Dutch Politician Proposes Ban On Dogs In Hague As “Unclean” Under Islam

We have previously seen stories of the banning or threatening dogs by Muslims who believe that all dogs are “unclean” and an afront to Islam. Now, Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, has called for all dogs to be banned from The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.

It is the latest incident of an increasing number of confrontations between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities over dogs. In Catalonia, Spain, the large Muslim community is demanding the regulation of dogs to prevent them from “offending Muslims” in public areas. In England, Muslim taxi drivers have refused to take seeing eye dogs accompanying blind people. Blind citizens in England have been barred from restaurants and buses so their companion dogs would not offend Muslims. Even the use of a picture of a dog was opposed as offensive.

The Dutch confrontation was triggered by a measure by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly. Küçük responded by demanding that the keeping of a dog be made a crime.

Muslims make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000.

The campaign against dogs pits principles of religious accommodation against principles of pluralism. In this case, the Islamic value would require the loss of freedom for non-Muslim citizens by restricting or banning their dogs in public. Bans should be an easy question in that there are many public displays that may offend religious sensibilities. Families may raise their children according to their faiths but must accept that they live within a pluralistic community. Just as many of us objected to be ban on Burqas in France (which were viewed as offensive to women), these bans are equally wrongheaded. The more difficult questions come in areas of contact. For example, in England, police have been told that bomb sniffing dogs can come into contact with luggage but not the persons of Muslim passengers.

I view these proposals as inimical to a pluralistic society and also contradict principles of separation of church (or Mosque) and state. It will be interesting, however, as the anti-dog views of some Muslims become more known, whether there is an increase in tort actions based on the negligence of businesses or agencies in allowing contact with dogs by Muslims.

Source: Stonegate as first seen on Reddit

47 thoughts on “Dutch Politician Proposes Ban On Dogs In Hague As “Unclean” Under Islam

  1. Dingbat politicians call for all kinds of crazy crap – alert me when this actually might happen.

    OTOH – it was nice of the USSC to clear the way for Sharia here in the US the other day by ruling that religious doctrine trumps US law when a church wants it to.

    It was a good 200 year run, shame to see it go but you can’t say we didn’t do it to ourselves.

  2. The story is indicative a general drift by Muslims and other religious minded folk to demand greater zones of social and personal space for the application of their beliefs and precepts in the public domain. In my opinion it is a great infringement on society at large. One should note that this is a developing trend as not that long ago dogs were often found in upper middle class homes in Middle Eastern countries and have long been valued among Muslim nomadic peoples for obvious reasons.

    The trend of which I speak is a tightening of concepts and claims by Muslims on virtually every aspect of life: the public comportment of women, especially in the redefinition of dress codes (which incidentally vary by region, class, and sect), the growing tendency of devout women and now men not shaking hands with members of the opposite sex, self-imposed restrictions on not sitting in places where music is played, alcohol is consumed, etc.), These tendencies are found among devout groups in of Israel’s haredi Jewish communities as well other religious groups around the world.

    It would appear that much of this religious retrenchment is a reaction to a ubiquitous Hollywood driven culture, widespread pornography and related libertine tendencies. In the case of Muslims, curiously, and perhaps not coincidentally, all of this is taking place against the backdrop of the US global war on terror, which in the main is aimed at the Muslim world.

    Secularists and pluralists need to be on guard to defend public space and the equal application of law without falling into the trap of bigotry. In so doing they also preserve space for dissidents within tightly woven religious groups to operate freely or even to escape the confines of such communities.

  3. This was a counter productive move stemming from religious fanaticism. The offending of dog-lovers will raise more moral outrage than much else. The thing about fanaticism is many times it does itself in in the pursuit of its beliefs.

  4. “Secularists and pluralists need to be on guard to defend public space and the equal application of law without falling into the trap of bigotry. In so doing they also preserve space for dissidents within tightly woven religious groups to operate freely or even to escape the confines of such communities.”


