Article

2006-12-01 Europe

Muslim women protest proposed Dutch burqa ban

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-12-01 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [14 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Under Vatican leadership, Islam must be degraded from any mention as religion to cult status only. It can then be dealt with properly, like the KKK was in US.

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-12-01 00:50|| 2006-12-01 00:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like a good filter to me. Radicals can just leave if they don't like it. Otherwise you might find you like walking around without a bag over your head.

Posted by gorb 2006-12-01 03:13|| 2006-12-01 03:13|| Front Page Top

#3 I actually oppose burqa bans. Their primary purpose is to shield women from the unwanted advances of Muslim men, many of whom who regard it as their Islamic duty to rape or beat anything without one.

Alas, guns are certainly no option in the EU, so denying women the one means available to protect themselves only increases the risk that they'll be raped or beaten for their immodesty at home, where the government can't and won't help them.

Banning burqas treats only the symptoms, not the cause -- which is Muslim men's Allah-given right to reject responsibility for their own conduct, and to exempt themselves from learning any impulse control.

Self-restraint is an essential foundation of civilized society, and until Muslim men accept this, banning burqas only provides them with yet another excuse to rape, torture, burn, pillage, and kill.

Keep the burqas. Step up the deportations!

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-01 03:46|| 2006-12-01 03:46|| Front Page Top

#4 exJAG: Rest assured they will wear one in the home even if they don't outside. I've seen it. I doubt any country could legislate that, but maybe they can.

Perhaps if the women would oppose the menfolk's teachings they might stand a better chance of moderating their religion.

In an ideal world, they would be shipped off to some Islamic country where they could be truly happy, but obviously this world is far from ideal. So I still think a burqa ban has more good in it than bad.

Posted by gorb 2006-12-01 03:58|| 2006-12-01 03:58|| Front Page Top

#5 If i was a women i would hate the opression in the muslimn world.Its about time we heard their views without fear of the hairy men around them.

No doubt the hairy men are watching them at this protest!!!!

Posted by Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2006-12-01 05:25|| 2006-12-01 05:25|| Front Page Top

#6 exJAG, banning the burqa, niqab and hijab is one of the few ways to immediately start the process of making America Muslim unfriendly. There are numerous well-founded security reasons for implementing this ban. While I understand your opposition to increasing any risk for Muslim women due to Islamic male orientation towards ~~uncovered meat~~ unveiled female adults, the ban is one of the few ready starting places we have.

I fully concur that deportation of all radical Muslims needs to begin right away. However, that is going to take a lot more public education and retraining of our politicians, not to mention extensive legislation, before any progress will be made in that quarter.

As you are a person who is well acquainted with law, I'd really enjoy the opportunity to walk through all of these legal nuances in order to better identify what sort of measures really are available for ready enaction. I concur with you that Muslim women probably equate to about 5% of the threat that young adult Muslim males represent to our society.

My focus is not on punishing these Muslim women but in making all of the extremists who insist upon such stringent adherence to doctrine know that they are officially unwelcome in America. What other legal channels are as readily available?

We need to make America as Muslim unfriendly as possible in the shortest amount of time. This is why I continue to advocate revoking the official religious status of Islam in America until distinct advances towards reformation are made both here and abroad. For the sake of discussion I'll post the major points of dispute:

1.) Issuing death fatwas for advocacy of any and all forms of violent jihad.

2.) Installing universal suffrage and general equal rights for women in all Muslim majority countries.

3.) Elimination of the death sentence for apostasy or conversion.

4.) Legal protection and genuine enforcement of religious freedom in all Muslim majority nations.

5.) Ending amputation and stoning as legal forms of criminal punishment.

6.) Declaring taqqiya to be haram.

It is more than obvious that Islam will be less than likely to EVER accept these reforms. While that is Islam's privilege, it must be penalized by having all First Amendment protections stripped from it due to its role as a political ideology.

Unwillingness to embrace reformation must be a key event that signals the onset of civilizational clash. Islam has already declared war upon the West. Recognizing this fact and initiating measures designed to cripple the ease of movement, spread and financial support of terrorism must be our main goal.

Should taqqiya remain a central tenet for Islam, it must automatically void the citizenship applications for all Muslims who have immigrated to America. Perhaps there might be established some sort of reformed Islamic doctrine in America for naturalized Muslims to begin practicing, but taqqiya has such a corrosive effect on all other vital layers of trust and security that it is difficult to imagine how Muslims can EVER be trusted without genuine and authentic reformation of Islam.

exJAG, if you have the time or inclination, let's all of us here have a go at it and try to assemble some sort of feasible schematic of legal actions that can begin crippling the influence of Islam in America. All of us need these critical talking points in order to better persuade those around us in daily life regarding how our country can actively deal with this ominous threat.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-01 05:41|| 2006-12-01 05:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Zenster, I totally agree with you about making America as Muslim-unfriendly as possible. But I see few legal measures of the sort you describe that would be feasible in the near term.

