That you would make the comment at all shows that you think it's worth noting that 'Look, this one ISN'T a fundamentalist, and this Arab looking woman isn't being subjugated!', only leaving out "now I've seen everything."
For me, that's what was disturbing, the apparent surprise that any random Arab family might NOT be Islamic extremists.

I got your point about there being fundamentalists in other religions, but that's not the point. You would not see a white man encouraging his daughter to dance and say "Look, she's not wearing the little house on the prairie dress. Dad must not be a fundamentalist.", or a Semite with their daughter and say "She's not wearing a sheitel (wig) or a tichel (headscarf). Dad must not be a fundamentalist.", and when people jump to that disparaging (even subconsciously racist?) conclusion about them apparently based solely on their skin color and/or accent, it's unseemly (to me) and is exemplary of a problem.

EDIT: Also, I don't understand your 'diagram'. shouldn't it be
(non fundamentalists (religious people) fundamentalists)
or more clearly but probably not proper punctuation-
[non fundamentalists (religious people] fundamentalists)
Or even-
[non religious people-{non fundamentalists]-(religious people}-fundamentalist)
?

As psychologist Nicolai Sennels explains, "Mohammed, the prime example for Muslims, married Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine. Besides, according to the Quran (4:24), Muslims are allowed to have sex with female slaves[.]" In addition, "uncovered women are in many Muslim cultures seen as a kind of prostitute, and if a man is aroused by such a female, then – partly due to the corrupted logic of responsibility within Muslim psychology – the female is blamed for being raped (and will therefore often face execution)."

Andrew C. McCarthy, in his book entitled The Grand Jihad, described rape by Muslim immigrants as the "unspoken epidemic of Western Europe." Six years later, it continues to expand and sweep across the continent. Ingrid Carlqvist documents how Sweden is now the rape capital of the West, and when "Michael Hess, a local politician from [the] Sweden Democrat Party, tried to warn his nation that 'it is deeply rooted in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings' he was charged with 'denigration of ethnic groups'" – a crime in Sweden.

According to Islamic clerics, a woman who fails to wear a headscarf is asking to be raped. Consequently, in the eyes of Muslim men, Western women are seen as "promiscuous, loose, and willing," and since no one in the Islamic community refutes this, they engage in the violence and abuse of power that rape represents. In Australia, Lebanese gangs threaten policemen's wives and girlfriends with rape. In 2006, the mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al Hilali, maintained that "women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be 'uncovered meat,' are at fault if they are raped."

In Rotherham, England, some 1,400 British children as young as 11 were plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused by Muslims. As shocking as this was, it is the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims

In Nigeria, Boko Haram seized 300 schoolgirls in order to sell them on the open market.

In Pakistan, the police do nothing as Hindu and Christian children as young as 7 years old are gang-raped and sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families. From 2011 through 2014, approximately 550 Egyptian Coptic Christian girls were abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men.

I could go on and on, but the point is that in Islam, a women is considered to be a subservient and second class person. Men are supreme and women who do not dress appropriately (per Islamic standards) risk things happening to them. This is nothing new, it is part of their culture. Exposing them to women not raised in that culture is going to lead to incidents.

Now, please note that I do not think that we should not accept refugees. But I do think that we should make sure that women are aware of the situation and we should absolutely be enforcing the law in regards to the people breaking it, refugees or not.

I'd like to know which Muslim country most of the fine folks above are currently in the process of immigrating to with their wives, husbands and kids. Presumably they offer far superior living conditions to where you are now, seeing as though you're so enamored with Islamism.

Anyone wearing a headscarf (hijab) or dressed in an anachronistic gown is totally averse to anything Western and has no intention of fitting into our society. They making an overt statement that their religion takes precedence over social cohesion and they have NO place here.

By the way, the protest was against this group, which was not mentioned anywhere in the clip.

If the muslim women took the headscarf off before their arrived, and if they stood with the protesters, if the protesters would notice.