    Good point. Today’s Fundamentalist Fanaticism is actually one that is far more restrictive than the same religions were in times past. It is the mark of cultism, within religions. My guess is it comes about when an increasingly evolving modern world makes certain people personally anxious and dislocated. Those people are then prey to those who would use them for selfish aims. Many of these cultic leaders bear resemblance to Charles Manson, with somewhat better education ad a little more social restraint.

  5. Mike, I don’t know if it has been mentioned here but are you familiar with Willard Romney’s dog story?

    While I thought it was cruel and indicative of at least carelessness (if not outright sociopathy) it was odd he would offer it as a good thing. What really has surprised me is how people with no strong political feelings have reacted sharply when they hear the story. Don’t mess with dogs!

  6. Intolerant and rigid religionists make it harder for people who want to integrate into society. The kind of person who would propose such a law make it easier for the larger society to find a reason to distrust and shun moderates of the same religion. For those Muslims who want to live in a secular society in peace, guys like this create problems for them.

    It is exactly this kind of behavior that makes some communities come together to oppose building mosques in their areas. Then the extremists get to play the victim card.

  7. The Twa Dogs
    Robert Burns

    A Tale

    ‘Twas in that place o’ Scotland’s isle,
    That bears the name o’ auld King Coil,
    Upon a bonie day in June,
    When wearin’ thro’ the afternoon,
    Twa dogs, that were na thrang at hame,
    Forgather’d ance upon a time.

    The first I’ll name, they ca’d him Caesar,
    Was keepit for His Honor’s pleasure:
    His hair, his size, his mouth, his lugs,
    Shew’d he was nane o’ Scotland’s dogs;
    But whalpit some place far abroad,
    Whare sailors gang to fish for cod.

    His locked, letter’d, braw brass collar
    Shew’d him the gentleman an’ scholar;
    But though he was o’ high degree,
    The fient a pride, nae pride had he;
    But wad hae spent an hour caressin,
    Ev’n wi’ al tinkler-gipsy’s messin:
    At kirk or market, mill or smiddie,
    Nae tawted tyke, tho’ e’er sae duddie,
    But he wad stan’t, as glad to see him,
    An’ stroan’t on stanes an’ hillocks wi’ him.

    The tither was a ploughman’s collie-
    A rhyming, ranting, raving billie,
    Wha for his friend an’ comrade had him,
    And in freak had Luath ca’d him,
    After some dog in Highland Sang,^2
    Was made lang syne,-Lord knows how lang.

    He was a gash an’ faithfu’ tyke,
    As ever lap a sheugh or dyke.
    His honest, sonsie, baws’nt face
    Aye gat him friends in ilka place;
    His breast was white, his touzie back
    Weel clad wi’ coat o’ glossy black;
    His gawsie tail, wi’ upward curl,
    Hung owre his hurdie’s wi’ a swirl.

  8. The Power of the Dog
    Rudyard Kipling

    There is sorrow enough in the natural way
    From men and women to fill our day;
    And when we are certain of sorrow in store,
    Why do we always arrange for more?
    Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
    Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.

    Buy a pup and your money will buy
    Love unflinching that cannot lie–
    Perfect passsion and worship fed
    By a kick in the ribs or a pat on the head.
    Nevertheless it is hardly fair
    To risk your heart to a dog to tear.

    When the fourteen years which Nature permits
    Are closing in asthma, or tumour, or fits,
    And the vet’s unspoken prescription runs
    To lethal chambers or loaded guns,
    Then you will find–it’s your own affair–
    But … you’ve given your heart to a dog to tear.

    When the body that lived at your single will,
    With its whimper of welcome, is stilled (how still!)
    When the spirit that answered your every mood
    Is gone–wherever it goes–for good,
    You will discover how much you care,
    And will give your heart to a dog to tear.

    We’ve sorrow enough in the natural way,
    When it comes to burying Christian clay.
    Our loves are not given, but only lent,
    At compound interest of cent per cent.
    Though it is not always the case, I believe,
    That the longer we’ve kept ’em, the more do we grieve:
    For, when debts are payable, right or wrong,
    A short-term loan is as bad as a long–
    So why in–Heaven (before we are there)
    Should we give our hearts to a dog to tear?

