Our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this report about a recent racist xenophobic incident in the Netherlands:
Doctor refuses burqa wearing mother
A 23-year-old Muslim mother wearing a burqa will sue a doctor in the medical court, for being refused entrance on Christmas by a physician. Her child was treated anyway, but the doctor refused her presence during the child’s examination because she was wearing a burqa. This offended the mother, so she filed two complaints: one in the medical court and one with the anti-discrimination board (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling)
According to the Muslim mother, who came to the doctor to have her sick son treated, the doctor refused help because she wore a burqa. Later the doctor responded that his reaction was because he was exhausted. He didn’t refuse to help the child, it was the presence of the mother that mattered to him. The father was present during the examination.
However, the burqa mama was furious, and will go to court. The medical post regrets the incident, and is investigating the matter.
The woman got quality ranting time in Het Algemeen Dagblad. “Humiliated, spat upon, immensely sad”: so she describes this seemingly horrible experience. “I can’t really believe someone refuses me because of my physical appearance,” said the Muslima.
H. Numan adds these comments:
People, we are now in a new phase of the ongoing jihad: this time we won’t chop off heads, but we’ll show them what we can do in their courts. Those dhimmis have to know their place. Why blow yourself up, if you can humiliate them and make them pay in their own courts, no less?
Why do Muslim women wear scarves, head cloths, or complete tents? Because they want to show they are proper women who do not want to be serviced by any other men apart from their owner. Dhimmis (that is, you and I, who are do not follow Mohammedanism) should respect women dressed like that. But then again: they should not. Pending the (hidden) woman’s pleasures. In this case the doctor should have allowed the woman’s presence during the examination.
In other cases doctors have been physically molested or at least threatened by the rightful owners of such women, for possibly indecent behavior. The presence of a male not married or family related to the property in question is taken as indecent behavior.
In this case, the doctor behaved in as politically correct a fashion as one might expect: he admitted the child and his father. He didn’t admit the mother, as this very likely would be taken as indecent behavior. Unfortunately the woman, and probably her owner as well, had different ideas. In America one might call this “lawsuit happy”.
– – – – – – – – –
This case is not unique. A few months ago a fundy Mohammedan wannabe lawyer Mohammed Enait created a stir by refusing to stand up when the court adjourns or remove his woolen cap. According to him, this was in accordance with his religious beliefs. Everybody in Mohammedanism is equal, so he doesn’t have to show his respect for a judge by standing up. His woolen cap was worn by the great Mohammed (VSOP) himself, and that was enough reason. The court didn’t agree, and had this case judged by an internal court for lawyers and judges. Enait lost. In appeal, Enait won. Ignorance and cowardice won.
Now, I’m not an expert on Mohammedanism. Neither am I an expert on manure but all the same it stinks to me. If a woman wears a scarf, a veil, or a complete tent, that is to me a sign she does not want to interact in any way with a male not owning her. Such a male is not supposed to talk to her, touch her, or merely be unchaperoned in her presence. She herself is supposed to refrain from interacting with males not owning her. That is clearly written in the Koran. Punishment ranges from being beaten to pulp by the owner up to stoning the culprit.
I don’t see how wearing a burqa or a scarf in any way helps integration. Other than slowly training dhimmis to respond with correct behavior. How can a woman dressed in a burqa get a job? Theologically, she can’t even work in a supermarket cleaning the aisles.
With regard to this Mohammedan lawyer, he has even less legal ground. If there is one society where social differences are gigantic, it is within Mohammedan societies. All the cowardly ignorant judges had to do was look at court proceedings in Mohammedan countries. Are lawyers allowed to sit there? No. Are they allowed to wear knitted caps? Again, no. In other words, this wannabe lawyer should have been thrown out of court together with his case. Not that it matters what is allowed in Mohammedan countries. In Iran people are hanged for being gay. Is that a reason for a Dutch court to allow hangings too?
What we see now is a different way to enforce Mohammedanism upon our society. By (ab)using the courts to their advantage.