Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

[DC_DEEP]

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?

That one's not lost on me, NIC... trust me.

By the same token, it's not very likely that I'm going to move to Iran and make out with my partner on a public sidewalk, or move to Saudi Arabia and whine if they won't let me open a corner liquor store.

I've been following some of the hate crimes here in this country, and much of the crimes committed are already just that - crimes. There are unconstitutional laws being passed here, and unconstitutional constitutional amendments. So the discrimination which occurs in some parts of the US may be somewhat tolerated officially, it is still illegal.

But my point is more along the lines of, "Are the muslims in this country here by choice or by no choice?" Of course, most of the muslim women have no choice, but their "man of the family" does, and he has an obligation to ensure that there is some degree of assimilation.

If I cared about a female person, and found out she was moving to a muslim country, I would strongly urge her "either don't go, or refrain from any feminist activities there. Don't challenge the status quo, or you put yourself in jeopardy." My first instinct is don't go there if you have a choice and know you won't like some of the restrictions.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I don't disagree with any of those points dong and I know the stereotype of the "ugly American"- ignorant of whatever culture they are travelling to, angry when nobody speaks English or does things the way they think they should be done. I'm certainly not advocating that. I think knowledge, understanding, and some ability to assimilate are all positive things. I just think that the argument of "love it or leave it" is dangerous and counterproductive in terms of social evolution and progress... so I would be loathe to use that argument for anything, even in favor of a cause or idea I supported. Isn't it quite possible that you choose to live somewhere because of one or two or a thousand reasons... and yet at the same time there may be certain things that you don't like about that place. What is wrong with that? Personally I find it highly obnoxious when I hear Americans speaking with disdain about "foreigners" and "non-Americans" who should "just go back to where they came from"... because they're not white, or they don't speak English perfectly, or they aren't Christian, or whatever. This is especially hypocritical in the United States, a country of immigrants, but I think it's still somewhat hypocritical in other countries as well. To be harshly critical of those who you see as unwilling to change in order to match your own personal mode of thinking.... presumably because you yourself are unwilling to change anything about yourself to accommodate someone else's belief system or culture... certainly smack of hypocrisy. Personally I don't feel that simply being born to a certain area grants you moral superiority to anyone who was not born in that area or to the "right" kind of parents. I know some think that way but I tend to conceptualize the people of the world in more global terms.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

"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????

S&M leather mask? who's being ludicrous now?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

That one's not lost on me, NIC... trust me.

By the same token, it's not very likely that I'm going to move to Iran and make out with my partner on a public sidewalk, or move to Saudi Arabia and whine if they won't let me open a corner liquor store.

I've been following some of the hate crimes here in this country, and much of the crimes committed are already just that - crimes. There are unconstitutional laws being passed here, and unconstitutional constitutional amendments. So the discrimination which occurs in some parts of the US may be somewhat tolerated officially, it is still illegal.

But my point is more along the lines of, "Are the muslims in this country here by choice or by no choice?" Of course, most of the muslim women have no choice, but their "man of the family" does, and he has an obligation to ensure that there is some degree of assimilation.

If I cared about a female person, and found out she was moving to a muslim country, I would strongly urge her "either don't go, or refrain from any feminist activities there. Don't challenge the status quo, or you put yourself in jeopardy." My first instinct is don't go there if you have a choice and know you won't like some of the restrictions.

Well all of that is good advice if you're only concerned about being safe. It doesn't make Iran more right for oppressing women though and it doesn't make anyone else more wrong for trying to change things there. I'm still holding out hope that we as a people can do better for ourselves than merely survive or avoid becoming the victim of a hate crime.

 

[Fireballs]

Nice find, Alex8.
You're as resourceful with words
as you are with nudes.

 

[dong20]

I don't disagree with any of those points dong and I know the stereotype of the "ugly American"- ignorant of whatever culture they are travelling to, angry when nobody speaks English or does things the way they think they should be done. I'm certainly not advocating that. I think knowledge, understanding, and some ability to assimilate are all positive things. I just think that the argument of "love it or leave it" is dangerous and counterproductive in terms of social evolution and progress... so I would be loathe to use that argument for anything, even in favor of a cause or idea I supported.

