A Hijab Tax in Holland?
Islam is indeed a territorial religion, and clothes — like mosques, halal food in schools, and footbaths at airports — are a form of colonization. What it cannot seize by force of arms, Islam conquers by exploiting the foolhardy tolerance of its enemies. If enough women in Muslim quarters of Rotterdam or Amsterdam wear the hijab, non-Muslim women will not go there, and the territory will have been claimed for Islam.
Superficially, then, the hijab tax is attractive. But is it sensible?
First, any tax levied on Muslims will be less than effective because Muslims generally do not earn enough to pay tax in the Netherlands. Unemployment among Muslims is higher than among other groups, and Muslim women in particular are less likely than other women to work outside the home.
Second, what exactly is a headscarf? The niqab, which covers all but the eyes, the jilbab and abaya, which constrict and imprison, and the barbaric, all-enveloping burqa have no place in the West. Free women do not wear masks, let alone prisons. But is the headscarf cut from the same cloth? The queen, as played by Helen Mirren, wore one around the Balmoral Estate. My grandmother wore one if it was cold enough. Orthodox Christians and Jews wear them, as do nuns. I’m with Phyllis Chesler on this: headscarves are not specific to Islam and are not incompatible with Western values. Amy Winehouse wears one and very silly it looks, but if she’s a Muslim, I’m a Dutchman.
And how would you impose such a tax? Would police be given powers to stop headscarf-wearers in the street? And would they be required to prove Islamic intent (mens Islamica?) rather than just tradition, or indeed fashion? The manpower and administrative costs of enforcing a tax on Islamically motivated headscarves would far outweigh any revenues raised, and would interfere with the liberty of women going about their lawful, un-Islamic business. If Muslim clothing is to be targeted it would be better to tax — or indeed ban — the obviously Islamic, and obviously offensive, burkha, abaya, jilbab, or niqab.
No, Mr. Wilders, a headscarf tax is a non-starter.
Perhaps his “head rag” tax proposal was meant rhetorically, to provoke or to stimulate thought, in which case it has served its purpose. But it does not bear close scrutiny; there are more effective ways to de-Islamify the public space. Still, this is a minor glitch in an otherwise exemplary career, and Geert Wilders deserves our full support in the trials — legal and personal — that he faces.
I’m not sure Mr. Wilders meant this tax as a serious proposal. Personally, I think that Islam should be banned, made illegal. We need to redefine what we mean by religion & freedom of religion. The way to attack Islam, aside from efforts to educate the public as to what Islam REALLY teaches & to ridicule it as much as possible, is by legal means, attacking the Qurán as hate-literature, bringing Imams who preach vile hate-speech to court. Islam, in effect, should be brought to trial.
I agree with Terry, in that this proposal wasn’t meant to be taken literally. However, the idea of outlawing certain ways of dress (niqab, burkha, etc) that are clearly meant to subjugate women is something to be considered. A burkha is a human rights violation. No woman wears this shroud except out of fear, of her husband, family or culture. The woman who would argue differently has, in my opinion, simply internalized that fear to convince herself otherwise.
I believe that, just as Phyllis Chesler has pointed out elsewhere, where the burkha is found you will, in nearly all cases, also find anti-semitism, hatred for all things not Islamic, and an acceptance of violent jihad. I propose that if just the burkha were outlawed here (I am an American diplomat posted to London) and in other European countries that are being slowly colonized by Islam, a major development would occur. That is, many, if not most, of the violent and/or violence-supporting fundamentalists would leave Europe, unwilling to stay in such a place that will not allow them to subjugate women in the name of their 7th century ideology. It would be interesting to discover, should the Western European states do something like this, whether or not the women would stay while their men fled. It’s worth finding out. My only fear is that America and Canada would open their doors to the fleeing psychopaths.
headscarves are not specific to Islam and are not incompatible with Western values.
they weren’t until two decades ago. Now you can’t ignore that they are ostentatory religious signs, and that the persons who wear them do that as an affirmative action, and they are not quit with their revendications to impose their religion.
So Ataturk was wrong ? Tunisia, Algeria governments are wrong to disagree with you at the moment ?
Unfortunately some key points in my argument have been cut out in this version of my piece. Please read these at New English Review by following this link.
Without these points, the article as it stands does not make sense and reads like an apology for Islam and the hijab, which it most certainly is not.
I must agree that this proposal was made in jest. However, taxes are often used to discourage certain behaviors – i.e. carbon tax.
You state – “there are more effective ways to de-Islamify the public space. ” You should give your options here – Europe needs ideas, and so does the rest of the world. For now the pendulum is far to the left – appeasement side, but it will eventually swing back towards the right – stopping it at the center will be most difficult, and if it swings too far to the right – we will have just as many issues and problems – albeit of a different nature.