  9. Inscription on the Monument of a Newfoundland Dog
    Lord Byron

    Near this spot are deposited the remains of one who
    possessed Beauty without Vanity,
    Strength without Insolence,
    Courage without Ferocity,
    and all the Virtues of Man,
    without his Vices.
    This Praise, which would be unmeaning
    Flattery if inscribed over human
    ashes is but a just tribute to the Memory
    of Boatswain, a Dog.


    by Rudyard Kipling

    She did not know that she was dead
    But, when the pang was o’er,
    Sat down to wait her Master’s tread
    Upon the Golden Floor,

    With ears full-cock and anxious eyes,
    Impatiently resigned;
    But ignorant that Paradise
    Did not admit her kind.

    There was one step along the Stair
    That led to Heaven’s Gate;
    And, till she heard it, her affair
    Was — she explained — to wait.

    And she explained with flattened ear,
    Bared lip and milky tooth–
    Storming against Ithuriel’s Spear
    That only proved her truth!

    Sudden — far down the Bridge of Ghosts
    That anxious spirits clomb–
    She caught that step in all the hosts,
    And knew that he had come.

    She left them wondering what to do,
    But not a doubt had she.
    Swifter than her own squeal she flew
    Across the Glassy Sea;

    Flushing the Cherubs everywhere,
    And skidding as she ran,
    She refuged under Peter’s Chair
    And waited for her man.

    * * * * * *

    There spoke a Spirit out of the press,
    ‘Said: — “Have you any here
    That saved a fool from drunkenness,
    And a coward from his fear?

    “That turned a soul from dark to day
    When other help was vain;
    That snatched it from wan hope and made
    A cur a man again?”

    “Enter and look,” said Peter then,
    And set the Gate ajar.
    “If I know aught of women and men
    I trow she is not far.”

    “Neither by virtue, speech nor art
    Nor hope of grace to win;
    But godless innocence of heart
    That never heard of sin:

    “Neither by beauty nor belief
    Nor white example shown.
    Something a wanton — more a thief —
    But — most of all — mine own.”

    “Enter and look,” said Peter then,
    “And send you well to speed;
    But, for all that I know of women and men
    Your riddle is hard to read.”

    Then flew Dinah from under the Chair,
    Into his arms she flew —
    And licked his face from chin to hair
    And Peter passed them through!

  11. Dis dog isch taking dis issue to the Hague Court in Den Hague.

    Citizens of Den Hague: Obtain a bright white tee shirt with a smiling Dog emblazoned on the front and back. Wear them in public. Put out bowls of water for wandering or leashed dogs. Open a kennel next to the Mosque. Tell the Muslims to quit selling pot to kids in Amsterdam– you know who you are. Tell the Muslim men in Den Hague to quit eyeing the women. Tell the Muslims world wide to quit selling dogs in their open air markets hanging upside down by their rear feet while still alive. Publish the movie in Den Hague movie houses named: They Eat Dogs Dont They?

    Muslims in Den Hague: Learn to speak Dutch. Leave the crappy English at home.

    Hookers in Amsterdam: beware the tent heads who ask for dogs.

  12. TalklingDog, you say “tent heads”.
    If this is a variation of “towel heads”, it is in a class of slurs (offhand dismissals of segments of the population) that is not likely to win you many adherents here.

    Perhaps the dispute noted above about dogs being unclean could be resolved by the request for a demonstration of what it is that is meant by that.

  13. Tent heads is also a name in Amsterdam for those that insist on living within their own tents, not buildings with roofs over the head, and are not accepting of other faiths, norms, notions, dogs, prostitution and all the things held dear to open minded people of Amsterdam. It originally applied to gypsies who lived in tents within certain places outside of town and had their own insular ways. Towel heads in Amsterdam are women who insist on washing their hair and then standing about in the street waiting for buses or riding about on their bicycles. Muslims in Amsterdam are known as Muslims. Dogs as dogs. Schmucks as schmucks. This dog lived in Amsterdam. When its open season on dogs the dogs bark back. If this dog wanted an adherent he would get a band aid.

