Dutch "Burqa ban" comes into force from today

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"Funny" though, because today in Iran theres women being imprisoned for 20 years for refusing to wear a hijab...

...which will lead a certain panache for going without it as a symbol of defiance. When the people of this state started to have choices open to them, the "authority" of the church was consistently undermined to its position today - a bunch of washed up old men who have to employ "civillians" to campaign for them.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

and i must have imagined those Iraqi and Syrian women
dancing and singing on top of piles of their burqas after ISIS were ran out of town.

I suppose you can argue from the past, or from today...

Given the choice, they rejected it. As do the vast majority of muslims, particularily the ones in Europe.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

satguy wrote: »

They leave their countries and move to the West, but they bring all that baggage and those customs / way of life, that made them leave their bad homes in the first place.

They say that they want a better life for their children, and then turn round and heap all their baggage onto them. The wheel just keeps turning and their lives do not get better, Why ?

Why risk open rafts to get here and not try to westernize, even a little bit.

Islamic brainwashing I'm afraid. I'm not your run of the mill Catholic, I have experience in this, I grew up in a cult that had a stranglehold on my life long after I left, it shares many of the beliefs of Islam and its VERY VERY hard to leave. I left at 18 and by 30 I still felt the guilt and shame. Do not underestimate the power of the brainwashing.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

...which will lead a certain panache for going without it as a symbol of defiance. When the people of this state started to have choices open to them, the "authority" of the church was consistently undermined to its position today - a bunch of washed up old men who have to employ "civillians" to campaign for them.

What choice suddenly became open though?
Better education? people questioning authoritu more? or was it a gradual mplosion of the Church - priests and bishops having families, yet decrying extra martial sex from the pulpits , priests raping kids, and the cover ups, the laundries. The utter hypocrisy. Yet large % classify themselves as Catholic, very few turned to alternative religions.

Theres always those who will act in defiance of any ban. The Kashf-e hijab was a brutal blunt tool, and included a ban on the hijab along with all Islamic dress. While welcomed by some, It argeted both sexes, indeed it was when men were forced to wear bowler hats (!), things seem to have really escalated.
While It was brutally enforced, It was more an attack on religon, than an attempt to improve the rights and status of women by controlling their dress. Its easy conflate the two though.

In the 1930s Ireland, I imagine if something similarly anti-Church was attempted by the then government, there'd have been riots, probably orchestrated by the church. 1930s church was a very different church. If it was attempted today, few would give a flying fcuk.

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the choice, they rejected it. As do the vast majority of muslims, particularily the ones in Europe.

Why did/do they reject it? Is it percieved by Muslim women as unnecessary, backward, subjugatory, validating their position as second class citizens, surely all the reason not to see it gradually become normalised in Europe with the migration/displacement of people.
"Welcome to Europe, we're pretty tolerant in the main, have certain standards about how we communicate, regard the sexes as equal, but we're not having any of that manifestation of your bigotry and intolerance, and rejection of our society. You can wear your hijab if you want, thats grand."

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

He's after been taken to the woodshed and is nowjust crying foul, incapable of actually presenting a coherent arguement.

Also, I suspect he thinks im talking about Muslims/foreigners the way he lost the absolute run of himself.

Its the one religion that you can't criticize in any way. If we were here talking about the Catholic church or Scientology all of the critical points of an argument are accepted, valid and discussed, not Islam, criticize that in any way and you're greeted with "racist", "nazi" etc, you're never greeted with a counter argument just the "go to" words. The cold hard truth of it is that all religion has its bad points, Islam happens to have far far far more negative points than most.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What choice suddenly became open though?
Better education? people questioning authoritu more? or was it a gradual mplosion of the Church - priests and bishops having families, yet decrying extra martial sex from the pulpits , priests raping kids, and the cover ups, the laundries. The utter hypocrisy. Yet large % classify themselves as Catholic, very few turned to alternative religions.

