The Dutch government to ban burqa?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MissVelvetDress_75

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Messages
25,776
Location
basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized b
[q] Dutch MPs to decide on burqa ban
By Mark Mardell
Europe editor, BBC News, Brussels

The Dutch government will announce over the next few weeks whether it will make it a crime to wear traditional Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes.

The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa outside the home, and some in the government have thrown their weight behind it.

There are only about 50 women in all of the Netherlands who do cover up entirely - but soon they could be breaking the law.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is the man who first suggested the idea of a ban.

"It's a medieval symbol, a symbol against women," he says.

"We don't want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society."

'Identifiable'

I interviewed Mr Wilders inside parliament after several security checks. Two tough bodyguards stood close by throughout. This country, once the epitome of easy-going liberalism, is edgier, less tolerant these days.

Mr Wilders' name was included on a list of "infidels, who deserved to be slaughtered", which was found pinned to the body of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

Van Gogh was murdered two years ago for making the film about women and Islam called "Submission". It starts with a shot of a woman's face covered by a burqa. Slowly the camera shows that, from the neck downwards, she's naked but for a thin veil.

Mr Wilders has explicitly linked his wish for a burqa ban with terrorism.

"We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam," says Mr Wilders.

"That's also a reason why everybody should be identifiable when they walk on the street or go to a pub or go into a restaurant or whatsoever."

'Freedom of choice'

Famala Aslam is a Muslim lawyer who has represented women who have stopped wearing the burqa while training as child-care assistants. She would not cover her face herself, but does wear a traditional dress and headscarf from eastern Turkey.

She showed me how that can be adapted.

Banning or isolating a certain group of the population is just asking for problems
Famala Aslam, Muslim lawyer
"Other women are stricter; and they hide the face - you can only see the eyes," she says. "And other women choose to wear the niqab, and they veil the face totally."

I asked her what she would say to people who would say: "If you want to fit into the West, live here, wear a business suit; wear jeans - don't wear what you're wearing. Don't wear a niqab."

Ms Aslam says she believes that the freedom of choice and the freedom of religion is something that people need to fight for.

In the city of Maaseik, in Belgium - which lies a few hundred yards from the Dutch border - a ban on wearing the niqab is already in place. Mayor Jan Creemers said he brought it forward because old people were afraid and children cried when women started appearing in long black robes with their faces covered.

Belgium ban

Women can now be fined 150 euros (£102) if they are found to be wearing the niqab.

"There were six ladies who wore the niqab. I think two or three weeks after the council passed this law, five have dropped it," says Mr Creemers. "One lady is still wearing it but the last step in the procedure will be that she must go to jail."

The husband of the woman who defies the ban is being held in connection with the Madrid bombings. But the police here are not too happy with the ban. They say it has made relations with the Moroccan community worse and gives young people a reason to resent society.

Ms Aslam says if the ban becomes law in the Netherlands, some women will adopt the veil as a political statement.

"A lot of women are not fully feeling like Muslims," she says. "But because of the public opinion, they are feeling like: 'I have to be a Muslim'. And banning or isolating a certain group of the population is just asking for problems."

The Dutch government will soon decide whether to ban the burqa. Perhaps it will not become illegal in this marketplace or in the street. But they are likely to ban it in public places like stations, airports and cinemas - something many Muslims will regard as provocation in a Europe increasingly uncertain of its own identity.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4616664.stm

Published: 2006/01/16 13:02:15 GMT

[/q]
 
You can be an impeccably pious Muslim without a burqa. This is a cultural tradition in certain countries justified by religion, not the other way around. I think it has a lot to do with protecting the face from sandstorms in Arabia (makes sense there but not a feature of the North West European climate last time I checked).

The Dutch are right to liberate those Muslim women in their country whose menfolk require such unnecessary and possibly repressive cultural practices.
 
Last edited:
I have seen Muslim women wearing veils driving their kids home from school, stopping at the drugstore to pick up some stuff on the way. I saw a women who only had her veil opened at her eyes so she could see--let's hope so since she was driving a car! Their reasoning is that they're saving their beauty for their husbands. It's definitely not my lifestyle, but it's theirs, and it doesn't bother me.
 
verte76 said:
Their reasoning is that they're saving their beauty for their husbands.

It is my understanding that the commands in the Koran that led to the burqa were not for the woman's benefit, or even the benefit of the marriage. It was to prevent men from being tempted when seeing the beautiful form of the women.
 
nbcrusader said:


It is my understanding that the commands in the Koran that led to the burqa were not for the woman's benefit, or even the benefit of the marriage. It was to prevent men from being tempted when seeing the beautiful form of the women.

That's correct. But I've read where some particular women also stated their preference to save their beauty for their husbands. In these cases it's not the Koran, it's personal choice. Sometimes these women actually choose the veil. One of them said "we wear it with pride".
 
VertigoGal said:
Maybe they should just ban covering your entire face in public, period. Seems like a legit security measure, and wouldn't have the religious opression twist.

About the only worthy rationale I can think of.

:hmm: I wonder if nuns in full traditional habit would pass Mr. Wilders' Fashion Assimilation test?
 
VertigoGal said:
Maybe they should just ban covering your entire face in public, period. Seems like a legit security measure, and wouldn't have the religious opression twist.

There was a controversy over headcoverings in ID pix in Alabama. The Legislature proposed a law over them. The law would have applied to both headscarves and nuns' headdresses. One loudmouthed Catholic right-winger was insisting that they not change the law for "that Muslim woman". They changed the law and I didn't hear a peep from that loud mouth.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:

It was to prevent men from being tempted when seeing the beautiful form of the women.

Perhaps it would work better to blind the men.

Or castrate them.

Why is it always the women who have to do/wear the shitty stuff so the men "won't be tempted?"

Arrrgghh! :madspit:
 
nbcrusader said:
It was to prevent men from being tempted when seeing the beautiful form of the women.

If they're doing it to prevent men from being tempted, then why live in western countries where there are lots of beautiful women :sexywink:
 
indra said:
Why is it always the women who have to do/wear the shitty stuff so the men "won't be tempted?"

Good question. And it can be expanded.

Why should a woman have to walk several blocks out of her way because the construction workers have to wolf-whistle, catcall and make obscene gestures when she walks past the site?

Why does a female customer service worker have to put up with smutty remarks, leers and male customers staring at her breasts in the name of "good customer service"?

Why is a rape victim accused of "asking for it"?

Why can't we all just control ourselves, mind our manners and treat each other with respect and decency?! :rant:
 
While I wholeheartedly share the above frustrations, it is more than a bit of a stretch to draw a blanket equation between such sleights and burka-wearing as an expression of particular ideals of modesty, propriety and piety. Having been raised in an Orthodox Jewish community where men and women alike dressed conservatively (which, for many of the women, included head coverings), I can assert with confidence that while this style of dress obviously embodied some views that were out of step with mainstream American sensibilities, it NEVER led to a belief that women who didn't dress in this way were thereby deserving of contempt, harassment or violence. Perhaps--maybe even probably--the immigrant, Old-World-European Jewish ancestors of many of my cohorts experienced such feelings of shock and contempt at these and other American ways upon arrival, but over time--certainly by the time I came along--such radical feelings of disidentification were long forgotten.

If there were a serious problem in the Netherlands with Muslim women who choose not to wear a burka being subjected to violence from relatives over this choice, then that would be another matter. I doubt very much that this is the case, though, when only 50 women in the country actually wear it to begin with. In any case, making burka-wearing illegal for this reason would be inappropriate since it does not address the underlying problem, namely regarding violence as an acceptable way to influence the behaviors and lifestyle of members of the private communities to which one belongs.
 
Angela Harlem said:
Doesn't help that Mr Wilder is a fruit. Sorry, Dutch friends.
:|

We already know, with hair like that. :wink:

NETHERLANDS.jpg


:yikes:
 
financeguy said:
You can be an impeccably pious Muslim without a burqa. This is a cultural tradition in certain countries justified by religion, not the other way around. I think it has a lot to do with protecting the face from sandstorms in Arabia (makes sense there but not a feature of the North West European climate last time I checked).

The Dutch are right to liberate those Muslim women in their country whose menfolk require such unnecessary and possibly repressive cultural practices.

Very right that this is more cultural than religious. The interpreters and teachers of the Koran in the Muslim countries are mostly men...it's in their interest to maintain the traditional roles of women of being subservient and what not.

The Koran's stipulation about dressing/looking/behaving modestly applies to both men and women:

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity; that is purer for them. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to make a display of their beauty except what is apparent, and let them cast a cover over their bosoms.... And turn to Allah (God) altogether, O believers, in order that you might succeed (Koran 24: 30-31)."

And, hey, I don't know the Bible that well, but you could pick out certain passages and try to say that the book teaches women be second class citizens, such as these:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 of the New Testament of the Bible states:

"As in all Churches of the saints, the woman should be subordinate as even the law says...for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

1 Timothy 2:11 states:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

1 Corinthians 11:6 says:

" For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."

-----------------

An enlightened society, however, probably shouldn't be using thousands of years old "directions" so literally. The West, at least in the last 80 years, has done a good job of moving toward men-women equality. Something so obviously and sadly lacking in most "Muslim" countries.
 
Last edited:
well that's pathetic.

as backwards as their dress code is to me, who, WHO is anyone to say how anyone can dress???
 
