No, France, you don’t really understand
He had wanted this before but now more than before. With the usual argument of course: the Netherlands is Islamising, so the police should reflect this, etc., and the implication – as worrying as it is – is that Muslims listen better to the law when the law is represented by a government. Muslim. But Frans receives more direct resistance from the public than he can handle from the former GroenLinks/PvdA voter @elise steelberg. The paragraph then ends by saying that 48% of his current supporters (!) support the philosophical neutrality of the police, 28% disagree, and 24% don’t know.
Anyway, let’s say you’re one of the few Jews in the Netherlands whose children can’t go to school because the school is closed again instead of being extra guarded, you want to report vandalism because the posters of kidnapped Jewish children belong to you. It is drawn, and then a veiled Muslim woman comes to record your report. This is a problem, and let’s take a closer look at this problem.
Judaism is a legal religion without a desire for expansion, in fact; It is an exclusionary doctrine, and we can pretend, for the sake of appearance, that there is such a thing as “conversion to Judaism,” but no one actually believes it.
Then came Christianity, an almost non-canonical doctrine, in which Caesar and God had a domain of their own, but which was nonetheless oriented toward expansion.
Then came Islam: an excessively legalistic and expansionist doctrine.
Therefore, the veil is a completely different symbol than the hood or the cross, and those symbols should not be mentioned at the same time in this discussion at all. In contrast to the skullcap or cross, the headdress essentially represents a competitive, expansion-oriented social and constitutional order. This simply should have no place in the police force of a secular government. It’s not that difficult, is it?
