...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

November 17, 2006

Dutch Burka Ban?

From Reuters:

The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

. . .

"The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face -- including the burqa -- should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens," the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

. . .

The Muslim community estimates that only about 50 women in the Netherlands wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.

What's that? "The moslem community?" I didn't know they spoke with one voice. In fact, I always heard that the reason they never seem to denounce blowing up innocent people and chopping people's heads off is because there is no unified "moslem community." But I digress.
Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would make the country's 1 million Muslims feel more victimized and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.

"This will just lead to more girls saying 'hey I'm also going to wear a burqa as a protest'," Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community.

Sorry, but I don't seem to remember any moslem girls protesting when Van Gogh was killed. Perhaps if they had, Dutch people would've been more hesitant to ban their backward-ass burkas.
Job Cohen, the Labour mayor of Amsterdam, said he opposed burqas in schools and public buildings, and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.
Makes sense to me. Nice to see Dutch Labour getting a clue.

Posted by annika, Nov. 17, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


There seems to finally be a reaction to the cultural aggression of the muslims in Europe, but its too little, too late. If they don't limit further muslim immigration and the white people don't start having babies, they will all be dominated by Islam in about twenty years.

Posted by: kyle8 on Nov. 18, 2006


Hello, but aren't Semites white people? And when did the distinction between Muslims and the rest of us come down to skin color?

Annie, I have mixed feeling about legislation that regulates the clothes we wear. And what did the framers have in mind when they wrote the establishment clause? Religion free from the influence of government:Support or repression.

I don't know anything about the foundation of Dutch law but correct me if I am wrong if I hear you saying that you would be in favor of the US passing a similar law.

I would not have a problem with the govt. banning ALL visual symbols of one's faith while in a public school or while employed as a civil servant, right down to little cross earings, or a star of david visible on a mans chest, but I would draw the line at citizens walking the streets.

Posted by: Strawman on Nov. 18, 2006

Am ignoring my rule to respond to the dirty twat above:

This is our culture, we set the rules to keep this culture in place. Fucking tolerance and establishment clauses and shit weren't designed to have us disestablish our culture (i.e. banning visual symbols of faith for all) because some asshole camel jockey thinks his homely bitch wife is too hot to show her face in public. Everything does not have to be equal. burqas go against western culture, we don't have to give anything in response to banning them. how they practice their religion can adapt or go back home.

There is a reason they immigrated to our countries, and its because of the superior way we do things. Like managing to have a fucking functioning economy so that they, the immigrant, can leech off the welfare from it. The Moslem/Muslim/Saracen morality doesn't work with the things that make the West so attractive to immigrate too in the first place. They must take the steps to adapt if they want part of what we have. And that concept of "we" is fundamental here. You can take brotherhood of mankind, treat everyone the same crap elsewhere. I live in a real world with real borders that set the boundaries for different cultures. This is us, here, our land, and its what is happening with islamic immigrants in europe (i.e. they are seeking to change what we thinking of as "european") that is why we need to oppose high levels of immigration here. If the immigrants love the way they do things so much, then they should stay home.

Posted by: Ignoreland on Nov. 18, 2006


Boy are you a schmuck. What percentage of the AMerican population do you think is the product of immigrants that arrived since 1900?

I don't what you think you've got but whatever it is has been enhanced, modified, enriched and sustained by people born outside America.

Posted by: Strawman on Nov. 18, 2006

Speaking only as a descendent of colonists to the New World, may I say that I agree with ignoreland. Immigrants came to the US because of the benefits it offered. Immigrants today such as latinos seem to be here because they think it is their right. Look at the illegals protesting in NC over being fired at the Smithfield packing plant. [management should be jailed for hiring them.]

Muslim immigrants come here to spead islam as their prophet tells them to. That is why we need to oppose high levels of *any* immigration here.

Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy on Nov. 18, 2006

I agree that it's undesirable for a government to legislate what people may wear. I don't know why any woman would want to be hampered by a burka or why it pleases a husband to have his wife draped like that.

Posted by: Joules on Nov. 18, 2006

I'd wear a burkha if I was a Cal fan.

Posted by: Casca on Nov. 18, 2006

Arabs, Turks, and north africans are not white people in the same sense that Europeans are. Nor do they think themselves such. However, I never intimated that the differences came down to skin color, it was only used to draw a distinction. But you are too ignorant and bellicose to know any better.

What I said still stands, they Euro's are finally waking up to the vipers in their midst. But it is a day late, and a Euro short.

