To think that Ralf Jäger — despite his bad reputation over the New Year’s Eve sex assaults and the chaos happening in Germany due to the migrant crisis — would shamelessly continue to partake in the erosion of Germany’s civilized culture by defending the burqa and putting it on par with a Santa Claus outfit.
The burqa and niqab are political statements of Islamic supremacism, as well as a symbol of the oppression of women that accompanies it. Every country in which many women wear the burqa or niqab treats women as inferiors.
Moreover, Jäger turned calls by national Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere for a partial burqa ban into a partisan issue by rejecting de Maiziere’s “rationale for banning the Islamist garment” as being “purely motivated by right-wing parties trying to shore up their poll positions.” This sneering dismissal ignores the genuine reasons why people are concerned about the burqa and niqab as manifestations of Islamic supremacism.
(Pictured is a woman in a niqab, which is often erroneously termed a burqa in the West.)
“Germany: If We Ban The Burqa, We’ll Have To Ban Father Christmas Too”, by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, August 23, 2016:
The German regional interior minister who shot to prominence over his alleged role in the failure to handle, and subsequent cover-up of the Cologne New Year’s Eve migrant rape attacks has spoken out against Germany introducing a French-style Burqa ban, saying to do so would mean banning all religious clothing — including Santa Claus outfits.
Ralf Jäger, interior minister of migrant crime-hit German state North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) made the remarks amid intense discussion in Germany following calls by the national interior minister Thomas de Maiziere for a partial burqa ban.
The left wing politician rejected the rationale for banning the Islamist garment, and said it was purely motivated by right-wing parties trying to shore up their poll positions. Speaking on Bavarian radio, Jäger said: “A burqa ban brings no security, but [is driven] only by election campaigns in some [German] states”, reports Focus.
Continuing his point, the minister said that if the German state was going to ban the burqa, it would have to ban “people that dress up as Santa Claus” as well. It may be that the popular Christmas-time costume’s bushy white beard would offend, in Mr. Jäger’s view, any prohibition against religious face coverings.
Mr. Jäger made it clear he was against the ban in any case. While he told radio he believed the wearing of the burqa by Muslim women was a “sign” that their community displayed a “lack of integration” into German community, he disagreed that the burqa was a security risk.
Breitbart London has reported at length on NRW interior minister Jäger, who was fast to pin the responsibility for the Cologne New Year’s Eve sex attacks — which saw over 1,000 people molested, raped, assaulted, and robbed — onto police.
The interior minister fired the chief of Cologne police, forcing him to take earliy retirement, in a move he said was to restore public faith in city policing. However, it was later revealed that police chief Wolfgang Albers had foreseen trouble for the night, and had appealed directly to Jäger’s Interior ministry for extra officers to help patrol the city. That request was turned down.
Further revelations from a leaked cache of confidential emails between the state government and local police showed how the Interior ministry had attempted to cover up the attacks

Rev g says
I have never heard of anybody refusing to remove the hat or fake beard from a Santa suit to go through a security checkpoint or to testify in court.
Of course, not many people walk around dressed as Santa 12 months a year either.
jimmi says
…such lack of cultural and collective assertivity… the usual pathological need to find a false equivalent in order to relativize an obvious problem that has one religion.
katherine says
STOP this ignorance – the Burqa is not from the koran and it is not religious wear. It came from the thousands of arbitrary Hadiths meant to enforce ancient Arabic Culture on the mindless populace of the Muslim domain, keeping them trapped in Enforced Arabism – which isn’t religion either.
Europeans who willfully protect this enforced Racist Culture under the excuse of Religion are as mindless and goofy as the mentally-enslaved Muslim population.
Helen says
Your religion doesn’t have to be codified in any particular book. All you have to do is say, “It’s my religion” and in the USA, anyway, you’re going to get certain consideration, up to a point. Modern societies cannot afford to have people wearing masks in public. It’s a public safety issue, so tough beans on your religion.
gravenimage says
The witless katherine wrote:
STOP this ignorance – the Burqa is not from the koran and it is not religious wear. It came from the thousands of arbitrary Hadiths meant to enforce ancient Arabic Culture on the mindless populace of the Muslim domain, keeping them trapped in Enforced Arabism – which isn’t religion either.
………………………………..
Several problems with this: firstly, there *is* reference to veiling in the Qur’an:
Surah 24:31:
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
Surah 33:59:
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons when abroad: that is most convenient, that they should be known as such and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Then there is the fact that no orthodox Sunni Muslims consider the Hadith arbitrary at all–instead, they consider the Hadith, along with the Qur’an and Sira (life of Muhammed) to be holy texts of Islam.
