View Full Version : Netherlands law proposed to ban wearing burkas in public?
What's up with this, my Dutch friends?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/17/dutch.burkas.ap/index.html
Is there, as the article says, a ban on religious discrimination in the Dutch constitution? Burkas like the type being outlawed are worn for religious reasons. It certainly seems a clear-cut case of religious discrimination to me.
The stated reasons don't seem to make much sense.
"From a security standpoint, people should always be recognizable and from the standpoint of integration, we think people should be able to communicate with one another,' Verdonk told national broadcaster NOS.
From a security standpoint, does this mean the Dutch plan on making it illegal for people to wear costumes for costume parties in public, use too much makeup, or grow beards too?
From an integration standpoint, how does a burka prevent one from communicating freely?
Meneldil
11-17-2006, 21:38
It's about time the dutch pass such a law.
From an integration standpoint, how does a burka prevent one from communicating freely?
Women who wear burkas will simply not integrate either because
a) they don't want to integrate
b) they can't integrate
It is seriously that simple. In France, most women who wear Burka's barely speak french, and if they do, I'll sure as hell never ever think about even telling them "Hello", "Thanks" or "Have a good day".
Edit : And I'm speaking about the liberal kind of Burka, not the Afghanistan "we'll burn you if we see a part of your skin" kind of Burka. Hopefully, we do not have to see such a crap in France at the moment.
yesdachi
11-17-2006, 21:44
The burka is a barrier that stifles integration but it is something that should not be regulated by a law.
The security excuse is lame.
a bruka isn't that women freindly either if you ask me. (In Belgium the same law is already passed, if I'm not mistaken.) It's a symbol of women's oppression. You may say that a lot wear it out of their own will, still this an oppinion they got forced on. They think it's normal because everybody from their envirnment finds it normal, they are raised this way,... Also how can they ever lead a life outside the house wearing a burka? They can't. So they are in fact almost imprisoned at home. And if you think you can't force them o r think forcing this is wrong. Then why can't kids drink, is it forbidden to take drugs,... No, the burka isn't a religious thing. I can't recall that it is in the Saria (except maybe an extreme one, one that allows the execution of young girls because they were raped.) or Koran. It's something some wacko fundamentalists made up to keep women from all will to stand up against the oppression. With the excuse that they otherwise might attract other men. And even if this would be the only real reason it's still against human rights if you ask me. Denying someone the freedom of marrying who they want, to fall in love with who they want or just make freind with someone else. Wearing normal headthingys (what's the english name?) okay, but wearing a symbol of oppression, or wearing a prison.?
Adrian II
11-17-2006, 22:06
The stated reasons don't seem to make much sense.They make a lot of sense. The main thrust, as stated, is that "clothing that covers the entire face in public places" shall be outlawed. The rest of the garment and its various functions are untouched. Make-up, masks and beards that render the face unrecognisable will also be forbidden, except on Carnivals and similar temporary occasions.
From an integration standpoint, how does a burka prevent one from communicating freely?Vou aw vwoking, mo?
well i think it's a bad law.... i honestly dont think a burkha (as long as it allows eye contact) doesnt prevent communication or integratoion, as long as they can talk they can communicate, and as long as they can communicate they can integrate. It's only people prejudices that stifle integration, and although the burkha becomes a symbol of this, it is nothing more than clothing.
is it oppresive? I certainly dont think a non eye covering headress (lacking my terminology here somewhat) is...
I actually think the security argument is far stronger, if someone can't be identified (as with hoodies) then they become a problem for the police.
:2thumbsup:
Personally I could care less for the following reasons:
A) I don't live in Holland
B) I never wear a burka, beard, mask etc.
I really wouldn't have a problem banning it.
Other forms of face coverings, such as helmets with visors that obscure the face, would also be covered by a legal ban.
Seems it is a ban on face covering, which though I dislike am not completely opposed to it. This still leaves the traditional cloak and scarf, the only thing taken away is the veil. And it does not say "Burqas are banned" but "Face covering" so they are not attacking a religion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm
Well I live in Holland but can't be bothered really.
But there is one thing, if you want to live here adapt, this is Holland, not Marocco, might sound hard, but it's the truth
I heard about a case in Florida while I was still in high school where a woman who already had a criminal record became a Muslim and refused to remove her burkha for any given reason, including photos for things like her driver's license because it was against her religion. My immediate thought was that she was a criminal and therefore, sucks to her religion.
In any case, the law has some merit, but come on. If someone doesn't want to show their face in public, forcing them to is asinine. If the person in question is an established criminal, then there's some logic to it. Besides, it's against my religion not to have a beard.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-18-2006, 00:03
No, the burka isn't a religious thing
Yes, where in the Koran does it say that women must wear burkas?
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 00:04
The security excuse is lame.It is not. In the past the Dutch have enacted laws against face-covering in specific circumstances such as demonstrations and other situations with increased security risks. The background to this was an increasing number of violent demonstrations c.q. violent incidents during demonstrations. The perpetrators were often able to avoid prosecution by wearing balaclavas, Palestinian headscarves, etcerera.
The background to the new law is the phenomenon that Muslim women are now actively participating in terrorist plots in The Netherlands, i.e. acts that are not planned or even committed in broad daylight. They are also engaged in forging indentity papers. If you are looking for the major concern behind this proposed law, it is right there.
For years, we used to give Muslim women a break with regard to passport photos; officially, a Dutch passport photo must be a frontal shot showing the entire face including both ears. Muslim women were allowed to use passport photos in which they wore headscarves. No more.
I can't agree with any such law. People should be free to wear what they want (so long as it's decent). Asking someone to remove their mask for a photo ID, ect. makes perfect sense and is quite reasonable, but criminalizing them outright goes too far.
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 00:25
Asking someone to remove their mask for a photo ID, ect. makes perfect sense and is quite reasonable, but criminalizing them outright goes too far.The proposed law does not criminalise people. It merely proscribes a certain behaviour in public.
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 00:26
From article:
"This is a big law for a small problem," he said. Tonca estimated that as few as 30 women in the Netherlands wear a burqa and said the proposed law could be unconstitutional if it is interpreted as targeting Muslims.
30 people? :inquisitive: Is it even neccessary?
doc_bean
11-18-2006, 00:37
Meh, like Gert said, we have similar laws in effect. I'm pro.
On a related note: over half of the Dutch people interviewed in a recent survey said that books could be banned under certain circumstances. 25% (IIRC) said that religious reasons (eg insulting a religion) could be valid grounds for a ban.
Mithrandir
11-18-2006, 00:39
From article:
30 people? :inquisitive: Is it even neccessary?
Yes, the economy is picking up, so they have more time and money to waste on tiny issues.
Crazed Rabbit
11-18-2006, 00:42
The background to the new law is the phenomenon that Muslim women are now actively participating in terrorist plots in The Netherlands, i.e. acts that are not planned or even committed in broad daylight. They are also engaged in forging indentity papers. If you are looking for the major concern behind this proposed law, it is right there.
Whoa...any specific stories?
Of course, changing photo requirements to not allow head coverings on official photos makes complete sense.
And it is not religious discrimination if it treats all religions the same - i.e Christians or Sikhs don't get to wear mask like head coverings.
Crazed Rabbit
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 01:04
Yes, the economy is picking up, so they have more time and money to waste on tiny issues.I don't think you understand the social and emotional impact. The proposed law merely concerns face-covering in the technical sense, but the cultural connotations of the burka are a hot issue in themselves.
Many non-Muslim Dutchmen will support the measure simply because they dislike the burka and all that they feel it stands for; many Muslim Dutchmen will feel that it is discriminatory because it appears to target only Muslims and is supported by a large section of the public that dislikes Islam.
It is part of an ongoing debate about the wearing of headscarves and religious symbols in public and particularly in public or private office, about manners and etiquette, attitudes towards sexual matters, etcetera. In the end, the entire debate revolves around the public image and position of women, education, the social fabric, in short: the kind of society we want to be. We may be a tiny country, but to us this is not a tiny issue.
Mithrandir
11-18-2006, 01:07
I don't think you understand the social and emotional impact. The proposed law merely concerns face-covering in the technical sense, but the cultural connotations of the burka are a hot issue in themselves.
Many non-Muslim Dutchmen will support the measure simply because they dislike the burka and all that they feel it stands for; many Muslim Dutchmen will feel that it is discriminatory because it appears to target only Muslims and is supported by a large section of the public that dislikes Islam.
It is part of an ongoing debate about the wearing of headscarves and religious symbols in public and particularly in public or private office, about manners and etiquette, attitudes towards sexual matters, etcetera. In the end, the entire debate revolves around the public image and position of women, education, the social fabric, in short: the kind of society we want to be. We may be a tiny country, but to us this is not a tiny issue.
I am very well aware of the entire situation ~:).
Making huge issues of things like this only keeps "immigration problems" in the media. If things aren't in the media, people don't worry about it (agenda-theory)[not nearly as much at least]. If people don't make a big fuss about this, the muslims will feel more welcome and generally adapt easier to the native culture, which results in more mutual respect.
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 01:11
I'm inclined to support this measure, for reasons already stated.
yes, I'm lazy. And it's getting late here.
