Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

No wonder they didn't mind...Follow

#1 Nov 17 2006 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
...letting her wear her veil!
Quote:
Dutch government seeks to ban full-length veils
THE HAGUE, Netherlands
The Dutch government announced plans Friday for legislation banning full-length veils in public places and other clothing that covers the face — putting the Netherlands at the forefront of a general European hardening toward Muslim minorities.

The Netherlands, once considered one of Europe’s most welcoming nations for immigrants and asylum seekers, is deeply divided over moves by the government to stem the tide of new arrivals and compel immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society.

“The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing — including the burqa — is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens,” Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said.

Basing the order on security concerns apparently was intended to respond to warnings that outlawing clothing like the all-enveloping burqa, worn by some Muslim women, could violate the constitutional guarantee against religious discrimination.

The main Dutch Muslim organization CMO has been critical of any possible ban. The idea was “an overreaction to a very marginal problem” because hardly any Dutch women wear burqas anyway, said Ayhan Tonca of the CMO. “It’s just ridiculous.”

Parliament vote uncertain
In the past, a majority of the Dutch parliament has said it would approve a ban on burqas, but opinion polls ahead of national elections Nov. 22 suggest a shift away from that position, and it is unclear if a majority in the new parliament would still back the government-proposed ban.

The issue has resonance throughout Europe. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently caused a stir by saying he wants Muslim women to abandon the full-face veil — a view endorsed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. In France, the center-right’s leading presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has increasingly been adopting some of the rhetoric of the extreme-right.

In Holland, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.

Slaying triggered Dutch debate
The issue was given added urgency with the 2004 slaying of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fanatic and the failed attempt to expel a Somali-born critic of Islam of her Dutch citizenship.

About 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, about 6 percent of the population of 16 million, but only a few hundred are believed to regularly wear a burqa.

After France banned the wearing of head scarves in public schools, the Dutch government decided to leave that question up to individual schools. Most allow head scarves.

The city of Utrecht has cut some welfare benefits to unemployed women who insist on wearing burqas to job interviews. The city claimed the women were using the burqa to avoid working, since they knew they would not be hired.

Wow...

Maybe those rioters were somewhat justified. There are almost too many examples of institutionalized prejudice in there to count.

Edited, Nov 17th 2006 at 11:45am PST by Atomicflea

Edited, Nov 17th 2006 at 11:48am PST by Atomicflea
#2 Nov 17 2006 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
ANY clothing that covers the face? Ski masks in sub-freezing weather?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Nov 17 2006 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
to play Devil's advocate, why shouldn't a country have the right to discriminate? It's THEIR country.


I'm sure if I went to a Muslim country and started expressing my spiritual beliefs that they wouldn't take it too kindly.
How many neighborhoods in those countries so you think you'd be able to walk through wearing Chuck Taylors and a Beatles tee-shirt without getting beat down?

Why the hell did they move to Holland anyway if they want to keep everyting the same?
Don't get upset wehn your culture clashes with the culture of the country that you chose to call home.

Esp. wehn your home culture doesn't respect any others.



____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Nov 17 2006 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I'm not sure if it would pass or not, but it seems idiotically simplistic to link a piece of clothing to a certian violent act or tendency, á la trenchcoat/Columbine.
#5 Nov 17 2006 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
to play Devil's advocate, why shouldn't a country have the right to discriminate? It's THEIR country.
Well for one, as mentioned in the article, they have a constitutional ban against religious discrimination.
#6 Nov 17 2006 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:

I'm sure if I went to a Muslim country and started expressing my spiritual beliefs that they wouldn't take it too kindly.

How many neighborhoods in those countries so you think you'd be able to walk through wearing Chuck Taylors and a Beatles tee-shirt without getting beat down?




I'm sure there is some name to this type of argument, it's such a false and over used one at any rate (Yes, I know you were playing Devil's advocate). We are supposed to base what we do on our own cultures mores not what someone else's does. If some other culture executed you if you looked another person in the eye should we start doing it? Western Culture, among other things, is supposed to be about acceptance and understanding, I.E. no discrimination, yet as soon as that clashes with another cultures lack of acceptance and understanding there are jackasses jumping up and screaming "He did it, now we can!" Thats not how it works.
#7 Nov 17 2006 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
The Glorious GitSlayer wrote:
I'm sure there is some name to this type of argument,
Equivocation?
#8 Nov 17 2006 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Well for one, as mentioned in the article, they have a constitutional ban against religious discrimination.



Just because the "perceived targets" of this find religios significance in the veils doesn't mean that the law is nessesarily deiscriminating against religions.
It's just discriminsting against veils.
If Muslims choose to see it as an attack on their religion, then that is their own issues that they need to work out.

Our country doesn't allow Rastafarians to smoke pot, not does it allow voodoo people to torture animals, or pagans to perform human sacrifice.
These laws are not to discriminate againt the religion, but to deal with all other NON-religious implications of them.

Just like gay marriage, just like abortion.
Most arguments about these involve some kind of religious standpointl, wehn the fact of the matter is that religious SHOULD have NOTHING to do with it.
People just throw the religion blanket around it so that they can play the victim and have more ammunition for their arguments against it, regarless or not that religion should have no bearing on laws.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#9 Nov 17 2006 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Just because the "perceived targets" of this find religios significance in the veils doesn't mean that the law is nessesarily deiscriminating against religions.
It's just discriminsting against veils.
If Muslims choose to see it as an attack on their religion, then that is their own issues that they need to work out.

Our country doesn't allow Rastafarians to smoke pot, not does it allow voodoo people to torture animals, or pagans to perform human sacrifice.
These laws are not to discriminate againt the religion, but to deal with all other NON-religious implications of them.

