Dutch "Burqa ban" comes into force from today

biko

http://pic.twitter.com/3k5mfU9FzI

السعودية عنايف الحويطي تخرجت من جامعة تينسي الأمريكية تخصص الكيمياء الحيوية وعضوة بالمنظمة الأمريكية للكيمياء وحاصلة على جائزة المفتاح الذهبي
صورة بدون تحية لليبراليين الذين أغلبهم يحمل شهادة الثانوية وللنسويات اللاتي أغلبهن تحمل شهادة الكفاءة ويقولون أن الحجاب يعيق التعليم

Translated from Arabic by Google
Saudi Arabia Anaif Al-Huwaiti graduated from the University of Tennessee, majoring in biochemistry, and a member of the American Organization of Chemistry. .
A picture without salute to liberals, most of whom hold a high school diploma and to females, most of whom hold a certificate of competence and say that the hijab impedes education

Graces7

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I dont necessarily disagree with the gist of most of the above, and I appreciate the implications of a ban. However, i still think the potential benifet outweighs the negatives.

Very little stats (none?) are available on the % of wearers who want to wear one, or how somehow feel coerced/obliged. A hijab however is a symbol of faith, and satisfies the requirement of many Muslims bar certain interpretations. But we're discussing a burka, and i dont think we can lose sight of what it means, and what it represents. And to listen to those Muslim women that would see it banned.

In a bank, one can conduct most transactions now without having to show ones face. Airport, not so. But i find it interesting how ready people are to expect its removal in a bank, when its not reallyrequired. But its a reason they can get their head around. Unless to reveal identify to and to engage with someone, something that can arguably extended to the wider community.

It also depends on how the rule re showing your face is carried out. It can be done discreetly behind doors. To respect. I used ti chat with a family in Dunnes who were fully veiled and had no issues with that. Eyes and voice are fine. As blind folk know.

redcup342

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a ban on burqas in public is discrimination against muslims. you would have to be a complete thick to think otherwise.

It’s not a ban on Muslims it’s a ban on covering your face. No way I would wear a balaclava in public even though it keeps my face warm in winter.

In Islamic countries it’s not even normal and there’s no way we should allow it to be normal in the west either, we don’t change our rules and laws to accommodate a small number of people in a certain religion.

seannash

redcup342 wrote: »

we don’t change our rules and laws to accommodate a small number of people in a certain religion.

There was no rule before this so they aren't changing any rule to accommodate a group of people. They are creating a rule that affects a small number of people.

redcup342

seannash wrote: »

There was no rule before this so they aren't changing any rule to accommodate a group of people. They are creating a rule that affects a small number of people.

There was always a rule (Look on the door of any bank or petrol station) but there was no law regarding it because previously it was common sense that it wasn't ok to do so in Public places.

It affects people wearing Burqas, niqabs, motorcycle full face helmets, balaclavas

I would say the largest group affected is motorcyclists.

The Dutch are tolerant but you still have to follow their rules (doe normaal) and if people don't then they make a law for it.

osarusan

I missed this reply before.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're not talking about a fedora though, or some other "benign" article of clothing. An article associated with intolerance, opression and subjugation of one sex. It is itself a discriminatory garment.

Agreed, we're not talking about a benign article of clothing.

But saying it's unacceptable because it's associated with intolerance, oppression and subjugation of one sex is a completely different argument to saying it's a security or identity risk. I don't think it's a coherent argument to say it should be banned in certain places because of the former reasons, and in other places because of the latter.

Also, if the argument is for a ban on articles associated with intolerance, oppression, and subjugation of one sex, that casts a wider net that could easily include many (most? all?) other religions, such as clothing for priests, nuns, and even articles like crucifix jewellery.

redcup342

osarusan wrote: »

I missed this reply before.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're not talking about a fedora though, or some  other "benign" article of clothing. An article associated with intolerance, opression and subjugation of one sex. It is itself a discriminatory garment.

Agreed, we're not talking about a benign article of clothing.

But saying it's unacceptable because it's associated with intolerance, oppression and subjugation of one sex is a completely different argument to saying it's a security or identity risk. I don't think it's a coherent argument to say it should be banned in certain places because of the former reasons, and in other places because of the latter.

Also, if the argument is for a ban on articles associated with intolerance, oppression, and subjugation of one sex, that casts a wider net that could easily include many (most? all?) other religions, such as clothing for priests, nuns, and even articles like crucifix jewellery.

The topic of the thread is the Law in the Netherlands. 
That's not the law nor the argument in the Netherlands (symbol of oppression) 
Everyone is subject to the Law,  regardless of their race, color, gender or religion. 
A  person wearing a surgical face mask (which is common in parts of asia) are also subject to it, even though this may be customary in their culture.

osarusan

redcup342 wrote: »

The topic of the thread is the Law in the Netherlands.
That's not the law nor the argument in the Netherlands (symbol of oppression)
Everyone is subject to the Law, regardless of their race, color, gender or religion.
A person wearing a surgical face mask (which is common in parts of asia) are also subject to it, even though this may be customary in their culture.

