| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"Netherlands moves toward total ban on Muslim veils," by Dan Bell for The Guardian:
The Netherlands may become the first European country to ban Muslim face veils after its government pledged yesterday to outlaw the wearing in public spaces of the niqab, or veil, and the burka, or full-length cloak covering the head.
The Guardian is rather imprecise here, as well as in its headline: The burka and niqab, which are at issue here, are full face coverings and not merely "veils" in the broader sense.
The right-leaning coalition said last night that it would look for a way to outlaw the wearing of all Muslim face veils. The grounds for a ban were laid last December when parliament voted in favour of a proposal to criminalise face coverings, as part of a security measure proposed by a far-right politician, Geert Wilders.
Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister, signalled that the government would now push for a total ban, even though the legislation would be likely to contravene Dutch religious freedom laws.
"The cabinet finds the wearing of a burka undesirable ... but cannot at present enforce a total ban," the Dutch news agency ANP quoted her as saying after a cabinet meeting.
Ms Verdonk suggested that existing legislation which limits the wearing of burkas and other full-body coverings on public transport and in schools did not go far enough, and that the cabinet would discuss as wide a ban as possible in the coming week.
"The government will search for the possibility to provide a ban," her spokeswoman told the Reuters news agency.
The announcement is in stark contrast to the laissez-faire image of the Netherlands. The country is known for its tolerance for drugs, prostitution and euthanasia, but in recent years has passed some of Europe's most unforgiving entry and immigration laws.
[...]
Muslim groups estimate that as few as 50 women out of 1 million Dutch Muslims wear the burka or the niqab, but the groups have protested that a ban would increase feelings of victimisation and alienation. "What the government is doing now is totally disproportionate to the number of women who actually wear the burka," said Ayhan Tonca, chairman of an umbrella group of Dutch Muslim organisations. "The legislation we already have to protect people for security reasons is adequate," he added.
One Dutch-born Muslim, identifying herself only as Hope, told Reuters that she wore the niqab because she wanted to. "Nobody has the right to forbid it. If someone decides I cannot wear it, then I will feel suppressed," she said.
The Netherlands would be the first European state to impose a nationwide ban on Islamic face coverings, but other states have already outlawed them in specific places.
Posted by Marisol at November 12, 2006 1:48 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
So suppressed, she's going to explode.
A ban is a start.
Obviously, what is really needed is the eradication of Islam and the tyranny of Allah.
Posted by: Amillennialist![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 12, 2006 2:06 AM
Keep it coming!
Posted by: templar at November 12, 2006 2:15 AM
Congrats to the Dutch. They've taken their first step in reclaiming their country. Now maybe the rest of the West will follow. If the Dutch can do it there may be hope for us all.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 12, 2006 2:31 AM
What ISL said.
I'm not so sanguine, but I cannot disagree with that sentiment.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 12, 2006 2:40 AM
When in Rome...
Posted by: watcher at November 12, 2006 2:49 AM
feelings of victimisation muslims are god at playing the victim when they are the minority and the tyrant when they are the majority just look at minortitys in the middle east and the dutch are right how can they tell if it a gak or a guy in drag when they have burkas on just look at the hammas terrorist who escaped from a mosque in burka's
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 12, 2006 3:27 AM
Actually, what "Hope" will feel is oppressed; but, as a woman of the mooslum faith, how can she possibly compare this seemingly benign act with that of the tenents of a tyrannical and totalitarian religion?
Posted by: SheikYerboutie at November 12, 2006 3:40 AM
The same basic article was posted at Islamonline:
Holland Mulls Total Ban on Face-Veil
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-11/11/01.shtml
One noteworthy passage from that article stated:
"...Verdonk, known for her tough stances on immigrants, said that a total ban of the face-coverings worn for religious reasons could bring the new legislation into conflict with Dutch freedom laws."
This is another opportunity, likely to be missed, to publicly debunk claims of 'religious reasons' for wearing a veil.
As best I can determine, there are no such reasons for wearing that article of clothing.
at November 12, 2006 3:45 AM
DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS, DEMOGRAPHICS....When will they address the real problem? Anything else is just window dressing which the "moderate" muslims can undo at their leisure once they have the votes.