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 01:12
Making huge issues of things like this only keeps "immigration problems" in the media.It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a problem to disappear because the media stop reporting it.
Adrian II, 23:14
Mithrandir
11-18-2006, 01:21
I didn't say disappear.
Dutch_guy
11-18-2006, 01:21
Yes, where in the Koran does it say that women must wear burkas?
If I'm not mistaken it doesn't say anything about wearing headscarves either, even though it's considered to be standard practise by many (muslim and non muslim for that matter).
:balloon2:
And it is not religious discrimination if it treats all religions the same - i.e Christians or Sikhs don't get to wear mask like head coverings.I'm not even considering the religious angle when I say I'm opposed. It's a restriction on personal freedom- plain and simple.
30 people? Is it even neccessary?Indeed.
Hey, I have a better idea- they could just implant RF chips under the skin of everyone who's in the country. That way they could quickly identify everyone whether they can see your face or not and arrest anyone without a tag. :dizzy2:
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 02:06
I didn't say disappear.Speaking of which.
Migration problems tend to grow and fester the moment they 'disappear' from the public eye. This applies particularly to the problems of migrant women because of their lower status in their countries of origin, which is often replicated in the new environment and makes them more vulnerable than the men. That is why this is highly relevant to the kind of society we want to be.
The shelters for abused women in The Netherlands for instance are overflowing with thousands of Muslim women who have been seriously abused and threatened. Survey after survey shows that they are just the tip of an iceberg. It is obvious that the immersion of Muslims in western cultures does not always bring out the best in them, but past attitudes of playing this issue down or pretending that is has nothing to do with religion have not helped one little bit.
Religion is central to this problem of extreme domestic violence. The abuse of women is endemic to any religion that proclaims women are second-rate citizens, subject to male control and violence, and have no business in the public domain except for domestic reasons. I don't care what the Quran says on the subject. I am speaking of what Muslims do in the name of their faith. After a hundred years of gradual emancipation of women, I don't want such views and practices to take hold in Dutch society once more, be it in the name of God, Allah or the Big Mumjojumbo.
Burqas, the refusal of the handshake, headscarves, gay bashing and battering, religously inspired threats of violence against politicians, artists and other public figures all belong to the same equation. Muslims are not the problem, but Muslims have a problem. And it will not disappear if we stop reporting on it.
Tribesman
11-18-2006, 03:12
OK Adrian if this proposed law is no problem then how about this ...
It is a typical freezing winters day in the very lowlands , clear sky but with snow on the ground , you go out in a nice warm hat , a scarf or muffler and some sun/snow glasses .
You are a criminal :yes:
A stupid proposal for a law and unworkable .:thumbsdown:
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 03:14
Burqas, the refusal of the handshake, headscarves, gay bashing and battering, religously inspired threats of violence against politicians, artists and other public figures all belong to the same equation. Muslims are not the problem, but Muslims have a problem. And it will not disappear if we stop reporting on it.
How on earth are you equating or even mentioning together burqas, headscarves, and refusal of handshakes with violence against artists and gays? :rolleyes4:
They don't compare...
Crazed Rabbit
11-18-2006, 03:19
How on earth are you equating or even mentioning together burqas, headscarves, and refusal of handshakes with violence against artists and gays? :rolleyes4:
They don't compare...
I do believe they have one common factor. Ever hear of a recently deceased guy named Van Gogh?
Adrian - is it just the women who refuse handshakes, or both men and women?
It is a typical freezing winters day in the very lowlands , clear sky but with snow on the ground , you go out in a nice warm hat , a scarf or muffler and some sun/snow glasses .
You are a criminal
A stupid proposal for a law and unworkable .
I wasn't aware 'crazy hypothetical situation you pulled out of your ***' qualified as a good reason not to have a law.:idea2:
CR
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 03:19
OK Adrian if this proposed law is no problem then how about this ...
It is a typical freezing winters day in the very lowlands , clear sky but with snow on the ground , you go out in a nice warm hat , a scarf or muffler and some sun/snow glasses .
You are a criminal :yes:
A stupid proposal for a law and unworkable .:thumbsdown:What nonsense. Dutch law acknowledges force majeure just like any modern law code. Extreme cold is force majeure.
Dutch law also forbids public nudity, but if my clothes catch fire and I shed them all, I will of course not be arrested for indecency.
Stop finding silly excuses, address the issue.
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 03:28
How on earth are you equating or even mentioning together burqas, headscarves, and refusal of handshakes with violence against artists and gays? :rolleyes4:
They don't compare...Ask the battered women how they compare.
What you wrote above was the official line for decades, but the problem would not disappear. Then a member of Dutch parliament, a woman originally from Somalia named Hirsi Ali, began drawing attention to the issue of abuse in a very public manner. Subsequently, she had to be guarded in military fashion round the clock and was several times shipped out of the country because of persistent and realistic death threats from islamists.
You still don't see any problem?
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 03:28
I do believe they have one common factor.
Excellent argument. Hitler and every male member of the Org share one common factor. :rolleyes:
Ever hear of a recently deceased guy named Van Gogh?
Oh yes. Sadly, many a Muslim has been killed for just being a Muslim as well. We don't focus on it much at the Org. Nice reactions to Van Gogh's murder too. They tend to get undermentioned:
Wacko's on the other side... (http://www.xs4all.nl/~afa/alert/engels/sl1b_2005.html)
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 03:37
Excellent argument. Hitler and every male member of the Org share one common factor. :rolleyes:You are just playing games. I don't detect the slightest interest on your part in the fate of those battered women or the other social concerns I mentioned. Instead, you trot out old Adolf. How boring.
Tribesman
11-18-2006, 03:38
Stop finding silly excuses, address the issue.
What issue ?
If someone walks down the road in an Adolf Hitler mask is that an issue ?
It is their choice , you live in a free country don't you .
If people want to don what they consider religeous attire in public then that is threir choice , there are Christian sects that insist their womenfolk cover their heads , and they won't shake hands with you either as that is considered overfamiliarity with a non-betrothed male .
So since you take the issue to be intergration into Dutch culture , are you going to insist that the next diamondcutter you visit removes his head covering , or not wear his shawl when he goes to temple ?
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 03:38
Ask the battered women how they compare.
You are avoiding the question AdrianII...
First, approximately 30 women that wear burqas out of 500000 Muslim women in the Netherlands is not a problem, even if one were to grant the premise that wearing a burqa is bad or problematic (which I don't).
Certainly, headscarves would be more common, as would not shaking hands with the opposite sex, and yet these are even less problematic.
Though I am unaware of your precise intention, I do know that people try to smuggle "weak" things (like burqas and headscarves) with "strong" things (like incidents of violence or threats) to strengthen their argument.
I don't know why you bring up battered women. Perhaps you should see how many of the 30 burqa wearing women are battered. Domestic abuse is a problem that goes across religions and cultures. I know for a fact that plenty a white women gets battered here. I'd be willing to extrapolate that to your country...
What you wrote above was the official line for decades, but the problem would not disappear. Then a member of Dutch parliament, a woman originally from Somalia named Hirsi Ali, began drawing attention to the issue of abuse in a very public manner. Subsequently, she had to be guarded in military fashion round the clock and was several times shipped out of the country because of persistent and realistic death threats from islamists.
You still don't see any problem?
1 million Muslims in your country AdrianII...
One man killed Van Gogh. How many would you guess threatened Ali? Go ahead, give a liberal estimate. Now also give an estimate as to how many neo-Nazis your country has.
Please tell me. And tell me how this problem (yes, I do see it as a problem) is at all related to 30 women wearing burqas.
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 03:40
You are just playing games. I don't detect the slightest interest on your part in the fate of those battered women or the other social concerns I mentioned. Instead, you trot out old Adolf. How boring.
I do have a tendency to deride things I see as silly.
I've answered you in the above post. You're just a bit too eager...
What nonsense. Dutch law acknowledges force majeure just like any modern law code. Extreme cold is force majeure.So, is the law now going to cover whether or not it's cold enough to wear a scarf?
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 04:06
So since you take the issue to be intergration into Dutch cultureIntegration schmintegration. You know me better than that. The issue is what kind of society we want to be, not 'whose culture was here first' -- that would be Fragony's department.
Crazed Rabbit
11-18-2006, 05:19
You are avoiding the question AdrianII...
First, approximately 30 women that wear burqas out of 500000 Muslim women in the Netherlands is not a problem, even if one were to grant the premise that wearing a burqa is bad or problematic (which I don't).
Certainly, headscarves would be more common, as would not shaking hands with the opposite sex, and yet these are even less problematic.
Though I am unaware of your precise intention, I do know that people try to smuggle "weak" things (like burqas and headscarves) with "strong" things (like incidents of violence or threats) to strengthen their argument.
Says one, unconfirmed, source. And they may be speaking of a very specific type of garment. The burqa is a tool of oppression, in my view. Do you think all those women are freely deciding to wear it?
I don't know why you bring up battered women. Perhaps you should see how many of the 30 burqa wearing women are battered. Domestic abuse is a problem that goes across religions and cultures. I know for a fact that plenty a white women gets battered here. I'd be willing to extrapolate that to your country...
