“The religious duty weighs heavier than the obligation to comply with legal rules in the Netherlands.”
A new ruling by a judge in the Hague has ominous implications for the containment of Islamization in the Netherlands. This is the first case I’ve seen in which an official judgment explicitly states that religious obligations carry a greater weight than the law of the land.
Here’s a summary of the case, sent in by a Dutch reader:
I would like to share the following snippet of information with you about a recent Dutch court ruling, if you haven’t already heard about this.
The law has to make way for religious duties. This is, in summary, a recent ruling of a cantonal judge in The Hague, Netherlands. We now fear that judges will be overwhelmed with cases for which they have to take a position as imam, rabbi or priest.
The cantonal judge in The Hague decided not to prosecute a Jewish orthodox man, who hadn’t been able to identify himself on Saturday 8th of October in Rijswijk, Netherlands, because he is not allowed to carry anything outside his home, so also no form of identity card. He had faced a €150 fine.
As a result of this ruling, ritual slaughter, wearing the veil, marrying off underage girls and even honor killings can be justified as a ‘religious duty’.
“The religious duty weighs heavier than the obligation to comply with legal rules in the Netherlands,” according to press judge Elkerbout. This fundamental ruling may have serious consequences for other religions. Professor Herman Loonstein: “Take the prohibition of the veil. It could happen that female Muslims will take this ruling to postulate that they don’t break the law, because the veil is considered a religious duty.”
(The original article in De Telegraaf.)
Update: The text of the above summary has been amended slightly (concerning the fine) at the request of the correspondent who sent it, to make it more accurate.
19 comments:
how can you be found not guilty and still get a fine?
Paris Claims
This ties to my recent item on these pages. Holland has for centuries been the abode of Lamb Christianity. The student of European history will know that the Polish Brethren who were kicked out of Poland in the 1650s came to the Netherlands and thrived there. From there they moved on to Great Britain and America. We know them now as Socinians, Quakers and Unitarians. BTW, television franchises in the Netherlands are allotted by religious affiliation too, and I am sure the law makes no distinction between, say, Lutheran and Wahabbi.
Takuan Seiyo
This is in no way a "first", justification of sharia "courts" have been gained on the prsidence of long standing Jewish arbitration courts.
The "Jewish Beth Din" system has been allowed in countries of Europe since the turn of the century to exist outside of common law of the nations that jews resided.
This is one of the things that has allowed the Islamification to happen. Halal=Kosher, Beth din=Sharia. The presidents were set a long time ago by desert nomads of a different tribe..
I'd like to know why an Orthodox Jewish man on his Sabbath walk was being pulled over to have his papers checked in the first place. We've had Jews in Christian and so-called post-Christian society for as long as we've had Christian society and they have not posed a security threat. They don't go to shul and come out all fired up to go burning churches down and killing infidels. Perhaps it's because I live in a country where we don't have to carry an ID card that I'm a bit sensitive, but I think what we are dealing with here is the application of a law of a less than free country to a citizen from a class of persons who have lived there for centuries and whose harmless religious traditions out to be able to proceed unmolested.
Quote:
Halal=Kosher, Beth din=Sharia.
end
Not true, not true and not true.
Jewish communities do indeed run their own courts, but their courts have never had the objective of overturning the host culture or calling into question any of its precepts.
Jewish courts existed and have continued to exist throughout medieval & modern history, and yet the medieval and modern west were not Judaicized.
Please explain.
Kosher is the same as Halal?
Hardly.
Halal is a sacrifice, an offering made in a magical mode to a profane god for the profane purpose of making the non-Muslim share in the sacrifice.
The intent behind making things Kosher or making Kosher choices is spiritual alone. Kosher foods are always marked, there has never been any attempt to force resturant chains or fast food to adhere to Kosher laws.
As a Christian, I can make Kosher choices.
As a non-Muslim, I refuse to eat Halal meat because it has been sacrificed to a false god.
There is a historical connection between Judaism and Christianity.
I deny any such connection for Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Islam is separate not because it is holy, but because it is profane.
It is truly the bastard branch, fit only for the fire.
The intent of Kosher regs and Jewish courts is to nurture the traditions of a specific community.
The intent of Muslims in the imposition of Sharia & Halal sacrifice is nothing less than the conquest and subjugation of the West.
Know your friends.
The Jews are our friends.
I will not alienate them.
The first reaction of course is: WHAT?! Upon a closer look though, it seems prudent to take this with a grain of salt. While it is a legal rule to carry ID at all times when going out, failing to comply is not considered a crime. Like in "law and order", a mere violation of the "order" part. I am certain that for the further mentioned criminal acts, one cannot use the religious duty excuse (at least not as long as they have a Mr. Wilders in NL). Besides, €150 is a pretty hefty fine for such a little thing already. Last time I heard in Germany it is €20 and a summons to the police station within a few days where you have to show the missing document (I haven't checked if that hasn't changed lately, but most fines are generally lower than European average here).
