Dutch Govt ban Burqa, should we?

Schuhart

FWIW, the BBC have a series of pictures starting here that explain what the various forms of headgear are called and illustrate how much they cover.

And if the Burqa doesn’t do it for you, the Ann Summers PVC Maid outfit can be found here. Personally, I can’t see why anyone would have a problem with me teaching a class of 11 years olds dressed like that. It even comes with a cane.

simu

No, we should not. I find it strange seeing women in burqas because to me, they seem oppressed, but banning the clothing is attacking a mere symptom of deeper problems and does nothing to solve these.

monument

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?

Of course, on more then a few Dublin Bus routes there’s actually nothing that makes people comparably “uncomfortable” on a regular bases. And of course if there was laws to stop such it would stop this behavior. Of course.

No, really, I’m fine with this, just as long as it’s an outright ban on anything that might hinder an id of a potential criminal (that’s all of us, btw) – hats, caps, any kind of hoods (even on rain jackets), large headphones (earphones will still be legal), any kind of male or female hair obstructing the face… oh, **** it it’d be easer if we were all electronically tagged.

Just think about it, no need for costly CCTV then. If the tagging system says you were there at the time of the crime, you are a criminal (it’d be really accurate).

It makes the whole thing easer – if a fine is justified for the crime a Special Criminal Direct Debt Mandate (or SCDDM) is automatically set up. If it’s a big deal, but not too much of a one, you’re automatically confined to your house for X amount of days. And if you need jail right here, right now, you’re really just gone beyond help, so the ERU have to track you down (which is easy with the tracking system) and blow your head off.

bk

RedPlanet wrote:

Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.

Again just to point out, if you walk down O'Connell St in military camouflage suit and balaclava, you will be stopped and probably arrested by the Gardai.

A friend of mine was once arrested (but not later charged) for wearing camouflage in public on the way to a fancy dress party.

I'm not making any point about the burka, I'm just wanted to point out that they are laws that can and do restrict what people can wear and do in public.

spanner

I feel a little uncomfortable when I see a person in a burka but that is it, I also feel uneasy seeing lads in ben sherim tops and fila tracksuit but what the hell I walk by and that is it, it does not effect me, It isnt a risk to to public safety, It isnt displaying any racist or insightful material.

I can fully understand that somebody who teaches should be told they cannot wear the burka, you have to follow strict dress codes, I couldnt turn up to teach in a pair of jeans and t shirt but starting a ban on the streets is dangerous, within reason people should be allowed to wear anything they want on the streets and this is well within reason

FYI

Are balaclavas banned?

RedPlanet

DaveMcG wrote:

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.

What special priviledges do muslims have that the rest of society doesn't?
What exceptional laws give effect to this special priviledge?

DaveMcG wrote:

..stop bending over backwards for ANY religion, and this is just an example.

The only religion we are bending over backwards for, is Christianity. Particularly the Catholic Church.
I think you're looking at this from a wrong perspective.
There are no special priviledges for Muslims in this country, they are just ordinary people some of which choose to wear a particular fashion of clothes.
What you are doing, is taking a special exception to them.

nacho libre

bk wrote:

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.

interesting point... I say this because a lot of drugs are smuggled by men and women dressed as priests and nuns. So for practical reasons anyone dressing like this should be banned from wearing religious garbs on transportation routes. Aside from the practical reasons i, as an atheist, am offended by the outward expression of christanity by people holding rosary beards, wearing necklaces with religious imagery and anyone wearing religious grabs. How dare anyone have the right to practice their beliefs systems in occidental society.
We should only be a democracy in name.

Liberal Democracy

Frederico

Having spent alot of time in Holland I am not surprised by this..

This may not sound very politically correct.. but just about every Dutch person I met ver there seemed to have a BIG problem with muslims/immigrants.. it all seems to be barely simmering below the surface.. thats just my opinion..

philologos

bk wrote:

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

I'm waiting for the day some thief wears a cross while robbing a bank whatever it boils down to it is still a sectarian based law and shouldn't be allowed pass at all.