Lastly – symbolism is important. The headscarf is now a symbol of Islam,as Marie Claude indicated. No one would wear a swastika – because the symbol, although much older than the German Nazis, is now totally corrupted and unusable because of them. The roman cross, although much older than christianity, is now intimately linked and unusable for any other purpose. There are many others, some good, some bad.
Terry hit the nail on the head. The entire rotten culture of Islam should be brought to trial. If the shoe was on the other foot how do you suppose a muslim would handle the situation. In my view Mr Wilders should focus all of his attention on how so much of this crap has entered his country and seek solutions on how to send them back to the sht holes they came from. Taxing them is not the solution.
Part of my article may be missing, so my argument is incomplete. No, Ataturk was not wrong.
Thank you Marie Claude for your historical vindications.
Weelders WAS being sarcastic, but all the same, isn’t it time the inheritors of Athens-Rome-Enlightenment take off a glove or two as we go down the toilet?
Good article. Mr. Wilders is addressing the symptom and not the problem. I see the same problem in my neighborhood here in Atlanta where an increasingly larger number of immigrants (and converts) feel no need to conform to Western dress because they do not embrace Western values. As an immigrant (officially) from Slovenia I remember trying desperately to be American. But that has changed. Here in the U.S. burqas (and face-covering variations) should be treated like ski masks on men, who would not be allowed to do business. Mr. Wilders should use existing laws and cultural institutions (like schools) to promote a PRO-Western agenda. If we did, the younger generation would attracted to the values of freedom and respect and change their dress accordingly.
Islam does not recognize a separation between the State & religion & in this sense, Islam is not a religion but primarily a political movement, totalitarian in nature. The wearing of the burka, etc. & even the headscarf has become a political statement. It’s acceptance essentially forces a society to accept Islamic norms, part of a larger effort at the Islamization of society, what some have called a ”stealth jihad”.
An underlying theme of Islam is the lack of reciprocity towards others. Islam only takes but does not give. Islam demands all rights for itself, none for the unbeliever.
While we all cherish the rights of the individual, we also have collective rights. We have an absolute right & duty to defend OUR civilization from those whose stated aim is it’s destruction.
Well, the Brits once imposed a window tax on the Irish, and the Irish responded by bricking up their windows. Hmmmmm….
“we do not dislike Jews, just Judaism…” I am sure that many readers of the above post may not recognize the author of this quote, but for sure may be very familiar with the crypto racism and fascist that the sentence express.
Although I strongly oppose Fascism and Nazism, I respect those that openly self-define themselves as such. Yet I am really not so impressed by the crypto ones, like Mr. Wilders.
Best wishes
Gabriele
@12. Gabriele Marranci: – … many readers of the above post may not recognize the author of this quote …
Neither do any of the common search engines.
Perhaps you neglected to paste it in the original language?
#12 Gabriele Marranci. The moral equivalancy argument does not stand up. Your statement is disconnected from the real world, it ”sounds good” until you examine closely the nature of Islam in detail.
First off, Islam is not a race – it is a belief system, an ideology. Second, it would be more appropriate to say that Islam is itself quite comparable to National Socialism or Communism, all being examples of totalitarian ideologies.
If you’re looking for racists & fascists, you need only take a quick trip to any Muslim-majority country to see Islam in action.
It’s a pretty bad idea to be tolerant of the intolerant.
Unemployment among Muslims is higher than among other groups
That’s because their inbred bedouin savage ideology, mahoundianism, has always discouraged what we Westerners call honest, hard work: something which is non-existing in mahoundian epistemology. The only way mahoundians have been used to making a living from, for fourteen centuries, is through pillaging, ransacking and looting infidel lands and collecting jizyah from dhimmis (in addition to the carnage and gang-rapes following their invasions and raids, and in which they have always taken great delight.)
If Western European states are willing to allow them to collect welfare benefits as jizyah, something that mahoundians believe is owed to them according to Mein Qurampf 9:29, those states only expect that “unemployment” should be extremely high among those completely devoid of initiative to do any real work.
i like it. i agree with wilders. tax them. also crazy gllue their hairs to their scarves and then pull off the scarf. i like that, too.
Mr Wilders is making a point, in other words its rethorics and is not meant to be taken litteraly like Mary Jackson has done in this article.
(Sorry for bad english)
“If enough women in Muslim quarters of Rotterdam or Amsterdam wear the hijab, non-Muslim women will not go there”
Does not hold up. In Norway, where muslim women are very active in higher education (dominating medicine and lawstudies in Oslo) the effect is opposite: By wearing the scarf and keeping a semblance of “modesty” they escape from friction with their parents/relatives and are free to engage norwegian women.
“That’s because their inbred bedouin savage ideology, mahoundianism, has always discouraged what we Westerners call honest, hard work: something which is non-existing in mahoundian epistemology.”
Damn, I guess all those cornershop owners all over Europe who work 16 hour days for the family and the retirement are just faking being muslim. You guys are basically bigots, its the exact same they were saying about the Jews.
“i like it. i agree with wilders. tax them. also crazy gllue their hairs to their scarves and then pull off the scarf. i like that, too.”