Theres always those who will act in defiance of any ban. The Kashf-e hijab was a brutal blunt tool, and included a ban on the hijab along with all Islamic dress. While welcomed by some, It argeted both sexes, indeed it was when men were forced to wear bowler hats (!), things seem to have really escalated.
While It was brutally enforced, It was more an attack on religon, than an attempt to improve the rights and status of women by controlling their dress. Its easy conflate the two though.

In the 1930s Ireland, I imagine if something similarly anti-Church was attempted by the then government, there'd have been riots, probably orchestrated by the church. 1930s church was a very different church. If it was attempted today, few would give a flying fcuk.



Why did/do they reject it? Is it percieved by Muslim women as unnecessary, backward, subjugatory, validating their position as second class citizens, surely all the reason not to see it gradually become normalised in Europe with the migration/displacement of people.
"Welcome to Europe, we're pretty tolerant in the main, have certain standards about how we communicate, regard the sexes as equal, but we're not having any of that manifestation of your bigotry and intolerance, and rejection of our society. You can wear your hijab if you want, thats grand."

Why they wear it becomes a rabbit hole that leads ever downwards. Give them the choice and let them choose. That's what should be the difference between western liberal values and others - choice. Personally I don't care for the notions behind niqab and burkha, and they aren't sanctioned by the quaran afaik, but forcing people out of them is never going to work.

Roger Hassenforder

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Its the one religion that you can't criticize in any way. If we were here talking about the Catholic church or Scientology all of the critical points of an argument are accepted, valid and discussed, not Islam, criticize that in any way and you're greeted with "racist", "nazi" etc, you're never greeted with a counter argument just the "go to" words. The cold hard truth of it is that all religion has its bad points, Islam happens to have far far far more negative points than most.

Its a total sacred cow of the left.
Ive no idea why.
Associated with being anti America/ Israel., pro Nazi.

Are "Islamophiles" subconsciously antisemites.
I dont know. Its strange.

Every religon is open to criticism. Bar one.

Odhinn

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Its the one religion that you can't criticize in any way. If we were here talking about the Catholic church or Scientology all of the critical points of an argument are accepted, valid and discussed, not Islam, criticize that in any way and you're greeted with "racist", "nazi" etc, you're never greeted with a counter argument just the "go to" words. The cold hard truth of it is that all religion has its bad points, Islam happens to have far far far more negative points than most.

I've whats been called a possibly psychotic hatred of catholic priests but even I don't go as far as

I dont think you know what NIMBYism means, you're using it incorrectly. Im not hypocritical. I dont want them. Anywhere. Not here. Not there. They're an abomination.

with regard to catholics generally.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Why they wear it becomes a rabbit hole that leads ever downwards. Give them the choice and let them choose. That's what should be the difference between western liberal values and others - choice. Personally I don't care for the notions behind niqab and burkha, and they aren't sanctioned by the quaran afaik, but forcing people out of them is never going to work.

And thats a valid point, your argument can be based on being more tolerant, being willing to accept their intolerance.

But Im a bit more reciprocal/quid pro quo.
I dont claim any moral high ground, Im not purporting to be superior in any way.
I'll tolerate and accept you, if you do the same.
Reject me?- fine, thats your prerogative, but I also reject you. Maybe you might be more comfortable elsewhere, among those who share your intolerance ?

But theres also the uncomfortable matter that most women choose not to wear one in the West. We've no stats on the number choosing to wear one of their own free will, free from family/ martial obligation.
So if most women themselves choose not to wear it when they can, and knowing some are forced to wear it, I think its a safe position to adopt in banning it. They are free to wear it in the privacy of their home, assemblies away from the public. Let people know coming here, or little girls growing up, we're a society that values femininity, sexuality, would not see them as chattel to be covered against their wishes. We've got their backs.

If its really voluntary, there should be no issue, and hijab can express their religon.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

I've whats been called a possibly psychotic hatred of catholic priests but even I don't go as far as

with regard to catholics generally.

Who/what am I talking about Odhinn?

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

And thats a valid point, your argument can be based on being more tolerant, being willing to accept their intolerance.