SeanW

You mean like Saudi Arabia where all religion except Wahibi Islam is banned? Or women can't drive or be seen without wearing one of those stupid tents

Also, American TV columnist Glenn Beck recently showed an exposé of the kind of "education" and TV messages and other hate filled propoganda Middle Eastern governments give their people.

You can see that here.

Remember that the Netherlands is where a descendent of the famous Van Goghs, Theo Van Gogh, was brutally mudered by a Muslim, for making a documentary that called Islam violent. Which in the eyes of many, no doubt proved whatever point Mr. Van Gogh was making. Recently of course there has also been the furore of the Danish cartoons. And the Popes comments. All supposidly responsible for wave after wave of riots, killings and general mayhem. Then of course there's Darfur, which again is state sponsored genocide by Islamofascists.

Remember also that the Netherlands has always historically been a very tolerant country, with some of the most lax laws in the world on various matters. This looks to me like a complete U-Turn.

While I'm not saying I agree with the Dutch decision, it does make logical sense and I understand why it happened.

CharLit

As a Dutch person (I'm posting here as irish-by-association, have Irish boyfriend ) I feel the need to contextualise this a little:

We are three days away from parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, and Islam-bashing is a vote winner. THAT's what this is about, not the 100-or-so women who actually want to wear the burqa. The motorcycle helmets are just thrown in there to contest claims of religious discrimination.

Slightly off-topic, but FYI: I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts. The dutch islamic community is built up of mainly Turkish, Moroccan and Indonesian (children of) immigrants, and the burqa is not a part of any of their cultures. This is a mainly symbolic debate.

I agree with Frederico that there is a great deal of hostility towards immigrants and especially Muslims here, but it is by no means below the surface. It's being debated very publicly, especially with the elections coming up. Another politician recently compared the "rise of Islam" in The Netherlands to the rise of nazism in 1930s Germany. Myself, I would be inclined to compare the rise of hatred against Muslims to the beginnings of the holocaust, and I am by no means alone in that opinion. While yes, there is a great deal of hostility towards Muslims, there is also a large opposing camp that believes we should return to the equality of religions and the tolerance and multiculturalism that Holland was once known for.

The left-wing parties are doing really well in the polls, fingers crossed for Wednesday!!!


edit: Ahem... and to answer the original question, I don't believe the government of any country should be allowed to dictate what its citizens wear.

CharLit

SeanW posted while I was typing my post:

The guy who killed Theo van Gogh is a nutcase. A Dutch university professor who was later murdered by the Germans during the second world war said in 1940: "Antisemitism is when a Jew in Amsterdam commits a murder, and a Jew in Rotterdam is blamed for it". One murderer says nothing about the rest of Muslims in the netherlands.

Neither does what other governments or societies do have any bearing on what our own governments and societies should do. The American occupying forces in iraq torture Iraqi prisoners, and people have been kept in cages in Guantanamo bay without charge for over four years now. That does not mean we are then entitled to torture Americans and hold them without charge because "they're doing it too". Similarly, what the Saudi government does has nothing to do with how we can treat Saudi nationals/people of Saudi descent in our countries.

SeanW

CharLit wrote:

One murderer says nothing about the rest of Muslims in the netherlands.

I agree 100%, but my point was that it may have created a perception of Islam as violent: i.e. that this is how an insult/accusation is met. Even though that is not really the case it might look like that to some people.

I also know there is distinction between the vast bulk of people of the Islamic faith, versus the few who are extreme. But the few who are extreme seem to wield most of the power.

Neither does what other governments or societies do have any bearing on what our own governments and societies should do. The American occupying forces in iraq torture Iraqi prisoners, and people have been kept in cages in Guantanamo bay without charge for over four years now. That does not mean we are then entitled to torture Americans and hold them without charge because "they're doing it too". Similarly, what the Saudi government does has nothing to do with how we can treat Saudi nationals/people of Saudi descent in our countries.