The dutch are not the first to do this, the french have already banned kids from wearing them at school!
Personally, i think its a violation of one's civil rights, having said that, i want my christmas carols back in our shopping centres and our ATM's to say "Merry christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" when it comes to season greetings!
 
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28050.asp

Would-be immigrants to the Netherlands must watch kiss video

The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture. If they can't stomach it, no need to apply.

Whether or not they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the nation's new entrance examination. The test, the first of its kind in the world, became compulsory Wednesday and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies around the world.

Taking the exam costs $420, while the price for a preparation package that includes the film, a CD-ROM, and a picture album of famous Dutch people is $75.

"As of [March 15] immigrants wishing to settle in the Netherlands for, in particular, the purposes of marrying or forming a relationship will be required to take the civic integration examination abroad," the immigration ministry said in a statement.

The test is part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has been gathering momentum in the Netherlands since 2001. Anti-immigration sentiment peaked with filmmaker Theo van Gogh's murder by a Dutch national of Moroccan descent in November 2004.

Both praise and scorn have been heaped on immigration minister Rita Verdonk, the architect of the new test and other policies that have successfully reduced immigration by at least a third. "If you pass, you're more than welcome," Verdonk said. "It is in the interest of Dutch society and those concerned."

Not everyone is happy with the new test. "Today is a black day for the people intending to bring their partners to Holland," said Buitenlandse Partner, a lobbying group for mixed Dutch-immigrant couples.

Dutch theologian Karel Steenbrink criticized the 105-minute movie, saying it would be offensive to some Muslims. "It is not a prudent way of welcoming people to the Netherlands," said Steenbrink, a professor at the University of Utrecht. "Minister Verdonk has radical ideas."

There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum seekers, and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam. Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland are exempt.

A censored version with no gay or nude material had been prepared since "it's unlawful to show them in Iran" and some other countries, filmmaker Walter Goverde said. "With all the respect I have for all religions, I think people need to understand that Holland has its own liberal side as well," he said.

After viewing the film, which is available in most languages, applicants are then quizzed on important Dutch factoids such as the number of provinces that make up the Netherlands; the role played by William of Orange in the country's history; and Queen Beatrix's monarchial functions. Mohammed Sini, the chairman of Islam and Citizenship, a national Muslim organization, defended the film, saying that homosexuality is "a reality." (AP)

My emphasis in bold.

This is not the right way to go about it :tsk:

foray
 
What on earth is happening to The Netherlands? Their liberal side forgot how to be liberal by asking all burqas be removed, to hell with how that makes the wearer feel. Now it is going beyond ridiculous by testing how aptly comone can cope with topless women and 2 men kissing? What a crock.
 
Angela Harlem said:
What on earth is happening to The Netherlands? Their liberal side forgot how to be liberal by asking all burqas be removed, to hell with how that makes the wearer feel. Now it is going beyond ridiculous by testing how aptly comone can cope with topless women and 2 men kissing? What a crock.
Really? What does a liberal society do when the core liberal values of free expression, sexual liberation and secularism are threatened by religious bigots? Is it expected to respect and protect a culture that seeks to destroy the host culture?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Really? What does a liberal society do when the core liberal values of free expression, sexual liberation and secularism are threatened by religious bigots? Is it expected to respect and protect a culture that seeks to destroy the host culture?

In the past it has started with hate speeches, moved to martial law and then on to detention camps. Remember?

Washington Pulse -- White House 'Hate Speech' Takes on Life of Its Own
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=41ce849c7bb9a18a3a93230d41c2c3ca

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77
 
verte76 said:
They're turning their society into a "one size fits all" place. I don't know what's happening to the Netherlands, either.

I can't help but wonder if the stated intent of the Ducth protecting themselves may in effect end up protecting observant muslims who are not as easily identified without burqas. That would be outlandishly hopeful and well, rather liberal.
 
If the Dutch think they can solve all of their immigration problems by forbidding a Central Asian headdress and forcing every immigrant to be relaxed when they kiss, they're sadly misled.
 
It's highly unlikely that this one's going to fly. The government simply doesn't have the legal tools to tell people what to wear in public. And on top of that, religious symbols enjoy extra legal protection. It's more likely that wearing a burqa will be banned in cases when covering up the face might pose a security risk, such as airports or demonstrations. It's all about symbol politics really; I don't even think we're talking about 100 women in the entire country. Not exactly a sign of a society being on the road to destruction. In that sense, the proposed ban is a lot more worrying for those who like as little governmental meddling as possible.
 
It angers me that this new policy targets a very specific group, because you can find conservative homophobes aplenty in the "exempted" countries.

foray
 
Back
Top Bottom