The canonical Hadith collected by Bukhari and Muslim, and with careful Isnad chains, are deemed officially Sahih (reliable).
Narrated Anas:
Umar said, “I agreed with Allah in three things,” or said, “My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ I also said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.’ So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed…
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:10
Narrated Anas bin Malik: I was ten years old when Allah’s Apostle arrived at Medina. My mother and aunts used to urge me to serve the Prophet regularly, and I served him for ten years. When the Prophet died I was twenty years old, and I knew about the order of Al-Hijab (veiling of ladies) more than any other person when it was revealed. It was revealed for the first time when Allah’s Apostle had consummated his marriage with Zainab bint Jahsh…Then the Prophet drew a curtain between me and him, and the Verses of Al-Hijab were revealed.
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:95
There are many, many more. The idea that this has nothing to do with Islam is absurd.
More importantly, Muslim clerics themselves consider veiling to be an Islamic issue.
Note that Qur’an 33:59 says that veiled women are identified as Muslim and “that they should be known as such and not molested”.
What this means is that unveiled women are fair game for rape. Australian Imam Sheik Hilali characterized unveiled women as “uncovered meat” who can be raped.
He is not alone, here is another:
Muslim Imam Claims Women Who Don’t Wear Hijab are “Asking to Be Raped”, Arrested for Trying to Rape Women”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/180393/muslim-imam-claims-women-who-dont-wear-hijabs-are-daniel-greenfield
There are many, many more examples.
More:
Europeans who willfully protect this enforced Racist Culture under the excuse of Religion are as mindless and goofy as the mentally-enslaved Muslim population.
………………………………..
What does this mean? Is this a reference to European Infidels who suicidally support the wearing of Burqas, or a reference to those who understand that it is a threat? No surprise that this poster appears incapable of clarity.
None of this has to do with ethnicity, in any case–Muslims of many races enforce the wearing of Hijab, and brave Infidels of all colors resist.
Champ says
Your taqiyya bloomers are showing beneath your burqa, sweetie 😉
Mirren10 says
Champ, 🙂 !
katherine says
Gravenimage seems to have taken the conservative clerics’ viewpoints in supporting the authenticity of the burqa rule, but the matter under question here is whether the official Islamists’ interpretation of it is valid. It is the misinterpretation that’s being queried because that is what’s causing the problem .
The Surahs quoted are exactly the ones that have been challenged by Moderates in SE-Asia for centuries and had resulted in the very relaxed cultural attitude their populations adopted towards women’s attire. This WAS probably also true of most modernized Muslim nations like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan. With Petrodollars fueling widespread Wahabism, the whole world is suffering a reversion to Arabic Cultural Hegemony – which is what the new interpretation is about .
Having followed the Moderates’ discourse, I would agree that those Surahs are only advocating Proper Dressing and there is no Specific Form being mentioned – that vagueness was willfully demolished by blatant re-interpretation to enforce Arabic tradition to make it the standard form of dressing. Not Islam but Arabophilia .
Getting to the details – it would seem that Hair is so erotic that every last square mm of it must be unexposed : we know which hair Big Bad Moe was really talking about – we should all have a Brazilian to remove the temptation and show some virtue in the bikini lines. Misinterpretation again.
As for the idea that the Muslim world’s acceptance of the hadiths is validation for their incorporation as a component of the religion – I must say it’s still open season, otherwise there wouldn’t be all those muslim-on-muslim wars out there. There are also Fundamentalists who opine that Islam should go back to the basic Teachings and not the Arabic Caliphates’ opportunistic lies as enshrined in the 1000s of Interpretations , ( usually contributed by paedophiles and misogynists ). If everything about Islam is so certain, there wouldn’t even be the question of Mecca’s physical existence during the 6th century.
We should be questioning their lies from every angle – hats off to Hirsi Ali and al-Rasooli. The underlying logic in the western hemisphere should be – we do not care because here and now our Secular Laws are OUR laws: either accept them or get the F— Out. The reverse Saudi attitude – it works.
And pray for more Pauline Hansons being born every minute.
gravenimage says
More from katherine:
Gravenimage seems to have taken the conservative clerics’ viewpoints in supporting the authenticity of the burqa rule
……………………………………….
What utter rot–I am not “taking the conservative clerics’ viewpoint” any more than Churchill was taking Hitler’s view of Nazism. I am just noting that most Muslim clerics interpret Islam in just this way. And why wouldn’t they? The Qur’an, Hadiths, and words of the “Prophet” and his companions is quite clear.