Sigh. Did you read what he wrote about the shelters and abuse?
The shelters for abused women in The Netherlands for instance are overflowing with thousands of Muslim women who have been seriously abused and threatened. Survey after survey shows that they are just the tip of an iceberg. It is obvious that the immersion of Muslims in western cultures does not always bring out the best in them, but past attitudes of playing this issue down or pretending that is has nothing to do with religion have not helped one little bit.
Religion is central to this problem of extreme domestic violence. The abuse of women is endemic to any religion that proclaims women are second-rate citizens, subject to male control and violence, and have no business in the public domain except for domestic reasons. I don't care what the Quran says on the subject. I am speaking of what Muslims do in the name of their faith. After a hundred years of gradual emancipation of women, I don't want such views and practices to take hold in Dutch society once more, be it in the name of God, Allah or the Big Mumjojumbo.
This is not a case of a problem being pleasing to the bleeding heart liberal by applying equally to everyone (or more to white people). Maintaining such a dillusion will not help. Sometimes we have to stop abiding by PC and admit to ourselves that the problem is with a certain culture. Otherwise, you're just sticking your head in the sand.
Crazed Rabbit
Blodrast
11-18-2006, 09:03
I'm not even considering the religious angle when I say I'm opposed. It's a restriction on personal freedom- plain and simple.
Indeed.
Hey, I have a better idea- they could just implant RF chips under the skin of everyone who's in the country. That way they could quickly identify everyone whether they can see your face or not and arrest anyone without a tag. :dizzy2:
You DO remember that I posted an article, a few months ago, that said that this was proposed in the US, right ?
It was initially meant just for illegal immigrants or some such, but we're still talking about human beings.
Of course it wasn't implemented - not yet, anyway.
I know you were being sarcastic, I just wanted to point out that the Dutchies' thing isn't as crazy, considering that the things you're making fun of were proposed in the US...
doc_bean
11-18-2006, 09:11
If I'm not mistaken it doesn't say anything about wearing headscarves either, even though it's considered to be standard practise by many (muslim and non muslim for that matter).
:balloon2:
It says that covering the hair is a good thing, but optional.
An interesting discussion so far! Such was my intent.
A few points to help further the discussion.
First, the various branches of Islam do not rely solely upon the Quran for rules. Neither does Christianity. For example, In Roman Catholicism, a ruling by the Pope made ex cathedra, or from the chair, is considered to be infallible as if it were made via the Pope from God. That is just one example in the Christian religion where things can enter into the canon which are not specifically in the Bible. It is much the same in Islam, particularly with regards to the haditha. So, the argument that burkas aren't specifically mentioned in the Quran itself and thus aren't religious in nature is not a valid argument.
Second, clearly the intent of the proposed law is against a particular group. It may be worded to make it seem something else; but the statement by Verdonk makes it pretty clear that the law is targeted against a particular group. Is that constitutional in the Netherlands?
And last but not least, does the Netherlands' constitution provide for a presumption of innocence as in the USA, or is it more like the law in the UK? The reason I ask is this: the argument that the law forestalls criminals from hiding their faces, such as in demonstrations, seems to include a presumption of guilt before the fact. Can that be a good thing? What may follow logically from such a position? Will it eventually become acceptable to have everyone fitted with a GPS locator on the presumption that some people need to be followed 24/7?
Just wondering how all of the above fit into the argument. :wink:
Tribesman
11-18-2006, 10:54
The issue is what kind of society we want to be
OK Adrian , and do you really think this proposed legislation will do anything at all to address that ?
I wasn't aware 'crazy hypothetical situation you pulled out of your ... qualified as a good reason not to have a law.
I wasn't aware that you had never been to the Netherlands in winter Rabbit:oops:
InsaneApache
11-18-2006, 10:59
Speaking of which.
Migration problems tend to grow and fester the moment they 'disappear' from the public eye. This applies particularly to the problems of migrant women because of their lower status in their countries of origin, which is often replicated in the new environment and makes them more vulnerable than the men. That is why this is highly relevant to the kind of society we want to be.
The shelters for abused women in The Netherlands for instance are overflowing with thousands of Muslim women who have been seriously abused and threatened. Survey after survey shows that they are just the tip of an iceberg. It is obvious that the immersion of Muslims in western cultures does not always bring out the best in them, but past attitudes of playing this issue down or pretending that is has nothing to do with religion have not helped one little bit.
Religion is central to this problem of extreme domestic violence. The abuse of women is endemic to any religion that proclaims women are second-rate citizens, subject to male control and violence, and have no business in the public domain except for domestic reasons. I don't care what the Quran says on the subject. I am speaking of what Muslims do in the name of their faith. After a hundred years of gradual emancipation of women, I don't want such views and practices to take hold in Dutch society once more, be it in the name of God, Allah or the Big Mumjojumbo.
Burqas, the refusal of the handshake, headscarves, gay bashing and battering, religously inspired threats of violence against politicians, artists and other public figures all belong to the same equation. Muslims are not the problem, but Muslims have a problem. And it will not disappear if we stop reporting on it.
Adrian I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said here. I couldn't have put it better myself. Living in a city with approxomatley 35-40% Moslem population I see and hear a lot of such matters. There are cases of Moslem women who have lived here for 20 years or more who cannot speak a word of English. Do I have to explain why they can't?
The last time this was brought up in the BR I initially supported the notion that anyone can wear what they bloody well like. After some reflection, I changed my mind. Also consider this. In England at least, the concealing of the face is looked upon as something sinister. The executioner at the gallows, the robber, the terrorist for example.
At least the Dutch government has the intestinal fortitude to take this step. Somehow I couldn't see my mate Tony Charles Lynton taking such action.
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 13:07
OK Adrian , and do you really think this proposed legislation will do anything at all to address that?No, the measure only addresses a single security issue. The matter of undesirable religious practices is much more complex. It is unfortunate that they are being mixed up all the time, but I'm afraid this is inevitable under the circumstances.
EDIT As for integration and the 'whose culture comes first debate', you should know by now where I stand. There are elements of traditional Dutch culture which I despise. On the other hand, there are many elements of foreign cultures which I would like to see introduced in the Netherlands, from elements of political philosophy (a Mohammed Yunus-like bank for instance would work wonders here by allowing people to start countless new small businesses), care for the elderly citizens or city design all the way down to food, drink and music. Did I ever tell you I am big fan of siestas? This country would be a lot more relaxed for siestas...
Here's something for you:
It's electiontime in Holland, if you announce that you are working on a law like this you gain additional support ~D
KukriKhan
11-18-2006, 15:54
They make a lot of sense. The main thrust, as stated, is that "clothing that covers the entire face in public places" shall be outlawed. The rest of the garment and its various functions are untouched. Make-up, masks and beards that render the face unrecognisable will also be forbidden,...
Uh-oh. I guess neither Gregoshi nor Iwill be travelling to Amsterdam anytime soon. :embarassed:
Signed,
Old bearded guy
What's up with this, my Dutch friends?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/17/dutch.burkas.ap/index.html
Is there, as the article says, a ban on religious discrimination in the Dutch constitution? Burkas like the type being outlawed are worn for religious reasons. It certainly seems a clear-cut case of religious discrimination to me.
The stated reasons don't seem to make much sense.
From a security standpoint, does this mean the Dutch plan on making it illegal for people to wear costumes for costume parties in public, use too much makeup, or grow beards too?
From an integration standpoint, how does a burka prevent one from communicating freely?
Fighting percieved fascism with legal fascism. Feeding the flames of intolerance with more intolerance.
If anyone wants to wear a burka, an anal plug, mini skirts, or whatever or their wives do, this is not the business of the state. Period.
The post right after yours is a brilliant example of bigotism and dicrimination, where the poster even declares he won't treat women wearing a burka the same as other women. Why ? because they live differently from you ?
The problem of assimilation is a problem of the state as much as it is a problem of individuals in society. The state has to do more for integration just as much as migrants do, just as much as natives do. If you treat Satanic (members of the Church of Satan) differently than you treat others, that will create even more problems of integration. Why should they integrate with the likes of you. You don't even accept them the way they are. You reject them, they will reject you.
Actually now that you mention it I speak Dutch to an inferior level than I do German and I never lived in Germany. Maybe I should never bother to improve my Dutch because eventually there will be a law that you have to live in a ghetto with all other "brown" people, and if you are "brown" you can't leave that ghetto.
Do you really think that will happen so easy like the nazis did it to the Jews, that the same could be done today with the Muslims and other "brown" people, who btw happen to be citizens of EUROPE ?
No way.
This is their home too. If someone threatened your home, would you not fight ? If they threatened your religion, your beliefs and your ideals. If they threatened to make you a "lesser" citizen because of discriminatory laws would you not fight ?
When the state becomes a power that victimises and persecutes it's citizens by abuse of it's power, it is a necessity for the citizens to dissolve the powers of the state to maintain justice, for ALL.
We all know about such laws and their purpose. Have we learnt nothing from the Nazis ? Have we learnt nothing from WW2 American where more than 15% favored eliminating the Japanese as a nation. Nothing from the annihilation of the Native Americans. Nothing from Imperial Britain. Nothing from 9/11. Nothing from Iran, Saudi Arabia .