Nice to see that this has become an open hatesite, where people revel in visualizing torture of innocents. Hey, you could all join Gates of Vienna and other anti-muslim blogs and go for a ethnic cleansing of Europe. A final solution to the muslim problem once and for all! LEts build the camps now, we already have the railwaylines!
The thing about head scarfs, burkas etc. is that it is the men who insist on the wearing of them. It is THE visible signal to other men, that if they ‘join’ this group, they also can have sex slaves who do as they are told.
It is advertising that their system works, so come on, join in and you too can have your very own obedient sex slaves.
Why bug the sex slaves? Go for treason. Islam is plainly written to overthrow any western government. A quick study of the Quran and Hadiths will easily identify it as high treason.
I saw the video of this speech by Geert Wilders.
Maybe Jackson should do the same before she sounds like an idiot.
Wilders point of saying to tax the hijab was part of the point he was making an attack on the Progressives in the Holland government and their desire to tax everything no matter how ridiculous and was using the hijab to make his point.
He was saying to the Dutch Parliment: The Progressives in the government want to tax everything no matter how ridiculous so why not tax the hijab which would just another ridiculous tax by the Progressives.
In Norway, where muslim women are very active in higher education (dominating medicine and lawstudies in Oslo) the effect is opposite: By wearing the scarf and keeping a semblance of “modesty” they escape from friction with their parents/relatives and are free to engage norwegian women.
What a giveaway. So, Muslim women are not Norwegian women, then? I didn’t say that; you did.
It is not evil Westerners who want to be separate and exclusive; it is Islam that requires separation – and the hijab is a political statement of separatism.
Bingo Mary.
And if they would like to be seperate, their are 57 nations with Muslim Majority populations that have already run “the other” out or persecuted them into dhimmitude.
Say no to expansion of Islam!
Contain Islam, diversify Muslim majority countries.
Disempower Islam…dont empower it.
He was saying to the Dutch Parliment: The Progressives in the government want to tax everything no matter how ridiculous so why not tax the hijab which would just another ridiculous tax by the Progressives.
That won’t do – the hijab tax is clearly not something that “progressives” would do. Whether or not he finds it ridiculous – and it is possible that he is using the example for rhetorical purposes, as I make clear in my article – it is not, for him, just another “progressive” tax.
He needs to be clearer and more focused in his targets. There is a part missing from the article – a matter which I am trying to resolve with PJM editors – in which I explain what a practical solution, as opposed to a rhetorical one, would entail. Please follow the link here for the missing bit.
marie claud can you tell us how Tunisia and Algeria enforce their ban?
Ms. Jackson, you left out banning polygamy. Also, forbidding driving which is dangerous or financial transactions while covering the face. How can the surveillance video cameras fight crime with these outfits?
Hooray for you for advocating the end of cousin marriage; a superb suggestion found in the parts edited out of this article.
Islam delenda est!
Ms. Jackson, you left out banning polygamy. Also, forbidding driving which is dangerous or financial transactions while covering the face. How can the surveillance video cameras fight crime with these outfits?
Good points indeed. Polygamy is already illegal, of course, but it happens unofficially.
Those who say this is about hating Muslims or, more obscenely, that it is like the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany, should ask whether it is unreasonable for Muslims to conform, in matters of law, safety, employment and so on, with the rest of society. And if Muslims do not wish to fit in with a Western society, who is stopping them from leaving?
If I moved to Australia and then decided I didn’t like having Christmas in the Summer, I would leave. Simple.
More and more lately it seems, I have to take a step or more away from Mr Wilders. I disagree with most of his argument here. Yes, the spread of the hijab is a problem with a political dimension. Yes, it is part of a territory grab. But I dislike both the characterization of it as some kind of visual pollution and also with the idea of a tax upon it. There are better more civil ways of handling the problem without resorting to calling a class of people “pollution.” and taxing them for dirtying the sight of others.
Given that, I have to object with Jackson when she equates the hijab with the simple headscarf that many older and traditional women still wear.
The hijab is distinctly Muslim because it completely covers the entire head and neck. It closes in the front to completely cover the neck and many versions of it also drapes over the chest area to conceal that too.
Some Muslim women, like that record setting basketball player somewhere up in the northeast, try to pass of what amounts to a do-rag as hijab. Other so-called variations allow for a woman to show her ears and neck. But these are not in anyway distinctly Islamic and can’t be properly called hijab as they are indistinguishable from other styles of headscarfs. However they may insist that they are worn for religious reasons there is no telling that just from looking. It is the same with other variations of the headscarf worn by other women whether for fashion, convenience, or religious observance.
So the type of headscarf that must be targetted is actually easy to single out if one wants to reduce its presence in the West. I still believe that this can be done in the realm of ideas instead of resorting to the law. There is so much that is wrong with the thinking behind the hijab. All we need to do is to be bold enough to call a spade a spade.