Posted by: Celsius at November 12, 2006 6:16 AM
"Nobody has the right to forbid it. If someone decides I cannot wear it, then I will feel suppressed," she said.
-------
Poor little girl, are you not allowed to be a ninja anymore? Seriously, how can anyone feel suppressed over this? It's not like someone just put you in a concentration camp.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 12, 2006 6:21 AM
americaningermany, I've been saying that all the time. It poses a great security threat to allow the face veil. Some guy can easily rape a woman and get away with it if he's wearing the face veil. Security cameras cannot identify the criminal/terrorist if he's wearing the face veil.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 12, 2006 6:47 AM
The Dutch will not be the first to implement such a ban:
The Germans have something called 'Vermummungs-verbot'- I don't know the details of this law and how far reaching it is, but nobody is allowed to cover his or her face in order to remain identifiable. There have been other cases about the hijab in schools and some Afghan teacher who insisted that she was entitled to it because of her 'religion'- but as far as I know, face-covering of any kind are forbidden. The fatherland keeps a watch on things. Since the Mohammedans in Germany are mostly Turks, there doesn't seem to be much pressure from either side to rattle the status quo.
Apart from that, however, I remember that Otto Schily, the former interior minister, is on record stating that Germany has 33.000 'gewaltbereite Islamisten' (33.000 Islamists potential militants)
Quite a hammer....
But this is Eurabia after all, no surprises .....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 12, 2006 6:55 AM
If the Dutch government feels the necessity for imposing such a ban, this will permit other states in Western Europe to follow suit. French and British non-Muslims, keenly aware of what famously, almost comically, tolerant and liberal (to a fault) believes it must and can do, will feel emboldened. "The Dutch do it."
This will be true especially if the non-Muslims in Holland show that they welcome this, and other measures. They should. It is their lives, their country, their political and legal and social institutions, that are threatend by the aggressive and large-scale presence of Muslim s, who are almost entirely either immigrants or a generation a way from being so, and whose entire belief-system is hostile to those legal, political, and social institutions, not only of the Netherlands, but of all non-Muslim countries. Islam teaches this. It cannot be otherwise for adherents of that belief-system.
Let the veil be banned everywhere. Then let the there be constraints on everything having to do with Muslim mistreatment of Muslim women. Let there be a strict application of laws ending the benefits which, originally created for, and still paid for by, Infidels, are taken advantage of with such cunning by Muslim families intent on battening on the Infidels, even as they proclaim -- it has not been hidden - that they will inherit the country, and unless any further immigration is cut off, and every effort made to limit the presence of Muslims, by not doing a thing to change the laws or customs that prevail and that are hostile to Islam, and in every other way ending the policy of attempting to make Islam welcome instead of recognizinig it not merely as one more creed but as one that does not allow for permanent pluralism (only pluralism so long as it is needed by the Muslims to establish themselves during the period when they are not yet strong enough nor numerous enough to dominate).
This is a tiny start. But it will have salutary effects outside the Netherlands. Chinese Communist slogans of the "learn from" type -- Nongye xue Dazhai is the most famous (In agriculture, learn from Dazhai) -- were well-known in bad old Chairman-Mao days. They were overused, and misused. But the idea is not idiotic.
Xue Den Haag, then -- learn from the Dutch government in The Hague. It's made a start. One small step for common sense.
Posted by: Hugh at November 12, 2006 7:27 AM
What some people seem to have missed is that there are ELECTIONS in a couple of weeks time. It is just the VVD party trying to get a few more votes. You wont hear anything more about this when the elections are over.
Posted by: Holger Dansker at November 12, 2006 7:57 AM
americaningermany:
Otto Schily gave this figure(33.000) for the whole of Germany in the last year before he was voted out.
It was the police-chief of Berlin who stated that there were more than 70.000 militant Islamists in Berlin alone....
at November 12, 2006 8:09 AM
Banning face veils is a start. Next they could ban muslims cruelty to animals, then mosques and then finally islam itself.
Do something kind for civilization...ban islam.
Posted by: freewoman at November 12, 2006 9:31 AM
Many Muslim women are quite attractive.....This will be good for them, despite what the insecure male Muslims have to say about it.
at November 12, 2006 10:22 AM
Don't stop with the veils. Ban the head diapers as well. How about if we ban islam altogether. Then the world will be a better place.
Posted by: Grunt at November 12, 2006 10:25 AM
Hope, and other Muslim women, or men, are always welcome to wear their burqua at home, in the privacy of their loved ones, if that is what they must do, but they cannot wear them outside.
No one is taking away their freedom to wear the veil if they want to, just not outside in public where it is anti-social and possibly a security threat. Otherwise, they're free to wear the veil, even to bed if they want to. Who cares what they do in their burquas, at home, just not in pulbic. This is the inverse of walking naked, you can at home, but not in public, or it is absurd.
Why do I feel like we are addressing children here, explaining in such simple terms that it becomes laughable to even address these issues?
We'll miss this though, fondly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gruMl91HMg
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 12, 2006 10:27 AM
Not much rational thinking going on in that Islamic mind. I mean, in the context of christian minorities not even having the right to build churches freely in muslim countries or proselytize (and they don't even blow themselves up in buses) and muslims being given the right to freely build mosques and proselytize in Netherlands, they complain of oppression for not being able to wear a burqa? Hypocrisy, anyone? But then Islam is the only religion where violence and hypocrisy are virtues. I think the repeated hitting of the head on the ground during prayer may cause brain damage.
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at November 12, 2006 12:20 PM
godfreyofbouillon said, "Not much rational thinking going on in that Islamic mind."
They have a rationalization for it. Since they think they "know"--on the basis of command--that they are totally right and Christians are only partially right, and since they think they "know"--on the basis of command, again--that totalitarianism is the "right" way to do things, it follows that they prevent the spread of Christianity as much as possible, by force when feasible, and that they push the spread of Islam as much as possible, also by force when feasible (as when demographics allows).
This perverted reflection of reasoning is based on ridiculously simplistic premises, which are not themselves reasonable, and which are disconnected from truth; from reality itself.
Islam is uncannily good at perverted reflections of the right and the true; perverted reflections which overwhelmingly manage to encompass a revulsion of the systems and realities of life itself. This suggest to me that Judeo-Christian theology, for one reason or another (inspiration, careful discovery by honest thinkers, or a combination of the two), is quite insightful as to the underpinning nature of evil.
at November 12, 2006 1:12 PM
Grunt, your proposed methods are dead wrong, and also, they wouldn't work to preserve America as such.
Giving the government power to ban a belief system outright creates the potential for that power to be used against any beleif system at all in the future, depending upon the majority of officials in power in the future.
Banning specific things like incitement to treason (overthrow of the Constitution) and incitement to murder, however, is appropriate.
Such a ban would be specific enough so as not to put all minority belief systems in are risk of political harassment for the rest of the future of the nation. And, such a ban wouldn't harm the handful of real reformers Spencer claims is out there, actual good people working hard and risking thier lives to prevent murder, by attempring to change a belief system that has proclivity incite it.
However. Even when the Communist party was actively seeking the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with their brand of totalitarianism, the U.S. was fairly squemish about punishing such treason. See this article to get some picture of the extent to which Communist were capable of organizing and of entering into positions of intellectual power, despite thier goals: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25418
In light of this history, and in light of the social power won by totalitarian sympathizers at that point in our history, and maintained until now, if we can manage to get treason and incitement to it to be taken seriously by our legal system, we'll be lucky.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 12, 2006 1:24 PM
SheikYerboutie said, "Actually, what "Hope" will feel is oppressed; but, as a woman of the mooslum faith, how can she possibly compare this seemingly benign act with that of the tenents of a tyrannical and totalitarian religion?"
Compare to people like Angela Davis, who are in favor of "prison abolition", (at least in nations with a market economy), BUT who say of people imprisoned for political reasons by Communist states that "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison."
So, in Davis' belief, the political prisoners of Communist states were worse than murderers and armed robbers in America. Very like thinking that public restrictions on face-covering, for security reasons, is more oppressive than the l/2 inheretance, reduced right to witness in court, lack of say in divorce, practical inability to get justice for rape in the vase majority of rape cases, and so on, of Islamic law.
