Reader Mail: Polygamy in the Netherlands??

tagged , , , , , and

Zeister writes in with a comment on this article.

As I recall fought the Germans to rid the world of . I don’t think our men were worried about . The has many things they can be proud of. They too work to define a developing society. Canadians should do the same and leave the Dutch to make their own decisions.

Toronto has as their mayor. Now there is a politician that is well beyond his ‘best before’ date. His ideas about personal freedoms are a little too socialist or should I say fascist for my taste. Beware of politicians that tout civilian disarmament in the name of public safety. Historically, Hitler and Stalin held the same views. It may be that Miller is simply ignorant with questionable ethics rather than being a fascist. In any case, the man is a danger and the sooner he leaves City Hall the better for all Canadians!

Miller is indeed a shoddy mayor, and his policies leave one with little recourse other than to scratch one’s head and/or roll one’s eyes. I don’t think anything much needs to be said about his disarmament proposals; increases in violent crime have followed, almost in lockstep, with diminished rates of civilian gun ownership…and only a very deluded person could possibly believe that a different outcome would result if Miller has his way in .

That said, while I agree that our soldiers were probably not concerned with polygamy whilst they were liberating the Netherlands, the point I was making was more along the following lines: why now, after having been liberated from a hard tyrany, are the Dutch making concessions to the demands of those who a) come to the Netherlands out of an alien culture, b) have no respect for Dutch culture or norms, and c) are demanding that the Dutch adapt their own culture to the habits and proclivities of the alien culture in their midst. What makes the soft tyranny of unreasonable, unthinking a virtue, when the hard tyrany of Hitler was so obviously a bad thing?

And if the Dutch are willing to roll over and succumb to a soft tyrany, what does that say to all those who lost friends and family in the cause of restoring freedom to the Netherlands way back when?

No Comments »

Netherlands recognizes polygamous Islamic marriages

tagged , , , , , and

Polygamy is still illegal there, of course, but only if the marriages happen within the proper. If you skip the jurisdiction and get hitched in, say, some n country where polygamy is a-ok, then it’s “no harm, no foul” as far as the authorities in are concerned!

Although is banned in the Netherlands, the marriages of Muslims who have several wives are recognised by Dutch authorities.

Registrars in the major cities, in particular, record dozens of bigamous or polygamous marriages per year. These marriages are prohibited and an offence in the Netherlands. However, polygamous marriages that take place in countries where more than one wife is permitted, such as Morocco, are accepted, newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports.

If immigrants with several wives settle in the Netherlands, the local authorities register all the marriages. However, the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), where all marriages are registered nationally, removes these bigamous or polygamous marriages from its files, on the assumption that administrative errors have occurred. As a result, it is not known how common the phenomenon is in the Netherlands.

Two questions.

First: why did we send Canadian soldiers to fight and die to liberate this country back in the 1940s?

Second: why accept an illegal polygamous arrangement just because it is legal somewhere else? In some parts of the world, it’s legal to marry a six-year-old girl, because that’s what did. In some parts of the world, it’s legal to have sex with a nine-year-old girl, because that’s what did. Does the Netherlands allow paedophilic marital arrangements as long as the nuptial ceremony takes place in…say…?

If so: why (also, see question #1)? If not: then why allow something else with is both illegal and immoral to flourish and be “legitimized” within the country, simply because the relevant nuptial ceremony took place on foreign soil?

On the other hand, it should be observed that the Netherlands doesn’t really have a legal leg to stand on in this matter. I do believe that they have recognized gay marriage as a “right”, haven’t they? If the gender of participants in a marriage doesn’t matter, why should the number of participants matter?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

in-soviet-russia.png
 

2 Comments »

I’ll take that bet

tagged , , and

The next big Canadian Human Rights Commission Triumph will be….Polygamy.

It you think about it, it kind of follows logically. As the s of become more and more co-opted by ist interests, a process which is already in motion, it should all but be expected that sooner or later, a Muslim fellow will file a complaint against e.g. a provincial government for its failure to make a provision for him to either a) claim some tax benefit for his additional wives, or b) actually take an additional wife on Canadian soil.