    I need to hear the Willard Romney dog story someone mentioned above. Willard was denominated Mitt by some of the boys in big business back in Michigan. In Swedish is means My. General Motors, American Motors, have My Romney. So what does thou Romney have got against dogs?

  14. I understand the dogs have proposed a resolution seeking to ban militant Muslims from blowing themselves up in defense of the faith. Both resolutions have about the same chance of passage.

  15. “If this dog wanted an adherent he would get a band aid.”

    LOL! That was a great line. Smart dog you are.

    These extremists always go too far, and end up rousing the ire of those who wouldn’t normally care what they do. This dog hating is likely to be just that trigger. Ignorant haters is what they are.

  16. Frankly,

    SwM answered your question above. I am someone who grew up with dogs, whose sister-in-law bred dogs and showed at Westminster, and I do love dogs but would’t own one today. Personally, having raised two children, in my dotage I don’t feel the need to raise more and thus be tied down by my responsibility. One cat, that I didn’t want in the first place is pain enough, not to mention the expense of its care when I want to travel. So in a sense I am bemused by the absolute affection and protectiveness that dog lovers/owners feel. Yet I am cheered by the thought of all the moral outrage that this will cause, mainly because I resent the encroachments that all fanatical religious idealists attempt to impose on those without their stultified belief system. This fanaticism is not limited to any one religion, but to authoritarian minds unable to accept and respect other points of view.

  17. Useful insight and practical wisdom in N. Abraham’s post at 9:02 am.

    Striking the right balance is difficult.

    I hope you continue to contribute your thoughts

  18. “Heaven goes by favor; if it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.” – Mark Twain

    Also, get a box of tissues and read Mark Twain’s short story, “A Dog’s Tale” (1903)

    @AnonYours: Good question…!

  19. Incredible. I am not a right-winger but when I read things like this it does raise the question of if someone didn’t like their old country, why are they trying to impose old country rules on their new country? The door swings both ways.

    This does raise questions of serious conflict as more people come from nations that don’t have strong traditions of separation of religious and secular authority and enter nations which do.

    No one is making someone who despises dogs own one as far as I know.
    And what kind of person doesn’t like dogs, anyway?
    Dogs are cool.

  20. TalkinDog…….”In Swedish it means My…….
    Snacker du svenska också?
    If I had a dog, he would keep me healthy with his walks, and that kind of love might be addictive.

  21. By the way, an old southern house cure for shallow wounds was to let the dog lick it. Speeds healing, disinfects and reduces scarring….or so we believed and practiced. Ignorant white trash! No, really.

  22. Frankly,

    Here’s a recent Boston Globe article about the Romney dog vacation story:

    What our fascination with Mitt Romney’s dog Seamus says about our culture
    January 08, 2012|By Neil Swidey

    In the annals of presidential campaign coverage, I am an asterisk, and a tiny one at that – the journalist who unearthed the story of how Mitt Romney once drove to Canada with his dog Seamus in a carrier strapped to the roof of the family station wagon. In the nearly five years that have passed since I dug up that golden nugget, there’s been so much chatter about the anecdote that “Romney” and “dog” have become inseparable dance partners in Google searches entered around the world. (In just one sample week last month, that search snagged hundreds of fresh Web mentions.) Still, I have refrained from writing more about the Romneys’ Irish setter and his bout of highway-borne gastric distress. The reason? I dread the thought that Seamus might somehow make it into the lead paragraph of my eventual obituary.