A federal law outlawing Islam, or even the more limited subset of "political" Islam, would conflict with the core of First Amendment jurisprudence, and it would never survive Supreme Court review, even with nine law-and-order judges. Such a law might survive a 14th Amendment equal protection challenge, if the security situation was bad enough -- but it's unlikely that anything short of full-out blood-and-guts civil war would justify it. Not after Korematsu.

The only possibility along these lines would be to amend the Constitution -- and fat chance of that. It's a cultural issue, one our legal system is totally unequipped to deal with. Never in our nation's history have we been confronted with such a problem, nor can it be easily adapted to.

At the same time, plenty of "content-neutral" legal avenues already exist to make America Muslim-unfriendly, but there is little interest in enforcing them. Much progress could be made if state and federal prosecutors engaged in serious efforts to enforce laws already on the books, such as sedition, incitement to violence, immigration violations, communicating threats, obstruction of justice, hate crimes, money laundering, tax evasion, polygamy, statutory rape, etc. etc.

But again, it's a cultural and political problem: few public officials would be willing to subject themselves to the scrutiny they would necessarily bring upon themselves by engaging in such a crackdown.

One thing I've advocated for several years now is to block the entry of any national of any country on the State Department's list of terrorist-sponsoring nations, for any reason. There were 26 the last time I checked, and most of them were Muslim countries. The Constitution does may not allow viewpoint discrimination, but it certainly does allow exercising control over who we let in.

In general, provisions like this that reinforce US sovereignty would help a lot, without running afoul of First or Fourteenth Amendment considerations.

For Europe, I maintain that burqa-bans aren't the answer. They give the public the illusion of addressing a problem, without actually accomplishing anything toward that end, further entrenching Europe's suicidal complacency.

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-01 08:21|| 2006-12-01 08:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Impressive exJAG, excellent strategy, it would work and it would be legally and morally defendable.

Posted by Shipman 2006-12-01 08:57|| 2006-12-01 08:57|| Front Page Top

#9 Well, the strategy would have to have many, many facets, to include cutting off the oil money (and the foreign aid!!) and fencing the borders.

Gettin everyone reading Rantburg and armed with a gun or a big frickin dog would be the best, of course!

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-01 09:33|| 2006-12-01 09:33|| Front Page Top

#10 "block the entry of any national of any country on the State Department's list of terrorist-sponsoring nations" is a no-brainer, yet somehow is completely out of bounds as far as national policy goes, along with real border security.
"cutting off the oil money" -- will need a lot more brains than seem to be in existence at the moment. Islamic terrorists need our money as much as we need Islamic oil, a marriage made in Hell.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-12-01 09:56|| 2006-12-01 09:56|| Front Page Top

#11 Yes, impressive, exJAG. And, actually I agree with both you (about the burqua-ban being a bad thing, but not for the reasons stated, but for religious freedom) and Zen (about the need to make America unfriendly to Islamics).

Here's where I draw the line on the TAH (topic at hand). I don't agree at all with an outright ban, but if your chattle wummin-folk don't want to wear it, you can't force them to. If you try to "force" them to, you get busted. I don't know how a law like that would be written, much less enforced (gets into "thought crimes", which I abhor anyways, like the so-called "hate crimes" wave we now see). So, no outright ban, but (like the case a few years ago in FL), if you refuse to "unmask" yourself for public security reasons and/or your men try and force you to wear it, THEN you can enforce a "semi-ban". The FL case was the one where the woman refused to take off her headcovering for a FL Drivers License photo, stating religious beliefs. Now, I believe that's a big public safety no-no...what if she committed a crime and needed her photo up for a lookout in the City? Or (and this may be stretching it), what if her head garb gets in the way of seeing clearly and causes a wreck? I know there are other numerous nuances to this, and again, I don't know how you'd write the "semi-ban", but it needs to be dealt with.

Posted by BA 2006-12-01 10:43|| 2006-12-01 10:43|| Front Page Top

#12 Meant to add, exJAG's proposal of mandating Rantburg to be common reading and the getting a big dog/gun thingy is a GREAT idea! In fact, so much so, I'll now say:

JOE M/exJAG for Pres/V.P. 2008!

