiddish you could have guessed that on your own.
Exactly like kooran - you can’t understand it if you don’t know Arabic.
You can’t understand our mishigene if you don’t know Yiddish.
I wonder what madrasah include Yiddish in their curriculum now.
Kegner Bifresye said:
"Since the machinations of those who support this blog, and its warped world view, are directed solely at attacking Islamic customs, as well as the religion directly, I feel they are all doomed to fail on the world stage as well as the constitutional platforms of many nations because common people everywhere will see through this thin veil."
...
"Now lets move on to the next “knee jerk” article from your hero, “Super Spenser” the defender of Judaism and Western Civilization from the “creeping Sharia” menace…"
Thank you for PROVING eastview correct when he said "You're here not to discuss but to argue for the introduction of unacceptable Muslim customs into the West."
I noticed you havn't ONCE said anything that actknowldges islam as the threat to freedom that it is. You're on the wrong side, bud.
You're on the wrong side, bud.
Foolster,
I think he is on the perfectly right side.
Come on, you wouldn't like to have him on OUR side... Let him continue contributing his own imbecility to the total stupidity of mahommedanism. It is good for us!
Thomas H: I disagree, anyone can move from being against freedom to support it. Stupidity is not a terminal disease. I'd rather he'd turn to fight for freedom than make excuses for those who fight against it.
The first step in banning slavery of women (and infidels).
The first step in banning slavery of women (and infidels).