Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

[dong20]

Well, that may be true, but still not even near the point I was making. Even the puritanical western types claim it is an offense to god, for either gender to show too much. But these guys who claim to be so strong in their faith, so strong in general, but acknowledge that they would be completely unable to keep from raping any woman who accidentally shows a lock of hair... really absurd.

No, I got your point it's just that there is no real life foundation to the belief than men will become incited to sexual abuse merely by seeing skin. In that sense it's just a smokescreen for the suppression of women, or men when taken logically. It was so obvious I didn't think I needed to explain further.

Speaking for myself my curiosity is more likely to be heightened not muted by seeing a woman 'covered up'. However even if she ran around naked it wouldn't induce an irresistible desire, the key word here being irresistible.

I can understand that to many even an unrequited desire would be offensive, hence the pressure to enforce a covering up policy. If it's voluntary on the part of the 'coveree' I have no problem with it, if it's enforced against their will then I have a major problem with it, but only in the context of my moral values, and who am I to impose those on others.

When i have been to Arabic countries foreign women are expected to dress in an 'appropriate manner'! Infact being a non-muslim your not allowed to travel to certain parts of certain arab nations. SOOO, my point is that u need to respect your host nations ways; 'When in Rome do what the Romans do'. So While i don't expect all Muslim women to walk around in Jeans and a T shirt etc... i think the removal of the full head veil would be appreciated. This has been my view, WELL before all this 9/11 .. Iraq war, bombings in London etc... Just my view

In principle I agree, but let me pose the following:

Here in the 'civilised west' we value tolerance of various faiths and beliefs, hence in general we allow practices that are considered compatible with those beliefs, and make changes to our social infrastructures to accomodate them, even to the point where this (as it would seem) presents problems, whether of a real or percieved nature.

However part of that is accepting that other nations, such as those you mention are not so inclined and that travel to those nations may cause culture shock and/or behavioral adjustment. Now, are they inflexible and repressive - or are they just holding truer to their beliefs and cultural norms thus resisting their dilution in what they may see as our misguided drive for some social homegenity?

As an example, a women wearing revealing clothing in a religious area because she doesn't believe that a woman needs to cover up (and I have seen it several times) - is she holding true to her value system or being inconsiderate and offensive? Now, reverse that and consider the wearing of the naqib in the west, then ask the same question.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ah, dong, I get it that they use the excuse as a smokescreen for keeping the women oppressed. The part that just still keeps me scratching my head is that the men don't see the sheer stupidity of the own admission.

"I'm so stupid and weak that I have less than zero self control. It is easier for me to oppress a woman than to take responsibility for my own actions."

 

[dong20]

Ah, dong, I get it that they use the excuse as a smokescreen for keeping the women oppressed. The part that just still keeps me scratching my head is that the men don't see the sheer stupidity of the own admission.

"I'm so stupid and weak that I have less than zero self control. It is easier for me to oppress a woman than to take responsibility for my own actions."

LOL, I know, and I agree it's perplexing to say the least, as I said in an earlier post. I have bolded the relevant part :

"Juxtaposed to this fact the veil seems to pander to a backwards mentality: that men have the right to judge and harass women unless they take the 'necessary precautions'. It's one small step behind blaming women for being raped, and it makes me very angry because I feel it demeans the freedom we have long fought for in this country."

I just wondered perhaps you thought I didn't get it hence my 'clarification'. I don't always have time to respond in full and sometimes things I think will be taken as read, aren't.:smile:

 

[DC_DEEP]

Yes, dong, we were commenting on two distinct side issues. Some folks are having a hard time seeing the underlying issues, and only the "religious" subtext.

That's pretty obvious, they claim it's a cultural tradition, based in scripture. That's a given. We all get that, people.

The heavy drapings on the women, regardless of the specific type and name, in and of themselves, are not evil. There are some overt and covert "darker" issues, no doubt. Also obvious to the casual observer. Big, drapey shawls and wimples and burqas and naqibs can obviously be used to cover identities, hide bombs or knives, whatever. That does not mean that every woman who wears said garments is a bomb-carrying terrorist, or a jewel thief.

Because they have been accultured to it, many middle-eastern women do not feel comfortable without those garments. Some others look forward to adapting to a more "western" style of dress.