Posted by BA 2006-12-01 10:45|| 2006-12-01 10:45|| Front Page Top

#13 No, exJAG is a lawyer (as well as a chemistry teacher, right? A fascinating career change, and I look forward to hearing the story thereof). Let's make her Attorney General, or legal council for Homeland Security ("We can, too, do that; in fact, the stated responsibilities of this department mandate it. Get moving, sir or madam. Schnell machen!*")

*exJAG, if you haven't already, find a copy of the 1960s film One Two Three with James Cagney, set in post-War, pre-Wall Berlin. It's about the travails of a Coca Cola expat executive... the melodic theme is the Russian Saber Dance. Cagney was so exhausted by the experience that he didn't act again for two decades.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-01 13:54|| 2006-12-01 13:54|| Front Page Top

#14 As for the burqa and the niqab, I thought US laws, at least, forbid covering the face to conceal identification, which was originally aimed at the KKK. The abaya and hijab are to me fashion statements in particularly poor taste, particularly the hijab being a political statement. Laws against all such things, particularly in Europe, are the only cover non-consenting Muslim women have that would enable them to refuse community pressure, as became clear when France was in an uproar about forbidding headcoverings for schoolgirls. And to be sure, any enforced legislation that makes the general atmosphere overtly less welcoming to Muslim extremists, whether religious or conquest-oriented (and I'll hear no arguments that they are one and the same -- they are merely mostly-intersecting sets) is at least a step in the right direction. What Europe wants is leadership on this war we're all in; but the peepul ar more likely to demand that kind of leadership if they see the slightest gleam of possibility that the natives can retake control from the Eurabianist allies of the Caliphatist Muslims.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-01 14:04|| 2006-12-01 14:04|| Front Page Top

#15 are. With an e. I got it wrong on the first spelling test I ever took, and clearly have never recovered from the trauma.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-12-01 14:07|| 2006-12-01 14:07|| Front Page Top

#16 Ack! I'd rather be Joe M's speechwriter than hold public office!

The abridged version: temporary career detour. Biochemist + lawyer = patent attorney. Married my studly NCO + overseas assignment = chemistry professor for now.

I'll look for that movie . . . maybe once I'm back in the US and feeling nostalgic for impatient Germans hassling me and extorting a tax for the privilege.

Posted by exJAG 2006-12-01 18:09|| 2006-12-01 18:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Let's see:
Reading Rantburg: check
Big Gun: 30-06 and .50 cal Hawkins...check!
Big Dog: Eskipoo and Chihuahua ...uhhhhhh ah well does 2 out of 3 get me in the club?

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-12-01 18:28|| 2006-12-01 18:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Attorney General, or legal council for Homeland Security, speechwriter, Biochemist, patent attorney, former Officer Armed Services...

wait for it..

and she can talk dirty!

damn we are good here at Rantburg or what!

Posted by RD 2006-12-01 19:10|| 2006-12-01 19:10|| Front Page Top

#19 A federal law outlawing Islam, or even the more limited subset of "political" Islam, would conflict with the core of First Amendment jurisprudence, and it would never survive Supreme Court review, even with nine law-and-order judges.

I realize this and that is the exact reason why I am trying to highlight more feasible ways of making America Muslim unfriendly. For that reason, the burqa ban is one of the easiest to impose and needs to be implemented right away.

What's really a pity is that there is no way to take the Koran's declaration of taqqiya as halal and pose it as a betrayal of sworn allegiance on the admission forms of all Muslim immigrants.

Short of declaring Islam illegal, we need to designate Saudi Wahabbism along with CAIR as terrorist fronts and begin dismantling all of the Saudi funded mosques in America. These two are a huge component of radical Islam in America and must be eradicated post haste.

I honestly think that for the most part we are violently agreeing. Something that goes on a wee bit here at good old Rantburg. Thank you for your own analysis of this nettlesome issue.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-12-01 21:21|| 2006-12-01 21:21|| Front Page Top

23:58 gromgoru
23:54 Zenster
23:53 gromgoru
23:46 Phineter Thraviger
23:45 gromgoru
23:43 Zenster
23:42 gromgoru
23:35 gromgoru
23:33 Thinemp Whimble2412
23:33 Zenster
23:31 CrazyFool
23:29 ex-lib
23:28 Old Patriot
23:27 ex-lib
23:00 ex-lib
22:55 DragonFly
22:51 Leigh
22:41 DragonFly
22:39 DragonFly
22:33 DragonFly
22:27 DragonFly
22:21 DragonFly
22:19 DragonFly
22:16 DragonFly
Merry-Go-Blog