Up until now, the pattern of behavior for Muslims in the West has been to insist on special privileges and exceptions, using our constitutional and statutory provisions for freedom of religion to justify their demands.Anyone who wants to act against the Islamization of the West needs to address this situation, and the way to do it is to create rules that apply equally to all religions, thus forestalling the objection that they are discriminatory. If Christians can’t wear crosses, Jews can’t wear yarmulkes, and Muslimas can’t wear the veil, then the rule is fair, right?
Christians and Jews will mostly comply with such rules without demur, but Muslims tend to bridle at the restrictions, because the wearing of the veil is a political statement for Islam, a sign that Dar al-Harb has been converted into Dar al-Islam. Where veils are worn, the sexes are separated, and the muezzin calls from the minaret, everyone knows that sharia has come to the territory that formerly belonged to the infidels.
So, practically speaking, the “fair” rule has the desired effect: it denies Islam a political toehold in the countries which enforce it.
With that in mind, three members of the European Parliament from Belgium have taken action. On April 21st, the MEPs Philip Claeys, Frank Vanhecke and Koenraad Dillen — all from Vlaams Belang — proposed the following:
0037/2008- - - - - - - - -
Written declaration on the introduction of a ban on the wearing of religious symbols in buildings of EU institutions
The European Parliament,
— having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure, A. whereas the separation of church and state in Europe is a fundamental acquis, B. whereas this acquis is being placed under increasing pressure by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, C. whereas the Muslim headscarf is also a symbol of the oppression of women, D. whereas many women are forced by social pressure to wear a headscarf, E. whereas the staff of public services should present a neutral appearance, most of all (but not exclusively) in dealings with the public, 1. Urges the institutions and the financial, advisory, interinstitutional and decentralised bodies of the European Union to introduce a ban in all their buildings on the wearing of visible religious symbols, to apply to all staff members and employees of service providers; 2. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the other EU institutions and the financial, advisory, interinstitutional and decentralised bodies of the European Union.
We’ll have to wait and see how the various countries of the European Union react to this proposal.
Document received via email.
16 comments:
Oh, but wait. Isn't Vlaams Belang an evil racist party, or at least one of them knew a racist once upon a time or something? Plus, that symbol, the evil Celtic cross they flaunt around. Isn't it almost like a swastika or canisters of Zyclon B or something? That must make this a bad, almost genocidal idea, no?
I wouldn't hold your breath on waiting for a response from the nations of the EU. You could die from asphyxiation.
A good idea. Now get it passed. How do you do it on your side of the pond? We can write our Representatives to get a law passed. I'm curious, what do you do to get a law passed?
"Oh, but wait. Isn't Vlaams Belang an evil racist party,"
Only if you are a lazy fool living in California who seems to find nazis hiding under beds everywhere or one of his sycophants chirping away in the echo chamber that is the LGF comments section.
Heh. Vlaams Belang is, by any reasonable measure, a fine conservative, Rule-of-law, free market advocating party. It also works for the nation of Flanders to get an independent state, which is what upsets Eurocrats and globalization freaks, as well as the extreme left.
I think there may be a subtle bias in this proposal. Muslims are very extrovert in their religion, clothes, rules, habits and the dreaded call to 'prayer'.
Christians, while also liking to set a cross on display high and wide, probably wouldn't mind that a cross pendant must be hidden when in the context of a government institution and such. They would have Christ at their hearts anyway, no big deal.
Muslims, on the other hand, have a real problem when they cannot show off their 'religious identity' in public, and they will probably challenge this proposal with everything they have. Which in turn means that the radicals would not know who to intimidate to make them follow the 'religious' rules.
The proposal is good. Short, sweet and functional.
An interesting approach, and an indication that those who generally oppose speaking out against islamisation in Europe, really do see a problem
The image of the nigab wearing woman on this thread reminds me of an excellent article from yesterday's Front Page magazine.
Symposium: Hate Behind the Niqab, it's contributors are Dr. Nancy Kobrin, Abul Kasem, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Dr. David Gutmann and Dr. Phyllis Chesler, and they provide some excellent insights into the history and purpose of the "covered meat."
Gabriel:
"Islamic societies are suffocated by shackles around the human spirit and brain. Islamic theology is driven by machoism, dominance, intolerance, submission and violence to all that disagrees with Islam’s principles of law. The niqab is a constant and visible symbol of all of the above."
It's long, but very good.
I once wrote to try and find out who my EU MP was. (I had just moved to the Hague). Never got a response.
The first breeze of our ominous future has arrived faster than it had been anticipated: this event do not augur well for either of us.
__________________________________
'Jihadist' booted from US government lexicon.
Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.
Bush administration launches new front in war on terrorism, this time targeting language
Associated Press
___________________________________
This is only the first step: I predicted that the US will not side with the Anti-Jihadist Europeans. Next will be some form of censorship instilled on the basis of "freedom of speech doesn't mean"....(whatever).
What I foresee is a rapid disintegration of the US in the very near future when the oil (gas)crosses $6.00.
Sorry Dear posters this country is not prepared to tackle these complex issues.
Are you allowed to wink in a burqa?
The evil is coming.
It's JUST like 1938 again.
Only this time, instead of an armband and brown shirts, they wear a burka or beards.
This is not going to end well....
~ENT
This is long, but it is worth the reading time.
Really, REALLY worth it:
http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/3520.page
~ENT
@etNorskTroll--
I have put your referencen in a live link for lazy readers like me:
FOUR MAJOR TRANSFORMATIONS
And you're right. This is excellent analysis and prognostication. What a refreshing change.
So who is Herbert Meyer that addressed these CEOs and how did he get so smart??
Do you know anything about him?
_________________
NOTE:Blooper crushed my first attempt to publish this, but I've learned finally to copy my comment to notepad before I hit "publish." Hah. I've outwitted Blooper!
bela,
I view the change in terms as useful and valuable. If you read the entire story, it explains what the U.S. government has known for years, and that using terms such as "jihadis" invokes positive connotations from the non-radical muslims.
I have often used the terms "mufsidun" and "hirabah" in this forum, as well as others, as it goes back to a study that was published in the summer of '06.
Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology.
I asked some of my ME friends about those terms, versus using the old terms of "jihad" or "mujahadeen," and they agreed that the terms are important, if one wishes to get the fence sitting muslims to see the difference between themselves and the irreconcilable wing of islam. I have read reports that using those terms in Al Anbar province aided greatly in getting the assistance of the Anbar Awakening Council to turn on Al Qaeda, but don't have the links anymore, since I fragged my last computer.
Words have meaning, and in this fight, we need every bit of intel and proper language usage, to win.
@ Dymphna~
No. I'm sorry. I don't know more about him. His article was sent to me in an email...
~ENT
About Herbert Meyer
FOUR MAJOR TRANSFORMATIONS
I found this guy e-mail address so I sent him my observations for his consideration:
I have taken the liberty to add a few observations to your essay which is now wildly read and applauded on the Web.
I believe you are very idealistic person and you are both right and false in the same
sentence:
"Ultimately, it’s an issue of culture. The only people who can hurt us are ourselves, by losing our culture.
If we give up our Judeo-Christian culture, we become just like the Europeans." - you wrote.
The United States official policy is Multiculturalism and cultural relativism and anybody who
say no is labeled as Racist, Fascist, Nazi, Neocon or the Evil Man. So please explain to us what
is exactly the "Judeo-Christian culture" you want to protect?
The British, French, Germans etc. at least proud of their LANGUAGE, that is part of their cultural
heritage but American don't have national language and they DON'T want to have any.
Press 1 for English anyone?
What exactly is the American cultural value that Europeans allegedly already lost but you still have?
Do we have Anti-Jihadist Political Party, Politicians, Artist?- NONE.
But Europeans still fighting and facing death treat or retributions by the State every day in Europe.
Your cultural "Elite" is sucking up to Islamofascist scum, look who are the Professors at Universities,
....Sean Penn or Brigitte Bardot praising the barbarians?
Do you think that some form of "Business Model" equals Culture? In English or Spanish? What else can you show us on the Cultural sphere you are so proud of : please tell us your thought.
Sincerely
I think that should this become regulation, it will (like many other things in the EU) be only selectively enforced.
Expect to have priests and rabbi's told to dress in common clothes when entering an EU building or be stopped at the door. In the meantime expect state appointed lawyers representing Muslims argue that the hijab is not a religious symbol at all and is a cultural one.
This is a very bad idea.
Murdock, I acknowledge the risk of selective enforcement. There are scared rabbits everywhere.
However, having the proper concept on record is good, and will allow us to complain about selective enforcement.
Here in Denmark the issue is being debated hotly. We have been struggling with the fact that Jews and Christians are not causing trouble for democracy - should we then ban display of their symbols, too?
The answer, of course, is 'Yes'. But Christians in particular have much less need to actually display their religion than to Muslims. I believe most Christians would be content with wearing a cross or something close to their hearts, reminding them of Jesus and God.
Muslims need to make an impression on others of being different, even dangerous. Their clothing is very important.
Then, some may argue that Islam is not a religion, and thus Islamic clothing could be permitted. But that would be an insult to Islam :)
Post a Comment