As far as "culturally-identifiable" clothing goes, I have been wondering for years why that burden more often falls to the women. In this country, women from the far east, the Indian subcontinent, and the middle east can be seen wearing traditional dress just about any time you go out of your house. On the other hand, very very very few men from these same cultures are out on the street in traditional dress, they opt for the western styles. I occasionally see a few with a western-style suit with a turban-like head covering. It's very common to see a couple, the man dressed in ordinary western clothing, and his wife in clothes from "the old country." Only once have I been out in public and seen a woman in the full head to toe thing. I have to admit, my jaw dropped and I stared (not like me at all...) My partner and I were in World Market, just looking around, and a couple comes in - he was in jeans and a button up shirt, she was wearing this all black thing that literally completely covered her. It was 97 degrees out, and she had to be wearing at least 12 yards of fabric. Her hands were not visible, her shoes were not visible. The face was completely covered, except for a tiny little eye slit, and even that was covered with a black mesh. I still cannot figure out how she could breathe. Of course, I suppose that if a little sliver of her fingernail had peekd out from under that mound of cloth, every man in the store would have had no choice but to fuck her in the pillow aisle.

 

[Gillette]

Silly boy, that poster is in The Netherlands, not Dutchland. Get an atlas.

Ahem

Netherlands/Holland = Dutch

Named such to avoid being the Holes from Holland like the Poles of Poland?

Holland is only a region (2 actually) of the Netherlands but is frequently (erroneously) used in reference to the whole country.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Silly boy, that poster is in The Netherlands, not Dutchland. Get an atlas.

Ahem

Netherlands/Holland = Dutch

Named such to avoid being the Holes from Holland like the Poles of Poland?

Holland is only a region (2 actually) of the Netherlands but is frequently (erroneously) used in reference to the whole country.

Gillette, darling, sweetheart, you need to put some new batteries in your sarcasm detector. Check your PMs, please....

 

[dong20]

Silly boy, that poster is in The Netherlands, not Dutchland. Get an atlas.

Ahem

Netherlands/Holland = Dutch

Named such to avoid being the Holes from Holland like the Poles of Poland?

Holland is only a region (2 actually) of the Netherlands but is frequently (erroneously) used in reference to the whole country.

I suspect DC may been making a pun on D[e]utchland given the its lingistic heritage?

 

[DC_DEEP]

I suspect DC may been making a pun on D[e]utchland given the lingistic heritage of its langauge?

Dong, you are getting closer... that was a tangent of my post...

Please re-read post # 49, and note the time and location. Then read post #50, and note the time (they weren't being posted at the same time). Then take in post #52, and then finally my post #60. Perhaps then it will all make sense.

<pout> Ryan beat me to the punch, that's all. <sigh>

 

[Gillette]

I think it's a matter of respecting each other's national traditions. As a matter a fact: don't try to walk in shorts of short skirts on their streets. Let alone to enter a mosque in those clothing. They won't accept it. OK, that's their belief and their values so we have to respect it. So why on earth is it so hard to respect our Dutch values?

Over here it is not common/traditional to wear niqabs etc like some of the muslim women need to do. In that case it's a matter of getting adapted: no niqabs. If we can adapt, then so should they be able to. It's not a matter of islamophobia; it's a matter of (local) respect for the country you stay in.

Shorts and short skirts are not welcome in the Vatican either. That isn't restricted to Islam, it's common to most religious venues. As to your point of adapting, western women aren't required to veil themselves the moment the step off the plane.

As far as "culturally-identifiable" clothing goes, I have been wondering for years why that burden more often falls to the women....SNIP ...My partner and I were in World Market, just looking around, and a couple comes in - he was in jeans and a button up shirt, she was wearing this all black thing that literally completely covered her. It was 97 degrees out, and she had to be wearing at least 12 yards of fabric. Her hands were not visible, her shoes were not visible. The face was completely covered, except for a tiny little eye slit, and even that was covered with a black mesh. I still cannot figure out how she could breathe. Of course, I suppose that if a little sliver of her fingernail had peekd out from under that mound of cloth, every man in the store would have had no choice but to fuck her in the pillow aisle.