The encouraging thing is that we seem to be winning battles against the more extreme versions of Muslim female dress. The tide is turning against those who adopt them in the West. I think that once we knock out the more extreme versions of cover, the hijab could then be more easily targeted. We have only to bide our time.
Tunisia, at its independance adopted most of the french judicial system for the new republic. Its population is at 98 % sunni, but a peculiar’s : Malekism, generally softer than the other practices of islam, also only practiced in North Africa, idem for Algeria.
Tunisian government generally respect its constitution. It doesn’t allow political parties based on religion, proselytism is forbiden, idem polygamy, and hijabs are limited, not wwelcome in administrations and schools.
Though like in our countries, fondamentalists try to impose their rules.
The attack of extremists in Algeria are more violent than in Tunisia, may-be it is du to algeria past, war and FLN sponsored by fondamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.
And who doesn’t know Ataturk ?
escuse-me for the typos, hope you’ll still understand
Here are the two important paragraphs left out by PJM:
First, stop Muslim immigration. Start by banning cousin marriages; next cut at a stroke the importation of Muslim brides by raising the minimum age at which both parties may marry to twenty-five. A Muslim woman is considered an old maid at well below that age and she won’t come. Result: fewer headscarves.
Second, allow employers to enforce whatever dress codes they see fit, including banning head coverings. No whining, and no suing for hurt feelings. Those are the rules, and if you want the job, you stick to them. Then cut benefits for Muslims who refuse to take a job that forbids hijab. Muslims will be forced to take off their headscarves or lose money. Result: fewer headcarves.
Ms. Jackson, these are interesting points, particularly number 2, but don’t you think that the first point would be problematic. There are plenty of 21 year old non-Muslims who might want to marry, without the state interfering, for this to be practical. Not allowing cousin marriage, on the other hand, is a nice touch. That, combined with my call (and Mr. Sarkozy’s) for an outright ban on those medieval abominations (burkhas), just might send the rats scurrying home to avoid the sunlight.
Anything that obscures facial recognition is a threat. Now, that can be said about the burka and the hijab, but it cannot be said about women who have head coverings in church.
The burka and the hijab are symbols of women going along with the Sons of Allah that protection, and then respect, of their property rights, for them, is out of bounds.
So, because the Sons of Allah, are hell bent on maintaining their perspective, taxing them for their behaviour is in-bounds. The same thing can
be said about taxes of cigarettes. They have harmed people.
Plus, there is the matter of a hijab wearing woman in Great Britain that caused a bed & breakfast to be closed. That enters into the discussion, regardless of how some feel about it.
I listened to the whole speech by Geert Wilders. His analogy of the car driving into the swamp was on the mark. However when he mentioned the tax on hijab he was being very sarcastic when taken in context. As he referred to the huge amount of money for social programs for the immigrants he made a sarcastic statement concerning the taxing of hijab intimating where so much money was being spent. His complaint, as you well know, is the overwhelming influx into Dutch society of immigrants which are primarily supported by the state. He also feels immigrant culture is imposing too much of their mores on the Dutch culture. Since everywhere he looks he sees hijab, he sarcastically suggested they be taxed, after all the Dutch are taxed for everything imaginable.
The idea of raising the minimum marriage age to 25 is insane. It would be quite effective, but not without disastrous side effects, not the least of which is further reducing the already abysmally low European birth rate.
The idea of raising the minimum marriage age to 25 is insane
In the context of imported brides, no it isn’t. Quite the opposite. It will mean lower fertility rates among immigrants and, proportionately, higher fertility rates among natives who will not have so many economically unproductive but very reproductive imported teenage brides and offspring to pay welfare to.
but bride of 25 and more in these countries are the left over, such those that are hold as “ugly”, or mentally deficient, or widows, then nothing to improve the look of immigrant children, I recall you that the maghrebin girrs are often “hot”, and when they manage to get out their family and or religious shackles, they access to artistic careers, education, administration, police, army… even ministers (by us)
I find this suggestion of limiting Muslim fertility dispicable, the ugliest sort of politics and morally bankrupt.
Deal with the problem directly, not in this underhanded, cowardly fashion.
Have the courage of your convictions, for God’s sake.
In trying to contain intolerance and hatred we are becoming intolerant and haters ourselves. Just reading some of the comments made by some posters here and in other sites is rather disturbing.
First of all, the surest way of ensuring the success of a movement is by “banning” anything in it. If you ban muslim immigration, it shows the West as narrow minded bigots themselves, only with nicer shoes and plumbing. Thousands of muslims around the world are actually not bigots. They do their thing and they have strange beliefs, yes but to say they are not welcome simply because they pray to a different invisible man than you do reeks of the same bigotry we accuse them of.
Second, banning islam will simply make it an underground movement, winning the admiration of youth all over the world.
