Flemish Newscaster will not allow headscarves on TV anchors

Translated by Michael Laudahn:

from Telegraaph.nl:

[Flanders is the northern half of Belgium where dutch is spoken; the southern francophone half is Wallonia]

BRUSSELS: Flemish [state] broadcaster VRT will not permit female newsspeakers in scarves on tv. ‘A newsspeaker wearing a scarf is not possible and will not be allowed’, minister Freya van den Bossche said with determination, wednesday in parliament, on behalf of the flemish government. 

The occasion was a remark by her minister colleague Ingrid Lieten (Media). She had said in an interview that she herself wouldn’t have a problem with a female VRT newsspeaker wearing a scarf. The public broadcaster said straightforward that such thing is in breach of the broadcaster’s neutrality and impartiality.  

In the parliamentary debate, only the Groen party united behind van Lieten’s words. 

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

18 Replies to “Flemish Newscaster will not allow headscarves on TV anchors”

  1. Well, originally the Muslims in Europe had the idea that headscarves weren’t necessary. But during the war in Bosnia, Muslim women without headscarves were attacked, destroying the excuse of taqiyya for not wearing it.

  2. In the long run the ordinary European will fight back and win, but the long run may not be as soon as we would like.

  3. Ingrid Lieten is a member of the SPa (Socialistische Partij anders). They get a lot of their (dwindling, alas not reduced to zero), votes from immigrants. For the purpose of turning the tide and larding their electoral ballots, they helped establish a law granting voting rights to people of a foreign nationality. Freya Vandenbossche (a daughter of – the belgian political scene is literally SEETHING with sons and daughters of) is SPa too. It is rumored that she didn’t write her university thesis herself, because at the time she was supposed to have written it, she was kicking a heroin addiction in Germany. Could have been Switzerland. The SPa is S-C-U-M, (literally) selling out the original population, failing their most basic task of procuring a setting of security, for electoral profit. S-C-U-M.

  4. If we use Cultural “Marxist” logic, and set it up its head, we could claim women with headscarves enjoy Headscarf Privilege, and are therefore responsible for the rape and harassment of women without headscarf. If Muslims force non-Muslim women to wear headscarves by raping them, Muslim women could forfeit the right to wear headscarves. Nothing stops Muslims from raping women WITH headscarves. Pussies rape women without headscarves, real men rape women with headscarves.

  5. Worse, if Muslims rape women without headscarves, but forbid non-Muslim women to wear headscarves, their own women will lose the right to protect themselves by headscarves.

  6. My position on headscarves etc. remains the same. You cannot protect women’s rights by removing women’s rights. However neither can you make an exception to rational laws for pseudo rights. So the laws on not wearing a disguise in public should apply to Muslims as to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet with a tinted visor in a bank. No-Can-Do.

    In other words, making special laws against burkas is totalitarian and wrong. However it is critical that we do not make exceptions for Muslims for any laws, burka to halal slaughter, that we all must obey for reasons we have determined in our respective cultures.

  7. Eeyore says:

    If a woman willingly or unwillingly (it is an unknown) wants to be a chattel slave to a man is it acceptable for a free society to allow the couple to show this in public?

    In my opinion this is the real question.

  8. If you are asking my opinion, then the answer lies 100% between the concepts of ‘willing’ and ‘unwilling’. One is lovely. The other slavery.

    If you are asking about how the law handles this now the answer is very easy.

    If you are Muslim then you can keep as many women as slaves as you want. But if you are Christian, and the woman is foolish enough to say to a government official, say, from a school, something to the effect of, “I will have to ask my husband as he makes the decisions about these sorts of things as he is head of the household” then your children will be taken by children’s aid immediately, the husband arrested at work in front of everyone in cuffs, strip searched and basically have their family destroyed. Yes I refer to the case in Ottawa where a little girl drew a picture of a gun in class. The wife also said the husband was head of the house.

    This I think, more than the gun, is what caused all the problems with authority. And the man was a Christian as evidenced by the framed scripture in the house even though he has a classic tard-beard.

    So at the end of the day, in practice, as it is in England so it is here. Laws are only for white Christians. Everyone else is immune.

  9. Please don’t mix up bad government with your own personal beliefs.

    The question should be:
    In a free society should we tolerate Chattel slavery of any type?

    Obviously by force unacceptable.
    In my personal opinion anyone that willingly wants to be a chattel slave needs help.
    BUT I can understand society should stay out of peoples private lives.
    So, keep it private and not in public. Because in my opinion a free society should not tolerate chattel slavery.

    Another point:
    Loving slavery is different the Chattel slavery.

  10. White Christians are considered oppressors because they have jobs, Muslims are considered oppressed because they don’t have jobs. The PC-tards do not understand that not having a job is more than compensated by all the perks the PC-system affords. They encourage laziness, after all, if you don’t have a job, you get all sorts of perks.

  11. And if the Muslims really wanted to get jobs, they should exert pressure on employers. Why does United Against Fascism never use violence against “racist” employers? Because both Muslims and United Against Fascism are part of Capitalism. They form a Lumpenproletariat that feeds of the Proletariat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*