Apparently not. Then we shall learn again, and again, until one day when we don't have to learn the same lessons again and again.
And all this time I thought Holland was a liberated and decent country with human rights, and laws for freedom for all. I believed this even though I repeatedly heard gross generalisations that the Ducth are a deeply racist people who hide their resentment for foreigners.
All it took was the murder of the homosexual (NOTHING wrong with homosexuality btw) far right racist politician (RIP), Pim (and I forget his last name) to bring out the worst in Dutch society. One thing about Pim, at least he was forthright about his beliefs, you knew where he stood, which is far more than you can say for most people in any society.
Then again the elections might have something to do with it, on a political level.
Issues of security ? Only a 4 year old child would believe lies like that.
Finally, just in case, there ARE any children who may read this post.
All questions presented here are rhetorical to which I neither expect, or accept an answer.
Reenk Roink
11-18-2006, 17:11
It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow the posts here.
The Dutch government is drafting a bill proposing the ban of burqas.
One reason given is security. The rationale is that it hides the identity of the person underneath, and perhaps it may be used to to evade security in a terrorist plot or some related violent act.
This premise is understandable, at least personally. However, the fact that approximately 30 women wear the burqa out of 500000 and the fact that there has been no incident (at least to my knowledge) of a "burqa bomber" or a person who hid under a burqa to commit an act of terrorism or violence seriously calls into question the importance of the problem.
Another reason is integration. Personally, I can't understand why this is so important to European people. Infact, I'm shaky on what "integration" is exactly supposed to mean. Here we have clusters of each culture living among themselves. Chinatowns, Indiatowns, etc... There are black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods, Polish neighborhoods and Russian neighborhoods. At my high school, almost all of the black kids hung out in one section of the school, same with the Hispanic kids. People are usually more comfortable with people of their same culture and race. Someone needs to elaborate more on integration for me to even completely understand this viewpoint.
AdrianII brought up "what kind of society we want to be". Again, I ask for some elaboration. I interpret this currently as preserving the secular identity of the Netherlands, but this could easily be wrong.
The real issue that caused me to speak up was the fact that real problems like violence and terrorism were somehow linked with headscarves, handshakes (or lack thereof), and burqas. Later, domestic abuse was attached...
This is just absurd to me.
Certainly, there are problems with fringe elements of Muslims in the Netherlands and all over the world with extremism. Everyone will admit to this. The person who killed Van Gogh, the person who killed the politician, the persons who make threats against Ali and others, the persons who burn Muslim schools and mosques, the persons who threaten, injure, and even kill people for being Muslim, all of these people are huge problem. Muslim extremists are the Muslim problem, and a problem for Islam. Dutch fascists and neo-Nazi's are a problem for the Dutch people and a problem for the Netherlands.
Smuggling burqas and headscarves with these problems is just wrong...
In the end, the Dutch people will vote on this, and we will see the result. If the majority of the Dutch hold that a dress code should be followed in Dutch society then the Muslim women should have to follow it or leave. They are living in another country and should follow the rules of the land (although even Saudi Arabia and Iran allow foreign women to not abide by their dress codes). I actually don't think it will be too much of a problem in the big picture, as only 30 women will be affected.
As a good neighbour I’ve seen holland getting more and more intolerant towards ethnic minorities over the years.
Racism is on the big escalator up and it won’t take long before something explodes (again).
A shame really.
I’m not speaking for my entire country I’m sure, but many of us use to look at Holland as a positive progressive and above all open-minded nation...
Those views died some time ago.
King Ragnar
11-18-2006, 19:09
BAM! take that Islam, god i wish i was dutch sounds like they are doing everthing i want the British Government to do...
doc_bean
11-18-2006, 19:15
As a good neighbour I’ve seen holland getting more and more intolerant towards ethnic minorities over the years.
Racism is on the big escalator up and it won’t take long before something explodes (again).
A shame really.
I’m not speaking for my entire country I’m sure, but many of us use to look at Holland as a positive progressive and above all open-minded nation...
Those views died some time ago.
Meh, have you actually watched Dutch television lately ? Every day there seems to be a debate about immigration this, religion that, and whatnot. I think they might even beat the US when it comes to politcal correctness.
The 'progressive' Holland is a bit of an illusion, it only really exists in the cities as far as I've seen. They lacked a decent immigration policy as much as we did, we just handled things differently (don't tell we did a good job so far btw).
Tribesman
11-18-2006, 19:29
BAM! take that Islam, god i wish i was dutch
Errrrrrrrr....but if you became Dutch then you would be making yourself an inferior nationality wouldn't you . :juggle2:
King Ragnar
11-18-2006, 19:38
well if i was born dutch i would think that being british was inferior, if i was born french i would.....
Do you not understand the terms: nationalistic, patriotic, or are you just a tree hugging " i hate my country" person? Do you not take pride in being what ever nationality you are?
Kanamori
11-18-2006, 19:42
Second, clearly the intent of the proposed law is against a particular group. It may be worded to make it seem something else; but the statement by Verdonk makes it pretty clear that the law is targeted against a particular group.
The intentions could very well be directed a muslims, but if it is worded so that it is not discriminatory and if the discrimination is not enforced, then the intent won't matter. I doubt, though, that discrimination will not become a factor of enforcement. Such is the problem w/ enforcement in general where power over a person is granted by the state to another person.
First, as a frame, I disagree w/ the ban. If covering the face is only banned in photo I.D.'s, it would make no difference. For it to affect, the ban would have to cross over to publicly covering the face too.
I am wary of laws for 'public protection' that are not directly related to the actual harm, i.e. laws making enforcement easier. They define something as illegal that is not actually part of the harm that is trying to be controlled. This applies to the security issue. Can't a person be detained if there is doubt about their identity? Also, laws could be made that make the act of fabrication of identity more difficult, besides restricting how people may appear. These should be sought out rather than telling people they can't wear a beard, headscarf, burqa, etc. There is a fine line between protecting people by restricting freedom, and restricting it in a way that is unnecessary and often implemented out of unreasonable fear.
I am strongly against enforced culture. To me, it is the epitome of mob rule. One who acts differently and carries their own personal identity should not be threatened w/ punishment, in order to force traditional beliefs and to form an aesthetic that everyone else agrees w/. Integration be damned, a person should be free in their differences from the norm that cause no real harm to another person; it makes them happy to be who they chose, and no person should be denied that simply because of deviation.
Migration problems tend to grow and fester the moment they 'disappear' from the public eye. This applies particularly to the problems of migrant women because of their lower status in their countries of origin, which is often replicated in the new environment and makes them more vulnerable than the men. That is why this is highly relevant to the kind of society we want to be.
If this were granted, would banning headscarves, burqas, and beards fix the problem? If it would fix the problem, is it the best way to fix the problem?
I think the answers are, "no," and "no." In the assumed case that women from certain countries, alright I won't pansy-dance-around because islamic countries in the middle east, africa, and asia, are clearly meant, the problem is that in their culture, women are objects of abuse. Even if headscarves are correlated with the acceptance of abuse, I think that's what is meant as one of the reasons for the problem, that would not make integration into self-assuredness and rejection of abuse happen. Their acceptance of abuse, and willingness to abuse, are the problems, not burqas, headscarves, and beards. In truth, I cannot come up w/ a plausible argument saying that banning these things will change their culture in any way besides their outward appearance. The problem disappears from the public eye, and that is the only thing the law does do. Even if it did work, there are more direct ways of dealing w/ the problem that impose less restriction and denying happiness to those that are unrelated to domestic abuse, rather than appealing to people's stereotypes.
The shelters for abused women in The Netherlands for instance are overflowing with thousands of Muslim women who have been seriously abused and threatened. Survey after survey shows that they are just the tip of an iceberg. It is obvious that the immersion of Muslims in western cultures does not always bring out the best in them, but past attitudes of playing this issue down or pretending that is has nothing to do with religion have not helped one little bit.
Although it may be true that muslims are mostly responsible for domestic abuse in dutchland, I don't actually know if it is true, I sincerely doubt that most muslims are abusers. Then, the religion is not the cause. The actual issue of abuse should be dealt with, not the common symptoms displayed.
Kanamori
11-18-2006, 19:49
well if i was born dutch i would think that being british was inferior, if i was born french i would.....
Do you not understand the terms: nationalistic, patriotic, or are you just a tree hugging " i hate my country" person? Do you not take pride in being what ever nationality you are?
You seem to understand the implicit irrationality of nationalism... right is right, what your country does does not equate to rightness 'just because,' though people convince themselves of it. Thumping your chest about your country, completely ignoring anything it's done wrong, is stupid.
well if i was born dutch i would think that being british was inferior, if i was born french i would.....
Do you not understand the terms: nationalistic, patriotic, or are you just a tree hugging " i hate my country" person?
What’s the point honestly?
Just because you’re parents ***** there some time ago?
Do you not take pride in being what ever nationality you are?
Yep,European.
King Ragnar
11-18-2006, 20:15
hahahaha european, good one, it makes a big difference.
well if i was born dutch i would think that being british was inferior, if i was born french i would.....
Do you not understand the terms: nationalistic, patriotic, or are you just a tree hugging " i hate my country" person? Do you not take pride in being what ever nationality you are?
