The question for every non-Muslim society is whether they will preserve and defend their own customs and mores, or submit to the hegemony of Islamic principles. In every case, Muslims press for their own customs and principles and demand that others give way. The West is going to have to deal with this eventually, one way or the other, by insisting that all citizens obey the same laws, or by giving way and disintegrating as a unified society.
“Holland bans Islamic veils and ‘face-covering clothing’ as senator declares the move ‘the first step to de-Islamize the Netherlands,’” Pattaya One, June 27, 2018:
The Netherlands has approved a limited ban on ‘face-covering clothing’ in public places, including Islamic veils and robes such as the burqa and niqab. The move does not the hijab, which covers only the hair.
Firebrand far-right politician Geert Wilders had pushed for the ban for over a decade.
Parliament’s upper chamber made the final approval in a vote Tuesday.
Wilders’ Freedom Party claimed the development as a major victory, while Senator Marjolein Faber-Van de Klashorst called it ‘a historical day because this is the first step to de-Islamize the Netherlands.’
Successive Dutch governments have tried to ban niqabs, which cover most of the face but still show the eyes, and burqas, which cover the face and body
The ban does not apply to public streets, but police can ask an individual to remove it for identification
‘This is the first step and the next step is to close all the mosques in the Netherlands,’ she said….</blockquote
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
“The ban does not apply to public streets” I would not call this “baby steps” but rather standing in one spot. Good lord Netherlands at that rate of change with your so called baby steps, you will have lost the war in no time. And it took ten years for this very tiny little step to be put to a vote? Sounds very promising, not.
eduardo odraude says
Let’s hope babies grow quickly. They certainly learn more quickly than people at any other stage.
scherado says
What the bleep was the purpose of your reply?
Merkexit says
Hope
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
+ 1 – I understood your point MERKEXIT.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Merkexit and Susan.
Carolyne says
I don’t understand what “Public places” means if not public streets? How does one get to a public place without using a public street?
Richard says
It would be funny if it weren’t true and so utterly disgusting. Mohammed makes Charles Manson look like St,. Francis of Assisi.
nicu says
Go on , dear neighbors !
This won’t happen here in germany : you see so many of them even in this small town .
John Appleby says
What is the point of allowing these face masks when we have CCTV everywhere to deter or recognise the bad guys.. when the group pf people who commit the most terror are allowed to hide the faces… dam stupid…
Rufolino says
In the UK steps against Islam will NEVER happen, it is too far gone. Anything critical of Islam is disallowed. Islam has got the UK just where it wants it.
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
You mean the globalist have got the UK just where they want it. Islam is their tool used to destroy western civilization. I wonder what they do with islam if, God forbid, they succeed. How do you but the wild animal beast back in it’s cage.
Krishna says
next ban wahabi mosques and islamic school
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Why not ban all mosques in the Dar al Harb? Why not?
tim gallagher says
I agree, Flavius, ban the whole thing. Ban Islam and ban Muslims. This fiddling at the edges, this fiddle farting around (like just banning the black tent thingos these women wear is nowhere near enough). Ban the whole barbaric ideology and fully de-Islamize all western, civilised, non-Muslim nations. It’s going to have to happen sometime. Still, we have to applaud even these tiny steps.
balam says
Wahabi or otherwise, all the Mosques give the same MESSAGE OF HATE . The word ‘LOVE’ which in Arabic is ‘MOHABA’ can not be found even once in Quran which is more hateful to the JEWS than the MEINKAMPF of HITLER. Islam is a POLITICAL and MILITARY ideology in the cloak of religion .Every thing is FAKE in Islam except violence and terror.
eduardo odraude says
They burkah women look rather like the “Dark Riders” from Tolkien. So often this religion almost shouts, “I am from the devil!”
somehistory says
Leave out “almost”…it is always shouting the source.
revereridesagain says
They also look like the “Dementors”, the flying personifications of depression and despair in the Harry Potter books. Appropriate.
It’s a first step, but exempting public streets from the ban is bizarre. Meanwhile a gentle rain-like patter will be heard as anatomical features of thousands of Muslim males drop off at the thought that their wives’ (all 4 of ’em) hair will now be visible to the feelthy kuffar. Ah the joys of tweaking a shame culture!
jewcat says
True revererides again. They also look very like the .demonic dementors in Harry Potter
gravenimage says
+1
balam says
The BURKAS look more like ‘SLIT CONDOMS’ on their bodies!!!
Ren says
The West has to ban ALL islamic nonsense in order to de-islamize its countries.
Don’t forget: islam is NOT a religion.
David says
Islam is a dogma. Oh sorry, they don’t like dogs(or anything else, come to think of it).
Ren says
Islam is a dogs doctrine. Muslims hating dogs means that they hate themselves.
Andy says
Remember,
The smallest flea can drive a big dog crazy
Richard says
They should love dogs. Mohamed was a sonofabitch.
JawsV says
Ren, Islam IS a religion. A BAD religion.
Terry Gain says
Religions don’t condone killing let alone command it. The first prerequisite of a religion is that it permits freedom of conscience. There is no reason to concede that Islam is a religion. Islam gives religion a bad name.
Indiana Tom says
According to your definition, not theirs.
Terry Gain says
Indiana Tom
The purposes of the First Amendment are to protect freedom of religion ( (which Islam oppose even to the point of prescribing death for those who attempt to exercise it) and to provide for the separation of Church and State (and as you know Islam seeks to combine the church and the state). Islam is not only opposed to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, it prescribes death for those who exercise it in relation to Islam, Allah and Muhammad.
Islam is not only not protected by the First Amendment it is condemned by it. The notion that the First Amendment protects Islam is not only wrong, it is risible.
JawsV says
Well, Robert Spencer says Islam’s a religion, Terry. So, take it up with him.
Frank Anderson says
JawsV, I think there may be a legal way to be both a “religion” and a *criminal conspiracy”. Trying to stay on the high points without loading with details, a conspiracy is an agreement of 2 or more persons to use illegal means (murder, rape, robbery, slavery . . . .) or to use legal means (for example religious practice) for illegal purposes (subverting and overthrowing lawful government and enslaving populations) and any overt act in furtherance (1400 years of slaughter. . .). If the basic law of conspiracy is ever connected with the ongoing evil of islam, the fight takes a whole new direction toward its end, with the victory of liberty.
There are additional “elements” of conspiracy that I think are satisfied without reasonable question to make anyone who admits to being muslim part of the conspiracy. I ask for anyone who sees something I have missed to contribute. The big problem is to find a prosecutor who will be allowed to present the first case connecting the crime with those who call for it to be done. It’s easy to try and convict a “truck jihadi” but politically unpopular to connect “him” to all those who teach, brainwash, equip and support his crime. Religion is not a shield for conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and the lawful government defined by it.
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
islam is a religion in name only, it has no moral compass, in fact it has no morals period. It is a political ideology similar to the Nazis and I do not believe that Nazism is a religion. Sadly islam is 1000 times more deadly and dangerous than the Nazis.
JawsV says
Religion is not automatically synonymous with good, Susan B.
As for Islam not having a “moral compass” they think they do and we don’t. To Muslims we’re the “infidels.”
Nazism isn’t a religion, that’s right. It has no god. Islam does — Allah.
There is no more Nazism, which was only concentrated in Germany. Islam, however, is worldwide. That’s what
makes Islam a gazillion times more dangerous and pernicious than Nazism. All of their polygamous numbers.
gravenimage says
True, Jaws. There have been evil religions before–Islam is certainly one of them.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
-Thuggee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee)
– Aum Shinrikyo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)
– Satanism (simply by definition)
– Political Shintoism
and many, many mind control cults (Jonestown comes to mind), to name just a few.
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
There is not even one that comes close to islam for pure evil. Close to a billion people murdered by this cult. A cult that grew by convert or die an rape jihad and stays afloat by violence and apostasy laws.
gravenimage says
True, Flavius. The Cult of Baal and the human sacrifice religion of the Aztecs were pretty ugly, as well.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
+1
Richard says
Yes, gravenimage. Was it not he Tugs of India who strangled people for their goddesss, Kali? Our word “thug” is derive from them. Still, Islam makes them look like the Salvation Army.
Jayell says
It’s plain to see that the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed was just an amoral, manipulative criminal charlatan who used the sham façade of a ‘religion’ concocted from bits of genuine religious philosophies around at the time in order to dupe the gullible or spineless into submitting to his megalomaniac political ambitions.. You can see this in the devious and cynical way that he and his dubious chums cherry-picked the bits of Jewish and Christian scripture that suited his purpose to promote his spurious image whilst ignoring the bits that weren’t compatible with his criminal attitudes. Doesn’t it seem just a bit odd that this ‘god’ called ‘Allah’ (just means ‘The God’ in arabic) contradicted himself so often, curiously changing His Divine Mind to suit Mohammed’s circumstances and intentions and strangely mirroring Mohammed’s learning curve? If that’s the best that this Eternal, Omnipotent Being can do, then we have to accept that the Universe was created by an ignorant, unprincipled idiot with an eye on the quick buck. Someone on this site put it beautifully by saying that Allah was Mohammed’s glove-puppet and the only reason why islam has had any credibility at all is because too many people have been too stupid or/and gutless to recognise this pretentious criminal sham for what it is, or it’s a convenient vehicle to justify those with psychopathic, sociopathic, plain criminal or sexually perverted or incontinent tendencies to indulge their warped proclivities and emulate that most ‘perfect’ comprehensive ideological pervert who invented the whole obscene charade.
Jennifer says
Allah means ‘the god’ with a small g. In Arabic and the Qur’an, Almighty God is Ilah, Al Rahman, the Beneficent, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Allah is always called Allah, and God is always Ilah.
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
+1
Ren says
JawsV
Islam is a religion because it has a god “Allah”. Does a phony god count as a god?
Carol the 1st says
We need to get our philosophers addressing this issue. Some “evil” “religions” are likely tethered to certain actions as superstitious good luck charms e.g. ‘please give us a good harvest”. Islam is instead tethered to gratuitous, stylized predation and so why should we grease the wheels for it by adhering to limited definitions that serve to protect it by locking into our established feelings and mindsets? This seems absolutely suicidal and unnecessary. What would someone like Stephan Molyneaux or Jordan Peterson have to say?
6woods says
“The ban does not apply to public streets.”
So what was the point, then?
eduardo odraude says
Good question as to what “public places” means in France. Government buildings, for one.
somehistory says
Public places but not public streets. so, the moslim in on the street in an all covering tent, and goes inside a store…and must disrobe.
Makes so much sense. At least, it’s a beginning. Maybe.
eduardo odraude says
The First Amendment more or less rejects any official definition of the word “religion.” So, at least for legal purposes, saying that Islam is “not a religion” will not get one anywhere. Probably the only way legally to limit Islam is to limit its political, totalitarian aspect. Also needed is the development of consensus on limiting immigration, and a policy that, without directly saying so, has as a byproduct the limiting of Muslim immigration. Perhaps the most urgent task is education and self-education, to develop a stronger anti-Islam consensus. And also something like Radio Free Europe is needed, but now for the Islamic world. We need far greater pressure on the Muslim world to protect human rights.
somehistory says
To the extent that moslims engage in crime, islam could be charged with being a criminal enterprise, a corrupt organization.
There have been numerous cases of moslims being involved in fraud and other crimes, and evidence that they were operating as a group, as opposed to individuals. When two or more people plan and carry out a crime, such as food stamp fraud, this can be charged as a conspiracy. Then any who know about it, can also be charged. This can even be extended to the “establishment” where discussion take place, or phone calls are made.
As for crimes of terror, this has been traced in many cases to the local barracks where the criminals/terrorists are encouraged to commit the crimes.
If the governments decided to, it would be possible to do more to put an end to all such activity.