None of this is really about oppression, it is about conviction that one has a totalitarian method for implementing utopia, and that nothing must stand in the way of that. Oppression is redefined to mean lack of conformity to their ideology, and has nothing to do with lack of freedom in the sense of being able to make your own choices, so long as you don't directly infringe on certain limited rights of others, within an overall system that gives people real economic and creative opportunity.
at November 12, 2006 2:02 PM
In Nevada it takes 83,184 signatures to get a citizens initiative on the ballot. A California PR firm charged $35,000 to collect the signatures for a Eminent Domain item. A properly worded inititiave on faces being covered in public facilities would probably pass with 80% of the vote. Anybody got a couple of months?
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS04/606110348&template=printart
at November 12, 2006 2:19 PM
Islamic coverings in public should be banned not only because of the social convention eschewing masks in public, but also because they blatantly symbolize a declaration against modern human rights.
Imagine a new cult where black members (through some strange Stockholm syndrome psychology) willingly wanted to wear slave collars and chains in public, while their fellow white members did not. Would Leftists countenance and even support such public symbolisms, as they tend to do with Islamic veils etc.? I doubt it.
at November 12, 2006 2:22 PM
Good for the Dutch. I hope they pull this one off (excuse the pun).
When I hear these muslim women saying how they like wearing these masks it reminds me of some psychological experiments that have been carried out to study the effects of anonymity on people's feelings and behaviour. The usual way of studying this is to put a group of people in a totally darkened room for an hour and see how they respond. What they find is that people feel strangely liberated and free. It seems that these feelings of liberation arise because the usual social controls that hinge on personal identification are missing. Maybe these women are experiencing a liberation that arises from their anonymity. They interpret this as a feeling of being closer to their deity and more pious. It's probably in stark contrast to the usual oppressiveness of their lives too. I know a muslim woman who tells me a lot about the way this culture carries on. Some of the stuff she tells me about the pressure to have loads of kids and the way mothers want their sons to earn loads of money by any means (however unscrupulous) are real eye openers.
I really hope the Dutch will go through with this. If it antagonises the muslims, so much the better, let them come out and fight and show their true colours.
Posted by: Malta_1565 at November 12, 2006 4:06 PM
Well, I may diverge from the crowd a bit here in that I'm not adverse to the veil being worn - I consider it repugnant, foolish, oppressive and indescribably ugly, yet at the same time it doesn't concern me overly.
And, again - and at the same time - the veil itself is indeed an oppressive, divisive symbol. It is a mark of oppression and supposed superiority both. It is no wonder that Europe feels so disposed to this action, since non-islamic values are greeted with open hostility and violence in the Middle East. Essentially, Europeans are driven to it. They are averse to the genocide of European culture, democracy and respect for human rights, and they should be. Who can honestly say that the banning of veils was not precipitated by other events?
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 12, 2006 4:07 PM
Can you imagine how a veil would restrict your vision while driving a car?
Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 12, 2006 4:25 PM
Carolyn2
The Saudis have it right - they force women to wear veils, and disallow them from driving. In fact, look at the restrictions that exist on women in KSA. If someone is going to wear this blue/black klansuit, it makes sense for them to be very stringently regulated, as the ministry for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice do.
I agree with what the Dutch are doing here, and would welcome it being done elsewhere in the west. But what if anybody wants to be more flexible, and allow women to wear the niqab? In that case, they should go all the way, and apply Saudi laws on Muslim women who want to wear Islamic drag - don't allow them to drive, don't allow them to travel unescorted by a male, etc. After all, if it's good enough in Jeddah,...
Let these women, who want to don these tents, be subjected to full Islamic laws, not just the superficial ones like what they demand.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 12, 2006 5:28 PM
A woman under a burkha is also unemployable. Wonder if she feels 'oppressed' when welfare payments are withheld because of her insistence of wearing a ghostly attire?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 12, 2006 6:06 PM
Giving the government power to ban a belief system outright creates the potential for that power to be used against any beleif system at all in the future, depending upon the majority of officials in power in the future.
Posted by Mrsmomomoto
I'm not convinced of this. Is not Naziism a banned ideology in numerous European states. Isn't Hitler's text "Mein Kampf" prohibited in certain places? For that matter, what is the current disposition of the cult of Emperor worship in Japan? And what is the difference in principle between the banning of the cult led by David Koresh, and a similar ban on Islam in the U.S. or other Western democracies. American law curbs the practice of polygamy among Mormons (or at least its supposed to if its enforced). The banning of these pernicious beliefs has not resulted in dictatorship in these nations. Even democracies have to put reasonable limits on citizens' rights in order to ensure the best possible distribution of rights to the general population. The alternative means that "might makes right" becomes the law of the land.