Agreed. Common sense tells us all of this, but unfortunately this commodity is in short supply

CharLit

Hey Sean,
Sorry, should have said: I realise you weren't propagating your own views there, but they are fairly widely held views, i was just countering them in general.
cheers,
C

Schuhart

Very interesting post from CharLit.

CharLit wrote:

I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts.

Which adds to that picture of S&M fetish with vague religious overtones.

I see absolutely no need to ban people from wearing their chosen fetish costumes out of doors, subject to relevant workplace issues being respected.

Dave!

RedPlanet wrote:

What special priviledges do muslims have that the rest of society doesn't?
What exceptional laws give effect to this special priviledge?

The only religion we are bending over backwards for, is Christianity. Particularly the Catholic Church.
I think you're looking at this from a wrong perspective.
There are no special priviledges for Muslims in this country, they are just ordinary people some of which choose to wear a particular fashion of clothes.
What you are doing, is taking a special exception to them.

I think the perception is that if you were to walk into a shop wearing a balaclava, then you'd be asked to take it off, whereas if a Muslim walked in wearing a burka, then there's not a chance. Now you can say that wearing a balaclava indoors usually means you're going to do something bad whereas a burka not so, which is true enough although there is perfectly legitimate reasons to wear the former indoors (might be just going into a shop for a second then back out to the freezing cold). But the problem is that the regulation isn't being universally applied. You can't say "you're not allowed to obscure your face", and then throw in at the end "unless you're a Muslim". That's what is likely to upset the masses -- widespread fear of upsetting religions is infiltrating various sections of society.

We've had Father Ted on TV for years and years with no violent protests, but can you imagine someone made a new show called Imam Ted? I think it's a safe bet that we'd see plenty more of this, only with an Irish flag amidst the flames.

There was also an incident at the start of this year in Canada, where a 12-year-old Sikh brought a kirpan (8 inch knife) to school, and the school board wouldn't allow it. It ended up going to the Supreme Court and the school board's decision was found to be in breach of the boy's freedom of religion.

CharLit wrote:

As a Dutch person (I'm posting here as irish-by-association, have Irish boyfriend ) I feel the need to contextualise this a little:

We are three days away from parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, and Islam-bashing is a vote winner. THAT's what this is about, not the 100-or-so women who actually want to wear the burqa. The motorcycle helmets are just thrown in there to contest claims of religious discrimination.

Slightly off-topic, but FYI: I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts. The dutch islamic community is built up of mainly Turkish, Moroccan and Indonesian (children of) immigrants, and the burqa is not a part of any of their cultures. This is a mainly symbolic debate.

I agree with Frederico that there is a great deal of hostility towards immigrants and especially Muslims here, but it is by no means below the surface. It's being debated very publicly, especially with the elections coming up. Another politician recently compared the "rise of Islam" in The Netherlands to the rise of nazism in 1930s Germany. Myself, I would be inclined to compare the rise of hatred against Muslims to the beginnings of the holocaust, and I am by no means alone in that opinion. While yes, there is a great deal of hostility towards Muslims, there is also a large opposing camp that believes we should return to the equality of religions and the tolerance and multiculturalism that Holland was once known for.

The left-wing parties are doing really well in the polls, fingers crossed for Wednesday!!!

Thanks for the clarification, I don't think most of us have much insight into Dutch politics so this post gives a bit of perspective.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

I think the perception is that if you were to walk into a shop wearing a balaclava, then you'd be asked to take it off, whereas if a Muslim walked in wearing a burka, then there's not a chance.

Which is not the same thing as what the law is implying. It refers to public areas.

A shop would be a private area and a shopkeeper would be well within their rights to put up a sign "Remove all face gear before entering shop" as it stands now.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

Which is not the same thing as what the law is implying. It refers to public areas.

A shop would be a private area and a shopkeeper would be well within their rights to put up a sign "Remove all face gear before entering shop" as it stands now.

Okay then transfer the example over to a public secondary school or a library.

They should either have everyone show their face or nobody.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

Okay then transfer the example over to a public secondary school or a library.

They should either have everyone show their face or nobody.

Your clutching at straws. Secondary School? Do you know any women in Secondary school who are married? Let alone being Muslim? It is only married women who cover their faces. Girls would wear a hajib but that is hardly hiding your face.

As for being in the library. It's a public area. Are you scared they are going rob books now?

Dave!

You're building a straw-man buddy. The point is that laws and regulations should be universally applied and religions shouldn't be exempt. If I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava then likewise a Muslim woman shouldn't be allowed to wear a burka.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

You're building a straw-man buddy.

I think you need to look up the term Straw-man yourself. Or at least read up on when a burqa is used.

The point is that laws and regulations should be universally applied and religions shouldn't be exempt.

Which with your balaclava example is a simple straw-man as well. There is nothing to stop the police in both instances to get the person to confirm who they are.

The balaclava on the other hand in Ireland does have connotations with the IRA. The Burqa does not.

The fact is in the media in the west the Burqa is reported as some kind of status symbol to lack of womens rights, when it never occurs to some people that the women may actually wear it themselves rather then actually being forced to wear it.

Your whole argument is based on fear of "What-if". That somehow because they have a burqa they will be able to commit crimes easier or you won't be able to identify them when you do commit the crime.

Thats pretty much it from what I see. Completely baseless tbh.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

It is only married women who cover their faces.

I agree the whole business is a non-issue, but on a point of detail have you a source for this statement?

Hobbes wrote:

it never occurs to some people that the women may actually <edit>choose to<edit> wear it themselves.

On that note, there's a post here on islamonline.net about a woman who's husband won't let her wear a burqa, or even a hijab. She wants to know if her obligation to obey her husband should outweigh her desire to don a veil. How's that for a moral dilemma. Much to my surprise, the advice given wasn't 'try getting a grip on reality and thinking for yourself for a change. Also, reflect on the eighth "I'd Really Rather You Didn't" of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, which I feel is the real source of your trouble. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.'

DaveMcG wrote:

If I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava then likewise a Muslim woman shouldn't be allowed to wear a burka.

Can I just say that I've no problem whatsoever with you wearing a burqa. But if you want to teach my kids, I really think you should keep it to evenings and weekends. Because thinking that God wants you to cover every inch of your flesh is a bit weird, really.

But if we start making weirdness illegal, we're all in danger.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

I think you need to look up the term Straw-man yourself. Or at least read up on when a burqa is used.

I don't follow you but this doesn't appear to be relevent anyway.

Hobbes wrote:

Which with your balaclava example is a simple straw-man as well. There is nothing to stop the police in both instances to get the person to confirm who they are.

ehh... The fact that you can't see their face would be a bit of a hinderance for Gardaí studying CCTV footage.

"Gardaí are on the lookout for a medium height male or female. Has broad shoulders. Possibly has eyes."

Hobbes wrote:

The balaclava on the other hand in Ireland does have connotations with the IRA. The Burqa does not.

This has nothing to do with anything. I could have referred to wearing a big sock over your head, it doesn't make a difference!
But since you brought it up I'm sure for lots of people the burka reminds them of recent terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. But as I said, that's not relevent to the point.

Hobbes wrote:

The fact is in the media in the west the Burqa is reported as some kind of status symbol to lack of womens rights, when it never occurs to some people that the women may actually wear it themselves rather then actually being forced to wear it.

Again not relevent to the discussion... It doesn't matter if it's symbolic or not, the argument is over whether or not they should be allowed to wear a garment that completely obscures not only your face, but your whole body, when anyone else wearing a similar garment would be told to remove it or leave.

Hobbes wrote:

Your whole argument is based on fear of "What-if". That somehow because they have a burqa they will be able to commit crimes easier or you won't be able to identify them when you do commit the crime.

Thats pretty much it from what I see. Completely baseless tbh.

You didn't read this post then...

DaveMcG wrote:

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.