And to be fair, I think (b) is the more likely option, since the Koran allows…what is it? As many as four wives?

Canada has kind of shot itself in the foot where is concerned, anyhow. All our hypothetical Muslim plaintiff need to is a) assert that it violates his religious rights to be limited to just one wife under Canadian law, and then b) argue that since Canada doesn’t restrict marriage based on the gender of the participants, restricting it based on the number of participants is illogical.

No Comments »

Various and sundry - April 17th, 2008

tagged , , , , , , , , , , , and

Canada’s road to polygamous immigration:

    Well, we’ve been here once before. For the last couple of years, has been taking the first tentative steps toward normalization in .

In May 2006 a Government funded study recommended that polygamy be legalized and [suggested that] criminalizing polygamy (?) could lead to damage to the women and children in such relationships. Also in May of 2006 it was discovered that the former governing Liberal Party “recognized polygamous relationships for limited purposes to enforce the financial obligations of husbands”…

    Of course, how we in Canada can continue to object to polygamy — when we have already shot ourselves in the foot several times over (i.e. if the gender of the participants in a marriage doesn’t matter, why does the quantity of participants matter? Also, if we tolerate swingers, why not extend the same openness to multiple marriages?) — is something of a mystery, and I imagine that before too long we’ll see the legal proscriptions against it struck down by a Canadian court.

    Chances are the plaintiff in the relevant case will be a Muslim, methinks.

It’s just getting better all the time:

    It seems that the reforms to the will actually make the even worse than it already is — maximum awardable damages are being increased (or the limitations are being removed entirely), and the new “direct access model” for the tribunal will actually speed up the time it takes for the show trials to begin.

Like a raging, staggering drunk, the s are simply spiralling out of control. No grip on reality. Incoherent. Completely lost.

    What a bloody scam. It reminds me of that joke about the reforms to law in : “Other states are getting rid of the death penalty; mah states puttin’ in an express lane!”

The error that dare not speak its name

    takes home the “Best Title of an Arbitrary Long Period of Time” aware for his play on the colloquial phrase for as he puts down his vote for what Canada’s biggest mistake was: allowing gay marriage.

What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil.

The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them.

Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term “common-law ” said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered.

And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the Armed Forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.

The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.

As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback…

    And in other parts of the world, is slowly becoming “normalized.” , sex, sex…it’s like all our post-Christian society cares to worry its head about is sex. And yet, strangely, the birthrate in most Western nations is staggeringly low.

History of Airplanes

    Interesting initiative to provide “historical sketches of every aircraft ever built.” Might as well try to end on a lighter note, O Reader!

in-soviet-russia.png

 

1 Comment »

The curious thing about this is that we don’t do it to Muslims as well

tagged , , , , , , , , , , and

One person was arrested in a search of the home of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints, a group of “breakaway” former — led by one — who practice . Apparently, there was an investigation underway “related to the of an underage girl.”

Somewhat less reported in the news, of course, are those missing British schoolchildren, a phenomenon that this blogger is almost certain can be found, albeit to a lesser extent, both in and the U.S.

Just to be clear: in parts of the world, thousands of young girls are being effectively sold into s at a very young age. No arrests seem to be emerging from what sparse investigation into such practices is being done. And the people behind the disappearing schoolgirls are members of what may now be the most populous religion in the world.

But a rogue group of ex-Mormons numbering only a few hundred are worth a full-on investigation complete with arrests, and all because one underage girl may have been married off?

I’m not trying to excuse what Jeffs et. al. were doing — polygamy disgusts me, as does the idea of underage marriage. And yes, O Reader, I realize that I’m discussing phenomena that have been reported in different nations, and so in a sense am comparing apples to kumquats. That acknowledged, can any of us say that we labour under the delusion that, were a rampant phenomenon of underage arranged marriages being reported in the n Muslim community, similar arrests would be made at the outcome of comprehensive police investigations? Or would police forces and federal agencies back down in the face of another lawsuit and media campaign by …not unlike how British police have similarly been cowed into looking the other way for fear of being branded as “racist” over across the Pond?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

1 Comment »

Muslim man uses bigamy argument to retain drivers license

tagged , , and

He was about to lose said license, caught (as he was) doing double the speed limit. But taking his license, he argued (apparently successfully), would “make it difficult to fulfill his matrimonial duties” since he apparently had two (or more?) wives in (apparently) different locations.

