Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Burkan'tFollow

#1 Nov 20 2006 at 2:38 AM Rating: Decent
Their reputation as the most liberal nation in Europe might not be quite true anymore after the Dutch government decided to ban Burkas.

Quote:
The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.

The decision comes days ahead of elections which the ruling centre-right coalition is expected to win.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who is known for her tough policies, said it was important that all people in the Netherlands were able to see and identify each other clearly to promote integration and tolerance.

Last year a majority of MPs in the Dutch parliament said they were in favour of a ban.

An estimated 6% of 16 million people living in the Netherlands are Muslims.

But there are thought to be fewer than 100 women who choose to wear the burqa, a traditional Islamic form of dress.

Civil rights debate

The latest move came after an expert committee judged that it would not contravene Dutch law.

Other forms of face coverings, such as crash helmets with visors that obscure the face, would also be covered by a legal ban.


I've read that around 50 Dutch Muslims were the Burka.

So they are passing this law, which will probably end up being declared illegal in the European Court of Human Rights anyway, for roughly 50 people.

It's political incorrectness gone mad...

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#2 Nov 20 2006 at 3:41 AM Rating: Default
It most likely won't be found illegal actually, and this type of law is already in place in a lot of places in Europe, albeit mostly as a prohibition to disguise oneself.

It doesn't matter if there are only a few that wear it, that is no reason to allow it to continue.

But yes, this is a political manoeuvre a couple of days before the elections.
#3 Nov 20 2006 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
Zieveraar wrote:

It doesn't matter if there are only a few that wear it, that is no reason to allow it to continue.


"It" being "dressing however you want"?

Yeah, really, if there's ont thing we should be focusing on right now it's fighting this scourge of people dressing how they want.

Awful.


And it will most likely be declared illegal anyway, on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Religion. The only exceptions allowed are when state security or public order are concerned, and I can't see how women walking down the streets in a burka would threaten either of those.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#4 Nov 20 2006 at 5:46 AM Rating: Default
they didnt go far enough.

they should have banned women from wearing cloths at all......
#5 Nov 20 2006 at 6:07 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
And it will most likely be declared illegal anyway, on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Religion. The only exceptions allowed are when state security or public order are concerned, and I can't see how women walking down the streets in a burka would threaten either of those.


Like I said, plenty of places already have banned the burqa, no one even cared about that.

And they haven't been declared illegal as yet.

So I'm pretty confident that the Dutch law won't be either.

And as for considering the burqa a woman's right to wear, well, I suppose the women in Afghanistan are greatful to hear that crap Smiley: oyvey

Do you honestly believe that there are women who actually want to reduce themselves to a walking carpet? How can mere numbers be any excuse to allow it to happen?


And a burqa has no foundation whatsoever in Islam, so freedom of religion to continue to wear something that has nothing to do with any religion most likely won't be seen as an excuse to cancel this law.



Edited, Nov 20th 2006 at 6:09am PST by Zieveraar
#6 Nov 20 2006 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
Zieveraar wrote:
Like I said, plenty of places already have banned the burqa.


Like?

Quote:
And as for considering the burqa a woman's right to wear, well, I suppose the women in Afghanistan are greatful to hear that crap.

Do you honestly believe that there are women who actually want to reduce themselves to a walking carpet?


Yes. There are.

If you want to criminalise men who force women to dress a certain way though, then that's fine by me.

But for the others, I can't see what it has to do with anyone else.

Quote:
And a burqa has no foundation whatsoever in Islam, so freedom of religion to continue to wear something that has nothing to do with any religion most likely won't be seen as an excuse to cancel this law.


So now you're an expert on Islam too?

Most of the Muslim scholars disagree on this point. These are people who've studied Islam all their lives, and they can't agree with each other, because it basically comes down to translation of Ancient Arabic.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Nov 20 2006 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've always heard that the burka was more cultural than religious but I don't think it matters much. All you need is one high ranking cleric to say that wearing it is pleasing to Allah and you have a religious aspect to it.

If "Freedom of Religion" began and ended with what was written in the Torah, Bible and Qur'an, I wouldn't have to listen to three months of bullshit about publicly displayed Christmas trees every year.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Nov 20 2006 at 6:38 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Like?