And although the AB call their meetings “church” and they have a “Bible,” and ‘rules or laws to follow,” the government does not consider them to be a “religion,”
Frank Anderson says
somehistory, please consider this for “size”. The basic US definition of a conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons, whether successful or not, for an illegal purpose, or to use illegal means for a legal purpose, and any overt act by any participant in furtherance thereof. A conspiracy charge is possible whenever an express agreement exists, or one that can be implied by separate actions directed to a common and known goal. See, e.g. Wagley v. Colonial Baking Co., 45 So.2d 717 (Miss. 1950). Direct evidence of an agreement to join a criminal conspiracy is rare, so a defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts furthering the conspiracy’s purpose. The government is not required to prove that each alleged conspirator knew all the details of the conspiracy; it is enough to establish that a defendant knew the essentials of the conspiracy. . .that the defendant intended to join or associate himself with the objective of the conspiracy. . .even it he did not join it until after its inception, and even if he played only a minor role in the total scheme. United States v. Gary Greenough, 609 F.Supp 1090, 1093-1094 (S.D. Ala. 1985) RICO strikes against all who threaten the integrity of the marketplace–at one end of the spectrum mobsters and organized criminals in their illegitimate enterprises, and at the opposite pole otherwise law abiding business people in their respected and legitimate enterprises. Cianci v. Superior Court, 710 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1985).
RICO is codified as 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 and following. It makes good reading as a statute, but even better when reading the cases. See where this can take you?
somehistory says
As I have said, I have read and even had to explain, a lot of the cases. A case could be made for charges to be brought against those who belong to the “enterprise” of islam.
Frank Anderson says
I agree, all 1.6 Billion of them. To be muslim is to be part of a criminal conspiracy to murder, rape, enslave, conquer, oppress, subvert. destroy. The knowledge of one is the knowledge of all. The acts of one are the acts of all. The only lawful way to escape a conspiracy is to abandon it and undertake its failure. Otherwise, once in responsibility for all its crimes continues. There is no such thing as a non=participant.
Johan Elzinga says
Eduardo, I could not agree more. There is a very good point in having a First Amendment rejecting any official definition of the word “Religion”. Fortunately, by not getting the state involved in any religion, there is a small chance of evading the thorns and needles that would appear when the state would have anything to do with religion.
Personally, I see this as a first, but very important step. The islam proves to be a A VERY big factor in the fact that they are not hired. Fact is, muslim immigrants more often than not lack basic education and basic skills. The price of immigrants forcing their children to study Islam for several hours every day is high: all this energy is NOT spent on learning the language, learning basic skills and math.. all those things that could help them to achieve some level of competitiveness. As a result, hardly any employer here in the Netherlands will even consider inviting somone with a Turkish or Arabian name. This way, immigrants will never fit in and their future looks grim. I’m actually not agreeing to this mechanism, I simply state a fact. Statistics show that in France for every four job interviews for someone with a French name there’s only one job interview for someone with an Arabic name – even when they attended the same education.
If there should be any hope of a better future for immigratnts, it should start by the education of their children. Therefore I desparately hope that our government (the Dutch government) will take the next step: no religious teachings to children extending for more than a few hours a week. Or better still, disallow schools to teach religion.
thesailor says
Or better still, disallow Islam.
elee says
Thanks and huge praise for every contributor to this thread. It’s about time we began thinking clearly about this seditious conspiracy against our liberties and our institutions.
DHazard says
You are so right, Islam is more like an organized crime gang than it is a religion. But there is nowhere near the amount of honesty in the non-Muslim world (at the political level) to even see Islam itself in any kind of criminal way. For instance, you can’t say that x many thousands of people would be alive today if it weren’t for Muslim men emulating Muhammad. Where there is no agreement on facts then any agreement on paper is worthless.
All the money spent on trying to stem “islamophobia” and increase Muslim interaction with non-Muslims is and will be utterly wasted. It would be better spent on training dogs to find explosives, black dogs.