Posted by: kyle8 on Nov. 18, 2006

While I applaud the move by the Dutch, I remain most worried that Europe will just let this crap go on until it reaches a crisis point and then the reaction will have all the sense and reason of the "usual" revolution in old Europe. I expect the blood will run as deep as it ever has in the streets of Paris and other "enlightened" cities. Instead of reasonable reforms we will see violent and ridiculous over-reaction and a real battle, ending with bloody retribution. My only hope is that we will at least get to see bare breasted women atop the barricades.

Posted by: TBinSTL on Nov. 18, 2006

To Strawbrain:

Listen up you dumb fucktard:

Our culteral Political Coorectness will cost us our society. Those assholes can conform or go home.

The mere thought that some womanhas the right to wear a veil for her driver's license photo makes me want to puke. No wonder the crooks and assholes all love it; hell soon some bank robber will sue to be able to wear a mask as he does his banking withdrawals or his no pay shopping at Costco.

Eurabia is just waking up top the real threat of Islam; too late, I think they are goners. All that might survive here is American and Australia.

Get Mark Steyn's new book, "America Alone". The birthrate, plus the determination to proseletyze us all to make US conform to THEIR Sharia is the most frightening thing I have ever read.

Take your PC and shove it, and while you are at it, get the hell off of our blog. No one here agrees with any of your drivel.

Posted by: shelly on Nov. 19, 2006

Shit Shelly, you're starting to sound like me. The deal with this asshole is that he is self-loathing, thus thrives on the negative attention of others. Were he simply ignored, he'd wander away, but Kyle and Scof foolishly play his game.


Posted by: Casca on Nov. 19, 2006


I didn't think this was anyone but Annika's blog. You being a private property deist should not disrespect her property by calling it yours. But that is the least of your problems.

I am actually not a PC kinda guy and if you read my stuff with out your idiot prejudices you would know that. Feeling uncomfortable with our government legislating clothing standards and so do you. This is something I would have thought you would oppose being the reactionary RW less govt. is more kinds guy you are but like most of your breed your self-serving interests and ass dribbling fear trumps your clear minded thinking.

As I said, when in the midst of civil authority the veil and burka come off or you don't drive. The needs of the state come first. If you can demonstrate that burka clad bank robberies are more than a figment of your petrified imagination than then they shall also be banned from the public street. But you are clearly not thinking. The history of immigration has ALWAYS been that a majority come here for peace and prosperity and freedom from oppression. Although it does seem that many more are coming these days for the money to send home to the country that they still call home. But the difference is the legal v. illegal immigrants. I agree in principal with efforts to stem the tide. I am not sure of the best way to do it or how to deal with the 10 million or so who are here. I'm listening? Got any good ideas?

This blog would be limping toward moribundness(no disrespect intended Annie, but you know what it would be like around here if Shelly and Catshit had sway)if not for opposing opinions. I am one of a few but you Shelly and your crony are nails in the coffin of discourse, imagination as well as cancerous polyps in the colon of a healthy society.


You can make all the racial distinctions you wish: Really white v. somewhat white but Christian v. less than white but Muslem v. swarthy white but Jewish, etc. ( Ask the Afrikaners for some help in this area, they have plenty of distinctions) Just donít expect others to enter your preposterous, racist little construct without the benefit of a map.

Posted by: Strawman on Nov. 19, 2006

"Were he simply ignored, he'd wander away,"

Not quite, Casca.

Straw doesn't care whether we ignore him or not. As long as he thinks there is some hope that he will influence Annie to "convert" and jump on the Leftist bandwagon, Straw will not go away. Since Annika hasn't shown any overt displays of contempt or hostility towards him, his delusions won't be shattered anytime soon.

Posted by: reagan80 on Nov. 20, 2006

"Since Annika hasn't shown any overt displays of contempt or hostility towards him, his delusions won't be shattered anytime soon."

challenging Strawman to a duel didn't count?

Posted by: annika on Nov. 20, 2006

"challenging Strawman to a duel didn't count?"

Sorry, I must've missed that one, but I'm glad to hear that nevertheless. If that means there's no chance that you'll ever fall for his charades, I guess I can stop digging through the archives and repeatedly showing off Straw's cyber dingleberries.

Posted by: reagan80 on Nov. 20, 2006


I think you should examine your fondness for my dingleberries cyber or otherwise.(Ya' know Ray its demeaning just to type that word.)

Annie challanged so I had the choice of weapons. When I chose ABM's at 1000 miles she conceded to a draw since the chances of any damage was nil.

Posted by: Strawman on Nov. 20, 2006