I actually think this is quite an interesting statement...
If a person was of British nationality, but a the child muslim immagrants, but fully British in their mannerisms etc. would they still be inferior?
Yep,European.
I feel a lot more patriotic towards britain than i do europe, infact i wouldn't really consider myself european at all (as such)
:2thumbsup:
Actually it does.
Every single (unnatural) border in Europe is drawn with blood.
If this could work, it means we humans are capable of something else then squabbling and fighting over trivial differences.
hahahaha european, good one, it makes a big difference.
Yes, European.
Eventually the sterling and all related to it will be no more. Better buy into it while you can or the joke's on you. The US won't be Europe's master forever, and when it's power over Europe falls, where will the UK go then ? When there is no greater power to serve whose power will the UK serve ? Whose power will the 52 (or 53rd ?) American state serve ? Germany ? France or... the EU ?
HAHA ! Now that's a good one. ROFLMFAO.
Just kidding, don't take it too personally but it's funny you gotta admit.
King Ragnar
11-18-2006, 20:44
If a person was of British nationality, but a the child muslim immagrants, but fully British in their mannerisms etc. would they still be inferior?
No as long as they are muslim they are not british.
LOL!
You are so lucky personal attacks are not permitted on this forum.
You'd be so toast, WTFPWNEDBBQ'ed my little racist friend. I would'nt even bother explaining thngs to you the way they are, you'd just get a very large dose of your own bitter medicine.
BTW as long as you're British, you're not European. (lol?)
Tribesman
11-18-2006, 20:51
I actually think this is quite an interesting statement...
If a person was of British nationality, but a the child muslim immagrants, but fully British in their mannerisms etc. would they still be inferior?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Did you miss it Scurvy ? that little gem has already been established , a muslim can never be British so must be inferior . Though I suppose if they rejected their parents religeon they could really be British . Unless of course their parents had some sort of unbritish skin pigmentation as that definately rules the kids britishness null and void .
Damn that integration can be hard when nonsensical barriers come into play .:yes:
Tribesman this is for you, one of my cousins is Muslim (I am not btw). he's Canadian, 19 years old. He's studying in Oxford, England. I met him in London 3 weeks ago. We were in Trafalgar Square, and he saw the Canadian embassy across the square. He just stood there looking at the Canadian flag with admiration and a sparkle of love in his eyes, in silence for about 2-3 minutes. I did not interrupt his moment, and remained silent. I did not ask any questions, but he said it himself "I don't love any country more than Canada." He wanted to walk into the embassy and we walked up to the door, and then he stood there again in silence under the flag, before entering.
He is very patriotic, and he is very Canadian, and he is very Muslim. I'm sure he would fight for Canada in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else, given the opportunity. And I strongly suspect he will join the Canadian Armed Forces for a few years to learn to defend what he loves.
I am of Asian descent but if it came to defending Europe, I would, and I will because I see threats to this nation primarily from within which need to be dealt with. I owe a lot to Europe where I found a home away from home. Where I found liberty, love and friendship and the freedom to live as I choose. And nobody is going to take that from me.
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 21:07
He's being sarcastic, Sinan.
Yeah I know, wanted to prove his point.
Mithrandir
11-18-2006, 21:44
Back to the original topic in a constructive way or a magic dancing lock will appear.
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 21:50
Wow, that was fast.
The person who killed Van Gogh, the person who killed the politician
The politician (Pim Fortuyn) wasn't killed by a muslim, but by a left wing/environmentalist extremist.
Aye but there is one problem with Fortuyn, the "hype" was so big that the Dutch (my stupid countrymen) choose him as Greatest Dutchman Ever, I mean come on gete alive, there are far more important things.
Politicians want us to believe that the Islam is dangerous, get alive
Actually I thought he was killed by a Muslim. See how freakin brainwashed I am ? So I learnt something new here.
No Muslims came after that, with Iraq and the attacks in Madrid and London and such ... blown out of proportion really, I mean are they more dangerous then the Christian Fundamentalists? I doubt it
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 22:57
No Muslims came after that, with Iraq and the attacks in Madrid and London and such ... blown out of proportion really, I mean are they more dangerous then the Christian Fundamentalists? I doubt it
If "they" is the part of the Dutch muslim community that is alienating themselves from our society and see no need to respect our laws, YES, they are more dangerous then whatever christian fundamentalists we have here.
I don't believe the problem is with Islam at large, though.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Did you miss it Scurvy ? that little gem has already been established , a muslim can never be British so must be inferior . Though I suppose if they rejected their parents religeon they could really be British . Unless of course their parents had some sort of unbritish skin pigmentation as that definately rules the kids britishness null and void .
Damn that integration can be hard when nonsensical barriers come into play .:yes:
:laugh4: :beam:
No as long as they are muslim they are not british.
Hmm, so what if a white, british male converted to islam, would that make him inferior?
there is a huge difference between racism and nationalism :2thumbsup:
Try cursing in Staphorst or Urk ~D
No people like Samir A. aren't dangerous, what can they do?
We Dutch don't need to be afraid of things like terrorists imo, why do you want to attack Holland? What is here?
The whole Muslims being evil things is blown out of proportion imo, when I see the American Christian Fundamentalists on tv I'm more scared. When I see Bush being fundamentalistic (Import, last weeks documentary on NL 2) I'm more scared.
We had some fundamentalistic channel on tv some time ago. They had a program in which some American thought he could "destroy" the evolution theory. I mean c'mon, there's proven the bible is wrong, accept that. One of his arguments for the evolution theory being wrong was that it was over 100 years old. How old is the bible m8?
Also he said the dating methods were wrong. He didn't study then, I did ... was quite funny to watch really, the amount of mistakes he made, and after that people believing him:bounce:
:laugh4: :beam:
Hmm, so what if a white, british male converted to islam, would that make him inferior?
there is a huge difference between racism and nationalism :2thumbsup:
I doubt very seriousily if he knows the difference given his comments
Aye but there is one problem with Fortuyn, the "hype" was so big that the Dutch (my stupid countrymen) choose him as Greatest Dutchman Ever, I mean come on gete alive, there are far more important things.
Seriously?
What about Karel Van Oranje?
No as long as they are muslim they are not british.
Ragnar,how old are you?
What about Karel Van Oranje?
who? some brother of William of Orange?
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 23:09
Try cursing in Staphorst or Urk ~D
No people like Samir A. aren't dangerous, what can they do?
We Dutch don't need to be afraid of things like terrorists imo, why do you want to attack Holland? What is here?
The whole Muslims being evil things is blown out of proportion imo, when I see the American Christian Fundamentalists on tv I'm more scared. When I see Bush being fundamentalistic (Import, last weeks documentary on NL 2) I'm more scared.
We had some fundamentalistic channel on tv some time ago. They had a program in which some American thought he could "destroy" the evolution theory. I mean c'mon, there's proven the bible is wrong, accept that. One of his arguments for the evolution theory being wrong was that it was over 100 years old. How old is the bible m8?
Also he said the dating methods were wrong. He didn't study then, I did ... was quite funny to watch really, the amount of mistakes he made, and after that people believing him:bounce:
If you think that islamic extremists are no threat, but are worried about what our "gereformeerden" might do to you, you have some...interesting world views :inquisitive:
The whole Muslims being evil things is blown out of proportion imo, when I see the American Christian Fundamentalists on tv I'm more scared. When I see Bush being fundamentalistic (Import, last weeks documentary on NL 2) I'm more scared.
We had some fundamentalistic channel on tv some time ago. They had a program in which some American thought he could "destroy" the evolution theory. I mean c'mon, there's proven the bible is wrong, accept that. One of his arguments for the evolution theory being wrong was that it was over 100 years old. How old is the bible m8?
Also he said the dating methods were wrong. He didn't study then, I did ... was quite funny to watch really, the amount of mistakes he made, and after that people believing him:bounce:
I think muslim extremists are more dangerous that christian extremists, there are more of them, they blow things up, and they do cause (more) visible harm,
it must be emphasized that it is muslim extremists, not muslims that are dangerous :2thumbsup:
I'm not afraid of the Reformed either, both pose no threat, but the Reformed are more active then the Muslims
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 23:22
AdrianII brought up "what kind of society we want to be". Again, I ask for some elaboration.To me, a nation is a political project. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have always thought about it that way since my father gave me the 1882 Sorbonne lecture Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? by Ernest Renan to read. There are English translations available on various websites. In Renans view, a nation was not constituted by a (supposed) common past, but by the commitment to a common future.
In my own view, commitment to a common Dutch future means commitment to a political project based, roughly speaking, on democracy, justice and freedom from want.
Americans will easily understand this principle. They are an immigrant nation united by a Constitution more than by anything else, including any traditions inherited from the countries of origin. Look at the requirements for U.S. citizenship:
Requirements include:
A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States
An ability to read, write and speak English
Good moral character
Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution
Favorable disposition toward the United States
Oath of AllegianceAll these requirements stress the commitment of the new citizen to the common project, as well as his/her ability to participate in it (language, minimum legal knowledge). You no like, you no welcome.