I’d have told the guy to pick the one he likes best and cut his license in half on the spot.

No Comments »

No, no, no

tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and

RightGirl puts in a comment on Islam that I admit gives me pause:

It used to be easy for me to say that if you want to live under 7th century , go back to Crapistan and do it there. After all, why come to the free West, right? But I now realize that the whole point of coming here was to take over. Our touchy-feely naiveté leads us to believe they are “escapees” and “refugees”, running from oppression. But in fact they have sought out free lands in order to spread that oppression in the name of the devil .

Even up to very recently I believed that the women of were oppressed and that they should be freed. This, I have come to learn, is utter hogwash. On more than one occasion we have seen the women take up arms, the women strap on explosives, the women preach to their sons and husbands. Enough is enough. Our leaders - be they political or religious - are too wrapped up in politically-correct doublespeak to be able to defend us from this insidious evil. It saddens me that it’s up to a bunch of and cartoonists to save the world from the new , but I have seen more guts come from Dutch filmmakers than I have from my own government, who no longer even believe in freedom of the press.

I cannot advocate open season on Muslims in the street. But I think for our own sakes we make ready for the coming onslaught, and brace ourselves to fight them. Not in and , but in and and . And the first way we can fight them - a way that will not cause bloodshed by any act of our own hands - is to say NO. No to Sharia. No to Islamic banking and trade. No to s screeching at dawn. No to and incestuous marriages. No to welfare for those perfectly capable of working - like our here in Toronto. No to visas and citizenships for terrorists. No, no, no.

I’m reminded of ’s (at least, I think it was Lenin) observation that capitalism would sell the rope to hang itself with to the communists. In a perverse sort of way, I think the same may be true of the tendency toward multiculturalism in most Western nations — that is the rope that we may well end up hanging from. It’s really just a question, I suppose, of whether the hangmen will be or .

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

No Comments »

Muslim polygamy happens in Canada too

tagged , , , , , , , , , , , and

The Brits are still debating whether or not to allow men with more than one wife to claim additional benefits for the additional brides. Here in , however, it’s full steam ahead!

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

, president of the , said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “ recognizes religious s for Muslims and others.”

Yes, but not multiple marriages. In Canada, you only get one. If you’d like more than one, get out. You’re more than welcome to move somewhere that allows additional marriages.

He estimates “several hundred” GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

What have I been saying about being barbaric and misogynistic?

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive about $1,500 monthly, city officials said.

That’s a lot of dollars these men are able to claim. And how much actually reaches the women, do you suppose, O Reader?

Look, I know that in Canada, we have kind of shot ourselves in the foot. We’ve more or less done away with restricting marriage based on the gender of the participants, and once you’ve gone that far it seems bloody pointless to quibble about the number of participants. That said, polygamy is still, for the time being, illegal in Canada, and no government at any level has any business treating it as a legal arrangement simply because the actual marriages took place in a country that regards polygamy as legal. If people want to live out that barbaric little custom, let them move to the country they got married in. And reform welfare law to specifically prohibit additional welfare payments to “other adults in the same household” if in fact an investigator determines that the relationship between those “other adults” is of a marital nature.

Asking a lot? Yeah, it probably is, at that. But what’s the alternative? To tolerate that this misogynistic practice within Canada? I. Think. Not.

Kathy has an excellent suggestion as well:

Let Mumtaz and his friends how “liberal” some of us really are by contacting them here:

info@muslim-canada.org

Meanwhile, City Counsellor is on record as saying this scheme must end. If you agree that parasitical state-sponsored sharia harems have no place in Canadian culture, contact him here:

Phone: 416-397-9255
Fax: 416-397-9238
Community phone: 416-233-6934
councillor_ford@toronto.ca

Why not contact our Mayor while you’re at it?