Of course, and I hope you realise I was just making a counterpoint. Of course the need to battle social equality will never be won by accepting the status quo. Howver I do believe that, for the most part social changes must come from within those culture that need it for it to be successful and not be resented as an imposition.

Isn't it quite possible that you choose to live somewhere because of one or two or a thousand reasons... and yet at the same time there may be certain things that you don't like about that place. What is wrong with that? Personally I find it highly obnoxious when I hear Americans speaking with disdain about "foreigners" and "non-Americans" who should "just go back to where they came from"... because they're not white, or they don't speak English perfectly, or they aren't Christian, or whatever. This is especially hypocritical in the United States, a country of immigrants, but I think it's still somewhat hypocritical in other countries as well.

I was trying not to Single out America, Britain is in the big league when it comes to such duplicity as are most nations. Of course moving to a country with customs that one may find disturbing must be a balance, my point was that by doing so one must accept that there will be a degree of culture shock and discomfort. How one reacts to that is key, yelling and screaming about how much better home was is, in general not likely to be successful, especially in conservative or repressive regimes, however that's sometimes the best route to their downfall so what do I know...

To be harshly critical of those who you see as unwilling to change in order to match your own personal mode of thinking.... presumably because you yourself are unwilling to change anything about yourself to accommodate someone else's belief system or culture... certainly smack of hypocrisy. Personally I don't feel that simply being born to a certain area grants you moral superiority to anyone who was not born in that area or to the "right" kind of parents. I know some think that way but I tend to conceptualize the people of the world in more global terms.

It's very hard not to make a subconcious judgement of the worth of a culture based on ones own, indeed it's probably all but impossible not to, sometimes those oddities have endured for good reason, and that reason make take a lifetime to understand. Japanese culture is a good example I'd say.

I also try to take a world view, sometimes I fail and I keep reminding my self that my nationally my opinion is one in 60 million, on a global scale it's nothing. That said I do believe that some basic values should be respected by all. Basic human rights for example. I know that I criticised the 'fashion police' in Iran for their harsh treatment of women wearing western dress, from my perpective that's a human rights violation, but I accept that compared to abuses perpetrated elsewhere I'm not sure it rates more than a raised eyebrow.

You may find this interesting, It's been in the news lately and is loosely on topic in the context of pseudo religious clothing.

 

[Shelby]

If the French can ban deodorant I see no reason why the Dutch shouldn't be able to ban burqas.:tongue:

 

[rob_just_rob]

S&M leather mask? who's being ludicrous now?

If my bank manager wore a leather S&M mask, it would be a huge turnon. I'd move all my investments there if she wore black fishnets and a strapon, too. :smile:

On assimilation/expecting the local culture to adapt to suit the immigrant: It's pretty clear that women are oppressed under many islamic regimes. And as a result, none of us are suggesting that Western women who move to, say, Saudi Arabia, should assimilate - that is, immediately veil themselves and transfer all their property to their husbands.

However, it's not so cut and dried in all areas. Alcohol, for example. Alcohol consumption is restricted or banned under islamic law, and no doubt many of us consider that to be an unreasonable restriction on personal freedoms. It could be argued, though, that bans on public nudity, smoking MJ, and flag burning are equally unreasonable restrictions on personal freedoms. And you can bet that many of the folks who are huffing and puffing about how restrictive islamic law is, are the same folks lobbying for prison sentences for flag burners, streakers, and dopers.

 

[rob_just_rob]

The other key point is that "rights" evolve. Two hundred years ago, equal rights for black people was a ludicrous idea. One hundred years ago, equal rights for women was a ludicrous idea. Fifty years ago, equal rights for homosexuals was a ludicrous idea.

Who are we to say that the current western version of "equal rights" that we trumpet so loudly as "universal" is any more valid than those systems espoused by other cultures? If history is any guide, in a hundred years the 2006 version of "equal rights" will seem as oppressive as islamic law seems to westerners today.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

You may find this interesting, It's been in the news lately and is loosely on topic in the context of pseudo religious clothing.

