Printable View
: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 asymboltool 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
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.
:thumbsdown: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
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.
Sure. And banning nudity is oppression of the people who want to be naked? :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
Thanks for correcting me :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
This thread is not about woman in Afghanistan, it's about Dutch woman.Quote:
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.
There's a whole different cultural background you'll have to take into account here.
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 ?Quote:
and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It’s kind of like the Scottish kilt.
You mean underneath?... :stunned:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
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")Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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:
quite simple mia muca, elections :beam: Dirt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Torturing dutch soldiersshameless hoaxes, independent statechannels, it's beautifull!
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
edit Mithrandir: no insults allowed.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
No, you're confused. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
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?
hmm that sound potentially dangerous to me.Quote:
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'.