dutch voting to ban burqa in public

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I applaud Denmark for their steadfastness in defending thier culture within thier own state. That goes for any country and any culture within their own boundaries.


I'm glad you like Denmark so much.

What about Holland?


[edit on 18/11/06 by stumason]


I am embarrased.
But technically lets say "What about the Netherlands?"




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Sorry chap, I resisted for 24 hours, then I couldn't stop myself... I did have a giggle.

But yes, your right, technically it's The Netherlands.... I wonder if that's anywhere near the Nether regions? Hmmm...



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Its a good trend catching on in Europe. Maybe if the liberals were less prissy here in America we could have a similar vote! I am sure it would go throught in many places.

To the politically correct people, I ask, why should people be allowed to divide society further by open symbols of division and segragation ??



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Its a good trend catching on in Europe. Maybe if the liberals were less prissy here in America we could have a similar vote! I am sure it would go throught in many places.


Don't group all liberal people into one group.

I'm a liberal and think this is a good thing.

I dont think it is at the presnt time neccessary to do so in
America though.

Though we should have laws that require them to remove
them for certain things like drivers licence pictures and to
confirm identity.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Well the dutch are very liberal, and are probably doing this as to keep women unoppressed.
good for you holland.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
But isn't Holland violating their own liberal culture by ruling on what one can and cannot wear?

One of the arguments against the acceptance of gay folks here in America has been that some people are just uncomfortable around openly affectionate homosexuals and should not be forced to adjust as it violates their own cultural beliefs.

Obviously stupid. But how are they any different than what Holland is doing? Either you have freedom of expression (and burka wearing falls under this, strangely) or you don't. You can't have freedom of speech if it only applies to non-offensive speech, for example. Can you?

"Protecting" freedom by restricting it is self-defeating. It's like crippling your child to ensure he doesn't run in front of a bus.

Passing a common sense law like "women in burkas can't drive" or "burka wearers wishing to enter a plane must have their identity validated by a woman staff member" could alleviate the practical issues raised here without compromising the principles of liberal culture that Holland is trying to protect.

So the real question is, Why did Holland feel the need to pass this law?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shotsJust a thought but perhaps they should rewrite the EU and US (or ALL) constitutions and ban them all. That certainly would not be a first, Saudi Arabia requires all females to change into Muslim dress before getting off an international flight in their country.


I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous logic. You criticize Saudia Arabia and Iran for not respecting human rights and then you use them as an example for amending our own constitutions to ban freedom of religion/expression.

You know what? The US allows freedom of religion and expression, a freedom I am proud to have in my country and saddened to see that others can't embrace, from Western to Oriental. I can see the burqa being banned in instances where identification is required, but in others, people have a right to wear it.

Too bad the dutch are going backwards.



Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think they should be able to wear it if they're just walking down the street. They should also be able to wear it on public transport, subject to having to take it off for search if asked by the police or transportation officials, and should not be able to wear it in any other situation where it would endanger the public safety (such as driving) or on any official ID card photo.

I'm a big believer in freedom of religion, unless it affects the freedom and safety of others.


I couldn't agree more. IMO, people who would want to outlaw this sort of thing should have no right to complain when Islamic countries do the same. One of the big hallmarks of Western culture is a respect not only for the nation/state, but also for the individual and who they are.

[edit on 18-11-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Though I do not really care if women are allowed to wear these burqas or not, I don't understand the purpose of the Dutch banning it and making it law. That just seems strange.

And I don't really understand Europe's infatuation with passing laws against what Muslims wear. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you have so many problems with them.

And why is the Netherlands forcing people to learn Dutch? Aren't they part of the EU? And isn't that supposed to be some free type of union where there are no boundaries?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
You guys are right, everyone should be allowed to wear them. We should also allow people to wear "pretend" suicide vests in public. Heck even let muslims roam thru the city with replica AK-47's.

The truth is, if 1 type of person or (stereotype) is a potential terrorist, why take it out on the rest We know where the problem/threat is, so why pretend we dont?

Why wont you want to show ur face? Why wear the burka? Oh, because its your religion? then go back to where your religion is from.

Can you imagine a band of congo cannibals living in the US? and on top of that, they have a "say so" and a right to live here?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by H34T533K3RWhy wont you want to show ur face? Why wear the burka? Oh, because its your religion? then go back to where your religion is from.

Can you imagine a band of congo cannibals living in the US? and on top of that, they have a "say so" and a right to live here?


The major difference between the burqa and all the other examples you use is that burqa's don't hurt others. Honestly, I think it's very ignorant to equate people in burqas to cannibals. The people who originally fled to the US were trying to escape the kind of primitive thinking that advocates a restriction on the human rights to religion and expression, which is why the US allows people to have a "'say so' and a right to live here."

[edit on 18-11-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Sorry chap, I resisted for 24 hours, then I couldn't stop myself... I did have a giggle.

But yes, your right, technically it's The Netherlands.... I wonder if that's anywhere near the Nether regions? Hmmm...


Touche' and thanks for the good natured ribbing. But what are your thoughts on the idea? Does a sovereign, and culturally unified society have the right to regulate itself in terms of acceptable dress, behaivior in relation to to the orderly civil conduct of the populace??



