Dutch Govt ban Burqa, should we?

gurramok

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm

Should we follow suit?

I think its a sensible move, covering your face in public like wearing a permanent balaclava is not acceptable in a modern style democracy!

mike65

No, not because I'm a fan of such attire (anything but in fact) but because I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Mike.

gurramok

mike65 wrote:

No, not because I'm a fan of such attire (anything but in fact) but because I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Mike.

Well, this is slightly different, they are not telling them not to wear as such, the issue is the covering of the face whether it's by a burqa or a visor on a helmet is the problem.
Maybe allow the burqa but with face visible like in photo on the webpage as a compromise?

Alun

They haven't actually done it yet. The minister in question has received permission from the cabinet to make a proposal for a law to ban them. It then still has to go through all the normal procedures and be voted on in parliament before it becomes law, if ever. Plus it's not specifically aimed at the burqa, but any clothing that covers the face.

FYI

We should ban beards too.

and excessively long fringes.

and bushy eye brows...

Governments are in no way justified telling people what they can and cannot wear.

Time Magazine

So miniature KKK hoodies for all.

I_am_Irish

Please note the first issue was scarf in france, if kate moss wear scarf or will do anything we all will say "that is fashion", how about nuns who also wear scarf, jews also having beard religiously, Burka is also a fashion in middle east and in too many countries in the world.

What Burka or Beard will do, what all Big countries are doing to distroy this world.

U.S, U.K killed 350000 innocent people in Iraq, within three year and several more around the world. Did Burka or Beard kills anyone?

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

Wibbs

This is a tricky one and no mistake. The extent to which individual rights are compromised worries me with any "ban". I do take the balaclava comparison on board and personally I think the full burqha can be both politically loaded and daft with all it's socio/sexual connotations. The scarf is a separate issue IMHO. Can't really see much of a problem with it personally beyond the idea that the sight of a chicks hair is going to reduce me to a slobbering beast. Then again....

if kate moss wear scarf or will do anything we all will say "that is fashion",

Ehh slight difference. Ms Moss can take off her scarf whenever she likes and her wearing of a scarf hardly carries the weight of dogma and history to it, now does it? It's just a scarf.

how about nuns who also wear scarf,

Again it could be seen as a choice made by adult women who chose to become nuns. Again many nuns don't wear a head scarf, are they likely to attract criticism or sanction by some in their community for not doing so? Slight difference again.

jews also having beard religiously,

That's slightly more on the same ground.

Burka is also a fashion in middle east and in too many countries in the world.

The full covering of women implies that the very sight of a woman is bad. That men have difficulty with controlling themselves at the sight of a woman. That alone is a restriction on both women and men. Hardly just "fashion".

U.S, U.K killed 350000 innocent people in Iraq, within three year and several more around the world.

Whole other topic but I see your point.

Did Burka or Beard kills anyone?

Whole other topic again.

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

That sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. In any case acceptance goes both ways.

bk

Actually, in Ireland I believe a number of items of clothing are already banned, such as wearing full military camouflage clothing and also I believe balaclavas.

These are banned for obvious reasons, IRA, criminals. Sometimes the government can limit your civil liberties for the overall benefit of the nation.

That is not a comment on the Burqa, just a FYI.

gurramok

I_am_Irish wrote:

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

And Christians in those Muslim societies obey Islamic dress and code as thats the law of those lands.
Muslims in Western societies should obey the law of the land in Western societies.

As said, this is about covering of the face and NOT what you wear, and the ban is long overdue.

Hobbes

I find the whole thing hypocritical to be honest.

We go on about how the West is all about freedom of rights and equality for women and all that and then we ban them from wearing whatever clothes they want to wear.

And even funnier (like the previous poster) is going on about how because there are fanatical Islam countries that we should copy what they do and force clothing laws on others. :rolleyes:

Oh and in case anyone missed it there is a actually a town in Belguim a few months ago where they made it illegal to wear a burka. (watched it on CNN in Korea).

They had the mayor and a woman spokeperson for the those that it would effect. The Mayor could think of no real excuse. He came up with "Well you can do it in your own house" (which defeats the purpose of it) and finally came up with the gem "Go back to whatever country you came from", at which point the woman pointed out she was born and raised in the town he was the Mayor of and had even voted for him.

What people fail to realise as well is that for those Muslims it is part of their faith. Forbidding them from wearing it outside the house won't stop them, at best all it will do will force Muslim women to stay inside their houses because they will be arrested if they leave it.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

What people fail to realise as well is that for those Muslims it is part of their faith. Forbidding them from wearing it outside the house won't stop them, at best all it will do will force Muslim women to stay inside their houses because they will be arrested if they leave it.