Drugs weren't made illegal simply as a means to banning rastas and their religion. Animal torture was outlawed before Voodoo became prevalent. Murder, same thing, always illegal, not directly linked to a religion. This is. It's different legal ground alltogether, m'boy. It's an assumption that thier dress, which is mandated by their religion, automatically makes them some sort of threat against the rest of the population, and that's discrimination.

Edited, Nov 17th 2006 at 12:31pm PST by Atomicflea
#10 Nov 17 2006 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Just because the "perceived targets" of this find religios significance in the veils doesn't mean that the law is nessesarily deiscriminating against religions.
It's just discriminsting against veils.


It's writing a law specifically to discriminate against an otherwise inherently harmless custom (wearing veils), which has significance to a minority group.

It is, in other words, targetting a behavior specifically because a minority religous group uses that behavior.

It is, in other words, discriminating against a religion.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 Nov 17 2006 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
well, I guess in another generation we'll have a bunch of hash smoking, Dutch, *****.

yeah, I got nothin

It really is the ages old mistake of believeing that you can change a people rather than change your xenophobic opinion of them.
The only way that works out is bloodshed.

Hopefully their amnesia wears off and they remember how to compromise instead of oppress with legislation.
doubt it
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#12 Nov 17 2006 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
in other words, targetting a behavior specifically because a minority religous group uses that behavior.


see, that's the kicker. This group has no seperation between their religion or everything else.
Their minority group cannot be mentioned without metioning their religion.

I would argue that the law is against the custom and not the religion.... but the slippery slope is that the religion is intertwined with their custom...
thus they have the perfect system for the self-preservation of their religion.

Any time anyone questions their culture, they can just accuse the person of attacking their religion.. really an ingenious tool for maintaining a following.


Edited, Nov 17th 2006 at 12:37pm PST by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#13 Nov 17 2006 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
The thing I always find interesting in the religious clothing debates is ther eis a perception that society should make allowences for articles of clothing warn out of a need to show covenant and faith with a given religion. It seems that defeats the purpose in my mind at least.

Lets say we had a religion that required people to wear helecopter beanies at all times to show faith in the laws of the helecopter beanie gods. Yet for security purposes, helecopter beanies are banned in some areas. Is that discrimination? Or did the helecopter beanie gods maybe impose the restriction to prohibit their followers from going into those areas?

Personally, I wholeheartedly support banning the burqa in some areas because they have been used in Chechnya and Moscow for great effect in hideing suicide belt charges used by female suicide bombers. Which are growing in numbers. That and the whole burqa requirement was invented by male clerics a few thousand years ago to opress women.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Nov 17 2006 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
hat and the whole burqa requirement was invented by male clerics a few thousand years ago to opress women.


excatly.

It's not part of the religion. It's part of the culture which has existed long before the religion.
I personally see a vast difference between the two.

burqas aren't mandatory in Islam. it's just regional traditions.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#15 Nov 17 2006 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
There is also the fact that not all Muslim women wear the veils, so it isn't discriminating against ALL Muslims. And there is also the stated reasons that
Quote:
The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing — including the burqa — is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens

So if the issue is not wanting clothing that would cover the face, thus helping to hide ones identity, I do see a problem with it, provided they are banning any face coverying clothing not just specificly the burqa.
#17 Nov 17 2006 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
to play Devil's advocate, why shouldn't a country have the right to discriminate? It's THEIR country.
-------------------------------------------------------

no, it is the peoples country. rioting is proof of that. governments can do whatever they want, untill they run afoul of the masses. then it is not the vails they need to worry about, it is their own citizens.

how many governemnts, dictators, kings, and every other type of powerstructure have fallen because they pressed the people too hard? even our own country was forged out of disdain for the leadership that origonally brought us here.

freedom rules. you can only press people far enough untill their fear of dieing is outweighed by their disdain to continue as they are. kind of like what happened in vietnam, the crusades, iraq right now.

and yet, people in power never seem to figure that out.
#18 Nov 17 2006 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
You seem to be under the impression that the number of rioting Denmark citizens over that lame *** cartoon approaches even a small minority of their total population. huh.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#19 Nov 17 2006 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
no, it is the peoples country. rioting is proof of that. governments can do whatever they want, untill they run afoul of the masses. then it is not the vails they need to worry about, it is their own citizens.



Are you suggesting that borders, languages, and national/ethnic identities are meaningless?


A persons country is(collectivly) their hearth and home. They make the rules; not the guests.

America cannot realy be held up to the same light as Europe. We are afraid of integration so that we encourage ethnic groups to stay away from us white folk. I think that it is a minority of Americans that went for the whole integration thing back in the day.
For themost part now our cultures integrate anyway; or they stay in Chinatown or Greektown or Little Italy.
America is flexible. It has a lot of space and a lot of fresh slates to ruin and bridges to burn.
Europe knows how Europe is and Europe know's waht is best for Europe.

Europe's fear is that in a few decades that they are going to be totally overrun by Muslims and that they will be a minority. Actually I believe that based on a projection of the current rate of immigration; they will be.
This much reminds me of our White Power yahoos who claim that America is going to be overrun by Blacks and one day everyone will be a Mullato and that White people will become nearly extinct.

Well, aren't they right?
Now I'm not the one saying that this is a negative thing. It's just the way it is.
The European situation is differnt however because it really is an actual way of life rather than a skin colour.


That being said; no, I don't think they need fear. Think of how much common Christian values have changed throughout the centuries.
All they are doing with these laws are appeasing themselves and making themselves feel safe at the expense of alienating a minority.

Like I said before; Don't Trust Whitey.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 300 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (300)