Even more to the point is that clerics–and the Muslim community–are willing to violently enforce veiling–look at cases like the terrible murder of young Aqsa Parez in Canada–and to rape women who are *not* veiled.
And this is not just happening in the West, of course–Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State, and many other parts of Dar-al-Islam all enforce veiling.
This is not a matter of viewpoint, but of facts.
More:
…but the matter under question here is whether the official Islamists’ interpretation of it is valid. It is the misinterpretation that’s being queried because that is what’s causing the problem .
……………………………………….
No, this is not really the question. One can assert all day long that these clerics are “misinterpreting” the texts of Islam, but it will not change the fact of women being threatened, imprisoned, flogged, or murdered for not wearing Hijab.
More:
The Surahs quoted are exactly the ones that have been challenged by Moderates in SE-Asia for centuries and had resulted in the very relaxed cultural attitude their populations adopted towards women’s attire.
……………………………………….
Not really. Southeast Asia is marginally more “moderate” because these were until recently Muslim minority countries, which still have a large Infidel population–not about challenge from “moderate” Muslims.
And the truth is these countries are all now further Islamizing–more and more, local Islamic authorities are enforcing Hijab in places like Indonesia and Malaysia. Women have been banned from entering government buildings in Malaysia if wearing “revealing” clothes, and that is often interpreted as being unveiled. Women in Aceh province in Indonesia, which is under Shari’ah law–have been arrested, imprisoned, and had their hair cut off for resisting the Hijab.
More:
This WAS probably also true of most modernized Muslim nations like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan.
……………………………………….
What rot. Turkey marginalized Islam for decades under secular Kemalism–this had *nothing* to do with the actions of “moderate” clerics. Muslim clerics typically have strongly *resisted* Kemalism.
And Egypt and Pakistan and other parts of the Muslim world saw a temporary liberalization during the 20th century from the influence of the free West, *not* from Muslim clerics.
More:
With Petrodollars fueling widespread Wahabism, the whole world is suffering a reversion to Arabic Cultural Hegemony – which is what the new interpretation is about .
……………………………………….
More crap. There is nothing “new” about orthodox interpretations of Islam, nor is this all the influence of Wahhabism, but of all fundamental Islam.
The unearned oil wealth of nations like Saudi Arabia are enabling such Da’wa, but are *hardly* creating it. Orthodox Islam has been around since the time of the “Prophet”.
More:
Having followed the Moderates’ discourse, I would agree that those Surahs are only advocating Proper Dressing and there is no Specific Form being mentioned – that vagueness was willfully demolished by blatant re-interpretation to enforce Arabic tradition to make it the standard form of dressing. Not Islam but Arabophilia .
……………………………………….
Islam has *always* been based on the norms set by Muhammed.
But, again, none of this really matters–that katherine–either a Western Infidel woman or someone posing as such–agrees with a “moderate” interpretation of “Proper Dressing” is not going to prevent Sudan from flogging women who do not wear Hijab, nor will it prevent the Muslim hordes in the West from molesting and raping unveiled Kufar women.
More:
Getting to the details – it would seem that Hair is so erotic that every last square mm of it must be unexposed : we know which hair Big Bad Moe was really talking about – we should all have a Brazilian to remove the temptation and show some virtue in the bikini lines. Misinterpretation again.
……………………………………….
The idea that every Muslim society in history has “misinterpreted” this and that it only refers to pubic hair is *absurd*.
The explicit reference to head coverings in the Qur’an as somehow actually being about wearing panties is just ludicrous.
Moreover, hair and face veiling predates Islam–as do other practices eagerly embraced by Islam, such as slavery, FGM, and stoning.
More:
As for the idea that the Muslim world’s acceptance of the hadiths is validation for their incorporation as a component of the religion – I must say it’s still open season, otherwise there wouldn’t be all those muslim-on-muslim wars out there.
……………………………………….
My God, where to start?
Al Azhar University is the most orthodox seat of Islamic leaning, and they most definitely accept the Hadith.
Further, the idea that Muslim-on-Muslim violence is based on acceptance or rejection of the Hadith is just absurd. The only instance where this has the least basis in reality is the Sunni-Shi’ite split, where Shia use a different set of Hadith.
But most Sunni/Shia violence is not based on disagreements over Hadith.
Moreover, it is notable that the Shia *hardly* as a result reject veiling–just look at enforced Chador in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
More:
There are also Fundamentalists who opine that Islam should go back to the basic Teachings and not the Arabic Caliphates’ opportunistic lies as enshrined in the 1000s of Interpretations , ( usually contributed by paedophiles and misogynists ). If everything about Islam is so certain, there wouldn’t even be the question of Mecca’s physical existence during the 6th century.
……………………………………….
Good grief. Hadith are graded per their Isnad chains as Sahih, Hasan, or Daif–(reliable, good, or weak). This has not changed for over a millenium, and there is seldom much disagreement about the reliability of Hadith. Certainly, the iconic collections of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim have been used for centuries.
But again–the main point is *what Muslims believe*–and they very much believe in imposing veiling, even in the free West.
More:
We should be questioning their lies from every angle – hats off to Hirsi Ali and al-Rasooli.
……………………………………….
Well, *this* is twisted. Both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and IQ Al-Rasooli–who regularly posts here at Jihad Watch, incidentally–have warned about the threat of Islam, *including* the threat of forced veiling on Islamic grounds.
For instance, here is IQ al-Rasooli citing Pat Condell:
Once again please do hear Pat Condell at his sharp and brilliant best; this time describing how rape (especially when accompanied with violence) was virtually unheard of in Sweden before the days of mass immigration – you guessed it – from Muslim majority countries, where men are trained from birth to consider all women fair game to assault and abuse unless (and even if) they’re fully covered up, hidden away imprisoned at home and constantly supervised to “protect” them from, er, Muslim men.
http://www.al-rassooli.com/
Pretending that either of these brave Anti-Jihadists are serving as apologists for some mythical “moderate” Islam is not just grotesque, it is utter calumny.
More:
The underlying logic in the western hemisphere should be – we do not care because here and now our Secular Laws are OUR laws: either accept them or get the F— Out. The reverse Saudi attitude – it works.
……………………………………….
Well, this is *just bizarre*. After two lengthy posts telling us that the problem is *our* supposed misinterpretation of the glories of Islam, this poster now claims that we should assert our *own* values? Very odd…
More:
And pray for more Pauline Hansons being born every minute.
……………………………………….
I generally respect Pauline Hanson from what I know of her–especially her calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration into Australia.
But like the previous paragraph, this actually goes against all the apologia for Islam that this poster has been spewing up to this point.
So–what is this poster’s actual stance on the threat of Islam? It is either confused, or else she realized that her Taqiyya was backfiring pretty badly, and decided to back-pedal.
katherine says
Gravenimage – thanks a lot for the very informative point-to-point rebuttal – hope everyone took the trouble to read it .
Noticed you’re rather exasperated about the inconsistency of my viewpoints : that’s because you Assumed from the beginning you’re dealing with a taqiya-artiste when it was actually an attempt to highlight a related equivalence (besides Santa and the Burkini) – that of legitimizing Arab culture as representative of Islam. How would you put it then, at your eloquent best ?
Stumped by the Hanson ? Well don’t be – these are desperate times – thankful for anyone to help put the brakes on Turnbull who will even support a Burkini-on-Bondi. World needs more keen hard noses like Hanson or Geert Wilders but even Trump will do, I gotta admit.
gravenimage says
katherine wrote:
Gravenimage – thanks a lot for the very informative point-to-point rebuttal – hope everyone took the trouble to read it .
……………………………………..
OK–thanks.
More:
Noticed you’re rather exasperated about the inconsistency of my viewpoints : that’s because you Assumed from the beginning you’re dealing with a taqiya-artiste when it was actually an attempt to highlight a related equivalence (besides Santa and the Burkini) – that of legitimizing Arab culture as representative of Islam. How would you put it then, at your eloquent best ?
……………………………………..
I’m afraid I simply don’t believe this is a particularly fruitful line to pursue. Islam has *always* been about Arab supremacy–but these sacralized dark ages tribal Arab cultural norms cannot be separated from Islam.
And this is not my asserting this–this is orthodox Islam. At times some hopeful Infidels have held that assorted non-Arab Muslims–Berbers, Persians, Indonesians, Indians, sub-Saharan Africans, those in the West–will reject all sorts of Islamic barbarism on the basis of it being Arab, rather than Islam.
Sadly, this has not happened, and there is absolutely no reason, observing Islam’s 1400 year history, to suppose that this will start now.
More:
Stumped by the Hanson ? Well don’t be – these are desperate times – thankful for anyone to help put the brakes on Turnbull who will even support a Burkini-on-Bondi. World needs more keen hard noses like Hanson or Geert Wilders but even Trump will do, I gotta admit.
……………………………………..
I’m not stumped by the reference to Hanson–I certainly know who she is. She has been a bit inconsistent, but over all much better than average on grasping the Jihad threat.