So it WILL work (for the purpose of stopping them wearing balaclavas in the street)?

I think if this bill is passed then it'd be wise to evacuate all the Dutch embassies..... Because, Allah knows, there shall be riots

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

I find the whole thing hypocritical to be honest.

Yep that it can be.

We go on about how the West is all about freedom of rights and equality for women and all that and then we ban them from wearing whatever clothes they want to wear.

I agree with you. The problem I have with it is that while some Muslim women may want to wear the full burqha, some may not. There exists a social pressure for some to wear it when it may not be their choice(they may want to wear just the scarf). That's the issue I have with the whole thing. Can't really legislate for it though. Indeed the risk of legislation like this one that's mooted is that it may actually force some of them through community pressure or thoughts of defending their tradition to wear it as a form of defiance, or as you point out restrict Muslim women even further by keeping them indoors(that may even be preferred by the more radical Muslim men). There's some evidence of that in France and the UK where women(often young women) were used as poster boys for the nutters on both sides with agendas to push.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

So it WILL work

It depends a lot on how you define as working. People go on that Muslim women are forced to wear this by their husband. It's not always true.

So they are not allowed to wear it outside, so what else can they do? Going out without a burka is not an option, so what you have done is forced these people to house arrest. If anything that makes us worse then those husbands that would enforce the burka on their wives.

And I am with Wibbs somewhat. The womans choice should be paramount for herself. If she wants to wear it then thats fine. If she is being forced to wear/not wear because of someone else (and not because of their beliefs) I'd have an issue with.

and if you feel free about banning this why not ban beards and sunglasses as well.

Dave!

They still allow you to see that (a) it's a male, (b) it has a beard, (c) what colour its hair is, (d) whether they're wrinkly or not [indication of approx age]

With a burka or a balaclava you can see (a) they possibly have eyes.

And plenty of shopping centres and so on don't allow people to even wear base-ball caps in for security reasons. Gross infringement of our rights as it is :rolleyes:, it's a good security measure.

Why should Muslims be exempt from it? Indeed why should any religion be exempt from it in a non-religious state? I would feel the same if there was widespread instances of Catholics wearing something similar.

There was also that incident not too long ago in America of a young boy bringing some Muslim knife into school because it's part of his beliefs. Who cares? It's a f*cking knife. I'm not allowed bring one in, therefore you aren't. I don't care if you're a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

With a burka or a balaclava you can see (a) they possibly have eyes

Still don't get your point? You need to know a persons gender before talking to them?

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

Still don't get your point? You need to know a persons gender before talking to them?

You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting the point.

Wouldn't [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/49247/35719.jpg[/url] make you uncomfortable?

seamus

I don't believe any government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot wear in public (people should be allowed walk around naked if they want to freeze their testicles off). They should however make allowance for public or private buildings to insist on a dress code to allow admission - including the removal of helmets, burkas, headscarves, etc.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting the point.

Wouldn't [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/49247/35719.jpg[/url] make you uncomfortable?

1. Thats not a burka.
2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.
3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

bk

Hobbes wrote:

1. Thats not a burka.
2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.
3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

It may however be a security issue. The reason balaclava and military clothing wearing in Ireland is banned is not because they might be symbols of terrorists, but because you can't identify someone wearing a balaclava.

It is the same reason why banks don't allow people wear motorbike helmets.

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

So yes there are practical reasons for such bans.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

1. Thats not a burka.

No sh*t? It obscures the face completely, that person could do whatever they like and a witness would only be able to assume that it's a bloke.

Just like a burka or a hockey mask.

Hobbes wrote:

2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.

Oh don't be so sensitive :rolleyes: No, I'm implying that a burka, like a balaklava, completely hides the person's identity, and shouldn't be given special priviledges in any state.

If a balaclava is allowed somewhere then allow the burka; if not, then not. But I doubt a balaclava is allowed on a bus, in a bank, in a shop, or in a pub.

Hobbes wrote:

3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

That's handy isn't it? :rolleyes: Well I would wager that you are in the minority in this instance. Most people would feel a tad uneasy about someone wearing a balaclava sitting at the back of the bus. Likewise with a burka.

mackerski

It's curious that most of the arguments in favour of this ban are on the basis of the threat posed by people who can't be identified. Yet the thread title wasn't "Dutch Govt ban full face covering, should we?". I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

So the folks here who are in favour of the ban, will you really feel safer walking the streets or are you just seizing on a chance to have a cheap shot at people of a different culture?