Richard says
Does anyone here remember “the Synanon Religion”. Synanon was something like a corrupt Salvation Army for drug addicts, hiding behind “freedom of religion”. They were finally stopped when they decided to silence dissent by putting rattlesnakes in their critics’ mailboxes. Sounds something like a Romper Room Islam.
somehistory says
An article in Gatestone, has quotes from a group of moslims who are fighting this decision and claiming it is “unconstitutional” as saying they want their “voices heard.” They claim that this ban is “repressive.” They say they will not be able to go out and communicate if not allowed to wear what they wish.
elee says
Damn straight. I want their Antisemitism and other genocides repressed. I want their treatment of women repressed, from the genital excisions to the walking faceless black tents. Yeah, I want all their antisocial criminality repressed, even the part where they murder their own or twist the young souls of their children.
Indiana Tom says
Over 90 percent of Muslims are on welfare. Quit giving them money.
gravenimage says
The stats are almost this bad:
“Holland: 50-70% of former Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ live permanently on welfare”
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/holland-netherlands-50-70-of-former-asylum-seekers-live-on-welfare/
gravenimage says
Netherlands bans Islamic veils: “The first step to de-Islamize the Netherlands”
…………………..
*Excellent* news.
Chan says
nice, hope this ban doesn’t include reusable shopping bag.
Chan says
This is a step in the right direction. Let’s hope this ban doesn’t include reusable shopping bags.
Chan says
I for one welcome this law.
This is a step in the right direction and is a good law.
One minor complication – I hope this ban doesn’t include reusable shopping bag.
Chan says
I apologize for repeated posting. Please don’t bag me.
Terry Gain says
Posting twice is not good. Apologizing for the double post makes it worse. No one Who matters thinks a double post is intentional.
Sergio redegalli says
Hi Robert.
Great image.. hopefully you do know that the image you used is one that was taken over 4 years ago in Sydney .. 3 out of the 4 burqa people are men …l am the second from the right.
The ” faceless” stunt was to prove how men can get around in the stupid forms of clothing and how dangerous they are.
Sergio
gravenimage says
That’s hilarious, Sergio–you made an important point! And great to see you posting here again.
For those who don’t know, Sergio Redegalli is a brave designer and artist in Australia who has exposed the ugliness of the Burqa. Here is his artwork:
https://i0.wp.com/resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/01/19/1225990/692797-sergio-redegalli.jpg
This is painted on the outside of his studio. It keeps getting vandalized, so he has to repaint it all the time.
Charlie says
April 7, 407 CE, the Emperor Honorius banned pants. Romans wore togas and barbarians wore pants. Germans wore their traditional pants in defiance of the Romans. 3 years later the Visigoths sacked Rome. The lesson to be learned, if you resort to banning the attire of those who are their to defy you, it may already be too late.
gravenimage says
Stop resisting, filthy Infidels–or the Muslims may hurt you more…
Lydia Church says
+1!
Harriet says
Do these people understand how muslim population growth will eventually effect all European countries through voting?
Banning the veil now, does nothing
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
Exactly Harriet, the only thing that will work is to ban islam and eradicate this cult out of the free world. Starting yesterday.
Susan B is getting really mad@# says
Jay Boo thanks. Never really listened to the words before, they sum up what the west was based on.
Chris Malan says
“The ban does not apply to public streets.” So, where does it apply then? Will a Muslim remove her veil if she steps into a shop, or bank or anywhere else off the street? I don’t think so.
It’s much ado about nothing. The Muslims win again.
Giacomo Latta says
A good start but yet again an attack on a sympton. Burqas will not kill you. Minarets in Switzerland will not kill you. Muslims will, and do. A better start would have been to make it illegal for Muslims in Holland to assassinate anyone who speaks the truth about Islam.
gravenimage says
Murdering people is already illegal in Switzerland.
Frank Anderson says
sarc\on Are you sure, especially if the killer is a mentally ill muslim? sarc/off
Valkyrie Ziege says
; A move in the correct direction for the sanity, and continuation of civilization.
TWG says
The next time you see a moslem wrapped in a trash sack, sing “HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!” as loudly as you can, and with an ear-to-ear smile on your face.
Try it! It works great! That always brings an ear-to-ear smile to my face.