Roger and I have been discussing the idea of such a law being proposed/implemented in Ireland, and what it would look like and how it might be justified, from our respective positions.

4068ac1elhodqr

redcup342 wrote: »

A person wearing a surgical face mask (which is common in parts of asia) are also subject to it, even though this may be customary in their culture.

Excatly, it's a simple ban of covering of faces (to prevent the oppressive concealing of identity in public). Something for the greater good.

Belgium this month has also introduced a sensible ban of the slaughter of animals (that haven't been stunned first). Again a reasonable move, widely supported to prevent the unncessary pain inflicted upon millions of aminals yearly.

Think Europe is starting to catch itself on.

...On the other hand, a school in Engerland has decided it shall ban girls wearing skirts, in a move to 'enforce' a gender neutral uniform. 150 people protested outside the school as a result. This is a ban without any logic, and a suppression of a highly utilitarian, unoffensive item of clothing. Not to mention the wider cost of forcing parents to dispose of items and buy new trousers for their pupils.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Excatly, it's a simple ban of covering of faces (to prevent the oppressive concealing of identity in public). Something for the greater good.

Belgium this month has also introduced a sensible ban of the slaughter of animals (that haven't been stunned first). Again a reasonable move, widely supported to prevent the unncessary pain inflicted upon millions of aminals yearly.

Think Europe is starting to catch itself on.

...On the other hand, a school in Engerland has decided it shall ban girls wearing skirts, in a move to 'enforce' a gender neutral uniform. 150 people protested outside the school as a result. This is a ban without any logic, and a suppression of a highly utilitarian, unoffensive item of clothing. Not to mention the wider cost of forcing parents to dispose of items and buy new trousers for their pupils.

No kosher food prepped there from.now on so.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No kosher food prepped there from.now on so.

Also very great news indeed.

Great to see you take some sense, and approve of this sensible approach to prevent unnecessary cruelty and pain towards animals, regardless of any skygod.



Similary FGM and MGM should both be fully outlawed too.
Well FGM is technically outlawed, but it occurs and no one is ever charged, a 'blind eye' approach it would seem.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Also very great news indeed.

Great to see you take some sense, and approve of this sensible approach to prevent unnecessary cruelty and pain towards animals, regardless of any skygod.

Why wouldnt i?

Similary FGM and MGM should both be fully outlawed too.
Well FGM is technically outlawed, but it occurs and no one is ever charged, a 'blind eye' approach it would seem.

I also agree.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why wouldnt i?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

Why wouldn't i approve of moves to stop animal cruelty?

redcup342

Sylvie Slow Underclothes wrote: »

redcup342 wrote: »

A person wearing a surgical face mask (which is common in parts of asia) are also subject to it, even though this may be customary in their culture.

Excatly, it's a simple ban of covering of faces (to prevent the oppressive concealing of identity in public). Something for the greater good.

Belgium this month has also introduced a sensible ban of the slaughter of animals (that haven't been stunned first). Again a reasonable move, widely supported to prevent the unncessary pain inflicted upon millions of aminals yearly.

Think Europe is starting to catch itself on.

...On the other hand, a school in Engerland has decided it shall ban girls wearing skirts, in a move to 'enforce' a gender neutral uniform. 150 people protested outside the school as a result. This is a ban without any logic, and a suppression of a highly utilitarian, unoffensive item of clothing. Not to mention the wider cost of forcing parents to dispose of items and buy new trousers for their pupils.

In the Netherlands it's purely a Security topic and everyone being treated equally. 

There is no mention of what you describe in the law regarding Women or Religion.

4068ac1elhodqr

redcup342 wrote: »

In the Netherlands it's purely a Security topic and everyone being treated equally.
There is no mention of what you describe in the law regarding Women or Religion.

Exactly, if a city centre decides to ban diesel cars (in the interest of the greater good), it isn't directly targetting Navy VW Passat 2.0TD drivers, it's applies to all diesels regardless of manufacturer.

So there's no need for anyone owning a VW to get all touchy about it.

Roger Hassenforder

osarusan wrote: »

Roger and I have been discussing the idea of such a law being proposed/implemented in Ireland, and what it would look like and how it might be justified, from our respective positions.

This refers to a hijab - a hair covering. I wonder how such women would view a burka:

https://twitter.com/YasMohammedxx/status/1172646017180680192?s=19

Going on a limb here - here we are white western men arguing as to the justification (if any) of a ban on burkas. I prefer to let those affected to the talking, unfortunately those either cant or are unable, those that can seem to be predominantly illdisposed to being forced to cover their hair, imagine how they feel about their entire body.

Yet, im called a racist...
(Not by you osarusan)