Netherlands law proposed to ban wearing burkas in public?

[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, 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?

[Meneldil]

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

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.

[yesdachi]

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.

[Moros]

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.?

[Adrian II]

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.

From an integration standpoint, how does a burka prevent one from communicating freely?

Vou aw vwoking, mo?

[Scurvy]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[JimBob]

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

[Stig]

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

[GoreBag]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, the burka isn't a religious thing

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

[Adrian II]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

From article:

"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? Is it even neccessary?

[doc_bean]

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.

[Mithrandir]

From article:



30 people? Is it even neccessary?

Yes, the economy is picking up, so they have more time and money to waste on tiny issues.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Adrian II]

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.

[Mithrandir]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Adrian II]

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

[Mithrandir]

I didn't say disappear.

[Dutch_guy]

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).

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[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
A stupid proposal for a law and unworkable .

[Reenk Roink]

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?

They don't compare...

[Crazed Rabbit]

How on earth are you equating or even mentioning together burqas, headscarves, and refusal of handshakes with violence against artists and gays?

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?

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.

CR

[Adrian II]

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
A stupid proposal for a law and unworkable .

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.