My posts earlier in the thread were to illustrate another point, but the main crux of the discussion is over whether or not we should put any religion on a pedastal such that they should be allowed to do something such as camouflage themselves or carry a concealed weapon in public, purely for their "symbolic nature", while if anyone else were to do it, they'd no doubt be charged with something.

Frederico

SeanW wrote:

I agree 100%, but my point was that it may have created a perception of Islam as violent: i.e. that this is how an insult/accusation is met. Even though that is not really the case it might look like that to some people.

I also know there is distinction between the vast bulk of people of the Islamic faith, versus the few who are extreme. But the few who are extreme seem to wield most of the power.

Agreed. Common sense tells us all of this, but unfortunately this commodity is in short supply

Mostly news sensationalism these days, you'd almost swear Muslims extremists never did anything newsworthy before 911.

How do you think they perceive us? Friendly hyprocrites? Touchy-feely occupiers? We all get tarred with the stigma of American foreign policy, just like we tar them with the actions of a few extremists and suicide bombers, except we cause alot more suffering, pain, casualties, death and frustration, all the while with a superior smile on our face, patting ourselves on the back for our 'toleration' (mainly thanks to Hitler)

This Burqa banning thing is just Dutch rascism, prob designed to get a few more votes for whoever. Christianity has just come out of its psycho phase and we're more chilled out in the last 50 years, we seem to expect Islam to be the same, when they are quite clearly not, not very much understanding going on there.

gurramok

Frederico wrote:

This Burqa banning thing is just Dutch rascism, prob designed to get a few more votes for whoever. Christianity has just come out of its psycho phase and we're more chilled out in the last 50 years, we seem to expect Islam to be the same, when they are quite clearly not, not very much understanding going on there.

What a load of poo!

Nice one, playing the racist card. If you had bothered to read the BBC report, the dutch govt stated it was banning items that covers the face, its NOT what you wear but what CONCEALS your face.

By your logic, its racist to bikers now as the visor is now banned?:rolleyes:

In a democracy, covering your face in public is abhorrent whether its by burqa, balaclava, scarf, hoodie with scarf, stocking on face etc

Btw, have read on BBC website before that the UK govt are thinking of introducing a similar law with reference to demostrations due to a recent Islamic demostration, some participants had covered up their faces and it didn't go down well with the authorities and the general public

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6095260.stm
'The proposals also include action to ban demonstrators from covering their faces to avoid police scrutiny'

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

ehh... The fact that you can't see their face would be a bit of a hinderance for Gardaí studying CCTV footage.

So why not ban hoodies then? Or Scarfs? Glasses? Fake beards?

Again not relevent to the discussion

It's very relevant to the discussion as the law is in banning the burqa, the whole "helmets" part is just trying to get people to buy into it. If your going to ban them you may as well ban a whole range of things.

You didn't read this post then...

I read it. As I said there is nothing at this time that puts religons rights above those who are not religous.

A person in a burqa can be refused entry from a shop if they cannot reconise the person. It is totally different from walking in a public place.

RedPlanet

So what are they banning all varieties of face covering?
Specifically are they banning:

- walking with a motorcycle helmet on
- air filter face masks: http://www.respro.com/urbancommuting_walking.php
- make-up
- halloween masks
- winter scarves
- tinted car windows

In a democracy, covering your face in public is abhorrent whether its by burqa, balaclava, scarf, hoodie with scarf, stocking on face etc

Talk about a load of rubbish! :rolleyes:

What about burn victims whom do not wish to show their scarred remanants of a face to the public. Are they also barred from covering their faces?

RedPlanet

DaveMcG wrote:

If I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava then likewise a Muslim woman shouldn't be allowed to wear a burka.

Yeah you keep claiming that it's against the law to wear a balaclava.
I see your post on in the Legal Discussion forum.
Looks like you're not getting the results you were hoping.
Tell you what, you go ahead and post up the relevant statute that makes wearing a balaclava illegal (since that is your premise).
Then we can all scrutinise it and this discussion can evolve.
Currently you haven't proven that it is actually illegal to wear a balaclava in a public space and i'm having my doubts that it really is.