I could attempt to respond to the first part but that should be a thread to itself.

As to the second part. How do you know it isn't a reverse HASMAT suit to contain her incredibly potent phermones thus saving the public from their baser urges? Hmm?

J/K

 

[DC_DEEP]

As to the second part. How do you know it isn't a reverse HASMAT suit to contain her incredibly potent phermones thus saving the public from their baser urges? Hmm?

J/K

LOL I resisted the first time around, but really, what she was wearing sort of reminded me of... well... You remember "Grimace" from the McDonald's commercials? She sort of looked a bit like that, except more draped (think folds and folds of shapeless fabric), solid black, and all the way to the ground... no arms or legs.

 

[Gillette]

Gillette, darling, sweetheart, you need to put some new batteries in your sarcasm detector. Check your PMs, please....

*Sigh*

My sarcasm detector isn't the only thing in need of new batteries.
Sorry, boys, I'm a little "off" today.

 

[D_alex8]

If anything is clear at this point, I think it's: (1) that the Dutch are going to become experts in knowing the terminology for various kinds of so-called 'Islamic' headgear; and (2) that they are going to have to firm up the proposed law so that it is very specific about what is banned, and what isn't.

The proposal refers simply to a ban on "face-covering garments" (gezichtsbedekkende kleding) [1, 2].

This led to an assertion by the main legal journal in the Netherlands, the Nederlands Juridisch Dagblad, that "the niqab will probably not fall under the ban, since the eyes can still clearly be seen". [3] Of course, that interpretation seems to be predicated on the notion that "face-covering" ("gezichtsbedekkend") refers specifically to the entire face being covered.

However, as the Netherlands' National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination, the LBR, observes: the niqab or chador "is sometimes worn with an extra layer of some kind of gauze, and sometimes with a slit left for the eyes." [4] From here, it seems clear that a further journey into the world of veiling may be necessary on the part of Dutch lawmakers, to decide whether the law will apply to both the "half niqab" and "full niqab", as they are known properly [although it is interesting to note that even the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination is not yet au fait with these terms].

The main Dutch broadcasters such as RTL meanwhile seem to have concluded that the law will relate to niqab and burqa alike; although they have had to include pictures in their (print and television) reports to explain what the two terms mean in the first place! [5]

One thing that is noteworthy in the lengthy article about this law at the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination's website is that, as I have suggested in earlier posts, a simplistic definition along the lines of "Muslim burqa" is not going to cut it: "in this article (...) the word 'Islamic' is throughout placed within quotation-marks, since there is considerable debate about the necessity of any such garments even within Islam." [6]

The nearest to a precedent to all this within the Netherlands comes in a 2003 decree from the University of Leiden, in which "face-covering garments including the niqab, chador, and burqa" were forbidden from being worn by students in seminars since they were considered to impede social interaction and the forming of bonds between students and between staff and students. [7]

What is key here appears to be that the naming of each specific garment that may or may not be banned will be crucial, as the divergent interpretations of the phrase "face-covering garments" above indicate already. Distinctions are going to need to be drawn up between what is meant by burqa, and how this may differ from the Afghan burqa; between niqab, half-niqab, and full-niqab; along with terms as yet unbroached by anyone, such as the bushiyya (a gauze veil that certainly covers the face but does not obscure it); etc. etc. etc. [8 - with numerous images of the distinctions].

And if the law wishes not to appear to be aimed specifically at "Islam", then similar lists may well need to be drawn up detailing what kinds of ski masks, balaclavas, motorcycle helmets, etc. etc. are banned, and which are not.

Can of worms, anyone?

 

[bluice94]

Shorts and short skirts are not welcome in the Vatican either. That isn't restricted to Islam, it's common to most religious venues. As to your point of adapting, western women aren't required to veil themselves the moment the step off the plane.

True, but I only took this example because we were discussing why some women cannot or will not adapt to the local traditions when we talk about clothing.

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing whatsoever against muslim people. One cannot blame a whole religious group because of the actions of some terrorists or fools, no matter what religion they fight for. And I don't have anything against women who wear head scarfs (I hope I translated that right?). One can see their face and even in Western countries it's (and was) very common for some women to wear them without any meaning. Muslim women might do it because of their belief and that's OK.

