Monday, July 2, 2018

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Netherlands bans Islamic veils: “The first step to de-Islamize the Netherlands”

  BY 83 COMMENTS
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….

COMMENTS

      • Like I say, over 90 percent of Muslims are on welfare. Quit giving them money. See how long they last.
        Reply
        • “Quit giving them money.”
          The fast, effective and money-saving way to “de-Islamize” a country. This is especially true if neighbouring countries are throwing lots money at Mohammadans.
        • The Muslims are ENTITLED to collect that as JIZIA TAX from the KUFFAR. Don’t complain.Just pay that with a humiliating smile!!!!
        • “only in our dreams”? If not closed we will be living a nightmare.
  2. “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.
    Reply
  3. Go on , dear neighbors !
    This won’t happen here in germany : you see so many of them even in this small town .
    Reply
    • 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…
      Reply
    • 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.
      Reply
      • 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.
        Reply
      • 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.
        Reply
    • 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.
      Reply
  5. They burkah women look rather like the “Dark Riders” from Tolkien. So often this religion almost shouts, “I am from the devil!”
    Reply
    • 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!
      Reply
  6. The West has to ban ALL islamic nonsense in order to de-islamize its countries.
    Don’t forget: islam is NOT a religion.
    Reply
        • Every single time I walk by one of them with my dog, they get out of the way as if my dog is the plague.
          Didn’t alah make dogs in the first place?
          They’re zombified, that’s all.
        • allah the pagan moon god made nothing. allah aka mohammad.
      • 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.
        Reply
        • 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.
        • Well, Robert Spencer says Islam’s a religion, Terry. So, take it up with him.
        • 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.
        • 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.
        • 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.
      • 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.
        Reply
        • 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.
    • Good question as to what “public places” means in France. Government buildings, for one.
      Reply
  8. 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.
    Reply
  9. 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.
    Reply
    • 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,”
      Reply
      • 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?
        Reply
        • 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.
        • 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.
    • 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.
      Reply
        • 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.
    • 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.
      Reply
  10. 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.
    Reply
    • 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.
      Reply
  12. Netherlands bans Islamic veils: “The first step to de-Islamize the Netherlands”
    …………………..
    *Excellent* news.
    Reply
  14. This is a step in the right direction. Let’s hope this ban doesn’t include reusable shopping bags.
    Reply
  15. 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.
    Reply
    • Posting twice is not good. Apologizing for the double post makes it worse. No one Who matters thinks a double post is intentional.
      Reply
  17. 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
    Reply
  18. 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.
    Reply
  20. Do these people understand how muslim population growth will eventually effect all European countries through voting?
    Banning the veil now, does nothing
    Reply
    • Exactly Harriet, the only thing that will work is to ban islam and eradicate this cult out of the free world. Starting yesterday.
      Reply
    • Jay Boo thanks. Never really listened to the words before, they sum up what the west was based on.
      Reply
      • Glad you liked it although I should mention Hollywood and Debbie Reynolds took some liberties in the English translation. Songs and rhymes don’t often translate well. All the same the gist of the meaning is essentially the same in the bigger scheme of things.
        It is in stark contrast to Islam that has no joy.
        Reply
  22. “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.
    Reply
  24. 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.
    Reply
at
JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Slovakia on Muslim migrant influx: “We are not prepared to suffer the consequences of the mistakes of others”

  BY 37 COMMENTS
Another European leader opts for national survival rather than the national suicide that the EU is embracing and prescribing.
“Slovakia Backs Hungary on Migrant Crisis: ‘We Are Not Prepared to Suffer for the Mistakes of Others,’” by Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, June 29, 2018 (thanks to Inexion):
Slovak prime minister Peter Pellegrini backed the stance of his Hungarian counterpart, Viktor Orbán, against EU-mandated migrant quotas and George Soros-backed NGOs.
Pellegrini is taking over the presidency of the pro-sovereignty, anti-mass migration Visegrád Group — the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, with Austria participating as something of an adjunct member since the country’s new conservative-nationalist coalition took office — from Mr Orbán.
Speaking during a joint interview on Slovak television, Pellegrini made it clear he would continue the Hungarian leader’s policy of opposition to Brussels redistributing migrantsacross Europe.
“Who may enter Slovakia and whom we let in to live here are issues that the Slovak government will decide on, and we shall not accept someone else from Brussels deciding this for us, or some other country dictating to us on this… it’s our right to decide whom we want or don’t want on our territory,” he asserted.
“I’d like to confirm and repeat Mr Orbán’s words: we are not prepared to suffer the consequences of the mistakes of others.”
Pellegrini made it clear who he felt had been making “mistakes” in Europe with a number of thinly-veiled shots at Germany’s embattled chancellor, Angela Merkel.
The EU’s migration policies, he insisted, could not be decided “by one country saying ‘We welcome you, come to us’, without the consent of the other countries” — in clear reference to Merkel’s unilateral decision to open her country’s borders to anyone claiming to be a Syrian refugee, which resulted in a flood of illegal migrants through south-eastern and central Europe.
“We cannot tolerate a situation in which some countries’ failure to put their houses in order has led to the border having more holes in it than Emmental cheese; and we cannot tolerate a situation in which we see the arrival here and free movement within the European Union of hundreds of thousands of people about whom we know nothing,” he added….
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *