Holland fears killings over ban on burqa

The Sunday Times ^ | October 16, 2005 | Matthew Campbell

[Northern Alliance]

In a rare defense of Muslims; I just want to point out that many Muslims adhere to this because of their belief of any physical contact between members of the opposite sex could possibly lead to marital affairs or inappropriate pre-marital sex.

That was my thought, that is was not disparaging, but a man-woman touching thing. I don't think you have to take it as far as 'leading to marital affairs'.

Actually this is probably more common than we imagine in many, many cultures. Even here in Thailand men and women rarely touch in public. My wife of 15 years will take my arm, but pecks on the cheek are definitely out of bounds in public. She would definitely not be comfortable shaking hands with a strange man. I mean, she would do if say my doctor offered his hand to shake, but it would not be comfortable. I'd pretty sure Hindus would be stricter yet.

[pepperdog]

"Explosive", a highly appropriate choice of words.

[csvset]

I wonder if Rita packs heat? Does she have a body guard? Does she have a driver trained in evasive driving? A armored vehicle? A "bullet proof" vest? If any of the answers are no, then I fear that the Islamic Wacko Brigade will take her out sooner or later.

[Fred Hayek]

"Annoyed with the Golden Rule?"

I had just noticed that every major religion has some reference to the Golden Rule (some call it the Tao, or natural law). Except for one. And which one might that be?!?!?!?!

[backhoe]

I had just noticed that every major religion has some reference to the Golden Rule (some call it the Tao, or natural law). Except for one. And which one might that be?!?

The self-same:

[benjaminjjones]

The problem is you don't know what's under that Burqa., hHow can you track them if they're their literally undercover? They may have dynamite strapped to them

Sorry, I think the "burqa bomb" argument is silly.

I could just as easily hide a body bomb under my bulky down winter coat, my heavy leather bomber jacket, or my lightweight, loose fitting, nylon summer windbreaker.

It's rained up here the past 7 days and I've gone out every day with my Scotchguarded windbreaker loaded with the stuff in the picture below.

(I threw in the Freerepublic.com Pajama Patrol Deputy Badge just for grins. I only bring it along for "show and tell" at Freeps or Townhall meetings)

As you can see, there's more than enough bulk for a plastic explosive bomb (I don't think terrorists use dynamite much anymore). Plastic explosive could also be easily molded into the shape of a beer belly, and I wouldn't even need the windbreaker.

The load in my windbreaker doesn't even take into account my computer bag. If I'd brought that along, and it was loaded with C4, I could probably take down a small building.

Once when my shoulder was bothering me, I got on the scale all decked out for work. Fully loaded, with my computer bag, I was humping 35 lbs (no wonder my shoulder hurt). 35 lbs of plastic explosive could make a big boom.

Nobody stopped me, or even looked at me askance. A potential human bomb, clad entirely in Western garb.

Just two weeks ago, Joel Hinrichs III "blowed hisself up real guud", and he wasn't wearing a burqa.

So, the argument for banning burqas because they could hide a bomb, is, sorry to be frank, stupid. Face it, Westerners hate burqas because:

a) They're denigrating to women.
b) They're indicative of muslim's refusal to integrate into the Western society to which they've chosen to immigrate. ("I'm in your face" and "We're going to take over your country").
c) They expose muslim men's culturally enhanced sexual insecurities.
d) They're just plain Medieval, scary, and ugly.

I still contend that burqas can be used to our advantage. The retrograde women who wear them are saying "Look at Me! Besides being an idiot, I have a husband who wants to kill Westerners, Jews, and Christians! I think you should follow me around and find out who I associate with."

[solitas]

Actually, in my original posting I quoted the following two lines:

For a country that has legalised gay marriage, prostitution, euthanasia and cannabis, Holland seems in no mood for compromise when it comes to applying tough laws on immigration.

and

From being considered a bastion of multiculturalism, Holland these days is promoting “Dutchness” for all and penalties for people who refuse to fit in.

And the inference was that it seems they're (Dutch) are very accepting of what they want (drugs, hookers, no responsibilities for their elders, detestable families) and less tolerant of those who don't approve of those things (i.e. Muslims/Islam; bombing and murder aside). Christianity, on a whole, is also 'down' in the country because of the same intolerance but the Dutch probably don't completely want to eliminate † in the country because of their neighbors AND the fact that † was a big part of their history.

Islam/Muslims are, OTOH, completely foreign and, so, easier to be more intolerant-of when it comes to the present Dutch's 'purity of ideals' and their desires.

[OldPossum]

I'll amen your post #2. (In fact, I was going to quote those exact two paragraphs myself.)

I would hope that in due time the Dutch will find a way to deport every damn one of those people. They and their culture are nothing but trouble for any country.