Posted by: templar at November 12, 2006 6:11 PM
P.S. Given the argument that Islam is innately violent, that this violence is woven into the very fabric of its sacred text and other charter documents, that it is seen to promote subversion against all law that is not Islamic law and constitute a threat to the Western democratic state and its constitution, and on and on ad infinitum, it seems to me that one can argue quite reasonably that Islam should be banned or at least placed under heavy restriction. This would seem to be a measure that promotes the rights of citizens far more than it restricts them.
Posted by: templar at November 12, 2006 6:17 PM
The tide is turning.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=415883&in_page_id=1770
Posted by: aladdinsane57 at November 12, 2006 6:28 PM
The tide isn't quite turning in the UK. An adjudication on tha case of a female Muslim lawyer appealing against being told by a judge not to wear the veil in court, has found in her favour - if it doesn't interfere with audibility. This has effectively left the question open.
see:
http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=2638
at November 12, 2006 6:46 PM
"Can you imagine how a veil would restrict your vision while driving a car?"
- Carolyn
Or, perchance, when trying to follow the mad footprints of a self-proclaimed prophet impressed in ancient sand and blasted by a wind that constantly changes?
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at November 12, 2006 6:48 PM
100-Year-Old Man Marries Girl, 19
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 12, 2006 7:35 PM
americaningermany said
How do muslim women who insist on wearing the veil get pictures for driver's licenses and passports?
In Florida, they denied her driver's license application.
Posted by: special_guest at November 12, 2006 7:49 PM
100-Year-Old Man Marries Girl, 19
Ummah News Links
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 12, 2006 07:35 PM
Well, at any age it appears the Muslim male robot continues to follow orders. It might be time to put something in the water supply in Islamania to inhibit the old sex drive.
I wonder if this means he gets only 71 virgins after he dies.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 12, 2006 8:01 PM
This article from the Guardian, apart from some standard anti-American bit, is quite amazing.
The striking part of Dame Eliza's speech was the lack of prescription. She simply laid out the facts, as the security service sees them, and invited debate. It is essential to have that debate, particularly for Muslims. If there are, indeed, 100,000 Muslims who cannot see the wrong of 7 July, then we are in trouble. The only people who can change this are Muslims, but there is no obvious effort to address the problem from within. The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, couldn't have been more bald about the Muslim community last week. 'Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims ... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists.'If the perpetrators of these outrages are Muslim - sometimes rather well-to-do Muslims, it seems - and the members of the 200- odd cells that MI5 is investigating are Muslim, it is not good enough for Muslims to fall back on bristling victimhood. To the rest of us, it simply seems nonsensical that a community which is the source of such a great menace, and which has offered support to it, can at the same time claim persecution. We need leadership from British Muslims and a contract between their community and the vast majority, in which the same ideals of peace, law and order are agreed upon without reference to religious needs. For this is not a religious matter; it is about law and order in a secular society.
Is this illiberal? No, and nor is the concern that Islamic faith schools are being used to distance a generation of young people from the values of the surrounding society, to say nothing about the recruitment that was described by the head of MI5. These schools are undesirable in the extreme and steps should be taken to end the separate development that they posit. But the government would rather reduce all liberties than be seen to target a minority.
They forget that one of the values of liberal democracy is discretion - the ability to concentrate the power of the state on a problem and make the distinction between those who are likely to break the law and those who aren't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1945859,00.html
Holy Moses. Is the Guardian writer proposing that Muslims be subject to special measures to defend liberalism.
--------------------------------------
Thanks to Infidel bloggers alliance for the HU.
at November 12, 2006 8:38 PM
ISLAMSFORLOSERS says,
"It might be time to put something in the water supply in Islamania to inhibit the old sex drive."