How about “taxing” those wearing headscarves? Well, what is a “headscarf”? Would a baseball cap that has a long peak count? Would a Sikh turban count too? Remember, the Sikhs have more reason to hate muslims than the western world, so would clumping them in the same category as muslims be a wise move? Why should it be the government’s business what anyone chooses to put on their heads? What next? A tax on left handers? A tax on smokers? (as opposed to a tax on cigarettes), or a tax on parents of kids who do badly in school? Why let governments control people’s lives to this extent? Our fear of islam is making us act like fools, and giving the followers of islam more legitimacy than they deserve. They will rightly see it as “Oh the west is afraid of us, let’s F with their minds a little bit more so we can then push that fear to full blown panic”.
I find this suggestion of limiting Muslim fertility dispicable, the ugliest sort of politics and morally bankrupt.
Deal with the problem directly, not in this underhanded, cowardly fashion.
Why? Nobody’s forcing anyone to limit their fertility. As things now stand, non-Muslim taxpayers are having to limit theirs to support huge families of Muslims on the dole.
What do you suggest? Carry on paying for them until we’re bankrupt.
I have the courage of my convictions – these are my convictions.
From reading the above comments, I do agree.
Forget the taxing, lets go for treason. It will have a wonderful effect on the muslims. Might even bring them to their senses. Include no free lawyers, cash up front to defend charges.
Could be a lot of them will flee back to their own countries. Goody.
What a disgusting thread. You folks seem to fail to recognize that there are thousands and thousands of muslims all over the world that are the allies of the west, risking their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places. ANd you wish to insult these allies in the war on the takfiris by banning their traditions? I see no difference between banning a headscarf and banning a kippa, and what is more, this will only cause resentment and increased conflict. WIch is what I suspect most of the islamophobes secretly wants, an Endlausung to the muslim problem.
MAry Jackson writes: “What a giveaway. So, Muslim women are not Norwegian women, then? I didn’t say that; you did.”
Most muslim women are either 1.sty or 2. generation immigrants and living in dual culturespheres. Only idiots demand that they dress like Britney Spears knowing how much of a cultural conflict this creates. Wich is one of the problems of immigration and cultural differences, sure. And in a rational world, where hate-sites such as this did not exist, it would be a interesting discussion how to work on these problems. But since most of the west seem unable to differentiate between a sufi and a takfiri, lumping everything into “muslim” or “islam”, this discussion is near to impossible to hold in a civilized tone. Jackasses like Wilders cause more problems than they can ever solve.
As things now stand, non-Muslim taxpayers are having to limit theirs to support huge families of Muslims on the dole.
well, if you look at stats, you would see that these immigrants have less children in our countries than they have in their original countries. At least it’s true for France, so I expect that it is the same for Holland, for their immigrants also come mostly from north Africa.
As I often said, the 2nd and the 3rd generation finally fit the standards of birth rate of the nationals where they live (fom 1,5 to 2 or to 3). So saying that they are living out of our taxes becomes not accurate for the 3rd generation (at least) anymore.
While european immigrants make less children in their original countries than in France, funny nah ?
(see the table at the bottom of this link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France
Fnord, you’re right, but I wouldn’t say thousands then, but rather millions, though don’t forget to say that these muslims also are the targets of fondamentalists and of AQ jihaders. Unfortunately lots of persons make the amalgam to view the laters as representatives of the whole lot.
again it would be wise to watch the stats
Dear Ms. Jackson,
I would like to draw your and every reader’s attention to two facts.
As the first comment so astutely points out, your statement: “His quarrel is not with individual Muslims, but with the ideology of Islam.” means that W. is on a collision course with every bill and declaration of human rights as they are lived by in civilized countries. Freedom of religion was won after much bloodshed all over the world and civilized people would rather not see a repeat of those wars of religion.
Secondly, it appears you are not too familiar with the Dutch tax system. Here, even the homeless and those on the dole pay taxes. Unlike for instance the USA, the Netherlands has no tax-exemptions for people under a certain income level. Taxes are withheld from every salary and paycheck before you even get the money.
And of course, everything you buy is taxed, as W. pointed out, even dog ownership. But also bread and milk and every piece of clothing you buy. Yes, head scarves and so forth included. In other words, W. is as badly informed as you are. His proposed tax is already in place. His proposal is simply superfluous and, dare I say so, ignorant?
These are the facts.
Another thing is your ever so slightly hidden accusation, that people with roots abroad are so poor (but, to repeat, do pay taxes nonetheless.).
You overlook that several mayors of the big cities here, e.g. Amsterdam and Rotterdam et. al., have their roots in faraway countries and are non-whites nor Christians. Ditto for lawyers, doctors, clergymen and -women, professors and a host of professionals and blue collar workers.
All these pay their taxes. And taxes are hefty and steep here, so their contribution to the treasury is not to be discounted. My country and our countries would be a lot poorer without them.
Yours truly,
VHJM van Neerven,
editor-in-chief VNC
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
P.S. One sad observation to mull over:
Many Dutch fighting men and women who gave their lives in ‘our’ wars in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan were Muslems.