I believe we should take a leaf or two from the American book, maybe adapt them but retain the main thrust. Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the Dutch political project excludes religious practices that result in the discrimination of women. Period. You no like, you go pray somewhere else.
EDIT
Dear Sinan, I am sorry I didn't catch your post (above) about your Canadian friend and yourself earlier. My sincere compliments. That is exactly the spirit I mean.
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 23:22
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
That's probably because of our biased media, though :rolleyes:
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
Apart from Wilders I haven't heard of threats against politicians, or attack on nuclear power plants by muslims
. In Renans view, a nation was not constituted by a (supposed) common past, but by the commitment to a common future.
In my own view, commitment to a common Dutch future means commitment to a political project based, roughly speaking, on democracy, justice and freedom from want.
Surely a nation is constituted by a combination of the two? a common past brings people together, while a commitmnet to a common future binds them together... although i agree with the jist of it (i'v never heard of renan - but it sounds interesting to read)
I believe we should take a leaf or two from the American book, maybe adapt them but retain the main thrust. Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the Dutch political project excludes religious practices that result in the discrimination of women. Period. You no like, you go pray somewhere else.
In my opinion all religions discriminate. By creating a grouping as such a seperation is created between those of that religion and those who are not, if your going to have a plkitical projest, you can't have any religion at all... :2thumbsup:
Kralizec
11-18-2006, 23:32
Apart from Wilders I haven't heard of threats against politicians, or attack on nuclear power plants by muslims
Hirschi Ali.
And not just nuclear power plants.
Dear Sinan, I am sorry I didn't catch your post (above) about your Canadian friend and yourself earlier. My sincere compliments. That is exactly the spirit I mean.
That's my cousin actually.
And thanks.
Tribesman
11-19-2006, 01:59
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
That's probably because of our biased media, though
Well there are hundreds of examples this year alone of "Christians" sending death threats to politicians , the judiciary ,clergy ,entertainers , the police , pressure groups , scientists , college staff , medical staff ........
Then this month there was that other religeous group who following up on their death threats to shopkeepers , bus drivers , restauranteurs , schoolteachers ......this time decided it was the turn of politicians , the police , judiciary and gays .
In every branch together with the holy fruit you also find the religeous nuts .
Cataphract_Of_The_City
11-19-2006, 03:32
I guess the point is that immigrants are in their majority poor and therefore uneducated people. And uneducated people have a close connection with religion. And then you have those imams that preach all day about how the west will fall under the sword of allah and that muslims have to fight against the infidels. They preach these things in european land. They can preach these things because they are protected by the constitution of the state they live in and yet they attack it.
Banquo's Ghost
11-19-2006, 11:04
In every branch together with the holy fruit you also find the religeous nuts .
:laugh4:
Almost signature material. A quote from Luke (journeyman's notes, later revised from first draft) perhaps?
rory_20_uk
11-19-2006, 11:25
:focus:
I think that the law is fine.
As stated it is against most forms that cover the face, of any religion.
And also there are few that wear these wierd pieces of clothing, so why the uproar againt something that the majority of Muslims don't wear?
~:smoking:
Trying to get this on topic again ...
Banning burka's? Yes!
Why?
They are a symbol tool of oppression. Oppression of women and what's worse, it is a kind of oppression that is still going on in the world. Burkas symbolize an aspect of a (wrong) intepretaton of a Holy book like the Quran which allows women to be treated as inferior beings.
In our society, women are considered to be equal i.e. with the same rights as men. They are to be treated with the same amount of respect as men.
Banning the burka is banning a symbol that stands for an attitude that doesn't cope with the standards of our society.
Those yelling that it's a deprivement of our freedoms are wrong. The burka itself deprives women of the freedoms which they have as being part of our communities.
On a side note, one should always remember that there wouldn't be any "freedoms" for anybody without a certain amount of rules and standards to obey.
Andres is right, and if you don't agree, talk to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or watch one of her films
Trying to get this on topic again ...
Banning burka's? Yes!
Why?
They are a symbol tool of oppression. Oppression of women and what's worse, it is a kind of oppression that is still going on in the world. Burkas symbolize an aspect of a (wrong) intepretaton of a Holy book like the Quran which allows women to be treated as inferior beings.
In our society, women are considered to be equal i.e. with the same rights as men. They are to be treated with the same amount of respect as men.
Banning the burka is banning a symbol that stands for an attitude that doesn't cope with the standards of our society.
Those yelling that it's a deprivement of our freedoms are wrong. The burka itself deprives women of the freedoms which they have as being part of our communities.
On a side note, one should always remember that there wouldn't be any "freedoms" for anybody without a certain amount of rules and standards to obey.
You raise some interesting points, Andres. However, banning burkas to free women from oppression seems to me to be curing the symptoms rather than dealing with the disease itself. The end result of such solutions is that people feel like they've done something when they really haven't done anything substantive at all; so they wash their hands of the issue and ignore the continued underlying causes of the symptoms they think they cured.
You raise some interesting points, Andres. However, banning burkas to free women from oppression seems to me to be curing the symptoms rather than dealing with the disease itself. The end result of such solutions is that people feel like they've done something when they really haven't done anything substantive at all; so they wash their hands of the issue and ignore the continued underlying causes of the symptoms they think they cured.
True. Banning the burka won't solve the problem of the oppression of women within a certain part (an that's a larger part then we like to admit, I'm afraid) of the Muslim community living nowadays in our western societies.
It would be however a strong signal stating that oppressing women is not allowed and not conform with our standards (yes, we have alot of freedoms in our society, but the right to oppress your wife is not one of them).
Off course, it will not be thé solution. Solving the problem as a whole, will be a more complicated matter which will involve a well thought integration policy.
There are no simple solutions for all the problems that come with migration and integration.
So the ban of the burka will certainly not be the solution, but it can be seen as (an important) part of the solution.
It won't cure the disease, but taking away the nasty and harmfull symptoms of the disease will be at least a partial relief for the women involved. They will feel supported by the society where they live in and by it's government.
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 16:12
:thumbsdown:
They will feel supported by the society where they live in and by it's government.I like your approach because it shows concern with the most likely victims of Muslim oppression in Dutch society. We have let female migrants down in a terrible way.
And it is not just the women we have let down, but also quite a few Muslim men who want to abandon the faith and lead their own llives, free from religous and social pressures from their so-called brethren, often subsidised leaders of the neighbourhood Allah-watch.
There are more than a few refugees from Muslim countries who escaped violence and oppression and who want to have nothing to do anymore with the whole Allah thingy. Instead of supporting these people and waging a much-needed campaign amongst Dutch Muslims clerics and school teachers warning them leave 'renegade Muslims' alone, we subsidise 'Islamic culture' in Amsterdam with another 400.000 euro.
The subsidy goes toward the erection of a 'House of Dialogue with Islam', ran by a foundation called Marhaba (Ar. for ''Welcome'). According to the Amsterdam mayor, the House is supposed to be a secular instutute, yet it should give 'a central role to Islam' in order to make Muslims feel 'more at home in The Netherlands'.
Marhaba's stated mission is to 'liberate Amsterdam Muslims from Islam's traditional, submissive, passive and docile attitude toward Western modernity' and establish a 'European Muslim identity'.
Never mind that this is interference of the state in matters of religious doctrine. Never mind that this is another step in the creeping re-islamisation of the one million migrants from Muslim countries, many of whom are not practicing Muslms at all and couldn't care less for all the nonsense propagated in their name by so-called Muslim leaders.
Echhh... :thumbsdown:
So, you're in favor of the law because it's some sort of forced secularization?
Mithrandir
11-20-2006, 22:17
Banning burqa's by the state would be oppression for the woman who want to wear them.
I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.
Banning burqa's by the state would be oppression for the woman who want to wear them.
I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.
Interesting point actually there. I think I agree.
Although religion can be even harder to scrape off than government, and you can't vote to get rid of it. Particularly not when it's "the word of god" and isn't open to reinterpretation (despite already presumably having been interpreted once... so why not again).
Banning burqa's by the state would be oppression for the woman who want to wear them.
Do you truly believe women are wearing burka's voluntarily?
Even if the women in the Netherlands wear them out of their free will, you cannot deny that they are not worn out of free will by women in e.g. Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Imho it is a symbol of oppression. Oppression of women.
Just as Muhammed cartoons provoke the Muslim community, just as the strechting of the right arm while shouting "Sieg Heil" provokes the Jews (and everybody else with some common sense), the burka provokes our standard of equality of the sexes and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 22:54
Banning burqa's by the state would be oppression for the woman who want to wear them.
I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.Sure. And banning nudity is oppression of the people who want to be naked? :dozey:
Look, personally I don't think the garment should be banned, although as a symbol of oppression and forced social isolation I find it about as offensive as yellow stars for Jews. All regimes and movements in the world that enforce it have horrible human rights records, particularly where women are concerned. Those who want to keep their eyes wide shut about this issue can go ahead at their own peril. They will only be convinced (if ever) by facts and personal experiences anyway, not by posts in an Internet forum. The garment as such will have to wear off, figuratively and literally. I don't want Dutch police to arrest Muslim women and drag them off into vans on account of a dress. The downside of that would outweigh the benefits.
