BELGIUM: VEILED WOMAN BEING DETAINED BY POLICE, HEAD BUTTS COP BREAKS HIS NOSE

Lets see how lightly the authorities treat her.

H/T Anushirvan

Police station surrounded

News of the incident spread quickly and soon the police station was surrounded by around 100 youths.

The Brussels West Police Services called in re-enforcements from the Federal Police and other Brussels police forces to contain the situation.

Belga
Nevertheless, several windows were smashed and bus-shelters damaged by the youths.

Six people were detained. The Mayor of Molenbeek Philippe Moureaux (Francophone socialist, photo) went to the scene to try and help diffuse the situation.

By 9:30 pm calm had returned to the vicinity of the police station.

More here.

This entry was posted in Belgium. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to BELGIUM: VEILED WOMAN BEING DETAINED BY POLICE, HEAD BUTTS COP BREAKS HIS NOSE

  1. Michael Teuber says:

    Ft. Apache, Molenbeek

  2. GeorgeOfTheJungle says:

    This is dismaying, to say the least. It’s time the Belgium authorities got smart and authorized the use of guns on these ignorant muslim hoodlums. Of course, the usual lying (Taqqiyah) will be pronounced by all the imamas, mullahs and like; and, of course, the “racism” card will be played vociferously and loudly in the usual demented fashion. I just hope that the Courts in Belgium see that this ignorant muslim woman was willfully disobeying the law, causing a disturbance, and – like the usual psychologically deranged muslims – grieviously harmed an officer of the law. I hope and pray that the Courts throw her in jail for a long time, and then deport her to whatever god-forsaken islamic hellhole from which she crawled.

  3. perchancetodream says:

    We need a new form of national socialism!

  4. Nobel Peace Prize winner “Tawakkul Karman,” ‘The mother of Yemen’s revolution,’ when asked about her Hijab by journalists and how it is not proportionate with her level of intellect and education, replied: “Man in early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I’m wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is a regression back to the ancient times.

    Hijab is more than just a religious obligation. People need to realise that, in its own right, it symbolises liberty. It gives women the freedom to show male strangers only the parts of the body that they wish them to see. Yes, the simple salwar kameez and kurti do come under the category of ‘modest’ clothing. But if men want to objectify women, hijab just makes things harder for them. I would even go so far as to call it the ultimate feminist statement. A Muslim woman’s definition of empowerment is being judged by her personality alone, leaving her looks to be appreciated only by those who matter. To those who refer to the burkha as a “medieval garb,” I ask: Why is it that a nun wearing a similar robe is looked upon with respect, while a woman in a burkha is labelled as ‘backward’?

    Veil is a sign of woman liberation from Current Naked liberalism, unethical fashion, social harassment, over consciousness about figure etc and become a sex icon and toy of the troy.

    Veil is not mere name of piece of cloth but it also has complete women education and training to enjoy her full, fledge life without any fear and become tradable commodity and symbol of enjoyment.

    Europe is needlessly focussing the “veil issue” which relates to the lives of a very small portion of European society. It is estimated that there are only about 2000 Muslim women in France and 30 in Belgium who wear burqa. European Establishments concern with the affairs of such a tiny minority represents a clear instance of cultural bigtory. Those wearing burqa were ridiculed as “walking-coffins” or ” asymmetrical cylinders”. In very cold winter people walk about with scarves tightly wrapped around their face. In those cases no security issue arises, but the wearing of burqa raises security concern. Burqa is regarded as a symbol of male domination by the self-proclaimed torchbearers of liberty but they do not know that Islam gave women the rights that the west could not even think about till 20th century. Burqa is worn as a matter of choice. Nowadays young women choose to wear full veil seeing it as a powerful statement of identity, The parliaments of various European countries are voting to legislate the banning of the veils, In Switzerland a ban on minarets was imposed. The campaign against Islamic symbols is on the rise because of a sense of insecurity in some Europeans. A ban on the burqa is bound to widen the differences rather than bridging them. It will just encourage discrimination against Muslims in European society.

    There might be some Muslims who deny the niqab as having any legitimate basis in Islam, but when faced with evidence from Islamic traditions, I wonder, what evidence to they bring to support their preposterous arguments. And, Let’s for the sake of the argument say this has nothing to do with Islam, it still has everything to do with the right of women to determine for themselves how they want to dress. Not covering whole face or not is up to interpretation of various schools of thought and they shall be accountable on their intentions behind interpretation but I have numerous examples around me where women are doing complete veil and they are very much professional and active in every walk of life and living a very “respectable” and healthy life along with every contemporary suitable fashion and ornaments they may feel comfortable with.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

    Nobel Peace Prize winner “Tawakkul Karman,” ‘The mother of Yemen’s revolution,’ when asked about her Hijab by journalists and how it is not proportionate with her level of intellect and education, replied: “Man in early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I’m wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is a regression back to the ancient times.

    Hijab is more than just a religious obligation. People need to realise that, in its own right, it symbolises liberty. It gives women the freedom to show male strangers only the parts of the body that they wish them to see. Yes, the simple salwar kameez and kurti do come under the category of ‘modest’ clothing. But if men want to objectify women, hijab just makes things harder for them. I would even go so far as to call it the ultimate feminist statement. A Muslim woman’s definition of empowerment is being judged by her personality alone, leaving her looks to be appreciated only by those who matter. To those who refer to the burkha as a “medieval garb,” I ask: Why is it that a nun wearing a similar robe is looked upon with respect, while a woman in a burkha is labelled as ‘backward’?

