Thursday, April 07, 2011


In a move motivated almost primarily by animus against Jews and Muslims, as is made clear by the tenor of the public noise that has preceded it, the Dutch Government will soon ban kosher slaughter and halal butchering.
Henceforth the animal must be entirely unconscious before being killed.

The commentary on webpages and underneath articles in the Dutch language press make it overwhelmingly clear that the Dutch loathe and despise all other religions than their own narrow branches of Calvinism and Catholicism.
In particular, many of them think that Judaism and Islam are primitive and barbaric superstitions which are absurd, backwards, and repulsive.


As just one slew of examples, those who also read Dutch may scope out the reactions underneath this article:,2

Sorry, I cannot be bothered to translate any of it, as I am more than a little nauseated every time I read Dutch pigheadedness and bigotry in its native tongue.
Ze kunnen verrekken, die venijnige Ollandsche betweters en gal-spuwers.


The other thing that the discourse as usual makes clear is that the Dutch are convinced that they are a shining beacon of light and civilization which barbarians such as Jews, Muslims, Yankees, and other horrid barbarians would do well to emulate.
Long-time readers will remember that the contrary has been highlighted a number of times on this blog.

The vote in the parliament will have a majority, now that the Dutch Labour Party has thrown its support behind the proposal. Debate next week is expected to be short, and the subsequent vote quick. The sentiment moving the issue is primarily anti-Muslim, but a sneering dislike for Jews has also been evident in the ranks.

Proposing the ban: PvdD (Party for Animals - basically the political wing of the ecoterrorist and Vegan movements).
In favour: PvdA (labour), PVV (Geert Wilders), SP (rebranded Stalinists), Green Left (rabid fringe), D66 (just plain confused).

Still not decided: VVD (Liberals).
Opposing: CDA (Christian Democrats), Christian Union, and SGP.

I shall henceforth avoid all Dutch food products, as well as Netherlandish alcoholic beverages.

NOTE: Readers may contact me directly:
All correspondence will be kept in confidence.


Anonymous said...

It's the calvinists and catholics (CDA, CU and SGP) opposing the ban...
And, the ban, it's hypocritical,as the rest of us are still buying cheap meatfactory products, instead of spending some money on organic/animal friendly farmed meat.
At least ritual slaughter demands the butcher to treat the animal with respect.

The back of the hill said...

It's the calvinists and catholics (CDA, CU and SGP) opposing the ban.

Correct, in the sense that the parties which represent the Calvinists and Catholics are opposing it. As a question of religious freedom.

It’s the Dutch Calvinist and Catholic mentalities, which have always sternly disapproved of everybody other than their own people, which are opinionated and opposed. Even though most Dutch are secular and no longer church-going, that disapproval is bred in the bone. It is much harder to eradicate than any amount of indoctrination, it is part of the language and culture. It exists most strongly perhaps among the PvdD and the SP, although Geert Wilders also has a streak of disapprovalism a mile wide.
Which is reflected in the vicious comments about other people’s customs and beliefs, from many different stromingen in the Netherlands. For the Dutch, the eleventh commandment is “thou shalt disapprove!”.
Hetgeen, zo u beslist wel merkt, ik ook heilig houd.

I realize I should have been clearer.
I posted in anger, and that was not the very best idea.

And please note the irony of the PvdA supporting the ban – they more than any other party have catered to the Muslims, and they more than any other party have a strong streak of Jewish activism in their origin (the diamond workers in A’dam generations ago). But whatever else one can say about the Labour Party, they have proven themselves very flexible. When it suited them.

The back of the hill said...

And note that a large part of the problem is the term ‘ritual slaughter’ (ritueel slachten). That suggests, to the uninformed, that the slaughtering itself is some abstruse and off-kilter religious ritual. It suggest voodoo and sacrifice.

Whereas what it actually is, is a requirement that certain conditions be met before the animal is killed, and that the animal is killed in a manner that is appropriate and approved: a quick clean stroke with a razor sharp blade that slips through tissue without resistance.

Certainly a lot more humane than the average boucherie on a farm in the olden days, when the farmer would head out to the pig stall with ropes and an axe. Or, if the animal was even halfway lucky, a shotgun. Sometimes it took several bullets to down the beast.

Unknown said...

It is difficult to live in a democracy where at times laws are passed that you may disagree with. One of the signs of adulthood is that we can accept that the majority has spoken.
The Dutch are very much involved in animal protection while we in this country refuse to even consider that animals have feelings as well.
Of course, if you are going to refuse a Heineken or an Oude Klare, that is okay since I will try to drink yours.

The back of the hill said...

My dear Alkeith,

When laws are passed that interfere with freedom of religion, and that are based on bias besides, there is no way that they can be acceptable. The majority is sometimes wrong – certainly that’s what most Europeans think about Americans, our elections, and our democracy. And much else that many Americans hold dear besides.
Were it otherwise, many European newspapers would have far less to publish, and many European intellectuals would have almost nothing to say.

Besides, your majorities have been disastrously wrong in the past – you fought savage religious wars, enslaved Africans by the millions, approved of colonialism for centuries, and started two world wars. During one of which you tried to kill everyone who was different.
Admittedly, there have been three generations of peace since your last excesses (ignoring Balkan 1 and 2). But your own histories prove that passively accepting the majority voice is almost always wrong.

[Our majority often was also wrong - but that is not the point.]

Heineken is rather appalling stuff. It resembles American beer. I would much rather have Anchor Steam. Or something imported from England. If I have to drink beer at all.
And while I had a taste for oude claere, I have adapted to Scotch and Irish Whiskey. And when was the last time you saw genever in a bar in San Francisco?