What the problem is about is that it is not a tradition here to wear face-covering products like niqabs. More and more people have difficulties with that and I could only agree with it. If women cannot walk around over there in miniskirts etc, then I think one should accept that or simply don't go and visit such countries.

Respect towards each other also is a question of respecting the place you're at and respecting the one you are facing, no matter what race, sex, orientation, belief etc.

For example (OK, a bit off topic maybe but to give a good example): when I hear that some imams and radicals here have said that gays should be thrown off a building with their heads down, then I get shivers. Why saying such things when being gay is no problem in The Netherlands? One can expect that people will raise their voices against it.

When I hear that homophobia increases again in The Netherlands because some muslim people cannot deal with it, then I think: what are you staying here for? I don't mean ALL muslims but the ones who have difficulties with my orientation. I'll never forget about the 2 Irak boys who were hanged because of having sex together. Sex is a part of making love and not war. That's also what it is about: making love, not war. The World is already rotten enough.

Start with respect: and yes, maybe one day those women will be allowed to dress and walk around the way they want to, but I guess it'll only happen as soon as western women can walk around in those countries without covering everything up. Well, I guess both will never happen, so in that case it's a matter of: getting adapted to the place you stay.

 

[dong20]

If anything is clear at this point, I think it's: (1) that the Dutch are going to become experts in knowing the terminology for various kinds of so-called 'Islamic' headgear; and (2) that they are going to have to firm up the proposed law so that it is very specific about what is banned, and what isn't

.......

And if the law wishes not to appear to be aimed specifically at "Islam", then similar lists may well need to be drawn up detailing what kinds of ski masks, balaclavas, motorcycle helmets, etc. etc. are banned, and which are not.

Can of worms, anyone?

Indeed. Though perhaps a Pandora's box, which, incidentally is quite appropriately ironic.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

That's what Pandora gets for being a thief!

All in all, I don't see a SANE argument for traditional dress, might as well ban dreadlocks for Jamaicans and guns for Black Americans (joke!) but we in the west want to have women as equals, not inferiors.

Which is why women gain respect if they show their tits, have long legs and fuck continously.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>Respect towards each other also is a question of respecting the place you're at and respecting the one you are facing, no matter what race, sex, orientation, belief etc.
<...>
When I hear that homophobia increases again in The Netherlands because some muslim people cannot deal with it, then I think: what are you staying here for? I don't mean ALL muslims but the ones who have difficulties with my orientation. I'll never forget about the 2 Irak boys who were hanged because of having sex together. Sex is a part of making love and not war. That's also what it is about: making love, not war. The World is already rotten enough.

Start with respect: and yes, maybe one day those women will be allowed to dress and walk around the way they want to, but I guess it'll only happen as soon as western women can walk around in those countries without covering everything up. Well, I guess both will never happen, so in that case it's a matter of: getting adapted to the place you stay.

This is the important part, I think. While I'm a stong advocate for cherishing one's background and culture, I'm also a strong advocate of having some assimilation. It's pretty fucking stupid to move to a completely different part of the world, with a completely different culture, and then expect that culture to change to accomodate you.

If an Iraqi muslim moves to the United States (or The Netherlands), they should be able to wear their traditional garb at home or on the street, but they should also be prepared for some culture shock, and should not expect to wear such garb where the new culture deems it to be inappropriate. If they can't deal with those guidelines, they should re-think the idea of staying in a western country.

The same goes for Westerners who travel to the middle east. Americans tend to get very defensive and derogatory when they travel to Saudi Arabia and women are "discouraged" from walking alone.

If the rules of the place you move to are just unacceptable, then you should not be there.

 

[dong20]

The same goes for Westerners who travel to the middle east. [Americans] tend to get very defensive and derogatory when they travel to Saudi Arabia and women are "discouraged" from walking alone.

If the rules of the place you move to are just unacceptable, then you should not be there.

I agree, and this isn't just an American thing. Many of these people are the terminally dense, certainly in a social sense, and are the ones most likely to do just that. They are also those least likely to give a tinkers cuss about any offense they have caused, when it's pointed out; "It's sooo hot, I'll wear my Bikini/shorts in the mosque, I mean it's not like I'm naked or anything.......why are people glaring at me honey???"

