Netherlands law proposed to ban wearing burkas in public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I do believe they have one common factor.

---

Excellent argument. Hitler and every male member of the Org share one common factor. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So since you take the issue to be intergration into Dutch culture

---

Integration 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

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:

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

What's up with this, my Dutch friends?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe....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.

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.

BAM! take that Islam, god i wish i was dutch sounds like they are doing everthing i want the British Government to do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

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).

Quote:

---

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:

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Do you not take pride in being what ever nationality you are?

---

Yep,European.

hahahaha european, good one, it makes a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

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?

Quote:

---

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.