I am a great admirer of Geert Wilders–here is my “Heroes Against Jihad” tribute to him:
http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/JWHGW.jpg.html
And yes, even Trump has shown occasional indications of being anti-Jihad–particularly his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is sadly very weak on defending free speech against Islamic calls for censorship–just look at his shameful reaction to the Garland Muhammed Cartoon Exhibition–but is still much better over all than his opponent.
Kay says
Nor is anyone forced to wear one (Santa suit) in certain countries. Nor is there a history of people being beaten for not wearing a long enough one.
Nor does anyone don one, even briefly, in hot weather or on the beach.
But there is one similarity: when we see a Santa suit, we don’t always realize there’s a real person under there.
gravenimage says
Are you lamenting the “filthy Infidels” not sufficiently humanizing women immured in Burqas? It is Islam itself that dehumanizes such women, not the Kuffar.
Those who dress up as Santa don’t mind, as a rule, being perceived as jolly old St. Nick by small children. Really, that is the whole point.
Kay says
My point is that burkas etc are forced upon people and that people wear them out of fear and in uncomfortably hot and inappropriate situations. And even when those are not the immediate case, the burka etc. is a symbol of all that.
None of that is true of Santa suits.
Clearly it is Mohammedism that dehumanizes women. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. We are in complete agreement on that point.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your reply, Kay. I was addressing your saying that “we don’t always realize there’s a real person under there”.
Jay Boo says
Fine with me (no Santa or Easter Bunny either)
A clear false equivalence in the religious sense.
The Santa Clause suit and the Easter Bunny suit with all their cheap trappings were invented to dilute and eventually delegitimize the sanctity of Christianity and turn our society into a bunch of hedonistic secular liberals who occasionally have ceremonies for their crystal stone spirits.
gravenimage says
*Seriously*, Jay Boo? I usually respect your comments, but the idea that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were invented by “hedonistic secular liberals” to undermine Christianity and hence should be banned is just ridiculous.
Clement Clarke Moore, who wrote “A Visit from St. Nicholas” in 1823–one of the key elements in the development of Santa Claus–was a devout Christian who was a professor of Biblical learning at the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York City. He donated the land for the church and helped found the seminary. His father was an Episcopal Bishop. He wrote often in defense of Christianity.
Mirren10 says
”The Santa Clause suit and the Easter Bunny suit with all their cheap trappings were invented to dilute and eventually delegitimize the sanctity of Christianity and turn our society into a bunch of hedonistic secular liberals … ”
What poisonous rubbish.
Helen says
That’s the beauty of a free society. No one is forced to wear a bunny or Santa suit. I agree, they are bastardizations of the original holidays, but read The Battle for Christmas and you’ll thank your lucky stars that Christmas is no longer a drunken holiday for men who subsequently wreak havoc upon the village. It has been much worse in the past. Santa’s pretty darn tame.
Jay Boo says
gravenimage
Good reply but the Santa you refer to from long times past has little resemblance to the clown caricature we see today which has about zero relevance to Christianity which is by intentional design.
The Easter Bunny serves the same exact purpose.
Next we be offered a Good Friday squirrel.
Rev g says
Actually the Easter bunny and the eggs, grass, etc….are all fertility symbols, since the crucifixion and the Eostre (fertility goddess) celebration occurred around the same calendar day.
The early church rolled pagan celebrations into their own holy days as a means of appealing to converts.
Mirren10 says
Linnte, if you click on the YouTube logo, it will take you straight to the video.
gravenimage says
Jay Boo wrote:
gravenimage
Good reply but the Santa you refer to from long times past has little resemblance to the clown caricature we see today which has about zero relevance to Christianity which is by intentional design.
………………………….
Actually, Jay Boo, the Santa Claus presented by Clement Clarke Moore has changed very little from that time to this. That is why his “Visit From St. Nicholas” is still so widely read today.
The point is not that Santa is an explicitly religious figure–despite his being based in his earliest incarnation on a saint, he is not–but rather that most devout Christians such as Moore have not found him to be inimical to Christianity.
Most Americans and other Westerners celebrate Christmas and Easter as both secular *and* religious holidays, and seldom find these two aspects to be contradictory.
Many go to church and then to an Easter egg hunt, or have both nativity Scenes and stockings set out to be ‘filled by Santa’ in their homes.
And–as poster Helen notes–this has *always* been the case. The secular aspects of Christmas are now sweet and benign, which has historically not always been true.
More:
The Easter Bunny serves the same exact purpose.
Next we be offered a Good Friday squirrel.
………………………….
Probably not, because Good Friday is not a joyous holiday, nor should it be.
But if there ever is a “Good Friday squirrel” tradition, you could accept it or reject it, just as with Santa and the Easter Bunny. More importantly, I doubt those dressing up as the “Good Friday squirrel” would be blowing themselves up and murdering children at celebrations. Would that we could say the same of ravening Muslims in Burqas.
