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.

Who set up the microphone on the podium? That person did a shotty job.

Anyways I can't comment on this issue simply because it's a matter of perspective I suppose. Because you cannot force your own unique beliefs onto other people. When in Rome, do what the Roman do ya know? But then again the westerners were the ones always invading Arab countries and telling them what to do. Wearing hijab is wrong, Saddam Hussein is wrong etc etc. So................

Yeah. It's kinda ironic that westerners are complaining about Muslims forcing them to behave certain ways when they've been doing the same thing to Muslims all these years. That's why Buddhists are in the clear, because they believe in Karma and all lol.

This whole business shows just how ridiculously politically correct we've become.

We are literally groping children and old folks to prove we aren't "racist".

There has never been a better excuse for racial profiling.

I think the most jarring fact is that I don't recall hearing about a Muslim woman complaining about having her hijab patted down...

fucks sake.

in all honisty anny woman not in full burka hijab is a discrace and should be stoned to death emideatly.

Is it just me, or are many Americans converting to Islam and wearing the Hijab because they're so desperate for attention that they'll take it in any form?

I don't have an opinion on the matter as:

1. I don't wear a hijab or burqa
2. I'm not Muslim
3. I'm not Christian

My only advice is if you want to wear one, then wear it. But don't do so because a book tells you to, or peer pressure, or because you are expected to.

(pause)

Well, shit, I guess I did have an opinion didn't I?

Yes, shameful! I can see her bare shoulders in some of those shots! And her hair is showing! Where is her hijab?

There's nothing slutty about this; it's just a woman showing her body. There's nothing wrong with displaying the human form.

good analysis...

here is a selection of statements he made and for which he is currently being prosecuted:

Fitna(film)
"The Islam wants to conquer, subjugate and destroy our civilization. In 1945 Nazism was conquered, in 1989 Communism, and now we most conquer the Islamic ideology"
The movie show images of a future Holland as a Islamic country. A postcard of The Netherlands which s only shows minarets, a violent decapitation and images of terrorist attacks.

Volkskrant, 08-08-2007
"The root of the problem is the fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah en Mohammad demonstrated in the Islamatic Mein Kampf: The Qur'an. The texts of the Qur'an leave little to the imagination."
as sanderbos said, referring to Mein Kampf is a big no-go in Western Europe.

"Ban that book (the Qur'an). Just like Mein Kampf!”
It is still illegal to sell Mein Kampf in the Netherlands. You are allowed to own it and trade it but not to buy it however.

De Pers, 13-02-2007
"Enough is enough. Close the borders, no more Muslims for the Netherlands, export as many as possible. Take away the Dutch passport of Muslim criminals"

Volkskrant, 07-09-2006
"Close the borders for non-western immigrants'
“We have to stop the tsunami of Muslims. It is a matter that touches our heart.”

>> ^sanderbos:
Well rougy,
Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.
The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).
However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.
The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).
Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

Well rougy,

Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.

The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).

However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.

The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).

Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

>> ^laura:
>> ^DrivelsAdvocate:
Stay tuned for the next episode, in which she demonstrates how to wrap a sanitary towel around her clitoris to make a turban.

^most unfortunately, because of her religion, she probably doesn't have one. ...and that comment is ridiculous.


Thanks boss, I try my best.

the hijab was worn as a sign of respect to the prophet and was not mandatory.women had more rights under islam than either christian or jewish women in the early days of islam.how ironic that now things are exactly opposite.religion=control with fear.fundamentalism,the very thing which tears at the fabric of a free society.

>> ^DrivelsAdvocate:
Stay tuned for the next episode, in which she demonstrates how to wrap a sanitary towel around her clitoris to make a turban.


^most unfortunately, because of her religion, she probably doesn't have one. ...and that comment is ridiculous.

>> ^geo321:
>>Pprt
"Two of these women are alien to western civilization and do not deserve the privilege of being permitted to live in one of the most enlightened societies in history."
Can you expand on why they don't deserve to live in Canada?


Their religious faith impedes participation in Canadian society and further widens the chasms in an increasingly fractured multicultural nation, while the values they hold do not complement the impetus of the European desire to create a free and open society.

>> joedirt
"(2) isn't the hijab more related to the orthodox jewish idea of covering the hair? Isn't that the purpose, I thought a hijab is mostly to cover the woman hair. That's why it has regional differences on how much of the face/hair needs to be covered... Hijab has nothing to do with Quran or covering the face (if so they would all be veils)"

It's all about the social norms of the times. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam stemmed from the same source. A good example and parallel to this is that you can see different creation myths being created as cultures diverge, just as languages were diverging from the common dialect of Latin towards all western European and that of the Americas in recent history. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, obviously came from the same source that diverged and ideologically departed as people migrated with their beliefs.

The most contentious example would be that of the Philistines (now the Palestinians) and the Jewish people. 3000 years ago they were the same people. From the same place. Before the term of philistine, before the time of Mohamed, they were the same people that lived within the same local tribal ideologies. They have they same ancestors that were diverged by politics or who was going to rule the area.

Alright I'll stop typing, A have a habit of rambling.

(1) isn't it improper for a man to talk to a woman in a niqab unless her family member is there or some other woman... So, wtf is all this shit about judging her by her blah blah on the street. She can't even answer a stranger on the street or talk to them, so duh..

(2) isn't the hijab more related to the orthodox jewish idea of covering the hair? Isn't that the purpose, I thought a hijab is mostly to cover the woman hair. That's why it has regional differences on how much of the face/hair needs to be covered... Hijab has nothing to do with Quran or covering the face (if so they would all be veils)