Don’t worry if you aren’t from Toronto: tell him you’ll be boycotting Toronto until the city stops using our extorted tax dollars to support illegal, backward tribal customs.

Mayor
Toronto City Hall,
2nd Floor, 100 Queen St. West,
Toronto ON M5H 2N2

Phone: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Fax: 416-696-3687

mayor_miller@toronto.ca

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: SDA)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

No Comments »

Your daily “Something is Wrong in the World of Islam” post

tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and

One tends to find so many examples on a daily basis that it is becoming prudent to just lump them all together in one glorious catch-all posting. Or, at least, it saves me some time, which I like.

First, from : “Asian youths” throw rocks at Memorial participants. This is the British press, so we need to translate: “Asian youths” overwhelmingly means teenaged-to-twentysomething young men of Arabic or Indian sub-continental extract. Oh, I’ll grant that it could mean, you know, what we usually tend to think the term “Asian” means. But the anti-Jewish angle is significant: how many incidences of violence against have been recorded where persons of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean extract are the perpetrators?

Here’s the money quote from the article, though:

The tour was organised by leading local historian , who was later asked by police if he wanted officers to accompany him in future, but declined.

“That would be admitting there are ‘no go’ areas,” he said.

(…)

“I looked over the fence and saw four Asian youths throwing stones. They were laughing, then ran away.”

Just some aspiring young jihadists out having a laugh and throwing some rocks at the Jooooooos. Another typical day in (istan). Interestingly, the issue of “no-go areas” (i.e. areas where Muslims have effectively taken over and rendered it unsafe for non-Muslims to travel through or past) rears its head again, although in typical Brit PC fashion, the man who organized the tour to the Holocaust memorial is too afraid of being labeled a racist* to acknowledge the existence of a very real problem.

* * *

Which brings us to item #2.

Apparently, it is also becoming increasingly common in Britain for teachers, police, and others in positions of authority to refuse to report s as crimes, for fear of being branded as racist by Muslim spokesmen or hauled in front of a human rights tribunal (yes, has them too).

The authors said families withdraw teenage daughters from school because they fear men will be unwilling to marry them if they are educated.

Many men brought up here want “freshies” - women “uncontaminated” by ideas of independence.

of the Roshni Asian Women’s Aid, a refuge in , said: “We’ve had women who have disappeared from the education system. We don’t know if they’ve been taken abroad or killed or anything.”

Activists say there are particular problems with taxi firms who return women fleeing from abuse.

It’s those damnable cab drivers again!

I wonder if there wouldn’t be a noticeable drop in the number of honour killings in Western nations if a comprehensive ban prohibiting persons of ern, n, or n sub-continental extract from driving cabs?

More seriously, though, the above is illustrative of just why more and more people are making noise about the human rights commissions (s). We are fighting for true freedom of expression in , a right that we, as Canadian citizens, are supposedly ensured by the anyhow, but which increasingly seems to be under threat from our self-styled “betters”, in particular.

And a part of that freedom of expression is the freedom to call a spade a spade. If we let the HRCs’ powers take us to the point where police can be hauled before them for the “crime” of being “anti-Muslim” simply because they made the attempt to investigate a possible honour killing, and if we let the HRCs’ powers take us to the point where teachers can be hauled before them for the “crime” of being “anti-Muslim” simply because they made the attempt to intervene in a case of obvious abuse of a female Muslim child by her male relatives in accordance with law, then we — all of us: every Canadian citizen who values his or her rights and freedoms, and who kind of likes what Canada is — have lost. We will, at that point, have turned over the keys to the country to the barbarians and the savages.

* * *

Item #3 is yet another suicide bombing, this time in the i town of . One person was killed, and another ten injured. One suicide bomber managed to self-detonate, while the other was shot dead by an Israeli policeman.

The terrorist organization is claiming responsibility, but Kateland wonders how this smaller group came up with the resources to carry out the attack. She wonders if perhaps is employing the use of fronts.

* * *

Item #4 is another page from our “if you can’t obey the rules, don’t work there” file: Muslim women workers in Britain’s health system are committing hygeine violations in order to conform with Sharia law’s unreasonable standards of modesty.

female workers are ignoring Britain’s Department of Health rules requiring medics to be “bare below the elbow” because they consider showing any skin — outside the hands and face — immodest.