The proposed law, however, bans only the facial covering for security reasons and that is fine by me. Muslim women can retain the rest of the rag if they want. For all I care they can call it the burk. Or the urka.
:coffeenews:
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 22:59
(..) the burka provokes our standard of equality of the sexes and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.But civilization or modernity aren't ours, AndresTheCunning, and never have been. The garment is disrespectful of womens' rights and dignity anywhere in the world. There is probably more (hidden) opposition to it in, say, Afghanistan, than in all of Europe. And for a reason.
The garment is disrespectful of womens' rights and dignity anywhere in the world.
Thanks for correcting me :bow:
I wonder, are those women naked under their burka's :eyebrows:
Kralizec
11-20-2006, 23:18
http://www.rapstation.com/images/itr_ftw_lil_kim_one_world_200301f.jpg
Mithrandir
11-21-2006, 00:02
Do you truly believe women are wearing burka's voluntarily?
I accept the fact that I cannot fathom every aspect of every culture other than my own. Yes, I d believe people wear them voluntarily as well. Especially in a countrly like the Netherlands where social services are good and there are enough shelters (makes it easier for woman not to wear the clothing).
Even if the women in the Netherlands wear them out of their free will, you cannot deny that they are not worn out of free will by women in e.g. Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Imho it is a symbol of oppression. Oppression of women.
This thread is not about woman in Afghanistan, it's about Dutch woman.
There's a whole different cultural background you'll have to take into account here.
and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.
Why is it offensive ? A swastika can be offensive since it stands for pure hatred towards a group of people and reminds people of the holocaust...how does a burqa have that effect ?
Kralizec
11-21-2006, 00:06
I wonder how they'd react if I told them I have a burqa fetish?
I just love governments who tell people how to dress.
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 00:14
I wonder, are those women naked under their burka's :eyebrows: There is only one way to find out. :wink3:
It’s kind of like the Scottish kilt.
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 00:32
It’s kind of like the Scottish kilt.
You mean underneath?... :stunned:
Goofball
11-21-2006, 01:10
Trying to get this on topic again ...
Banning burka's? Yes!
Why?
They are a symbol tool of oppression. Oppression of women and what's worse, it is a kind of oppression that is still going on in the world. Burkas symbolize an aspect of a (wrong) intepretaton of a Holy book like the Quran which allows women to be treated as inferior beings.
In our society, women are considered to be equal i.e. with the same rights as men. They are to be treated with the same amount of respect as men.
Many would argue that push-up bras and high heels are also symbols/tools of the oppression of women. Should we ban them too? (I fervently hope the answer is "no")
Soulforged
11-21-2006, 03:32
I'm shocked!!!... What happened to that Adrian II who almost fought tongue to tongue against Redleg when the issue of Freedom of Press arose in Europe. The Adrian II who won't change his sharp arguements against abridging or previous censorship even when a part of Europe was of fire?
...The Constitution of the Netherlands says:
Art. 6 (Religion and Belief)
(1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
(2) Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.
The freedom to express is separated on another article. Here it talks about "manifesting" religion as a different thing.
As Aenlic has correctly pointed out that a religious custom is not in the correspondent religious holy book is not an arguement against said use or custom. So we can safely place burquas as an use or custom from Islam.
So it's actually to manifest religion, to use a burqua, even if it's not what you wanted to manifest.
On the second point, and as wise constitution, it establishes the reserve or exception of this right of the people, when the safety of said people is at stakes. So what has to be established is if there's a concrete sensible and inmidiate danger of "disorders" to the public in this days in an specific territory: the Netherlands. Adrian II says that there's a sensible danger ("battered womans"), now is this danger concrete and inmediate, or is it more spread and mediat, more abstract. This kind of reserves are only made for when there's a danger with those three characteristics in space and time, wich can affect a concrete society as a whole because it endangers stability.
Now... How does using burquas today does that? I don't know, perhaps some dutch can tell me...
EDIT
To me, a nation is a political project. Nothing more, nothing less.Excuse me for being clichè Adrian, but you do realize that that's one of the principles of mussolinian fascism, don't you? You're aware of what that implies. Subordinating an espontaneous community of individuals, natural of course, to politics, to the State?
I'll quote a fragment of a discourse from Mussolini wich is after the years 1929-30 in Italy: "It's not the Nation who has created the state, like in the old naturalist conception that served as a base for the publicists studies of the XIX century's States. It's the nation who's created by the State, wich gives the people, aware of his own moral unity, one will and, by consequence, one efective existence." Love and integration through unity. At all cost, as an statal purpose. I know that you're not saying this at all cost. But do you hold the same principle?
“I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.” The Inquisition torturer are better than the Gestapo’s and KGB?:whip:
What's up with this, my Dutch friends?
quite simple mia muca, elections :beam: Dirt! Torturing dutch soldiers shameless hoaxes, independent statechannels, it's beautifull!
Prince of the Poodles
11-21-2006, 11:21
If this sends a message to muslims that they cannot expect to be accepted by society if they do not accept social norms, then I support it.
Also, hopefully it might prevent them from concealing terrorists identities.
CrossLOPER
11-21-2006, 11:38
If this sends a message to muslims that they cannot expect to be accepted by society if they do not accept social norms, then I support it.
Also, hopefully it might prevent them from concealing terrorists identities.
I heard there are some Islamic terrorists hiding under your bed. (confirm/deny)
Prince of the Poodles
11-21-2006, 11:45
edit Mithrandir: no insults allowed.
If this sends a message to muslims that they cannot expect to be accepted by society if they do not accept social norms, then I support it.
Also, hopefully it might prevent them from concealing terrorists identities.
Kind of handy if the radicals are easy to identify, couldn't care less, whatever will be will be. As long as they don't expect any love/$$$ if they can't get a job because they like walking around in their tents. Give trouble and be dealt with, and don't come begging here for food when you are hungry, eat your cloth instead.
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 12:22
I'm shocked!!!...No, you're confused. ~:)
The proposed law has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has to do with a religious requirement (covering the face) that is incompatible with public security and with public order in the wider sense. There have been many examples of religious requirements and minority practices in Dutch society being repressed in the interest of public order as well as security, from unhygienic slaughering practices and all-day 'miracle' processions right down to the use of certain Chinese fireworks.
N.B. In the latter case, Dutchmen are really missing out on some fun. If you have ever seen a real Chinese fireworks you wil know what I mean! They are massive, utterly disorderly, incredibly noisy, and thoroughly 'un-Dutch'...
I love it! ~D
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'. This responsibility is stipulated in additional laws and rulings with regard to public order and safety. The proposed law would be one of those.
As for Mussolini... Alright, I will not be offended. I will point out to you that I mentioned Ernest Renan and United States naturalization law as some of my sources of inspiration. Mussolini may have borrowed the concept and given it his own twist, but that does not make it inherently fascist. Mussolini also drank coffee. Does that make coffee the fascist beverage par excellence? I think not.
It is Mussolini's ideal of the state as an ethnically homogenous nation animated by 'one will and one leader' that is essentially fascist.
Incongruous
11-21-2006, 12:40
How increadibly unjust and democratic.
What a pathetic law.
What more can one say. We trumpet this great thing called feedom of ecpression and such forth, yet it's just alot of farting really isn't it?
How is this meant to improve the country?
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'.
hmm that sound potentially dangerous to me.
There is something to say for the security argument, in Belgium for example there have been robbery's by men wearing burka's, it's not good to have your face covered in public. It's not going to improve anything because it doesn't change anything, those that believe that this will help wear pink burka's themselves. They don't like us, and they don't have to, I prefer it that way.
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 13:06
How increadibly unjust and democratic.
What a pathetic law.
What more can one say.One could provide some sound arguments instead of a series of adjectives. :balloon2:
Mithrandir
11-21-2006, 17:49
This thread is going downhill again.
No personal attacks allowed. Play the ball, not the man.
CrossLOPER
11-21-2006, 19:39
Banning a piece of cloth that is meant to cover a woman's face will not solve any problems. All that it is going to do exactly what it is supposed to do initially. I agree totally that for terms of identification, the women should show their faces just to make sure their is a positive match.
I fail to understand why some people cannot believe that a woman would wear a burka(burqa?) out of her own will. In Russian Orthodox Christianity, it is expected for women to cover everything just short of her entire face. Centuries earlier, it was expected that they cover their entire face. Women do not seem mind and in most cases go with what is expected. However, to be fair, I should say that some of those women limit those practices to days of worship and days of observance. I do not believe they think much of it.
Banquo's Ghost
11-21-2006, 19:49
I fail to understand why some people cannot believe that a woman would wear a burka(burqa?) out of her own will. In Russian Orthodox Christianity, it is expected for women to cover everything just short of her entire face. Centuries earlier, it was expected that they cover their entire face. Women do not seem mind and in most cases go with what is expected. However, to be fair, I should say that some of those women limit those practices to days of worship and days of observance. I do not believe they think much of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of modern feminism, is it?
And now that Russian women have the choice (free from cultural or religious dogmas) just how many of them choose to cover up like a nun? Especially under the age of sixty?
If a religion compels men as well as women to dress to cover everything but their eyes, you may have a point. Until we find one that does, we can assume the purpose is to control women.