Van Gogh was killed for making this movie. Pinned to his body was a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This didn't happen in the Middle East, this happened in the Netherlands.

What was once the most enlightened, open and accepting society in Europe is now infested with the dregs of the third world and their primitive minds. Because of this, in some European neighbourhoods, indigenous European women are nearly forced to wear a headscarf for fear of rape. Some choose to dye their blonde hair instead.

In all fairness, the Dutch do deserve credit as they are on the forefront of fighting the Islamicisation of Europe with brave individuals like Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders.

Who would ever guess that we'd revert back to a world where politicians could fear being killed in their own countries.

Upvote not for the quality of the short film, but for the courage it took to publicize.

* "Neutralitätsgebot". the state is not allowed to identify with any religion because it is home of everyone and indentifiying could hurt someone's feelings. I don't know much about scientology but it seems a neutral state is not on their agenda. by the way this constitutional law is the reason why no one employed by the state is allowed to wear headscarfs etc (in Germany teachers are state employed).
* both fundamental and human rights. the secretary claims that scientology wants to limit and/or abandon some of them
* Our constitution declares a democratic society, that seems to be incompatible with scientology
* their pursuit of political power and influence, both subject to various laws.

ALL of this can be also applied to catholicism, actually.
• they do not want a neutral state
• they want to abandon some human rights (abortion, homosexuality, following other religions or not following one at all, etc.)
• they are not democratic
• they pursue and they have MUCH political power and influence
at least, here in Italy, but I guess that's the same everywhere.

Raven, i'll try to explain from what i got from the current discussion in germany. Please keep in mind i'm not a native speaker and that i have to look up most of the words...

So our secretary of inner affairs wants to ban scientology because he sees them violating our constitution. Some constitutional laws involved are:

* "Neutralitätsgebot". the state is not allowed to identify with any religion because it is home of everyone and indentifiying could hurt someone's feelings. I don't know much about scientology but it seems a neutral state is not on their agenda. by the way this constitutional law is the reason why no one employed by the state is allowed to wear headscarfs etc (in Germany teachers are state employed).
* both fundamental and human rights. the secretary claims that scientology wants to limit and/or abandon some of them
* Our constitution declares a democratic society, that seems to be incompatible with scientology
* their pursuit of political power and influence, both subject to various laws.

That's just the most basic stuff, sorry but that is all i can give you i guess. It's hard to really follow the discussion even in German, so translating is not easy.

Regarding your other question about parts of the constitution outlawing certain organizations: yes, that's true. Though that's very hard to explain to someone from the States (i already tried before). Germany is a free country and you are free to say whatever you want. EXCEPT most Nazi related stuff for example. So if you wear symbols (swastika, runes, skull & bones, etc) of old nazi organizations on your clothes for example you can get arrested. It's only legal to use those symbols in an educational or historic manner, anything else is against the law. btw that's the reason why games like Wolfenstein etc. are banned in Germany. From what i've heard that's a big difference to the US.

No person, party, organization etc. is allowed to do "incitement of the people" (sorry that's a one-to-one translation), a term that is true for most Nazi related stuff. That's why if you deny the holocaust to have happened or similar stupid stuff you're not only violating "some" laws in Germany, you're messing with the constitution and you're in deep trouble.

So in short: Anything that is not compatible with the values of the constitution (neutral state regarding religion, no incitement of the people, no nazi shit, human & basic rights, democratic society etc.) can be banned. It doesn't matter if it's a party, a book, movie, organization etc.

Especially around religion there's a constant fuzz (teachers and headscarfs is a hot topic lately). And Nazism of course is also always on the supreme courts radar. There's a very right-winged party in Germany, they've chosen the colors of the third reich (black, white, red) for their logos and they are infiltrating schools since a few months. Most of the people and politicians want to outlaw them because of offending the constitution and their closeness to nazism but it's hard to proof and there's also the right of free speech and the right to form political parties...

But that's all more or less details. I hope i could help somewhat. If there's anything else you like to know feel free to ask :-)