    Veil is a sign of woman liberation from Current Naked liberalism, unethical fashion, social harassment, over consciousness about figure etc and become a sex icon and toy of the troy.
    Veil is not mere name of piece of cloth but it also has complete women education and training to enjoy her full, fledge life without any fear and become tradable commodity and symbol of enjoyment.

    Europe is needlessly focussing the “veil issue” which relates to the lives of a very small portion of European society. It is estimated that there are only about 2000 Muslim women in France and 30 in Belgium who wear burqa. European Establishments concern with the affairs of such a tiny minority represents a clear instance of cultural bigtory. Those wearing burqa were ridiculed as “walking-coffins” or ” asymmetrical cylinders”. In very cold winter people walk about with scarves tightly wrapped around their face. In those cases no security issue arises, but the wearing of burqa raises security concern. Burqa is regarded as a symbol of male domination by the self-proclaimed torchbearers of liberty but they do not know that Islam gave women the rights that the west could not even think about till 20th century. Burqa is worn as a matter of choice. Nowadays young women choose to wear full veil seeing it as a powerful statement of identity, The parliaments of various European countries are voting to legislate the banning of the veils, In Switzerland a ban on minarets was imposed. The campaign against Islamic symbols is on the rise because of a sense of insecurity in some Europeans. A ban on the burqa is bound to widen the differences rather than bridging them. It will just encourage discrimination against Muslims in European society.

    There might be some Muslims who deny the niqab as having any legitimate basis in Islam, but when faced with evidence from Islamic traditions, I wonder, what evidence to they bring to support their preposterous arguments. And, Let’s for the sake of the argument say this has nothing to do with Islam, it still has everything to do with the right of women to determine for themselves how they want to dress. Not covering whole face or not is up to interpretation of various schools of thought and they shall be accountable on their intentions behind interpretation but I have numerous examples around me where women are doing complete veil and they are very much professional and active in every walk of life and living a very “respectable” and healthy life along with every contemporary suitable fashion and ornaments they may feel comfortable with.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

  5. Eeyore says:

    A stunning pile of bullshit, but some really good sophistry.

    I can’t read past the point where all the arguments at the start presuppose that veiling is a choice. Of course the arguments about evolution, while not accurate at all, are at least plausible if men didn’t force women to wear these things at the threat of torture or death. The fact that this is not a choice in any country with increasing degrees of shariah proves the arguments above as falacious at best but disingenuous more likely and a classic milestones process chunk of taqyyia.

    Even if I accepted the arguments, and there is no way I could given the above, primitive man acted on his most base instincts at the expense of social cohesion. Much like Muslims in Western lands, as the legal consequences are not enough for them to restrain themselves from temptation. This is primitive. Modern man has learned to fine tune desire with the rights of the individual, something else that Islam has disposed of. This takes care, even of the fallacious nature of the arguments presented by our dawa-spouting friend.

  6. Columnist says:

    In my religion, the woman has the right to dress as she pleases. If she want to cover herself, she can do so, if she wants to walk nude, she can do that too. Resist this right, and you will burn eternally in hell.

  7. Softly Bob says:

    Please will someone tell me what these female Muslimas get out of defending their religion. There’s nothing for them in life and even the afterlife offers them nothing. Why do they fight for it? Maybe Mohammed was right. Maybe women are deficient in intelligence. Please will someone enlighten me here!

  8. Grace says:

    Go peddle your sharia B.S. elsewhere Iftikhar. I’m not buying what your selling.

  9. Columnist says:

    You do not get hypergamy. The muslim woman fights for the chance to be the mother of an oil sheik. The muslim harem even has a very unhealthy attraction to European women. Only by promising the muslim woman a place in our harems, offering them the chance to become the mother of powerful and important Europeans, can we break their will to fight. In order to defeat Islam, we must become polygamous. The West must sell his soul, the Umma must sell her body.

  10. slobo says:

    Oh it will come! When law abiding indigenous citizenry finally become awake over needless funding of multi~kulty asians, africans and muslims. Who refuse to assimilate. Refuse to work! Refuse to learn local customs and language. Then a New National Socialism will emerge to cleanse our precious country. To drive out or dispose of the auslanders und untermensch slowly sucking our precious assets dry! What will be left for us? Our precious country will cease to exist in 25 years! God Bless precious Belgium, and the Belgium Blood Bled to create Her!

  11. Michael Teuber says:

    @perchancetodream & slobo

    Foul racist nonsense is not an antidote to foul Islamist nonsense. If you want a society without individual rights, with a single religion, with only one real decision, plenty of fried chicken, but no pork rinds, the Muslims will be happy to provide it for you.

    Yeah bismillah and One Vision, same dudes.

    Hitler admired Islam and regretted the victory of Charles Martel.

  12. Columnist says:

    National-Socialism is utter poison. It worships the purity of the blood. If you worship the purity of the blood, your women will be violated. You can have purity of blood, or male honor, not both. The National-Socialist also worships the animal. It whines like a pussy about ritual slaughter, making the Jew and the Muslim allies of each other. When a woman stands before a beast, she shall be killed, says the Bible.

  13. Asadullah says:

    alot of you people are ignorant and will buy anything what is written in these articles even if its full of B.S
    here is an actual account by the sister herself where she explains everything what happened. Before making judgements i think u ignorants should look at both sides of the story first. no wonder its so easy to lie and brainwash you people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqn7w6oyEc

Leave a Reply