Note, please, that I refuse to purchase Dutch food or alcohol.
Ik heb dus wel degelijk niets gezegd over sigaren.
Eh, maar op De Oliphant en Oud Kampen na zijn die toch van Swedish Match..... ;-D
Oud Kampen - werkelijk een stellaar produkt.

The back of the hill said...

Besides, enforcing hardship on the Jewish community has both a history, and very unfortunate connotations in continental Europe.
Even though it is obvious from much if not all of the commentary that the popular support of the proposed ban is to make it hard for Moslims, which, of course, explains why Geert Wilders’ political clique ALSO backs the proposed ban.
It just HAS to be good if it imposes a hardship on Muslims, right?

That it does the same for Jews seems, to many of the commenting mob, icing on the cake.

The Dutch, in recent decades, have become intolerant of all religions except whatever rigid sect that they themselves have forsaken. And often even that branch of Christian Disapprovalism catches their bile, albeit usually in passing, not as a target.

The average Dutchman would probably like to burn all heretics – and happily defines people he disapproves of or despises on ideological grounds as heretical.

Anonymous said...

Dear "The back of the hill", the Dutch have indeed become more intolerant, however of ALL religions. Although I do not practice any religion myself (and happy for it), I support freedom of religion as long as it does not interfere with laws which are based on common sense. Animal cruelty is simply not acceptable like many "traditions" which are related to religion. Assessing the developments objectively (which I believe I can as I do not belong to any religion) will tell us that any society/country will tend to introduce laws which are more linked to its historical religious past. Try opening a church or even bringing a crucifix into Saudi Arabia for example. At least the Dutch have an open society based on common law which the 1.5 million Muslims living in The Netherlands and the long Jewish history will prove. Bottom line, maybe its not the laws that are the problem but the segregation which comes with religion which brain washes and separates people already at the earliest stages of life. Regards, Ramon

The back of the hill said...

The arguments against kosher and halal slaughtering do not stand up objectively. The opinions that have been voiced, however, are extremely subjective, and cultrually biased. Further, both the mind-set behind those opinions as well as the eventual outlawing of 'ritual slaughter' are partially geared towards persuading different believers to leave. Making, for entirely subjective reasons, Holland inhospitable to Jews and Muslims, will serve only to further strengthen the intolerant social atmosphere. Plus food fascism, like tobacco fascism, will inevitably lead to further fascism.

Have you ever been on a farm? Have you seen the casual cruelty that is inflicted upon the animals by the average Dutch farmer? The primitive and haphazard nature of farm slaughtering in autumn? Certainly a society that still permits the average inbred farmer op het platteland to wring the neck of a chicken, or bash out the brains of a lamb, pig, or cow, or tether the beast for several hours or days, has little moral right to speak ill of a process which takes mere seconds, and by virtually instant loss of blood and oxygen to the brain cause immediate loss of consciousness. The factory method of slaugher is far more cruel, and far more inhumane.

That long Jewish history in the Netherlands, by the way, has never recovered from the betrayals and collaboration which so willingly sold so large a percentage of the Jews to the gas chambers. And at this point, in one generation there will be nothing left. Jews leave. Real Jews leave, but Een Ander Joods geluid (assholes like Hajo Meijer) will stay. And each year, the anti-Jewish sentiment in Holland, as well as the rest of Europe, grows.

And I should mention that atheists have no more chance of being objective than believers - the USSR (and its permanent sympathisers) prove that abundantly.


Anonymous said...

The Dutch Law is about 'Freedom of Religion'. There is no Dutch Law 'Freedom for Religion'.

The Rule of Law also applies to beliefs of religious nature and beliefs of other nature otherwise

Beliefs are by law restricted, limited etc..

Further, there is sufficient law codes available, to support this. Bearing in mind, that in the Netherlands, one is deemed to know the law, unless this, due to circumstances, is impossible.

Equal is applicable to the 'Freedom of Expressing Opinions'.

And not only is one deemed to know the law, the law also uses the adagia: "Every action which is misleading, deceiving or likely to mislead and deceive, is a breach of the law'.

The act of misplacing, "Freedom of Religion", with 'Freedom for Religion', consciously or subconsciously, is already such a breach. As it causes or can cause someone to believe an untruth.

It is fair to state, that the executive power is being most indulgent and patient, already.

The back of the hill said...

I would like to see the precise wording of that law in Dutch - the word 'van' often means 'of' in English, and 'vryheid van geloof', while literally translating as 'freedom FROM 'belief'', because of the peculiarity of phrasing in Dutch, ALSO means 'freedom OF 'belief''.

As an example of the dual nature of 'van', note it's functioning in many Dutch surnames, where it is both 'of' and 'from'.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "intolerance", a certain blogger blogging on here seems to be intolerant of the decision made by the majority.

Oh, it must be because the Netherlands has become intolerant, whilst ignoring the fact that the only parties opposing the decision are religious parties.

You might not like the decision, but if it goes through, it goes through. It is what is called democracy. I didn't like Balkende to be PM and voted against him, yet he was selected. Didn't meant I acted like a child and stopped eating and drinking Dutch products.

However, it is becoming quite the trend to criticize the Netherlands lately, as more and more tabloids and blogs are picking up on the change of the country, the switch from tolerance to intolerance.

I doubt they'll be too fussed though. In the end, the Netherlands remains a liberal country and tolerates a lot more than most other countries do. The Dutch have an unique culture and not everybody can accept these things.

Search This Blog


There is a new sign at the front desk at my eye-doctor's office begging people to not abuse the staff there. Subtext: if you're goin...