Most places have a local law against dressing up in a way that makes you unrecognisable. That's pretty much what a burqa does, so it is already illegal to wear in several cities in Belgium for instance.

Not exactly the same as a specific ban as the one proposed in the Netherlands, but it has the same effect.

Quote:
Yes. There are.


Good, then they can do that at home. Wich is a place where they don't have to wear it, I know, but we should not allow everything merely because there might be some person who wants it.

The burqa is about the most sexist symbol I can think of, sure we've got plenty of others too, but little as extreme as the burqa.


I can read my version of the Qu'Ran, it might be a poor translation but it does state that the burqa is Zoroastrian in origin, later adopted by the Persians and again adopted by the Byzantinians and Christianity.

But then again, I do realise that there are plenty of different types of Islam followers, so variations occur, never heard many of those variations call for a burqa though, only the wahhabi's perhaps.
#9 Nov 20 2006 at 7:11 AM Rating: Decent
The Burka aspect of it doesn't matter. The Dutch law regualtes the covering of the face, whether it is by Burka or by another veil not attached to the dress.

So, in many ways, the religious origin of the burka, or our cultural sensitivities that might be upset by it, don't matter.

The only question is whether this ban serves any purpose. And, considering that roughly 50 women wear it in Holland, I can't see how it helps society in any way.

Now, if you want to help women being oppressed by their husband, or want to address the perceived machism in Islam, or want to fight wahabbism, then great.

But banning a specific symptom of a huge problem is pointless. All it does is make the Muslims in general feel persecuted, and gives them another argument in the propaganda war. This is acceptable when the law really serves a purpose, but this one clearly doesn't.

It's just an election ploy designed to appear "hard" on Muslims and immigrants, because the Ducth has a problem with those two issues at the moment. It's the worst kind of easy and populist demagogy, that on the long-term causes only problems.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#10 Nov 20 2006 at 8:05 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
It's just an election ploy designed to appear "hard" on Muslims and immigrants, because the Ducth has a problem with those two issues at the moment. It's the worst kind of easy and populist demagogy, that on the long-term causes only problems


Like I said, elections are coming so they try to profit of the current fears of the population, it would be hard to deny this.

The issue an sich isn't wrong though, the response by the Muslim community to this was unfortunate as that will increase the problems the Dutch have with how they see Islam and Muslim immigrants.

Nevertheless, the Dutch are very good still at one thing and that is to debate endlessly about all sorts of topics, this topic will definitely be debated ad nauseum there.
#11 Nov 20 2006 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Would have made more sense if it was called a burkan.
#12 Nov 20 2006 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
hmmm

Isn't a burka simply more of a symbol of opression and degradation than it is some holy aticle of faith?


Why is this any differnt than banning the practice of say chaining up your wife in the basement? or other such things... female circumsision and the ilk

You can't use the excuse that because your religion condones these things that our laws have to.

Edited, Nov 20th 2006 at 8:27am PST by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#13 Nov 20 2006 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Isn't a burka simply more of a symbol of opression and degradation than it is some holy aticle of faith?
Are you sure that Muslim women feel oppressed and degraded and are not content to wear the garment because they feel that it is modest and proper in the eyes of Allah?

I mean, I wouldn't choose to walk around in the height of summer dressed in Quaker garb but there's a bunch of Quakers who think it's the proper thing to do.

I guess it's practically impossible to test since the burka is tied with Muslim & Middle Eastern culture which seems tied to subordination of women in general.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Nov 20 2006 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
Would have made more sense if it was called a burkan.


It was Monday morning, and I was hungovered, you mean christmas cat.

Burkak? Better?


As for the burka itself, there are two possibilities. Either the women is forced to wear, and then it's likely she's forced to do a whole other bunch of stuff. Treating one sympton, by banning it from the street, is highly unlikely to help her.

The other alternative is that it's her choice, in which case there is nothing wrong with it from a societal point of view.

Quote:
the response by the Muslim community to this was unfortunate as that will increase the problems the Dutch have with how they see Islam and Muslim immigrants


Yep, and that's not a coincidence either.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#15 Nov 20 2006 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Is it somebody's choice to be subordinate? or is it conditioning?