But Im a bit more reciprocal/quid pro quo.
I dont claim any moral high ground, Im not purporting to be superior in any way.
I'll tolerate and accept you, if you do the same.
Reject me?- fine, thats your prerogative, but I also reject you. Maybe you might be more comfortable elsewhere, among those who share your intolerance ?

But theres also the uncomfortable matter that most women choose not to wear one in the West. We've no stats on the number choosing to wear one of their own free will, free from family/ martial obligation.
So if most women themselves choose not to wear it when they can, and knowing some are forced to wear it, I think its a safe position to adopt in banning it. They are free to wear it in the privacy of their home, assemblies away from the public. Let people know coming here, or little girls growing up, we're a society that values femininity, sexuality, would not see them as chattel to be covered against their wishes. We've got their backs.

If its really voluntary, there should be no issue, and hijab can express their religon.

But you're making a nonsense of the notion by banning it.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Who/what am I talking about Odhinn?

Going on that post, Muslims in general.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

But you're making a nonsense of the notion by banning it.

No, i would see it banned for the reason Ive just given!

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Going on that post, Muslims in general.

What was your thought process behind reaching that conclusion? Bigotry of expectation, hope, or just an inability to keep up.

We're talking about burqas.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

No, i would see it banned for the reason Ive just given!

...and banning it will fail miserably. It will gain a certain mystique, which should be the last thing you want.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

...and banning it will fail miserably. It will gain a certain mystique, which should be the last thing you want.

"Will fail miserably"
Care to elaborate?

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"Will fail miserably"
Care to elaborate?

...By banning the wearing of the garment, you're not winning over any "hearts and minds", rather just causing a feeling of martyrdom.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

...By banning the wearing of the garment, you're not winning over any "hearts and minds", rather just causing a feeling of martyrdom.

Its not about winning hearts and minds though,
Anyone wilfully wearing one in Western Europe is pretty much fixed on their course, possibly with martyrdom high on the bucket list.

- its stating that particular garment and all it represents, is not welcome.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Its not about winning hearts and minds though,
Anyone wilfully wearing one in Western Europe is pretty much fixed on their course, possibly with martyrdom high on the bucket list.

Sweeping remarks again?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

- its stating that particular garment and all it represents, is not welcome.

What you think it represents.



...you mean promoting discrimination and generalisations about muslims overall.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Sweeping remarks again?

What you think it represents.

...you mean promoting discrimination and generalisations about muslims overall.

No. What it means to Muslim women, celebrating not being forced into them.

Not quite calling me a racist/bigot there, but saying I'm "promoting discrimination"...?

How am I a promoting discrimination/generalization? Back yourself up now...

Muslims themselves are banning it? When Muslim women say this is why they wont wear it. How can you explain these uncomfortable facts?

You keep resorting to the ""ya, but you're a bigot" vacuous "arguement". Yet that what you claim I'm "promoting discrimation bla bla", is what Muslims themselves have to say on a burka.

You've maid a claim too about something would happen with a ban, turns out its just another uninformed opinion. I cant say Im disappointed though, the locker really has nothing in it.

As you said earlier, you keep ascribing views to me i dont have. Its clear though, anyone not on self righteous message with you on Muslim issues is a bigot or as you somewhat cowardly claim, " promoting discrimination". Without a shred of evidence.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Muslims themselves are banning it? When Muslim women say this is why they wont wear it. How can you explain these uncomfortable facts?

I've already alluded to the policy in Iran under the sha and after, so you might be as good as to keep up?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As you said earlier, you keep ascribing views to me i dont have. Its clear though, anyone not on self righteous message with you on Muslim issues is a bigot or as you somewhat cowardly claim, " promoting discrimination". Without a shred of evidence.

Wanting a blanket ban of the niqab or burkha is promoting discrimination. You support a ban ergo.....

pinkyeye

I don't support a blanket ban because I don't like any society that says "you can/cannot wear a certain thing".

However I fully support a policy that says you can not wear a face covering in a place that is a high security risk such as a bank, airport etc. but I would apply that to hoodies, baseball caps etc also.

If you're not up to anything then show your face.