The guidelines were put into place to stave off the spread of infectious killer bugs like and , which have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients, according to the paper.

Hygiene experts said the standard should hold for all workers — even if it goes against their .

“I don’t think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds. The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally,” Dr. , professor of microbiology at told the Telegraph.

Some fear the enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.

The , for one, has issued a statement that “no practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,” according to paper.

I’ve worked in kitchens before, and the hygeine standards at those restaurants were pretty strict. I wasn’t married at the time, but had I been, not even the fact that it was my wedding ring would have prevented my managed from objecting to the gold band on my left ring finger. Rings are actually very unsafe things to wear in a kitchen, because they trap all sorts of bacteria. And the danger isn’t just to the customers, but to the cook himself even after he goes home; nothing says “bad Tuesday” like accidentally contaminating one’s breakfast with bacteria from the five chicken pizzas one made during the course of Monday evening.

I love what my ring stands for, and wear it to signify the highest devotion possible to my wife. If I felt that it would be improper of me to take the ring off in order to work in a kitchen, I would turn in my apron and find a different job. Either that, or I would put the ring on a chain and keep it safely tucked inside my shirt while I worked.

The point is, I’d either meet the requirements of my employer, or I’d leave the job behind.

This is not me being hard on modesty; I’m a huge fan of modesty. But this is me being hard on unreasonable standards of modesty that know no flexibility even when the lives of others are potentially at stake. Showing the forearms is not unreasonable by any measure — they’re just forearms, after all — and if the choice has to be made between rolling up one’s sleeves and potentially giving a patient a septic infection, then the choice should be obvious: roll up your damn sleeves. If for some reason you feel you are unable to do this, you are welcome to seek employment in a career that does not require your sleeves to be rolled up.

Just don’t expect that the entire British medical system should roll over for you, and don’t expect that you’ll be given the “right” to potentially endanger the health and lives of patients by becoming a transmission vector for superbugs simply because it is more important, in your mind, that Britain adapt to your barbaric code of law.

* * *

Item #5: Husbands in the U.K. with multiple wives will be allowed to claim additional welfare benefits for said additional brides. Even though is illegal in Britain, as long as the wedding took place in a nation that treats as legal the additional benefits can and will be granted.

* * *

Item #6: speaking of suicide bombers, did you hear the one about the ic terrorists who strapped bombs to women with and then remote-detonated them when people stopped to render aid?

Yes, O Reader, that is the sort of vermin that the West is up against. Just in case there wasn’t enough evidence already pointing out what flavour of evil these people are.

And proving that both stupidity and slavish devotion to are alive and well among the progressive left:

For the record, assuming it’s true, I think it’s just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down’s women to perpetrate the bombings but I don’t see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that.

The above sort of thinking is another example of why I continue to hammer on atheism as being the gravest threat to human liberty that humanity has ever concocted for itself. Not only is it just disgustingly wrong, but it actually serves to justify, in a weird sort of way, the actions of the jihadists. Oh, I know that he “think[s] it’s just horrible” that these women were used in this way, but all that pretending at disgust fades by the last sentence, which openly praises the ingenuity and adaptation that the terrorists displayed in employing this latest murder tactic. How brilliant of them!

* * *

Item #7: that British bishop who warned about “” (see link, above) is now under police protection, in fear of his life. How did Britain’s Muslims respond to the claim that Muslim immigrants had created several communities into which it was unsafe for to wander?

Death threats.

Gee, thanks, guys…don’t try and do anything now to dispel the public’s already negative image of you!

As I’ve said before, and will say again now, I really want to have a higher opinion of Islam and of the people who practice that religion. The problem, for me at any rate, is that there are too many examples — from too many different places around the world! — that make it so very difficult to look at Islam, and at the Islamic world, with anything but disgust.

* * *

* are we still caught up in this idiocy? It is not, by definition, racist to criticize Islam, because Islam is not a race!

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: Kathy Shaidle)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

1 Comment »