RedPlanet

gurramok wrote:

Should we follow suit?

I think its a sensible move, covering your face in public like wearing a permanent balaclava is not acceptable in a modern style democracy!

But they are not wearing a balaclava, they are wearing clothes that have a religious significance.
Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.
You apparently, advocate removing that freedom.
Should we all wear business suits?
Cut are hair to a certain length?
Should we be forced to shave our facial hair too?

philologos

No we shouldn't ban the burqa because freedom of expression should be welcomed in all countries of the world even if the Dutch don't want to realise it. The freedom of choice to wear the burqa or not should be respected. If the burqa should be banned the wearing of the Cross or the wearing of the Jewish skullcap should also be banned. However I don't think this is the way forward for anyone and it is just another way or marginalising Muslims even more from our society.

gurramok

RedPlanet wrote:

But they are not wearing a balaclava, they are wearing clothes that have a religious significance.
Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.
You apparently, advocate removing that freedom.
Should we all wear business suits?
Cut are hair to a certain length?
Should we be forced to shave our facial hair too?

If you managed to read the BBC link, the issue is not what you wear but what IS hiding your face.
Hence the comparison with a balaclava.
For instance, someone wearing a burqa steals something from a shop and is caught on cctv, what are the chances of identifying that person?!
Its the same analogy as the balaclava wearing person on the bus as discussed.
The same cannot be said for business suits, hair, facial hair....the face is still visible and identifiable in those circumstances.
By your logic, you'll have no objection to balaclava's, hoodies with scarfs as well??

John R

mackerski wrote:

I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

Who's to say that a person wearing a burqa is a muslim woman? TBH I am surprised more criminals haven't realised that it is an excellent disguise to cover their tracks from security cameras. Maybe not so much here but certainly in areas with high muslim populations.


The smart way to kurb burqa wearing without passing silly laws would be to lobby businesses and public service providers to ban any facial covering on their property, that would make life very difficult without leaving governments open to anti-muslim accusations.

Dave!

mackerski wrote:

It's curious that most of the arguments in favour of this ban are on the basis of the threat posed by people who can't be identified. Yet the thread title wasn't "Dutch Govt ban full face covering, should we?". I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

So the folks here who are in favour of the ban, will you really feel safer walking the streets or are you just seizing on a chance to have a cheap shot at people of a different culture?

I don't think it's anything to do with having a cheap shot. More like people are getting sick of the special priviledges given to religions, especially Muslims. Everyone has to tip-toe around the subject of religious tolerance because if they don't, people will get offended, and there'll be more violence and rioting.

So no, I won't feel safer if they're banned. But I will feel like society is moving forward if we stop bending over backwards for ANY religion, and this is just an example. I will feel even better if we start allowing abortions in this country, and stop playing the angelus.

But that's just me.

RedPlanet

gurramok wrote:

For instance, someone wearing a burqa steals something from a shop and is caught on cctv, what are the chances of identifying that person?!
Its the same analogy as the balaclava wearing person on the bus as discussed.

That is rubbish.
How many robberies occur by someone wearing a burqa for example, rather than a hoodie.
You should be calling for banning hoodies.

Schuhart

I think its firstly necessary to get a sense of proportion. According to the article at the start of this thread.

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.

What we’re talking about is very much a minority practice, which very few Western Muslims see as a religious obligation. So few, that its next door to being a fetish. The nearest equivalent would be people walking about in rubber fetish wear. In fact, the more one reflects on it, the more that emerges as an equivalent.
I can’t see the point of banning someone from wearing a rubber dress on the street. I would expect that a teacher turning up for work in a rubber dress (of either gender) to be sent home to change. I’d take that to be common sense. So I think the balanced position on this was given very early in this thread.

mike65 wrote:

I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Hobbes

bk wrote:

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

Have you actually even seen a burka? I don't think you have. It's the most restrictive of movement of all the clothing that Muslims may wear.

Here have a look.
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/burqa.jpg

To Rob a bank your going to want to be able to see where everything is and able to move fast. Try running with a blanket to get a feel for it.

Even the Niqab is the same (you can see the persons eyes).

However from what I see of this bill it also bans other headwear that a Muslim woman may wear.

For example the Khimar + Chador, where either half the womans face is shown or all of it.

But all those going on about fear of being mugged/robbed from someone wearing a burqa. Get me a list of how many such things have happened. Good luck with that.

TBH if you wanted to not be reconised there are 101 ways that doesn't require hiding your face.