Some Muslims believe that is already the case. Read here:
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 12, 2006 8:45 PM
This is just further indication that there is a mighty anger welling up in Britain, and it is beginning to affect even Guardian writers. I find it hard to believe that the article was published by the Guardian. It effectively calls for Muslims to be targetted. It mentions Islamofascism, death cult, all in the context of Muslims and Islam. Wonder of wonders.
at November 12, 2006 8:48 PM
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 12, 2006 08:45 PM
I should have known better!
What insanity.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 12, 2006 8:58 PM
"Nobody has the right to forbid it."
Are you kidding me? EVERYTHING is forbidden to women in Islam. Independance, freedom of thought, freedom to love, the ability to enjoy sex, freedom to work, freedom to go down to the drugstore without your husbands permission, rights to a full inheritance, protection from divorce, protection from rape, protection from stoning or getting shot in the head on the flimsiest of excuses.
It's interesting that these women bitch, moan and whine about demanding that the rest of us follow their ways, but when it comes to them standing up for their basic human rights, they get real stupid.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 12, 2006 10:26 PM
I have read that article in the Guardian and was totally amazed, wow, for such a paper as the Guardian to print that says a lot, even the moonbats are starting to get it.
On Friday I really lost it due to the Gordon Brown and Lord Falconer comments over the acquittal of Nick Griffin, when they effectively said because they got off we need to show the young Muslims that the UK is not anti-Islam, so we will apply Sharia law by making it impossible to criticize Islam.
I think that Mr Brown then realized that he had gone too far and that article was one of the responses to him, also a great ballyhoo about special action on terrorism, as if more policing is the answer when in fact its just papering over the cracks.
In the Up Pompeii site there is a link to a Muslim site where some people are talking about leaving the UK, though it was dressed up in the normal we will stay for the good of allah, pap.
We need to keep the pressure on, both on the Muslims but especially on complete idiots like Mr Brown and Mr Falconer.
About the case against Germany, the case is a sort of jurisdiction shopping for a place where 12 Saudi's and a goat can sue someone with worldwide jurisdiction, its the enemy who is suing Donald Rumsfeld not Germany. americaningermany I know how you feel, at times I get so angry, but there are more and more like us.
Just this morning my wife rang me to say that on French raid, the Moonbats were saying that Hamas was offering peace to Israel, the reporter was putting a great spin on it, and I soon told my wife that it means nothing and the person making a fuss about it does not understand that it means nothing to Hamas, just a smokescreen to continue to fire rockets while putting off a crushing Israeli retaliation. And that the fools on this radio station are so full of blind trusting hope that that are the sort of people I would love to sell a used car to. Sorry guv those tyres are not bald they are racing slicks....
I lost hope but then again it got rekindled when I read of all things an article in the Guardian. Keep at it, keep educating people, that Muslim referre to in the Up Pompeii site was upset that he was being challenged by non-Muslims over Islam, they were more knowledgeable and not being put off by the previous Islam is a religion of peace crap, we are winning with truth, keep at it.
Posted by: Daffersd at November 13, 2006 2:41 AM
Thanks for the support Europe. We knew we couldn't count on the EU leaders to be anything but PC robots.
Posted by: americaningermany at November 13, 2006 01:12 AM
americaningermany, Germans and other Euroeans are soon going to feel the venom of Islam and there won't be a US of A to heal the wounds. Personally, if Germany and EU want to commit suicide, I wouldn't stand in their way, lest they turn against US of A...... Oopppppppps. I forgot, Germany has already turned against US of A!
Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 4:18 AM
The ban will encourage the moderates and send the extremists scurrying back to their failed hellhole societies where they can continue blaming all their self created problems on israel and america.
Posted by: moderationist at November 13, 2006 6:29 AM
americaningermany, your not a paranoid radical, your angry like a lot of us here, fed up with the slow realization of the threat and suicidal policies of the elites in power.
I have seen more and more signs that the population in Europe is wakening up, there are still many certainly in France around me that just don't want to know, they want to hide under their bed covers I presume, but the thoughtful ones are getting it and talking.
Posted by: Daffersd at November 13, 2006 6:31 AM
Big up to the Dutch. You will also note that they are still doing their bit in the War Against Jihad on the ground in Iraq (but only just, I suppose, thanks to their own share of Moonbats).
