It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Netherlands to ban the burka

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I think this is in the right forum.

So, we had news earlier on today about France outlawing prayer in the streets of Paris, along with France's no burka policy. It seems as though the Dutch are the latest country to ban this item of clothing, despite the fact that fewer than 100 women wear one


The Dutch government will agree to introduce a ban on Friday making the Netherlands the third country in Europe to prohibit the burka, behind France and Belgium.

Women caught wearing a burka in public, on the streets, public transport and in schools or hospitals will be fined £330.



There will be exemptions for mosques, or other religious buildings and for foreign women travelling through the transit lounges of international Dutch airports.


So, what do you make of this? A good decision which allows women the freedom of expression, or what have you? Or just a pointless law when you consider how few people actually wear one?

Netherlands to ban the burka




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Well done to the Dutch.

Burka's are for sheeple burks



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Stupid.

Outlaw Islam instead.

Or perhaps the Dutch believe they are in a war with pieces of cloth instead of deadly, super violent jihading muslims?

edit on 16-9-2011 by mike_trivisonno because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 




How do they know that fewer than 100 women in Holland were the Burka?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
What is the purpose of the law?

If there isn't already a law that prohibits facial coverings and disguises in public places, then there should be. But to ban a specific article of clothing that only one religion wears, is totally against personal freedom and I disagree with it.

BECAUSE, under a law that bans the burqa, specifically, a person can legally wear a potato sack over their head and rob a bank. But this isn't about public security. It's about controlling the way women participate in society:



Cabinet ministers are poised to insist that the burqa does “not fit into our open society and women must participate fully.”


Source

What about the women who don't want to "participate fully"?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Personal freedom has been taken away now...I wonder what's next...

Laws are a cage to man, restricting our actions. How is banning an article of clothing...shielding us from harm?

Agreed with blupie above me...I'm sure that in the WHOLE of Netherlands...over 100 women must...

Well I think it's a bad decision..It's against their culture, their religion...you're taking away a woman's right to be comfortable, to be respected (for the Muslims.)

Banning the burka is like banning the cross for Christians, like banning the turbans for Sikhs and like banning bindhis for Hindus. I know if I had any restrictions, any discrimination because of religion...I would be in an uproar.

Not only this...but we're starting to restrict what people can wear..I mean seriously, this will just be the beginning. Soon, "Muslims" won't be allowed in schools or something...classes in society will develop and will widen. Who knows what governments can do in the future...if they ban clothes now...they can do much much worse eventually.

This is one human right being taken away...I wonder what one is next...the right to live?
edit on 16-9-2011 by BlackPoison94 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


To compare crosses with burkas is totally not comparable in my opinion BUT...

they already banned crosses in most public jobs in Holland so there you have it

And from the article below you see head scarfs ARE allowed.
www.netwerk.tv... (sorry it's in dutch)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by no special characters
 


You can't wear crosses? That's absolutely disgraceful. Jeeez, it's not like you're going to burn if you seem them. It's part of a person's religion, their IDENTITY....look at the irony, it used to be an absolute no no if you didn't wear a cross years ago and now, it's a no no to wear one.

Ahh but you can still wear it underneath your clothing, whereas obviously with the burka, you can't. The whole point of it is for modesty.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


Islam forbids the depiction of the human form. The burka reduces women to things, chattel, less than human.

The burka eliminates the human form and replaces it with a black, formless figure. It symbolizes the dehumanization of the human form.

The burka also symbolizes YOUR submission to the will of the muslims by allowing them to treat humans as things.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
To be honest the Burqa was just begging to be banned because it covers the whole face to conceal identity and its also easily open to abuse. Ofcourse, it was also a smart political move to attract far right voters aswell.

On the other hand, they can't ban the Hijab because Catholic/Christian women monks also where them.
edit on 16-9-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackPoison94
 


The crosses were "offensive" to muslim sensibilities and so, for political correctness, they were banned.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I think these laws go over the top, although the burka isn't really a religious requirement (I could be wrong about this)
but has more to do with the Islamic culture, so they should be allowed to hold on to they're cultural identity, as long as it doesn't conflict with the host nations laws.