Odhinn

pinkyeye wrote: »

I don't support a blanket ban because I don't like any society that says "you can/cannot wear a certain thing".

However I fully support a policy that says you can not wear a face covering in a place that is a high security risk such as a bank, airport etc. but I would apply that to hoodies, baseball caps etc also.

If you're not up to anything then show your face.

Thats an entirely reasonable view.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

I've already alluded to the policy in Iran under the sha and after, so you might be as good as to keep up?..

And the point you're trying to make hss already dismissed. Go back a few posts. Try and keep abreast of what's gone before.

Odhinn wrote: »

Wanting a blanket ban of the niqab or burkha is promoting discrimination. You support a ban ergo.....

Nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense.
Explain how (indeed several) Muslim countries implementing such a ban is promoting discrimination. Against themselves?
You keep ducking from this awkward fact, yet repeat that i promote discrimination...

You have absolutely nothing to offer, except a cheap shot, duck, rinse and repeat..

Infini

My honest view on this is that as far as things go that the whole Muslim Women hiding their face is basically something that isnt acceptable in the west as it tends to put a wall up where there shouldnt be one. Trying to claim religious dicrimination fails before the general evidence that this has become associated with regressive elements from the middle east not to mention that some people actually find this rude and intimidating, its like walking around with a hoodie up and facemask on or having a motorcycle helmet on when there's no need for it. It's socially unacceptable to be honest but those saying it might be religious discrimination against muslims should be aware that the headscarf generally doesnt anywhere elicit the same level of negativity because people can see one's face.

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

.............
Explain how (indeed several) Muslim countries implementing such a ban is promoting discrimination. Against themselves?
You keep ducking from this awkward fact, yet repeat that i promote discrimination...

Within their own societies its discrimination by the secular against the religous, obviously.

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Within their own societies its discrimination by the secular against the religous, obviously.

So all these countries are secular?

A 93% population Islamic country with Islam as the state religon, banning a burka, is
*checks notes* discriminating Muslims ...

Bless. Ive heard it all.

But I see you're ok with forcing Muslim women to unveil for security reasons, 'telling women what to wear' when it suits you, your security etc. Incidentally, 'd agree, but go a step further to promote integration and reduce bigotry and intolerance. Theirs (if wilfully worn).

Odhinn

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So all these countries are secular?

A 93% population Islamic country with Islam as the state religon, banning a burka, is
*checks notes* discriminating Muslims ....

Yes, logically its discrimination against a sect of islam.

4068ac1elhodqr

pinkyeye wrote: »

.... that says you can not wear a face covering in a place that is a high security risk such as a bank, airport etc. but I would apply that to hoodies, baseball caps etc also.

Thats an entirely un-reasonable view and a non-comparison.
You simply cannot compare wearing (uncovered facial) sports/lesuire head clothing, to what effectively is a black bag/hood with two small holes for eyes (full-face covering) across the entire head (indeed the full body concealed).

Any of the new incoming FRS can fully identify someone from a db walking in wearing a normal hoodie (even with a baseball cap on top) within 1/200th of a second.
The only possible exception is if the strings are pulled very, very, tight. That however would attract attention anyway as 'irregular behaviour'.

That includes private companies, individual retail spaces, shopping centre and civic areas. Nevermind more secure places with additional methods.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Thats an entirely un-reasonable view and a non-comparison.
You simply cannot compare wearing (uncovered facial) sports/lesuire head clothing, to what effectively is a black bag/hood with two small holes for eyes (full-face covering) across the entire head (indeed the full body concealed).

Any of the new incoming FRS can fully identify someone from a db walking in wearing a normal hoodie (even with a baseball cap on top) within 1/200th of a second.
The only possible exception is if the strings are pulled very, very, tight. That however would attract attention anyway as 'irregular behaviour'.

That includes private companies, individual retail spaces, shopping centre and civic areas. Nevermind more secure places with additional methods.

:rolleyes:

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

Yes, logically its discrimination against a sect of islam.

Sunni discriminating Sunni on religious grounds...but you're ok with them being discriminated against when it suits you....