"...because he is not allowed to carry anything outside his home...."
Well, technically, he carried himself and his clothes and shoes outside of his home....
Egghead
Sorry, I still say that if the law says one is to carry an ID, or one is not to wrap one's head in a towel in ID photos or in government service, the law should apply equally to Jews and Muslims. But that is not the same as a Musli-Socialist law forcing Christian institutions to subsidize abortion. That kind of law is null and void and there should be no end and limit to the resistance.
There is a difference between carrying a piece of plastic in your pocket, and killing small human beings.
Takuan Seiyo
Why in the name of heaven do the Dutch have to carry identity cards? The only possible use for such a law is for the government to control the population.
First off, the identity card issue is criminalization of a non-action. This should have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the rule of law...you cannot make any inaction a crime and realistically enforce that impartially. All legislation that prohibits inaction inherently violates the principle of impartial administration of the law.
Second, Egghead does have a point, observant Jews are allowed to 'wear' items (other than tools), which does not count as carrying them (for purposes of Sabbath observance). There is no reason that this man could not have 'worn' his ID if he had wanted to do so. The religious defense is bogus on the face of it.
Third, even if this man took deliberate action to prevent police from being able to easily check his identity, in a free society that should not, of itself, be considered a crime. While the human need for privacy is not on the same level as the need for air, water, and food, it is a real need that is necessary to the health and prosperity of humans. In principle, the rule of law could outlaw all consumption of solid food. But a free society would not do something so obviously injurious to the interests of its citizens.
Fourth (and I probably shouldn't be bothering to count these points anymore), there is a vast difference between letting people settle entirely private disputes (which do not involve the commission of crimes against outside parties) in a civil manner outside the courts and forcing the courts to defer in judgment of criminal matters to known criminals who apply radically alternative definitions of criminality.
Obviously, protection of the individual conscience is a major factor in determining whether a given person can ever morally comply with the laws. But what is obvious to me (though not everyone, apparently) is that Koranic Islam and Sharia have nothing to do with individual conscience.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
"how can you be found not guilty and still get a fine?"
The original article was unclear. He didn't have to pay the fine.
It would seem the gentleman could have been found guilty but no conviction recorded.
We've accommodated different faiths in Western society for years. For example, in Australia all elections are held on Saturdays. Until very recently the only way to vote on another day was by postal ballot, which was allowed for legitimate reasons, such as being out of town and also being Jewish (i.e., religious reasons that don't let you do that sort of thing on a Saturday).
In British-ruled India, special vouchers were produced for the use of Jews who rode on the trams on the Sabbath but were not allowed to carry money on that day. Forget the twists of logic you have to go through to get to a situation where a money-replacement voucher isn't money or riding on a tram is even allowed on the Sabbath--I'm not Jewish and I didn't make the rules. Fact is, a way was found around it.
There is a world of difference between not requiring that Orthodox Jews carry ID if it's forbidden to do so (and the Beth Din will say whether it's something you wear or something you carry) on their Sabbath walk and allowing members of a more recently arrived faith to go about covered from head to foot so you have no idea who they are, or allowing people do do things permitted (or even mandated) by their religion such as marry 9-year-olds or kill unruly relatives.
It's the difference between a little gentle accommodation of the consciences of peaceful members of society and the acceptance of newly-introduced customs that offend against the prevailing view of human dignity, cause risks to security and violate longstanding laws and taboos. A law requiring production of 'papers' has too much of a Nazi German ring about it to be a law worth enforcing in the face of what would appear to be honestly held beliefs.
Hear hear Salome - my feelings exactly..
Westerners have all been contaminated with absolutist tendencies, after the distastrous fifty year attack of communist thought, and so now we are already having trouble to hold on to our human decency, and not become totalitarians ourselves..
Incidently: just picture the situation: a police officer arresting a harmless jew straight out of the synagogue, asking him to identify himself...completely oblivious already of the subtext of such an ID requirement?!
A dutch policeman?
Hear hear Salome – nail, hammer, head...
My feelings exactly, thank you very much.
We westerners have been so contaminated with absolutist tendencies, after the distastrous fifty year exposure to communist reasoning, that now we are having trouble to hold on to human decency, while upholding public order
Incidently: just picture the situation: a police officer arresting a harmless jew straight out of the synagogue, demanding that he identify himself...completely oblivious already of the subtext of the ID requirement?! And him a dutch policeman?
