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.

Reply

True. Banning the burka won't solve the problem of the oppression of women within a certain part (an that's a larger part then we like to admit, I'm afraid) of the Muslim community living nowadays in our western societies.

It would be however a strong signal stating that oppressing women is not allowed and not conform with our standards (yes, we have alot of freedoms in our society, but the right to oppress your wife is not one of them).

Off course, it will not be thé solution. Solving the problem as a whole, will be a more complicated matter which will involve a well thought integration policy.

There are no simple solutions for all the problems that come with migration and integration.

So the ban of the burka will certainly not be the solution, but it can be seen as (an important) part of the solution.

It won't cure the disease, but taking away the nasty and harmfull symptoms of the disease will be at least a partial relief for the women involved. They will feel supported by the society where they live in and by it's government.

Reply

I like your approach because it shows concern with the most likely victims of Muslim oppression in Dutch society. We have let female migrants down in a terrible way.

And it is not just the women we have let down, but also quite a few Muslim men who want to abandon the faith and lead their own llives, free from religous and social pressures from their so-called brethren, often subsidised leaders of the neighbourhood Allah-watch.

There are more than a few refugees from Muslim countries who escaped violence and oppression and who want to have nothing to do anymore with the whole Allah thingy. Instead of supporting these people and waging a much-needed campaign amongst Dutch Muslims clerics and school teachers warning them leave 'renegade Muslims' alone, we subsidise 'Islamic culture' in Amsterdam with another 400.000 euro.

The subsidy goes toward the erection of a 'House of Dialogue with Islam', ran by a foundation called Marhaba (Ar. for ''Welcome'). According to the Amsterdam mayor, the House is supposed to be a secular instutute, yet it should give 'a central role to Islam' in order to make Muslims feel 'more at home in The Netherlands'.

Marhaba's stated mission is to 'liberate Amsterdam Muslims from Islam's traditional, submissive, passive and docile attitude toward Western modernity' and establish a 'European Muslim identity'.

Never mind that this is interference of the state in matters of religious doctrine. Never mind that this is another step in the creeping re-islamisation of the one million migrants from Muslim countries, many of whom are not practicing Muslms at all and couldn't care less for all the nonsense propagated in their name by so-called Muslim leaders.

Echhh...

Reply

So, you're in favor of the law because it's some sort of forced secularization?

Reply

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.

Reply

Interesting point actually there. I think I agree.

Although religion can be even harder to scrape off than government, and you can't vote to get rid of it. Particularly not when it's "the word of god" and isn't open to reinterpretation (despite already presumably having been interpreted once... so why not again).

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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).

This thread is not about woman in Afghanistan, it's about Dutch woman.
There's a whole different cultural background you'll have to take into account here.

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 ?

Reply

Sure. And banning nudity is oppression of the people who want to be naked?

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.

Reply