Mirren10 says
”My point is that burkas etc are forced upon people and that people wear them out of fear … ”
This is mere assertion. What evidence do you have ? *Some* women may be forced to wear it, many actually *choose* it. Especially idiotic converts.
gravenimage says
True, Mirren–some Muslimahs are forced to wear the Burqa, but some consider it a sign of Muslim supremacism.
Whichever the case, it is inimical to a civilized society.
linnte says
ABC Entertainment has blocked this video from being played on this Web site. That’s what the notice said when I tried to view it. So, I guess I’ll share it to Facebook and see if it plays there. haahahahahaha!
Thanks Mirren!
gravenimage says
Linnte, I have often noticed that videos posted by commenters from Britain or Australia will not play here in the US or Canada. Mirren is English. I can’t watch this, either.
But here’s the video on YouTube–you should be able to watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu9AdvDaLmA
And yes–some Muslimahs are forced to wear the Hijab; some wear it out of Muslim supremacy. This is the case with this nasty bint.
She claims that Infidels are just “curious” about the Niqab, but this is bullsh*t, of course. Even where Infidels don’t understand a great deal about the texts and tenets of Islam, they usually know enough that seeing women in full face veil makes them damned leery.
Notice that this b*tch has forced her little daughter to wear Hijab, as well–although she looks like a preschool child. What sort of “sexuality” would she be considered to have–except in Islam, religion of pedophiles? *Ugh*.
linnte says
I did finally get to watch it. And thanks Mirren for that! The Niqaab and Burqua totally assault every one of my senses. Yuck! I really don’t know what I am going to do the first time I see one being worn! Haahahahahaha! I have never been known for my “tact”. Ha!
Mirren10 says
”Mirren is English.”
Grrrrr ! Mirren is a *Scot* ! 🙂 (Although I do live in England, having married a Sassenach). 🙂
linnte says
Mirren is Scot? Me too, by ancestry. Clan Douglas sept McConnachaidh! ?
linnte says
Hahahahha! Well, that’s a good way to respond to a veil wearing Muslima!
Mirren10 says
”I really don’t know what I am going to do the first time I see one being worn!”
Linnte, I was once accosted by a mohammedan bint wearing a niqab, asking me for directions. I told her I didn’t speak to people who wore masks. 🙂
gravenimage says
Mirren10 wrote:
”Mirren is English.”
Grrrrr ! Mirren is a *Scot* ! ? (Although I do live in England, having married a Sassenach). ?
…………………………….
Mirren, I am sorry. I knew you lived in England; I assumed you were English. My bad, as we say here in the States.
I’m a mix, myself–my mother born in England, my grandfather from the Welsh border country, my grandmother lowlands Scots.
Most of my British relatives live in England–from London to Newcastle. Others went to Australia and New Zealand. My mother came to the US via Canada.
My point about the videos still holds either way, though… 🙂
Mirren10 says
”Mirren, I am sorry. ”
Then I shall try my very *hardest* to forgive you ! 🙂 X
linnte says
Spoken like a true Scot!
gravenimage says
Thanks, Mirren.
And Linnte, interesting to hear that you are Scottish, as well.
Champ says
Good point, Rev g.
Whenever I see some guy dressed as Santa (during Christmastime maybe @ the mall) it makes me happy and brings a smile to my face! 🙂 …whereas seeing a woman dressed in a burqa/niqab provokes *many* negative thoughts that race through my mind. They both represent entirely different things …
And Christine wrote:
“The burqa and niqab are political statements of Islamic supremacism, as well as a symbol of the oppression of women that accompanies it. Every country in which many women wear the burqa or niqab treats women as inferiors.”
Exactly, Christine!
gravenimage says
*Very* true, Champ.
BC says
Jagaer does not seem to know the difference between a religious costume and a non religious one. Father Christmas, St Nick or Santa Claus whatever he is called in different countries is largely a construct of American advertisers in the 19th century. If anything the origin of the myth is more related to paganism, However the relationship between giving gifts and the ‘three wise men’ legend is tenuous at best, given the latter never happened. The Father Christmas myth has never been associated formally with church teaching.
gravenimage says
True–and the most negative thing about Santa is that the jolly old fellow could do with losing a few pounds. Over all, he is an entirely positive figure who brings joy to children. You can’t say that about Islam…
Michael Laudahn says
Ralf Jäger is another of these little, despicable, spineless self-serving individuals this system keeps on producing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_J%C3%A4ger
Champ says
Banning Santa will make Mrs. Claus *very* unhappy, and if mama ain’t happy …then look out! …and guess who’s getting a lump of coal this year, HoHoHo!
Angemon says
Ignorant buffoon. Exactly how is Santa’s beard religious in nature? And if beards would be a problem for a prohibition against religious face coverings, what would that mean for muslims and their facial rat-nests?
Of course – what could possibly be the security risk in letting people run around dressed as ninjas? /sarc. off…
Based on that alone, Jäger is unfit to rule over a roach motel. How he made it to government and why he is still there are beyond me.
Walter Sieruk says
Actually the idea of “if you ban the burqa ,then you have to also ban the Santa Claus outfit. ” is rather acceptable. For as I had keyboarded in in month of December 2015 of this site the Santa Claus character is a worthless , useless third level myth with no value to it at all. So Maybe the German people as well as the people of other European countries should ban and burn both the burqa and the Santa Claus costumes.
Angemon says
I respectfully disagree, Walter. Mythological and valueless as Santa Claus may be, he’s still the product of European/Western culture. He should not be sacrificed to appease muslims – if they want to force the women in their families to wear burqas and don’t like Santa they can (and should) move to a muslim-majority country.
CogitoErgoSum says
Yeah, Santa Claus wears his red suit and a beard because he’s afraid if he doesn’t all the women who see him will become so aroused that they will be unable to resist the urge to have sex with him. That’s why he dresses the way he does, don’t you know. It’s for his own protection …. and to keep women from having lustful thoughts about him.
DP111 says
Germans are in a league of their own when it comes to swallowing Big Lies.
gravenimage says
Germany: If you ban burqa, you have to ban Santa Claus outfit, too
………………….
What witless false moral equivalence. No one is forced to dress up as Santa, nor is the red suit symbolic of the take over of our societies by an invading force bent on conquest.
Santa Claus–der Weihnachtsmann–is a native and benignant part of German culture. You cannot say the same about the Burqa and the Niqab…
Westman says
Not only is “mental illness” and “bizarre moral equivalence” breaking out among Muslims and their hosts; another malady, “stupidity”, is breaking out among academics.
I just listened to a NPR interview where an anthropologist said(in reference to the migrants) that learning the host language was not necessary for working at a job. The interviewer said, perhaps not at one Euro per-hour jobs. The interviewer, obviously bewildered, pressingly asked, but isn’t learning the language necessary to integrate into the host society? The anthropologist replied that’s, an old maxim, I don’t BELIEVE it’s necessary.
Is this what modern academics have become: like the Politcal Elite, too stupid to have common sense and too d–n lazy to rediscover it?
gravenimage says
Yes–a lot of Westerners are not just not defending their civilized values; they seem incapable of even grasping the concept.
RCCA says
Liberal derangement syndrome: using erroneous equivalences to come to absurd conclusions.
If someone is walking around in a Santa Claus outfit at any time other than Christmas they are
basically announcing to the world that they are nuts and should be treated with caution.
The burqa wearer wears their costume all year round and is a constant threat and that is unacceptable.
I would think that progressive Muslims would put up more of a fight against the burqa and the hijab
as vestiges of the cultural oppression of women and a misuse of religion. But they don’t have the courage or the strength of their convictions.
Reminds me of a story I heard about Harriet Tubman who saved many slaves. She said, I would have saved more but they didn’t know they were slaves.
Jay Boo says
Ayatollah K would make a fine Santa
gravenimage says
What absolute crap.
MitraVaruna says
Idiots!!! What an argument!!. The Burqa is worn day in and day out by Muslim women, whereas the Santa suite is at best ceremonial wear, and is worn during Christmas only even in Western Christian Nations(Do they exist still???).
If somebody wore the Santa suite on a daily basis even in the West he would considered a Loon or a nut case at best. Not even the most Jingoistic Bible Thumpers would do such a thing. The guy is out of his mind
steve says
“Germany: If you ban burqa, you have to ban Santa Claus outfit, too”
GERMAN PEOPLE: “No We Don`t.”
Victor Redlick says
Well then, change the slogan to “NIX THE NIQAB” if the BURKA is not generic enough. Let’s accommodate. Furthermore, what about Germany’s sacred national cow(hide), lederhosen? You vant Uncle Fritz to have conniptions? Yah?
Guest says
Don’t drag Christmas into this!!!
Ciudadano says
The equivalence is silly and distracting of the real issue. Santa’s custom is a disguise that few people occasionally wear for fun during Christimas. Muslim women are expected to don burqas every single day, even in hot summer days.