Freedom of religion was won after much bloodshed all over the world and civilized people would rather not see a repeat of those wars of religion.
This assumes that Islam is a religion like any other. It isn’t – it’s a political, totalitarian, supremacist movement.
Islam is, as Mary observes here, both colonizing and territorial, and that is the point. How do female members of a community (or other women living among them) counter the intense pressures to conform, or risk sexual danger if they don’t?
I worked in refugee placement in the northeastern Atlanta suburbs. And from my first encounter with Afghani refugees, I was startled: our government was paying to relocate “families” with 9, 12 male children and no females? Multiple men of absurdly close ages claiming to be brothers — and no sisters? While I remained sympathetic to the plight of virtually anyone who managed to obtain refugee status, no small point — a high, if selective bar — I was deeply disturbed by the men I encountered (I will not dignify such contacts as having “met them” because they viewed me as flypaper or a walking uterus, frankly, on my tax dime).
What they would contribute, and what they would take away from the cohesion of our society was pretty obvious to anyone who could stand to be honest with themselves.
And I certainly didn’t feel this way about other refugees or immigrants. The Vietnamese immigrants I worked with, for one example among several, had a work ethic and sense of solidarity that has taught me a great deal about valuing my own citizenship. To hell with the slurs directed at the idea of “model minorities” — what a silly thing to complain about.
We have to learn to talk about these things. Even if it’s uncomfortable. People prattle on about masturbation and their mothers and dating trends among starlets and personal carbon footprints. But somehow they will not face such issues directly.
Thank God for the English.
Afghans are the less “evolved” in the muslim spectrum
Deal with Islam and Muslims directly, as I said.
If you have determined that Islam is a menace to Western Civilizatio(which it is), it should be stamped out, and those who refuse to denounce their Islamic religion, can hit the road, with citizenship revoked.
If it leads to an exchange of population with the OIC nations, then so be it. (Lets face it the US already has many refugees from Islam, our Arab American population is 70 percent Christian plus another 10 percent non Muslim).
In the US we had an exlusion of ideologues (Communists) from immigration. Islam should now join them in that distinction.
Its a vile ideology, supremacist in nature….seeking to subjugate and dominate the other, politically and culturally. Its backwards and oppressive, stifling innovation and ingenuity.
The early Balkan Wars will be a harbinger of things to come, unless action is taken, that may be a bit harsh, but is much preferable to the ugliness and suffering that is sure to eventually come, if left unchecked to run its course.
PS- It is my hope that the Western Left after their daliance with Islam will finally and totally be discredited and a confident invigorated Europe/AngloSphere Western Civilization and Cultural Attitude will be the result. Ditching this infernal moral and cultural equivalency and self deprecating and self effacing guilt, that has been pushed by the Western Left and is now the Western Zeitgeist.
Perhaps Republicans and American Conservatives will be hailed instead of villified, in the future…as morally righteous, yet unashamedly pro Western. (instead of racist sexist imperialist capitalist hate and war mongers that need to be destroyed).
Absolutely fascinating to see bigotry and open hatred on display at such a big site. The article author manages to write: “This assumes that Islam is a religion like any other. It isn’t – it’s a political, totalitarian, supremacist movement.”
So, roughly 1/4th of the worlds population are totalitarian, political and supremacist ideologues who wish to conquer the world and subjugate us all to sharia. The muslims in our western societies are infiltrators and forerunners of the great invasion, its a war for survival and we must “stamp out” the enemy.
“If you have determined that Islam is a menace to Western Civilizatio(which it is), it should be stamped out, and those who refuse to denounce their Islamic religion, can hit the road, with citizenship revoked.”
This is the exact same shit that was said about the jews in the 30s. So you want to establish a religious police-state, burn mosques, storm people houses searching for Qurans, put up the camps and “deport” national citizens because of their faith. Are you aware, sir, that you are batshit crazy and are spouting open national-socialistic drivel on behalf of “western democracy”? Does it even register that you are advocating pogroms and forced conversion in the year 2009, all to save the Vaterland from the pernicious thinning of our blood and race and core values? Are you aware, sir, that you sound more like a 13th century fanatic than a modern human being?
Charles the Hammer Martel was and remains a hero, not a bigoted scourge of European peoples.
Next Hero of Europe, Gert Wilders.
Escape, except that Charles Martel wasn’t a hair Salons warrior
Is the Towel Head tax, like the “Jiyza?”
Muslims can understand that. Muslims should be treated how they are prescribed to treat the “Kafr.”
Its quite simple, treat Muslims how they treat others.
They wont be sticking around, for long.
BTW, the attempted equivalence of Jews in the 30s with Muslims, Judaism with Islam, is just the sort of vapid analysis that the Western Left and the Muslims have been using to colonize Europe. More guilt, more equivalence, more deconstruction, more paralysis, more victimized minorities more nihilistic policies.