    Yet, here we are at the start of another primary season, with Romney once again awaiting the verdict from New Hampshire that could sink or propel the presidential ambitions he’s harbored at least since his father’s were dashed in 1968. And here we are, once again, watching the media and blogosphere – even the sober Wall Street Journal – fixate on Romney’s treatment of his dog nearly three decades ago. I’m wading in again because I’ve come to believe that the endurance of the Seamus story sheds fascinating light on our media and political cultures. Just as interesting is the light it sheds on Romney himself.

    To recap: Sometime during a 12-hour drive from Boston to Canada in 1983, Mitt’s oldest son, Tagg, noticed a brown liquid running down the rear window of the family station wagon. Realizing the liquid was being discharged by their dog, Mitt pulled off the highway and into a gas station, borrowed a hose to wash down Seamus and the car, and then returned the dog to his rooftop carrier for the duration of the trip. Most media reports have accurately relayed those basics. However, exaggerations and faulty assumptions have been advanced, most notably by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who has trotted out the ghost of poor Seamus in more than 30 of her pieces since 2007.

    The exaggerations tend to be patently absurd, like the implication that Romney strapped his dog to the roof of his car with nothing more than rope, rather than in a carrier with a specially fashioned windshield. The assumptions, however, are more subtle, and therefore more believable, but just as untrue. For the record, neither Tagg nor any other Romney was my original source for the anecdote. Collins and others have pushed this silly line to suggest how tone-deaf the Romney brood must be. In fact, I went to the then 37-year-old Tagg only after having heard the Seamus story at the very end of a long interview with a close friend of the Romney family. Seeking to penetrate the stock image of the air-brushed family, I had asked that friend what stories the Romneys reminisced about in the privacy of their own home. As soon as the Seamus road trip anecdote passed his lips, I knew it was a gem. But I was determined to avoid a situation where Romney’s handlers could call into question the anecdote – or the entire article – because I had gotten some small detail wrong. So I insisted that Tagg poll his mother and brothers and persisted until I had confirmed every last fact. Far from being tone-deaf, Tagg realized as I dug deeper that the story could cause his father grief. Yet Tagg’s participation actually helped his dad. After all, the first version of the story I’d heard from the family friend – who hadn’t been an eyewitness – improbably had Mitt driving the station wagon right through a carwash. Imagine the howls from PETA if Seamus had been introduced to the world with the image of high-pressure wraparound brushes pummeling a defenseless, diarrheal dog.

    Some commentators have complained that I failed to show sufficient animal-rights indignation when I ushered in the Seamus story. Although I wrote that the diarrhea was “payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours,” I had deliberately tried to play the anecdote straight so readers could draw their own conclusions. Still, it was no accident that I had chosen to open the lengthy front-page story – part of an exhaustive 2007 series on Romney – with Seamus. Although I think it would be nuts for voters to base their presidential selection solely on this incident, it’s always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion.

    To me, Romney’s critics have focused on the wrong part of the anecdote. It’s not that Romney put his dog on the roof. Remember how different standards were in 1983. Back then, I was a kid sloshing around in the cargo section of my family’s station wagon, competing with my equally unbuckled younger sister to see how many passing truck drivers we could get to pull their horns. I’ll take the Romneys at their word that Seamus loved his alfresco rides. Hell, my dog loves doing all kinds of things I don’t, chief among them luxuriating in the stink of other dogs’ duffs. What is beyond debate, though, is that this far into this particular trip, Seamus had ceased enjoying his ride. Faced with such irrefutable evidence, most people, I suspect, would have relented and let the ailing dog cram into the back of the wagon, even if logic dictated that cleaning up a repeat episode of his gastric distress would be a whole lot messier than if he were returned to the roof.

  23. There seems to be a pattern here….. first “pakis” and now “tent heads”. I’m not buying Dog’s story.

  24. The Amsterdam news reports that Den Haguers trips to the red light district in Amsterdam are being photo’ed and put on U Tube to “out” the customers back in their home town. Several politicians have been thus outted. Including some who deride canines as unclean.
    We are curious as to why a story needs to be bought. In the Netherlands people are quite open, accepting, non judgmental, and yet do not like narrow minded people taking advantage of the hospitable ways. English is spoken there quite widely yet it is a EuropeSpeak that is full of contractions and derogatory words. Jarhead, Tenthead, Meathead, DamYak. The owner of my favorite hotel calls himself a Paki. I am called a Limey. Yanks are from anywhere in the US not just Yankee country. A Yanker is something else but the rest of you might be curious.

