Anti-Islamization Proponents Should Take Cues from Europe

When the Netherlands' Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders recently addressed voters in Almere, a Dutch city of 200,000 where his party handily won elections this week, he told them what to expect as his once-tiny, anti-Islamization party started flexing its new political muscle. Aside from lower taxes and other political staples, his plans for this city not far from Amsterdam include a ban on Muslim headscarves.

Wilders' ban would apply to "headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality." He continued: "And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not – as is the case with headscarves – a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology."

Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.

Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab – what he calls "the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe" – in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.

"(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam," Dewinter said. "The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation," a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is "therefore incorrect," Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as "the flag of a political ideology" in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather "the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law."

Maybe that's a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven't lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe's neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.

But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, "large" crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn't been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.

And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences -- "discriminating" -- between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.

Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)

Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)

Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.

I disagree.

The secularism of state and all its affiliates, e.g. education, is an inseparable part of European culture and status quo. It has been for centuries. It is desirable to not permit religious influences of any kind within the state (or state schools, state hospitals, state offices, state military, etc.) and I strongly disagree that we would be "dismantling" our culture should we merely follow centuries old European principle of secularisation and demand hijab to be added to the group of religious symbols that are unwanted within the state.

Islam is certainly different by its still existing connection between religious and political, but it isn't the difference of the system of values created with the religion, it is, on the contrary, some bad manner we REMOVED from christianity and judaism, as the European society tamed them throughout its history, learning their dangers.

And Marriage?

Can we clearly ban the second and third marriages of those who follow the Islamic way of life and who tell us this is vital to that ideology? Currently in England through the backdoor, came the approval of such nonsense if the man had married these women in Islamic countries, so down the road, how many extra school places, doctors visits, jobs and pensions are we speaking of? In Ireland today, a case has made it into the high courts on the same subject, where a muslim is challenging the right of the state to ban his second wife and children from entering the country as it is not part of Irish culture. Banning headscarves, Burka's and other articles of clothing that represent an out of control religion are only the beginning of this anger toward a group that have pushed and bullied their way into Europe, legally and illegally, found it wasn't to their religious liking and set about to change it. No. They are in Europe, and if they cannot behave like the citizens who have been gracious enough to allow them to enter their country and culture, then they must find another country that suits their demands. 

What Cues?

I oppose both the proposal to ban the hijab specifically, as well as the French ban on religious dress and ornaments in public schools.  Firstly, freedom of expression, including freedom of speech, and freedom of religion are vital to a free society.  Both Wilders’ proposal and the French ban infringe upon these liberties to varying degrees without any clear reason or objective.  Whereas the niqab is a veil that obfuscates the face and can be used to commit crime, the hijab is merely a headscarf not unlike those worn by women of many ethnic and religious groups.  Secondly, any such ban despite its exclusivity or inclusivity is clearly aimed at Islam.  Therefore, the objective is not to restrict liberty per se but to restrict Islam.  Both Wilders and Dewinter provide ample reasons why Islam should be restricted in Europe, but Wilders’ proposal and French policy fail in terms of achieving this objective, which brings me to my third argument.  There is no “Cultural Reconquista” of Europe in the offing.  Muslims in Europe will not convert to Christianity, become atheist or emigrate from Europe due to any ban on Islamic dress.  Any ban or proposal to ban is merely a symbolic gesture to appease rising anti–Islamic sentiment.  Lastly, banning the hijab is useful in that it will escalate tensions with Muslims and focus greater attention on the issue.  However, I disagree with these partial measures that unnecessarily restrict liberties without any positive result. 

verboten

To forbid a person to wear what it wants to wear is a harsh incursion in liberty. How about a prohibition of wearing a tie, print tattoos on the skin or Jesus' sandals? A burka or a headscarf is not a religious symbol, and I remember my grandma still very well ...

Headscarf

In addition to and extension of being a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology, the headscarf is the primary banner of a genetic warfare. I wonder why this aspect is so resoundingly absent from the debate.