I'm sure women in China smiled with glee to have their feet cobbled for their loving masters.
or similar to asking a battered woman why she stays with the man who is beating her and she smiles and says simply that she loves him.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#16 Nov 20 2006 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Is it somebody's choice to be subordinate? or is it conditioning?


Everything is conditioning. Even the way we see Burkas.

It's a difficult issue, but I don't know. I've heard and read of many Muslim women saying that wearing makes them feel protected from the outside world, since no one looks at them, and they don't get stares from men.

And I must say that, on certain days, I enjoy going out wearing a hoody and a baseball cap, and it does make me feel "protected" from other people's glares. I get that especially when I'm a bit stone. Not that I suggest Muslim women do too much much pot, but I guess wearing clothes that slightly "hide" you makes you feel less open to the outside world, and more protected.

Is it conditioning for them to think like that? Sure.

Can you imagine a way whereby a Muslim husband leaves the choie to this wife, and she sctually decides to go out like this? I think so.

I agree that burkas are not great, and that they make us feel uncomfortable, since they are so inherently alien to our culture and values.

But there is a big gap between saying that, and saying it's the state's duty to ban women from wearing them.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#17 Nov 20 2006 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
If I have a daughter I'm chaining her in the basement and going to train her to be a lesbian to preotect her from all the evil men out there.
Smiley: twocents


is that the same?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#18 Nov 20 2006 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Is it somebody's choice to be subordinate? or is it conditioning?
Most of society is conditioning. The fact that I'm wearing pants right now despite my office being warm enough to go without is social conditioning (both on my part and that of my co-workers). I wouldn't compare it to beatings or physical mutilation though.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't compare wearing a burka to beatings, imprisonment or mutilation either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Nov 20 2006 at 9:34 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
would you compare it to pressing a baby's head to make it flat?

Edited, Nov 20th 2006 at 9:37am PST by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#20 Nov 20 2006 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, I would compare it to wearing any other garment designed for modesty and which didn't physically do the wearer any harm.

It's not getting your feet stunted or your head flattened or your **** cut off or anything other than wearing a full body dress with a headdress and veil. I personally don't agree with it but I refuse to lump it in with physical mutilation just to make a point of me not agreeing with it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Nov 20 2006 at 9:47 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Why do you hate Twiggy?



Edited, Nov 20th 2006 at 9:50am PST by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#22 Nov 20 2006 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't -- she's on my Muppets 1st Season DVDs!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Nov 20 2006 at 10:36 AM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
I think its a sign of the progress that we, as a human race are making in the 21st century, that at pretty much the same, moment we are paranoid enough to be banning women wearing religeous (or otherwise) clothing, we (well some of us anyway) are busy blocking negotiations that would ban cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs as you will already know are scattered around the place (usually civilian places, hospitals and schools etc), so that small children can later detonate them using their hands or feet. Vey civilised and very.....enlightened form of weapon, I think you will agree.


Glad to see we are sorting out the things that actually are causing us real harm.....


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#24 Nov 20 2006 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In a civilized society, the children are inside watching cartoons and playing $600 video game consoles instead of wandering about unsupervised, picking up bombs 'n shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Nov 20 2006 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
Is it somebody's choice to be subordinate? or is it conditioning?

I'm sure women in China smiled with glee to have their feet cobbled for their loving masters.
or similar to asking a battered woman why she stays with the man who is beating her and she smiles and says simply that she loves him.


Well, again, most of the women who wear burqas, especially in the West, do so out of personal choice. There are a few countries where it is required, but not as many as most of us in the U.S. tend to think.

An acquaintance of mine explained to me that she prefers wearing a burqa because she's uncomfortable being stared at by men, and feels much more at ease with it than without it. I can understand that. It isn't how I was raised, but it does make sense to me.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Nov 20 2006 at 1:48 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
for the record
I reject a government telling people waht they can and can't wear.


If you have a problem with an article of clothing that makes you want to force the person to not wear it; then, IMO, you are the one with the problem. Figure out waht that it and deal with it.. don't pick on people just because they make it implausible to ignore your xenophobia and unablity to integrate with Humanity.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 337 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (337)