  25. Re: Elaine’s post at 5:21 pm …

    Our dogs were always considered part of the family and rode in the car with us. I can no more imagine my parents sticking a dog in a cage and strapping it to the roof of the car than I can imagine them sticking one of my 3 brothers in a cage and strapping him to the roof of the car.

    That this is a family story to be reminisced about tells me one thing and one thing only … the Romneys are creepy people.

  26. I wonder how long until some Dutch politician points out that his religion finds Muslims to be unclean, and proposes a law that forbid them in Hague. I’m sure they could find at least 12% of the populous that agreed with that idea as well.

  27. Isn’t there a currently uninhabited island or archipelago somewhere, like in the middle of the Pacific, that can be turned over to these people so that they can live the lives they want without having to compromise with other cultures or – worse yet – encroaching on the rights of people who don’t share their beliefs? I am all for people living in their own conclaves and following their own rules (like the Quakers), but I don’t want any part of my life dictated by their tenets.

  28. Elaine M.
    Thanks, and I’ll add this bit more from the Seamus article:

    “President Obama partisans use it to paint Romney as a cruel character who, as Wasik puts it, will “sort of tie us all to the roof of the car.””

    In that case we would be along for the ride, although more uncomfortable as time goes.
    What I fear is that Romney would leash us to the back bumper, and we’d have to spring after him until our legs gave up, and thus to our demise.

    The obvious solution is not to go along with him, or instead call on all dogs to bite his tires to shreds

    Seamus was of course suffering from exhaustion, dehydration, hypothernia, and acute mental and hormonal stress. Unfortunately, their are too many others like Romney who regard the things they own, including their employess, as disposable goods.

  29. BLOUISE,
    I worked a few months in Salt Lake. In the office was a young woman who invited me to visit her at her home. There she told me that her husband was upstairs, completely out of it on downer drugs. Their home was in the middle milliion dollar class in 1963. That’s my taste of LDS folks, and I mean by that, the others in the office.

    But then every cult has its peculiar sides. Like finding literal truth in documents written by humans thousands of years ago.

  30. TalkinDog
    The reason your story has to be “bought” is that some readers are narrow minded, who have no references other than the American way of life. They don’t know that multi-kulti social conditions in Europe leads to creative strife and bandering with nicknames.
    We don’t picket proposed mosque sites. And they, considerately don’t have outcrys of call to prayer—–although the Catholic church insists on tolling its bells a block away.

  31. I have joined the Party for the Animals: Partij voor de Dieren. Tomorrow.
    My human pal (none dare call him an owner) and yours truly, are back to Europe for two weeks. We will be staying with some gypsies for two days in Belgium. We will bark back to ya.

  32. Assimilation seems to be a greater challenge for some than others. To me, in America, it means they need to try harder. Patience is great, but we all did it, why can’t you?

  33. A Muslim Turk moves to the Netherlands, and demands that the native-born ban dogs because they offend his religion. It is as if my Jewish ancestors had moved to New York and demanded that pork be banned from all the meat markets (and not just Jewish ones) because, after all, pigs are unclean.

    I think the New Yorkers of that day would have told my ancestors to go back to Russia, and they’d have been right to do so. It is not mandatory that an immigrant adapt to all the ways of his new country, but he has no right to demand that the natives change their ways to conform to his religious views.

    Islamist supremacism is cognate to Christian Dominionism; both are dangers to a free society like ours. I do not know how we tell which immigrants from Muslim countries are tolerant and willing to adapt to Western society, and which are likely to try to impose Islamic values on those of us who don’t want them – but I would certainly like to prevent the latter from immigrating here, because they spell trouble.

Comments are closed.