However they must abide by western laws, so if they try to enter a building that requires them to remove face coverings, they should abide by the rules, and either uncover they're faces or don't enter the building, and if the owners of the building asks them leave because they refuse to uncover they're face, then don't try and sue them on religious ground.

On a personally level i'm not a fan of the burka, as it suggests, as a man, that I can not be trusted around women without having lustful thoughts or worse...I kind of resent that.
edit on 16-9-2011 by DBCooper71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The crosses were "offensive" to muslim sensibilities and so, for political correctness, they were banned.


Do you have a source on that? I call BS. The crosses were banned on public servants and employees of the state to show neutrality.



A new dress code for the police includes a ban on religious symbols such as crosses and headscarves, the Nederlands Dagblad reports on Wednesday.

The code emphasises that the police are there for all citizens and obvious religious affiliations are not desirable, the paper says. Instead, the aim is for 'lifestyle neutrality'.

Large tattoos and unusual piercings are also no longer acceptable because they could frighten or intimidate people. Police officers with large tattoos will have to cover them up.


Dutch News

I suppose you're going to claim that Muslims were offended by headscarves and tattoos, too.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You obviously do not understand how Jihad works. The bans are done ostensibly to "avoid offending anyone". The are in realty enacted to appease the offended sensibilities of the muslims. Other groups and items of clothing may be included in an effort to appear politically correct. In the end, non-mulims submit to the muslims and the Jihad advances one more step.

That you do not understand or recognize the 1,400 year-old mechanic of Jihad, is a testament to its effectiveness.

Everything that is happening in France, Great Britain, and Europe is part of the Jihad. Everywhere one wishes to look in both space and time, one will find that where muslims interface with non-muslims there is violent Jihad.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It seems that some people posting here don't really understand what's happening in these European countries concerning the Muslim populations. These measures are an attempt by the governments to control the growing number of Muslim immigrants, and a message is being sent to these people that this is not a Muslim country. I've lived in Holland for a number of years, the dutch people are very tolerant, but the Muslim people do not want to integrate into dutch society and keep to themselves. Islam on the other hand is not known for tolerance, and while many Muslims go crazy at a perceived insult, they are rarely respectful of others beliefs, there are often violent clashes with Muslim and dutch youths. Also many Muslims want to live under sharia law. This is also true in many other European countries.

People talking about freedom of religious expression are correct, and I agree, however this is about more than that, this is a reaction to the perceived spread of Islam into non-Islamic, and mostly secular, countries, and people are scared and worried about what they see as a threat to their way of life.


edit on 16-9-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
In the west, wearing a burqa is a choice. If it is not a choice ( your husband or father makes you do it..) then you have recourse of going to the law...but not anymore..we are losing our freedoms.


The West prides itself on its freedoms...( they hate us for our freedoms remember?)..and now..once again..we prove that it isn't about a freedom at all, we make it illegal to wear one..and Iran makes it illegal not to..who is better? Who is more free?

I disagree with any ban on religious expression ( beyond practical stuff, like..you can't wear it in a bank, or take your passport picture in it).

This is wrong and just a way appease a growing minority in Europe who blame all their ills on Muslims..the latest bogeyman, but surely not the last, what happens when your *fill in the blank religious, ethnic, political affiliation* becomes the newest bogeyman?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
I disagree with any ban on religious expression ( beyond practical stuff, like..you can't wear it in a bank, or take your passport picture in it).


The burqa is not religious. It's cultural. The burqa was around way before Mohammed created Islam and the Koran does not mention the burqa at all. It's simply a way for Muslim men to control and subjugate their women which we all know are less than second class citizens within Islamic countries/culture.

The women who wear it are simply institutionalised to wear it and are brainwashed from an early age to believe it's part of their identity. It is in essence, Stockholm syndrome. Burqas are not worn in moderate Islamic households and they are NOT free to walk around in public without it. The burqa has NOTHING to do with freedom or expression. It's the complete opposite! In best case scenarios, they are told that they cannot leave the house without it... In the worst case scenarios, they are beaten (punished) or even killed for dishonouring the household/family. There's your freedom for you!

IRM




top topics



 
1

log in

join