CrossLOPER
11-21-2006, 20:37
The Russian Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of modern feminism, is it?
Religion is not always too flexible, no.
And now that Russian women have the choice (free from cultural or religious dogmas) just how many of them choose to cover up like a nun? Especially under the age of sixty?
My point is that I would not mind that state law make the wearing of the Burka optional, not ban it altogether. Sixty is going a bit far. The women who are religious tend to wear the "modesty set" after marriage. I think that you are trying to prove that it is not as extreme or not extreme at all. The origins of these expectations are clear, however.
If a religion compels men as well as women to dress to cover everything but their eyes, you may have a point. Until we find one that does, we can assume the purpose is to control women.
I still do not believe that the Burka should be banned altogether. If you see that the symbolism of sexist oppression is present, the meaning should be removed, not the loose symbol.
Banquo's Ghost
11-21-2006, 21:24
I still do not believe that the Burka should be banned altogether. If you see that the symbolism of sexist oppression is present, the meaning should be removed, not the loose symbol.
There we agree. Nonetheless, symbols are very important, especially if they have the power to make the oppressed faceless.
However, the original topic - as I understand AdrianII's interpretation of the law, is concerned with security issues.
If I have to remove my motorcycle helmet before going into a bank (in order that the CCTV can identify me should I be there for nefarious purpose) I can't see why the same requirement shouldn't be applied to burka wearers.
In the street, subject to the unlikely condition that they wear the burka of free will, women can wear almost what they want. There's plenty of teenagers hide their faces under hoodies and muppet hats these days.
Mithrandir
11-21-2006, 21:34
I agree with the above, no exceptions for the sake of religion.
So no exception in the sense that they should be allowed to keep their face covered in certain situations, but also no exception in that people are forbidden to wear certain clothing (as long as it's not plainly offensive).
I also think businesses should have the right to refuse employees who wear burqa's.
Shocking ain't it ~:).
I accept the fact that I cannot fathom every aspect of every culture other than my own. Yes, I d believe people wear them voluntarily as well. Especially in a countrly like the Netherlands where social services are good and there are enough shelters (makes it easier for woman not to wear the clothing).
Well, I don't believe all women in the Netherlands wear them voluntarily. There are social services and shelters so it's easy to run away from your oppressing husband? Running away implicates also running away from your family, friends, the community you live in. It's not as easy as it might sound.
This thread is not about woman in Afghanistan, it's about Dutch woman. There's a whole different cultural background you'll have to take into account here.
I now it's not about women in Afghanistan. I mentionned women in Afghanistan, to make my point clear that the burka has become a symbol of oppression. Afghanistan is the beste example of a country where women are oppressed and forced to wear a burka.
Why is it offensive ? A swastika can be offensive since it stands for pure hatred towards a group of people and reminds people of the holocaust...how does a burqa have that effect ?
I hate to repeat myself, so I'll just quote myself :
Just as Muhammed cartoons provoke the Muslim community, just as the strechting of the right arm while shouting "Sieg Heil" provokes the Jews (and everybody else with some common sense), the burka provokes our standard of equality of the sexes and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies disrespectful of womens' rights and dignity anywhere in the world (corrected by Adrian II :bow:)
To make my answer clear: the burka reminds people of the oppression and cruelties committed against women under the Taliban regime. It stands for disrespect of women, the denial of their equal status, considering them as inferior beings. One cannot deny that what the burka stands for (at least in my humble opinion), is very offensive, like Nazi-symbols (damn, despite the precautions I ended up repeating myself). So it has similar effects as the swastika.
Just my humble opinion.
Soulforged
11-22-2006, 04:30
No, you're confused. ~:) Yes...that too:beam: .
The proposed law has nothing to do with freedom of expression.That's objectable.
It has to do with a religious requirement (covering the face) that is incompatible with public security and with public order in the wider sense.That's even more objectable. But not knowing the law of the Netherlands it's pretty hard for me to guess what would be legal in there. However, I repeat, that kind of reserves are established like an exception for when exercising determined right could mean a serious and concrete danger for the general public (this may include certain groups like "muslims")
There have been many examples of religious requirements and minority practices in Dutch society being repressed in the interest of public order as well as security, from unhygienic slaughering practices and all-day 'miracle' processions right down to the use of certain Chinese fireworks. I've much to learn about Europe I guess...:book:
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'. This responsibility is stipulated in additional laws and rulings with regard to public order and safety. The proposed law would be one of those.Yes. And the reserve for manifestation of religion is made directly on the Constitution. However you said that this had nothing to do with freedom of expression. So is the proposed law "one of those" or no?
As for Mussolini... Alright, I will not be offended. I will point out to you that I mentioned Ernest Renan and United States naturalization law as some of my sources of inspiration. Mussolini may have borrowed the concept and given it his own twist, but that does not make it inherently fascist. Mussolini also drank coffee. Does that make coffee the fascist beverage par excellence? I think not.You might be right. But the concept of Mussolini is original of fascism. The totalitarian States and regimes that existed before fascist Italy, when ubicated under the nationality flag, tried to conserve the nation (custum, uses, traditions, etc) more than create a nation. However I say that you might be right because perhaps Mussolini drank a very dark coffee, while you propose coffee with milk or a capuccino.
It is Mussolini's ideal of the state as an ethnically homogenous nation animated by 'one will and one leader' that is essentially fascist.That and the principle (and aphorism): "All inside the State, nothing outside the State".
http://www.rapstation.com/images/itr_ftw_lil_kim_one_world_200301f.jpg
WOW !
I was gonna tell you guys... sometimes there's a lot to be found under all that cloth.
OTOH that image should be banned because it makes fun of a religious garment. Imagine you did that with a Jewish skull cap or something. ROFL that would not pass into law, I assure you
NICE PIC ! HOT ! HOT !...linkage ? is that an online mag ?
Adrian II
11-22-2006, 07:44
However I say that you might be right because perhaps Mussolini drank a very dark coffee, while you propose coffee with milk or a capuccino.Whatever.
:coffeenews:
Meneldil
11-22-2006, 22:44
I really can't see what is causing all the fuss here.
One the first hand, we have people who usualy keep claiming Europe will turn into Eurabia in the next decade whining because Netherlands ban Burquas (see the irony here), and on the other hand, we have "liberals" who whine because they think banning Burqua is a serious offense to freedom.
So hum, well, like
- If a few people start wearing burquas now, I'm pretty sure that half the muslim women would wear it in 10 years. That way, sure we could call Europe "Eurabia". Ever heard of the veil ? In the 70's no one used to wear veil in France (bar first generation migrants). Now, most muslim women have a veil, either because they've been brainwashed to death, or because their family force them to.
- Forcing a woman to wear a burqua is just the simplest way to limit her freedom. Remember those nice guys called Talibans ? Before crying against that "fascist" law, just think a bit and try to understand what is the very meaning of such garments...
Furthermore, if you want people to treat you as a dutch/french, you have to at least try to live as a dutch/french. I don't want french muslim to eat frogs or anything like that, but crap like burquas is just too much. Being a citizen of a liberal democratic nation implies rights and duties. Living actually in that nation and not as some kind of alien is one of these duties.
What the heck, if my religion forced me to walk in the street naked or whiping myself to blood, people would consider it undecent. What's the difference ?
I don't think it even matters if the want to wear it or not. Even if they don't, it shouldn't be allowed. Not because I have anything against Islam or other cultures, far from it as I'm actually interested in other cultures/religions/.... Now you have to ask the question, why do they want to wear it. Because they don't know any better, because they find it normal and because they think their religion says so. Someone who heard all his life that if he doesn't wear something, will face eternal damnation, and believes this will wear it. However their religion doesn't say anything about burkas. You know you could compare it with cutting a lil' boys penis of. Not just the skin but the whole thing. Put it in an enviroment where it's done with every child. The child will find it normal, give them some tales about it from youth and it will be glad he got rid of it. But now if I'd tell you those tales and I'd suggest to chop it of for you. I don't think you'd say yes, now would you?
However about a woman not showing her hair is something different. I'm not sure if it's in the Koran, but I'm quite sure it's in a hadieth. Also this is something we find in Christianity (remember nuns?) and also with the Jews, Shassidic (? how the hell is tha word in English?) Women shave their hair after marriage. They do wear a wig however. Most religion has something with hair. Remember monks with a bold spot? Or the Buddhist monks? Or perhaps those Hindoïsts who have long ponytails so that Shiva can save them. Well I don't know about you but I don't mind this.
However A burka isn't the same thing. A burka is the invention of wacko men to keep women from emancipation. An invention for them to keep the power and to abuse them. Women who wear such prisons don't even dare to do anything whatever happens. In Afghanistan a lot of people find it normal to shoot/hurt/... women from the family if the have "brought shame" over the famoly. Surely you don't want to make it legal to throw Acid on woman's face if she was a "disgrace" of the family. You may say that's a completly different thing. Well that may be true, but it is also true that the burka is one of the tools to make sure it remains this way. It's a prison, it's a tool for repression.
Damn it. It's nothing that comes form a god, or a prophet. IF it does come from something religious it'd be a demon.
Burkas ban them for the women's sake, not because it's unpracticle, or for safety reasons, no for the women's sake.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.