The real issue is that often burqa is imposed on women by their husbands, parents or peer pressure. In some Islamic countries women could be beaten, raped or even killed for not wearing burqas. The burqa is a extreme form of modesty imposed by men on women. If a woman is not modest enough, then she is a whore and deserves to be molested because men are not expected to be able restrain their instincts.
Western cultures have evolved to the point where women are expected to be respected irrespectebly of the clothes they are donning.
Wearing the burqa has negative implications for the rest of the society. Allowing the burqa produces a divide between women. Women donning burqas are more “modest” and deserve more respect that those who don’t don burqas. That divide is a kind of peer pressure on non Muslim women.
Allowing the burqa is importing a social convention from Islamic cultures that is not compatible with western culture. In our culture women should be respected unconditionally. Muslims must adapt in order to integrate and assimilate in western cultures. That adaptation requires that they abandon conventions from the medieval age that are conflicting with western values and culture.
pdxnag says
Islamic slaughter for Allah is the Muslim parallel to Christmas-time giving of presents. This contrast could hardly be more stark.
Allan says
No doubt the German politician didn’t see that one coming.
Guest says
You forgot to add ‘woman-oppressing male supremacy and cruelty.’
Ciudadano says
Women in liberated Syrian cities celebrate burning the burqas Isis imposed on them. What side are the western Muslim women that insist on donning the burqa?
Guest says
Some people argue that Santa isn’t part of the Christian religion
CogitoErgoSum says
I would argue that Santa represents the spirit of love, kindness and generosity (most) human beings regard as desirable traits in themselves and others. What traits of human nature does a woman in a burka represent?
Guest says
I didn’t said I agreed with them.
gravenimage says
Exactly, CogitoErgoSum.
Rolf Wittwer says
I think that more and more politicians loose their inhibitions under certain so called “medicaments” or “drinks”.
The results are shown in such “statements” like probably the one of R.Jäger.
billybob says
Well I think these supposed Leftist progressive type that promote Muslims wearing burkas should be forced to wear Santa Claus suites as punishment!
Veritas says
Now we finally know what Santa does for the rest of the year. He sunbathes in the south of France.
common sense says
German officials politicising Islam is a very bad idea. I’m stunned that they have not figured out the problem yet or do indeed know enough and then smear the conservatives and police as the trouble makers.
Jesus first, Santa and gifts second, my Father laid that out for me as soon as I could talk. Still St. Nick stays, he is a kind hearted figure, mohammad is not.
epistemology says
That moronic clown Jäger is a typical representative of German elites. They want to be the paragons of democracy and celebrate freedom of religion which is big bullshit as Santa is more of a commercial than a religious figure. By no means he’s a symbol of women’s oppression whereas the burqa or rather the full-face veil, you hardly ever see real burqas in Europe, is an Islamic symbol and Islam the Nazi ideology with the religious twist doesn’t belong in the civilized world. The full-face veil represents the oppression of women and some women wear it because they think they’re superior to the indecent infidel women. I read that in a book about the full veil in France by Riposte Laique before that shit was banned in France. Lots of women said so, they despise the infidel women who don’t dress in the Islamic way.
Anyway the German elites have a lot to learn about freedom of religion. There is a big difference between freedom of belief which is without limits, you can believe any kind of bullshit that the moon is made of green cheese for example and freedom of practice on the other hand which has to be restricted when it collides with other civil rights and is a security risk.
Islamic symbols should be banned as swastika arm bands are banned in Germany as they represent the same ideology.
Kay says
Good post, epistemology.
I wish someone could put forward that idea of banning the symbols of violent supremacism. (But I think we are at a more basic level: just trying to stop the murders.)
TheOldOligarch says
Whatever, the more these people label basic sanity as ‘right wing’, and act as if it can be dismissed on that basis, the more people will turn against them.
Sid Debgupta says
Germany is finished.
gravenimage says
Not all Germans agree with this stupidity.
duh swami says
If wearing a birqa is not forced or religious, then the woman can throw it away and neit6her Allah or her hubby will object…
chris rone says
if u quote the Quran to support what u wear, then quote the Quran to support what u believe., the conversion or killing of the infidel and Jew, which is the rest of the world., speck of the goal of world domination by force if necessary…wear your berka at christmas, that when Santa does…Dabiq 15, self proclamation of America destruction, conversion and breaking the cross ??? ..Do u live by allah , quran and sharia law ?
If u cannot assimilate , then get deported., all islamic schools, mosques, Quran’s, berkas , and anybody supporting Sharia law .etc., must be banned in America.,This is America, not Syria, Iraq or Iran ” if u cannot rally around a U.S. flag u need to leave…