Islam is vile and evil. Its on the level of Nazism, the people that actually slaughtered the Jews. If you cant come down against the Nazis, then we will witness a repeat slaughter of the Jews in Europe by the New Nazis, Muslims.
By your account we could have avoided WW2 by inviting Nazis to mass immigrate across Europe, to outbreed the locals, and that was the solution.
Ill pass.
@ 43:
I see,the gloves come off. Fine with me. You ask for war? There are enough takers, lady!
Mary, that color shades you wear in front of your eyes really, really makes you look ugly.
Picking on one line? Very sporting – not!
Now be a mensch if you now what that is!) for one brief moment, and tell me what religion was and is not ” political, totalitarian, supremacist movement.” ?
And tell us all: What’s yours, eh?
With all due respect.
VHJM van Neerven esq.
I would remind everyone that it was the Muslims who gave Hitler the idea to initiate the Final Solution. It would be deliciously ironic for Islamic terrorists to suffer under the same brutal yoke they imposed on the West.
Its quite rare these days to see folks openly advocating a new holocaust and ethnic cleansing. Very refreshing in its way, because a lot of folks like WIlders are hiding behind their masks of civility and politenes. Good to see those masks come off and get a full view of what lies behind them. Fascinating choice by Pajamas Media to become a genocide propaganda channel.
Lets see: “BTW, the attempted equivalence of Jews in the 30s with Muslims, Judaism with Islam, is just the sort of vapid analysis that the Western Left and the Muslims have been using to colonize Europe. More guilt, more equivalence, more deconstruction, more paralysis, more victimized minorities more nihilistic policies.
Islam is vile and evil.”
And the funny part is that a catholic jew-hater in the 30s would say exactly the same if you compared the jews to, say, the calvinists or the early protestants who were also persecuted. The language wouldnt have changed one bit, back in the thrities the antrosophes in all honesty talked about the jewish spirit being not infused with the blood of Jesus and so basically being “vile and evil”. You all seem to think that a police state and a ethnic cleansing under the opompadour führer Wilders is the correct solution to this, to rid the West of the vermin. Several of wich happen to be my neighbours, whose kids I know personally, who help my mother with the shopping, etc.
“I would remind everyone that it was the Muslims who gave Hitler the idea to initiate the Final Solution. It would be deliciously ironic for Islamic terrorists to suffer under the same brutal yoke they imposed on the West.”
This one is even better, in that it openly advocates a return to the deathcamps of Auschwitz, as a kind of an eye-for-an-eye form of justice. It was the muslims who tricked the good nazis into the holocaust, and so it would only be poetic justice that we go and kill their grandmothers, their children, gas them and burn them and torture them and maim them. After all, theyre muslims, arent they, not real mensch but rather untermensch who doesnt even really feel pain, do they? I guess we will start out with crazy-gluing their hair to their hijabs and then rip them off, torturing women is always good for morale, eh?
Now, I served my time in the Army, my grandfather fought people like you in WW2, and all I can say is that I hope some of you folks ever come and try to hold a rally over here in Norway. I really, really, really look forward to seeing you march on the streets so I can uphold a family tradition.
I havent seen anybody advocate genocide.
Your need to inject that into the conversation, illuminates your bad faith, entrance into the conversation.
Of course no one is talking about race or blood, they are talking abuot ideology.
Keep up the foul work of disinformation, Fnord.
All I can say, is I hope your daughter isnt raped in Oslo or you become the victim of a hate crime…however I will be there for you when you are mugged by reality.
BTW, I criticized Mary for delving into Muslim fertility limitation via indirect policy. Immigration of Mohammedeans should be stopped, full stop.
These cutsey policy advocations that seek to limit Muslim fertility via sleight of hand policy, are an abomination. I agree. The problem should be tackled head on, and without duplicitiousness.
Furthermore, Europe should move away from its Luxurious Welfare Statism, which works well with relatively homogenous populations. However as they are seeing, with large minorities and a heterogenous population, there is much less incentive to self integrate and assimilate…via economic pressures of getting along for employment purposes. Because the non formal methods of enforcement of cutlural norms and values is much less than in homogenous socieities. Thus new groups come in and take advantage of the system…which causes inter group hostility.
Furthermore, the New Left has been pushing and is now the zeitgeist, diversity and multi-culturalism, non integration…assimilation as crime against humanity, crime against victimized minority, Third World proletariat. That has to end as well.
The end result of the New Left Baby Boomer 60s Movement will be Civil War within Western Nations….if things dont change.
#42
It’s working out so well in Sweden and Denmark isn’t it?
58: In Denmark, where the islamophobic Dansk Folkeparti is heavily influencing policy over the last 8 years, its not working out at all. In Sweden, its mostly(despite the horrorstories from Malmö) working out OK, with the exception of a few ghettos.