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkblueskyDoes a sovereign, and culturally unified society have the right to regulate itself in terms of acceptable dress, behaivior in relation to to the orderly civil conduct of the populace??


What's the contrasting relation you are supposing between wearing a burqa and "orderly civil conduct"?



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ivzm
let me pose this question, if a county imposed a law that noone could wear pants because it was deemed intimidateing. whould you give the same reaction.

before you say its not the same thing, they are both articals of clothing that are worn due to religion belief (pants and underware becasue of modesty wich basicly all religion teaches)

personaly im not religous but i am of the view that you should respect other peoples religions and cultures, they are trying to ban the burqa, if you ban the burpqa why not the caps jewish men sometimes wear, is it not the same thing or what about the popes hat, isnt that intimidateing? if your going to ban one thing why not at least be consistant?


my 2 cents
-IvZM


Women are not allowed to wear pants in many countries, at least not cut-offs and T's. You'd be immediately raped and killed. You want that mentality at home? There's an expectation that you must assimilate and reflect their culture. I think we should be as stubborn, to some degree. Especially where our moral ground is concerned.

George is right about one thing, they're using our liberal freedoms against us. Cultural jihad. Ban every burkha in Canuckistan - that will have them crawling out of the wood-work.

And that's my bigoted and unpolitically correct opinion for the day, or not.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Now that the dutch have banned the hijjab, they can proceed public worship and then ban the skull caps, the rastafarians dread locks and the preists cassock and other relgious clothes.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Now that the dutch have banned the hijjab, they can proceed public worship and then ban the skull caps, the rastafarians dread locks and the preists cassock and other relgious clothes.


They haven't banned anything yet.

Also, Hijaab is a concept of modesty, not an item of clothing.

The Burkha, whilst it could be argued to be Hijaab, is not a religious requirement but rather a cultural item of clothing only found in certain areas of the Arab world.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Here in Glasgow (UK), I can't walk into a bank or most petrol station wearing my motorcycle helmet with the visor up, I think banning the burka is maybe for the same security reasons.

Also here, burqa wearers have their bus pass ID pictures taken with their faces covered, I think this is ludicrous.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by cazzy2211]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by darkblueskyDoes a sovereign, and culturally unified society have the right to regulate itself in terms of acceptable dress, behaivior in relation to to the orderly civil conduct of the populace??


What's the contrasting relation you are supposing between wearing a burqa and "orderly civil conduct"?


I think the total concealment of ones gender and identity can be used to the advantage of any number of law breakers.

If wearing a burqa is accetable to the majority of the people a state, thats one thing. If the majority of people in another state dont't beleive it's acceptable, then I believe that state has the right to regulate it.

I see many western women on TV, when traveling in/working in/reporting from certain Islamic states wearing headscarves and/or other appropriate derss to comply with the wishes/laws of those states. Furthermore, in these cases, the lack of certain pieces of clothing does not make it easier to avoid detection, bypass security checks, or conceal idenities in general.

[edit on 11/20/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I think the total concealment of ones gender and identity can be used to the advantage of any number of law breakers.


How so? I would agree that ID needs to be without a cover, but what about out in public? Are people not allowed to wear large coats and face protection during the winter either?


If wearing a burqa is accetable to the majority of the people a state, thats one thing. If the majority of people in another state dont't beleive it's acceptable, then I believe that state has the right to regulate it.


The state has a right to do what it wants because they have a monopoly on power, but that DOES NOT make it right. Ever heard of the concept of protecting the rights of the minority? I honestly don't see how someone wearing a burqa is hurting anyone else.


I see many western women on TV, when traveling in/working in/reporting from certain Islamic states wearing headscarves and/or other appropriate derss to comply with the wishes/laws of those states.


So you agree with banning the burqa because Islamic states require someone to wear a headscarf? IMO, both cases are wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I think the total concealment of ones gender and identity can be used to the advantage of any number of law breakers.


How so? I would agree that ID needs to be without a cover, but what about out in public? Are people not allowed to wear large coats and face protection during the winter either?


If wearing a burqa is accetable to the majority of the people a state, thats one thing. If the majority of people in another state dont't beleive it's acceptable, then I believe that state has the right to regulate it.


The state has a right to do what it wants because they have a monopoly on power, but that DOES NOT make it right. Ever heard of the concept of protecting the rights of the minority? I honestly don't see how someone wearing a burqa is hurting anyone else.


I see many western women on TV, when traveling in/working in/reporting from certain Islamic states wearing headscarves and/or other appropriate derss to comply with the wishes/laws of those states.


So you agree with banning the burqa because Islamic states require someone to wear a headscarf? IMO, both cases are wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.



I haven't stated my opinion regarding whether I think baning burqa wearing (specifically) is morally/ethically right or wrong.

I applauded a country (The Netherlands - Thanks Stumason) for having the integrity in this age of political correctness to dis-allow a custom that was not acceptable to the majority of its citizens.

I then gave examples, at your request, to illustrate one possible line of reasoning behind The Netherlands decision.

When a democratic state passes a law it's not through a monopoly of power. The elected representatives of the voting population pass laws based on what thier constituency tells them. Either through direct communication or by means of elections. We just witnessed a great example of that in this country.


[edit on 11/20/2006 by darkbluesky]





top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join