Worse, if they think a regulation is particularly 'nuts', they revel in flouting it. Then they end up or beaten up or in Jail where they whine that it's awfully dirty, there's no a/c, the food is aaawful oh, and no one speaks English and expect their Embassy to bail them out.

These people should've been drowned at birth.:tongue:

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

This is the important part, I think. While I'm a stong advocate for cherishing one's background and culture, I'm also a strong advocate of having some assimilation. It's pretty fucking stupid to move to a completely different part of the world, with a completely different culture, and then expect that culture to change to accomodate you.
.

Even if this culture is discriminatory or violates basic human rights? Are we just supposed to accept that sort of thing without making an attempt at progress?

I'm not saying that this is a clear case of that, read my previous posts in the thread to find my own opinion on the matter. But some people are going to view it in that context. and the argument you are making seems to be supporting the wrong side of that particular debate, IMO. I mean, are homosexuals who move to the US South from gay-friendly countries like The Netherlands or Italy supposed to just accept the fact that here we want to treat them like 2nd class citizens? and stop having same-sex partners because it makes some Americans uncomfortable? accept that we don't recognize their marriages or civil unions or whatever?

 

[dong20]

Even if this culture is discriminatory or violates basic human rights? Are we just supposed to accept that sort of thing without making an attempt at progress?

Not necessarily, but taking the moral high ground when one's own culture does the same smacks of hypocrisy. It's in part that attitude that has given America (especially) such a bad name.

I'm not saying that this is a clear case of that, read my previous posts in the thread to find my own opinion on the matter. But some people are going to view it in that context. and the argument you are making seems to be supporting the wrong side of that particular debate, IMO. I mean, are homosexuals who move to the US South from gay-friendly countries like The Netherlands or Italy supposed to just accept the fact that here we want to treat them like 2nd class citizens? and stop having same-sex partners because it makes some Americans uncomfortable? accept that we don't recognize their marriages or civil unions or whatever?

I understand your point and your opinion but let me say this:

If one doesn't like the social norms of the culture one chooses to move to and live in why go? Or by accepting them should one then have the right to whine about it beyond the rights granted by the native citizenry? On the grounds that, well back in [insert country here] it was much better. The answer to such a statement is obvious and has been stated here already.

If I choose to live in Saudi Arabia (for example) and stand on the street corner lobbying for the right to drink alcohol or for topless beaches or whatever, I'd almost certainly be beaten up and arrested. Rightly so by Saudi standards. That's an extreme example sure, but I chose to live there.

When I hear people whining that they're in some hell hole jail for breaking knowingly a law they knew existed (because it wasn't one back home), why should I feel sympathy for them any more than I would for someone in my culture that did the same.

 

[Glansman]

The Dutch government will introduce a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, on security grounds.
The full article is here.

There has been considerable media coverage of this [burqa/veil] issue in the UK over recent months. What do you think - Does this infringe freedom of religious expression or is it a justified response to legitimate concerns?

Crucifixes, Stars of David on the neck and so on are quite acceptable. The wearing of a complete face-covering is NOT - nor is it a requirement under Sharia law.
Imagine yourself sitting in,say, a welfar office discussing matters with a woman whose face you can't see. Firstly everybody ot whom I mentioned this said they'd feel uncomfortable. In addition, facial expression is the second most important method of conveying messages. We must surely all recall occasions when we've been explaining something, the receiver of the information saying "Yes,"....but realising from a slight change of expression that they DIDN'T fully understand.
If you can't see whether someone is puzzled, frghtened, annoyed etc - how can you posibly react to suit the occasion?
Apart from that this is one of the Middle East's methods of controlling women and if I were one I would object.
"Modesty" where the face is concerned is ludicrous. Would you be happy discussing things with your bank manager if he was wearing a brown paper bag with eye-slits or an S&M type leather mask????
But the reason for swathing down to the ankles is to prevent men from being swept away in a tidal wave of lust so they carry out unspeakable acts.
What the heck does THAT tell you about the men? Again, the onus for having the men behave properly is loaded on to the WOMAN!