Printable View
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.
One could provide some sound arguments instead of a series of adjectives. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
This thread is going downhill again.
No personal attacks allowed. Play the ball, not the man.
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.
The Russian Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of modern feminism, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
Religion is not always too flexible, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
There we agree. Nonetheless, symbols are very important, especially if they have the power to make the oppressed faceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
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 ~:).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I hate to repeat myself, so I'll just quote myself :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself
Just my humble opinion.
Yes...that too:beam: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
That's objectable.Quote:
The proposed law has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
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")Quote:
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.
I've much to learn about Europe I guess...:book:Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
That and the principle (and aphorism): "All inside the State, nothing outside the State".Quote:
It is Mussolini's ideal of the state as an ethnically homogenous nation animated by 'one will and one leader' that is essentially fascist.
WOW !Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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 ?
Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
:coffeenews:
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.