And what to think of the triumphant howling in the dutch press, about our Laws Having to Make Way for God ?!
@Anonymous(8)
"Musli-Socialist law forcing Christian institutions to subsidize abortion."
Of course, the idea that no one is forcing anyone to "subsidize abortion" or even to condone it.
They are saying: "If you take the money of non-religious tax-payers then you can not refuse to delivery certain medical services because you don't approve.
So, stop taking our money if you don't want to do the job.
Simple.
gsw: You are so indoctrinated with socialism that you have it ALL backwards. The state uses the threat of force to STEAL money - euphemistically called taxes - in order to redistribute those funds to pay for pet projects designed to buy votes in order to legalize more and more stealing until we are all financially and morally bankrupt.
About 20 years ago, I spent a year in a top health services research and administration PhD program.
These are the people who will make up the 'death panels' for we peons - because we ALL know that the politicians and rich people WILL get any and all health care that they need or want.
In addition to the PhD program talking about the necessity of health care rationing, the PhD program taught that the education of ALL American doctors is highly subsidized by the state.
The natural conclusion of such reasoning would be that the state can refuse to educate or license anyone to be a doctor who disagrees with state health care objectives or refuses to implement state-mandated health care initiatives including abortion and euthanasia.
I heard either Newt Gringrich or Dick Morris say about the health care rationing that the government would revoke the licenses of any doctors who provide health care that is 'forbidden' or 'denied' by the government.
In other words, if the government decides that NO 70 year old peons will have heart operations, then NO 70 year old peons will have heart operations because NO doctor is going to risk losing his or her license to perform a 'forbidden' operation on a peon.
Of course, politicians will exempt themselves and their families from rationing because the politicians are SO valuable to the country.
And, for predictable health care, rich people will simply travel to some country where premium medical care is available. It will be interesting to see how rich people get around health care rationing for end-of-life emergency care.
How do you spell BRIBERY anyway?!
gsw: Using your reasoning, once Catholic hospitals are made to fund abortions, they can be made to perform abortions. And, that is the entire point. Democrats want to force the Catholics to either 1) violate their religion, thus admitting that secularism trumps religion, or 2) divest of their Catholic hospitals so that the state can acquire those hospitals at cheap prices.
In any case, gsw, your argument falls flat because, religious hospitals would be forbidden by anti-discrimination laws to deny care to non-religious tax-payers, so it's not as if the religious hospitals can just say, "Fine, we will only treat Catholics."
Emergency rooms cannot turn away emergency cases. Well, until the death panels are fully operable, and even then, they will probably admit you, sedate you, and allow you to 'die with dignity' in a hospital room - or send you to the local torture chamber for medical experimentation for the good of the collective - cause, after all, you're going to die anyway. Ahem.
Egghead
It is exactly this stuff that makes some Jews side with Islam.
GSW -
Of course, the idea that no one is forcing anyone to "subsidize abortion" or even to condone it.
That Catholic charities and institutions are being forced by the federal gov't to pay for health services to which they disagree is "forcing."
If an employee finds their insurance package lacking due to non payment of contraceptives and abortafacients they are free to find another job.
We live in a country where benefits for various employment are fungible. Would you like to put a halt to that? Because that is what big gov't is attempting to do with this health care legislation.
However, I find the issue much more broad than the Catholic and Evangical churches opposing this gov't mandate. It is the camel's nose under the tent of our 1st ammendment. If this is allowed to be breeched your freedom of speech will come next.
You may find that hard to believe but, did you ever think the US gov't would demand we buy a certain kind of light bulb or shower head or toilet?
I really don't care what Catholic Bishops think or believe. What I DO care about is my protection under the 1st ammendment.
This is a trial balloon sent up by big gov't. It must be stopped.
Babs: Great point about freedom of speech!
We have already seen that doctors who work with private for-profit HMOs were FORBIDDEN to mention various high cost health care options to their patients so that HMOs would be able to avoid paying for them and avoid having patients lobby for HMOs to pay for them.
How much worse do you think it will be when the death panels decide to eliminate whole swaths of health care treatment options?
Upon risk of firing and license revocation, the government will INSTRUCT doctors to OMIT to tell patients about ALL health care treatment options in favor of the APPROVED health care treatment - which may be inexpensive but non-therapeutic pain pills versus expensive operations that would save and extend a person's life.
P.S. The health care panels will be highly susceptible to fraud and graft as deciders and politicians may be investors in certain drugs and equipment and companies - and thus deciders may have significant conflicts-of-interest regarding various health care treatment options. Then, there is always BRIBERY which WILL occur as the purse strings are tightened by unelected health care rationing committee members appointed by greedy politicians.
Egghead
Post a Comment