About the Guardian article, I do understand that we are going to be excited about whatever signs of hope there are that the Moonbats (with a capital M) are wakiing up. However, I think that the only thing that they are waking up to is the realisation that criminals should indeed be identified and seperated from the rest of us. It has been a long held tenent of Moonbat Leftism that crminals only do what they do because they are poor. In fact, it was in the Soviet justice system (coming soon in the EU) to let poor offenders off altogether.
The Guardian and its ilk still think that the Jihadists, the Islamofascists are simple criminals, but the distinction they are making is that Jihadists are criminals with the ability and appetite to hurt Guardian readers and writers, and all the other Moonbats who have traditionally apologised for criminality. In short, the Left shapes their belief system around whether they feel threatened or not, or whether they feel sorry for someone or not. This is why they should be the furthest people away from positions of power and influence.
You'll notice that only now the Guardian is calling for Leadership from British Muslim leaders. But some of us are far much further down that line. We see a problem with Islam in Britain in itself. This is a place where the Guardian will never go.
And did you notice how in the piece there was a great effort to point out to people that this move was coming from the right, or indeed the far-right. This is code to the Guardian readers. It means, you can start feeling superior now.
Incidentily 1, the Guardian, a paradoxism of anti-far right, anti-semitism, anti-americanism i.e. Moonbats.
Incidentily 2, I had an idea that a great mistake was made, and that the Poles should be the permanent member of the UN Security Council instead of the French.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 13, 2006 6:43 AM
American in Germany,
Here's to all the paranoid radicals! When we get labled we know we are making a dent in everybody's comfortable little delusions about "peaceful" Islam. Oh no, they actually might have to do something about it!!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 9:18 AM
American,
Actually it's hard but it's good right now because even though many people don't believe us it is really gratifying when someone that you respect wakes up and sees the light and then joins us in the fight. It is worthwhile to have something to stand up for and good people to stand with. Perhaps we were getting too complacent and lazy, because liberty does require eternal vigilance. (There is also something kind of fun about all this covert undercover stuff. If it wasn't so imperative and dangerous it would be a blast.)
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 13, 2006 1:38 PM
Good for the Netherlands.
Meanwhile, we have this sort of well-meaning but grotesque and misguided idiocy here in the US:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/15940994.htm
(Incidently, there is *no* evidence that this poor woman's shooting was a hate crime. There is a "person of interest" in custody. This man is a career criminal with ties to Latino gangs. If it turns out he was indeed the killer, I think it is at least as likely that this was a botched robbery or a drive-by shooting where she was not the intended victim.)
Posted by: gravenimage at November 14, 2006 3:35 AM
Graven Image,
You know you make a good point. Lots of people are killed by career criminals in any given year. This woman probably made a better target for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 14, 2006 7:57 AM
So maybe parts of Eurabia are wising up and there's hope for us Infidels???
It's gotten to the point where Muslim girls who want to play basketball, be on the school swim team, participate in gym, etc., request special uniforms unlike those of other participants! Next thing you know WE will have to dress like THEM in all walks of life!
So much for Islam being tolerant, eh?
Posted by: NHGuy at November 14, 2006 1:23 PM
NHGuy wrote:
Next thing you know WE will have to dress like THEM in all walks of life!
...................
Apparently this is already happening in some of the French banliues (public housing projects). Both Muslim and *non-Muslim* women and girls have started wearing the headscarf in the neighborhood out of fear of violent harrassment from local "youths" if they do not.
Disgusting.
Posted by: gravenimage at November 14, 2006 2:05 PM
"...Infidels, are taken advantage of with such cunning by Muslim families intent on battening on the Infidels, even as they proclaim -- it has not been hidden - that they will inherit the country, and unless any further immigration is cut off, ..."
and
" (only pluralism so long as it is needed by the Muslims to establish themselves during the period when they are not yet strong enough nor numerous enough to dominate). "
(Posted by: Hugh at November 12, 2006 07:27 AM)
This is exactly why I will vote for Geert Wilders at the Nov 22 elections. His party is the only one that wants to close the borders fot muslim immigration for at least 5 years.
at November 15, 2006 7:35 AM
Dutchinfidel,
I'm with you but unfortunately, the ones in country will still continue to have sex. Since it seems to be the only thing they do for fun, you guys are still in big trouble.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 15, 2006 8:35 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)