EscapeVelocity: What do you call advocating “stamping out Islam” and “Doing to muslims as they tricked the nazis into doing to the Jews”? But fair enough, calls for making the religion of 5-10% of a countrys population illegal, subject to policeraids and loss of citizenship and instant deportation is also fascism to me. Calling other peoples tradition garbage, be it yarmulks or kippas or hijabs for garbage and wanting to make them illegal smacks of the same. The french example of banning ALL religious symbols in schools is more acceptable, but I dont think many here will be happy with banning the wearing of crosses, hey?
Islam is an ideology.
I never advocated doing to muslims as they tricke the nazis into doing to Jews. I missed it, if someone else did.
There is certainly going to be imprecise language from people that have ligitmate greivances but dont know how to express them eloquently…or thoughtfully. I even have trouble sometimes explaining the nuance of my positions, and there is always the further communication problem between individuals…where people hear something different than was said, people having different connotations of words and language, etc.
I agree that its not going to be touchy feely nicey nice, as is the Western Leftist Fantasyland Zeitgeist…but it must be done to avoid even worse consequences down the road.
Furthermore, fnord…..you yourself call the Nazi heritage and traditions garbage…and yet Nazism is illegal through out lots of Europe. The Poles are now doing the same with Communism. These are ideologies, not people. The Western Left has been attacking Christianity for decades, visciously and relentlessly. Yet Islam is out of bounds…heh? Islam is what the Western Left makes Christianity out to be…its the real deal, the boogeyman they have been trying to slay, and yet they are unable to bring themselves to do so. The Christian Right (and Christians) in the US are villified in the most ugly manner and calls to disempower them, and fierce criticism of them is within bounds….yet Islam and Muslims get a free pass.
Islam is vile and evil. Its a supremacist religion which seeks political domination and subjugation of the other…explicitly as edicts from God.
You better wake up and smell the roses, partner. The solution only becomes more ugly, more violent, and more bloody with every passing day. For humanitarian reasons you should support the crackdown on Islam, the stoppage of immigration of Muslims and the easy deportation of those who cause trouble and preach hate, supremacism, and use ugly hatefilled slurs like Kafr.
Furthermore, you cant extrapolate political consequences of Muslim immigration from the few nice Muslims that live up the street that you know. Its when their numbers grow, and so their power that you will feel the wrath of of Allah, and the imposition of Shariah Law.
Wilders wins!!! Lawsuit in the UK won. Never should have happened in the first place. Free speech reigns!
2,640 or so rapes and arsons in Sweden this year. Denmark is a little better, not much but some. France is definitely burning around Paris. Just today Italy had a a bomb set off. UK and Germany having a lot of the same problems with no go zones. Cops being attacked in everyone of those countries and firemen. Biker wars rampant crime. Yeah, makes me want to live in the EU. Funny, in the country that is reviled and despised by the EU elites this isn’t happening. I guess it is pretty ingenius that 304 million people just agree to get along.
“France is definitely burning around Paris”
yeah, your brain is too hot !
how many ruins ?
how many deads ?
uh, better stay where you live, our hospitals for dementia wouldn’t fit your paranoid vews
Why is Europe importing another middle east religon? You never learn do you.
Europe is just going to ice over anyway. So I wont worry about it.
#43. Mary, in spite of detractors, your comments are right on target. Islam intends to dominate all other religious peoples. Islam is a cult.
Well, where’s my answer, Ms.?
53, myth buster
“I would remind everyone that it was the Muslims who gave Hitler the idea to initiate the Final Solution. It would be deliciously ironic for Islamic terrorists to suffer under the same brutal yoke they imposed on the West.”
There’s one incitement to violence and genocide.
BTW, where did you get this inane idea? Violent demographic politics were made in the USA, as everyone with a sense of history knows, the Nüremberg Laws from Nazi Germany came hence as well.
But such a scenario would not happen even with magical technology, because design discipline demands the human and computational analysis of all the interactions and effects of any proposed change. ,
I knew a couple kids who were retrieved nightly by whistles. ,
hey,
i am a canadian muslims convert. i want to know what is sooo scarey and wrong about a piece of material???? what will the tax do? is this about money? i thaught it was about looking like holland but if canada looked like canada we’d all be wearing furry boots and beads (native canadian)
time changes things. margority wins in some cases (excuse my horrible spelling) and fashion is a popularity contest of magority….my hijab (headscarf) has nothing to do with my culture. culture and religion are 2 different things. its maybe just material to some but to other is means alot. who are you to judge that? what do you care how others dress? do you miss the tits and ass?is that is?cuz you can’t possibley feel naked o underdressed amoung us. so why is it so wrong that holland MODERNATES to freedom of choice and idividuality. its a personal thing not like having a dog that shits or causes allergies, does it hurt you for us to cover? this is simpley looking into something too far if people mind their self instead of nagging people would be fine, nothing better to do. if you idividualy can’t understand something….then that means its wrong? what you think is “the right way” may be wrong way for someone else and viseversa. if someone can’t understand something…i think its their personal problem…..deal with it.
malaak-jayne@hotmail.com