Her identity is not obscured.

 

[dong20]

Her identity is not obscured.

You so missed the point.

 

[Lordpendragon]

The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in the world. They will not have taken lightly their duty to preserve minority's human rights, however on this occasion they have placed the safety of the majority first.

If male and female terrorists had not used the burqa to disguise themselves, then this would never have happened. I will take my shoes off because of Mr. Reid. And yes baby milk has been used to try to conceal explosives - get real about some people.

Thanks for the link Shelby - got two hot dates for the weekend.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

You so missed the point.

No I didn't.

 

[dong20]

No I didn't.

It wasn't about whether it obscured her identity which as you point out it quite obviously didn't.

I was alluding to the [mis]use of a perceived 'right to religious or personal expression' being used as an attempt to subvert a code of conduct or established 'norms' within an established structure, in this case BA. BA can impose a dress code which employees are obliged to adhere to as a condition of employment. Translate this to a broader social context and work it out for yourself. I grant you in society at large many of these are 'unwritten' but they're no less real.

Sorry but I maintain by your very comment; "Her identity is not obscured." I believe you did miss my point. It's not important.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I was alluding to the [mis]use of a perceived 'right to religious or personal expression' being used as an attempt to subvert a code of conduct or established 'norms' within an established structure.

Yeah, she's probably hiding explosives in it. I understand your point. It is not meaningful.

As far as I know you cannot subvert anyone with a crucifix, at least not one that size.

 

[dong20]

Yeah, she's probably hiding explosives in it. I understand your point. It is not meaningful.

As far as I know you cannot subvert anyone with a crucifix, at least not one that size.

Again, that wasn't my point, it was about her attempting to get around a known system on the grounds of personal philosophy it was not about security or her subverting a person using the cross, and I do think that such things are meaningful in context, never mind, maybe it's too subtle, lol.:smile:

 

[B_dxjnorto]

A system, known or unknown that says you can't wear a piece of jewelry, whether or not is has some broad or dilute religion meaning is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the American Civil Liberties Union is to address such unsubtleties. She's out of their jurisdiction.

Anyway, they probably would also defend the person who insists wearing a full-on circus tent is also a matter of religion. If that's your point, it's not subtle. It's out of proportion.

Don't be a ding, Dong.

 

[dong20]

A system, known or unknown that says you can't wear a piece of jewelry, whether or not is has some broad or dilute religion meaning is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the American Civil Liberties Union is to address such unsubtleties. She's out of their jurisdiction.

Anyway, they probably would also defend the person who insists wearing a full-on circus tent is also a matter of religion. If that's your point, it's not subtle. It's out of proportion.

Don't be a ding, Dong.

I disagree, BA, for example, can set a code for appearance, any company can do this within the bounds of common law and thus by logical extention so can society, not necessarily about dress though in this context the niqab fits. As for a circus tent, well......

Her argument was that as a religious statement i.e. the crucifix (which to many is quite overt, to others such as you? or I, merely jewellery) was a defining characteristic of her as a Christian, as one could argue the niqab is a defining characteristic of a muslim.

The use of such arguments to get around 'rules' on the grounds of personal religious expression is in a loose parallel to the wearing of a niqab being perceived my many as a way of trying to 'get around' the policy of cultural integration here in the west. I didn't say it was in proportion, merely related.

As to the bold, well as you say she works in the other 95% of the world. I did say it was loosely on topic and was merely for interest. In terms of the proposed Dutch legislation I can't help but wonder if the whole thing was at least in part merely an election ploy and a badly conceived one at that.

Whatever, if you don't get it it's fine, I'm done trying to explain it.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Before this thread starts getting rather too abstract, take a look at this:
BBC NEWS | UK | Wanted man in veil 'speculation'

 

[Cobalt Blue]

...and, if any more concrete proof were needed, take a look at this:

BBC NEWS | UK | Jury sees 21 July 'burka escape'