Netherlands law proposed to ban wearing burkas in public?

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.

Quote:

---

"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?

It's about time the dutch pass such a law.

Quote:

---

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.

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.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

No, the burka isn't a religious thing

---

Yes, where in the Koran does it say that women must wear burkas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

From article:

Quote:

---

"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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

I'm inclined to support this measure, for reasons already stated.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes, I'm lazy. And it's getting late here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

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

I didn't say disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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...

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...

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?)

Quote:

---

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.

He's being sarcastic, Sinan.

Yeah I know, wanted to prove his point.

Back to the original topic in a constructive way or a magic dancing lock will appear.

Wow, that was fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragnar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

: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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

No as long as they are muslim they are not british.

---

Ragnar,how old are you?

Quote:

---

What about Karel Van Oranje?

---

who? some brother of William of Orange?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

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: