All Headline News – November 17, 2006:
Citing security reasons, the traditionally permissive Dutch government said on Friday that it plans to draw up legislation that will ban wearing burqas and other Muslim face veils in public. The move would make the Netherlands the first European state to impose a countrywide ban on the traditional Islamic attire.
Dutch immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, announced the move-which comes just five days before national elections-as a way to increase security and protection of Dutch citizens. After the bill is drafted by the current center-right government, it will be sent to the 150-member legislature for approval.
The move signals a sharp departure from the Netherland’s traditionally tolerant laws which includes the legalization of marijuana and prostitution, and has already raised concerns by several Muslim-rights organization.
The main Dutch Muslim organization, CMO, has called the idea “an overreaction to a very marginal problem,” blasting the ban as being “just ridiculous.”
According to the report, around 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, comprising about 6% of the 16 million population, with only a few hundred believed to regularly wear a burqa.
Will the banning of hoodies and ski masks be next?
#29, I agree, good comment.
Get used to it world. Call it natural selection. And part of being naturally selected is surviving to breed. Not just surviving. You have to have the breeding part too. The line that is able to breed the most offspring, who does likewise, wins. Does this describe you? Or does this better describe people very different than you? In the long run, natural selection will win over legal selection.
But chill, my babies. There’s an ingenious way to subvert nature and the supremacy of the plurality, however. It’s called “Democracy.” Ever wonder why the West fights so hard for democratic principals? It’s because rich white guys know for a fact you can buy hearts and minds with money. That is to say – with a good effective ad campaign. In this scenario, the people who have the most money wins. That’s completely the reason why there is so much emphasis on spending analysis and spending limitations in political campaigns. It’s not because people are concerned about someone’s wasted money.
Pay the toll to the troll, aka the Truth Fairy.
RBG
29. I’m always impressed how people can cite the power of God and hell fire and retribution as the iron-clad basis that supports the brain-washing and indoctrination and programming that keep religious folks in line and rigidly thinking as they do. But then also say these same folks have the easy ability to disregard all this by employing something critics call “hypocrisy.” Which is it?
RBG
#19, Oil of Dog, where’d you go? Have a little humility and accept that you were wrong. Your Google abilities to find the definition of a word is second to none, but your application of those definitions were baseless.
But now that those accusations have surfaced perhaps we can apply them to reality. I think we’ve determined by definition that racism (superiority based on biological differences) doesn’t come into play in the ‘Dutch / burqua’ scenario or even in most if not all of the posts here.
Bigotry, the intolerance of opinions, lifestyles or identities that are based on preconceived notions that differ from ones own, is more difficult to ascertain. I would suspect that everyone with an opinion is a bigot as there’s sure to be those whose differing opinion you can’t tolerate or you misunderstand.
As for the burquas, I think it’s a silly idea to outlaw them specifically. However, for security reasons, there should be a law for everyone about hiding one’s most permanent visual identity in a public place.
#34 JimR
I tend to agree with your bottom line.
Honestly, I think the headset is silly, but it’s also silly to ban it, like in “not allowed to wear”. It just wouldn’t work. I think education is a better approach.
But security concern in public places is another story. Unfortunately. And your picture in your driving license better be of you and not a piece of cloth. I have also great understanding that people should show their face when making use of public service. If you won’t show your face, use a phone. If your presence is required, then show your face for crying out loud.
#32 RBG
I’m sorry, you lost me there. I just cannot get your point. If you think it’s a good one; please make it a bit simpler for me 😉
#33 RBG
Dammit, you lost me there also. Unless you’re saying hell and heaven are basis for christianity’s morality guidelines. But in real life, they don’t really have any impact on the choice between “right” and “wrong”. Thus, the possibility for hypocrisy.
Dammit2; I give up. What did you say?
All this talk about immigrant cultures rubbing up against established cultures. #13 is right – “People who immigrate should accept the conditions of the country they move into.”
I now live in Mexico and consider it a matter of common decency to try not to offend my neighbors, who have been nothing if not wonderfully gracious hosts. The key is, as an immigrant I am a guest here. I am living in their “house.” They set the rules.
As a group, Muslims seem to be very, very bad at grasping that simple principle. In Sydney, a woman e-pal of mine was spat at by an immigrant Muslim for sitting in a fast-food joint by herself, waiting for a retro 80s rock concert to start down the block. I dislike religions in general, not just the Muslim religion. But people of that faith who can’t behave as good guests and honor the mores of their hosts really ought to stay at home, not inflict their own values on others.
The same goes for evangelical “Christians.” Far as I’m concerned, they should all just go home or to hell and leave other people alone.
How long is that woman’s neck?
lets take immigration out of the equation, so we don’t have the “if you come here, you should do what we say” thing. what about someone who is born to Islamic parents and is a citizen? Or what about a non-Islamic person who converts to Islam, should they not be allowed to dress as they see fit?
Or should minority religions have no rights? Sorry, Mormons – in the US of A, we all drink caffeine!
Your Google abilities to find the definition of a word IS second to none,
Where am I??
I Just decided to stop feeding the Trolls!!
35. Yes I can write a bit cryptically at times. Funny, I know what I mean.
But all the pompus smartass stuff aside:
32. The people who will come to dominate any one country and eventually the world, will be those people who are very good at replicating themselves. Pure numbers of them dictate that. (Gee, I wonder why Catholics could really be against birth control?)
Even so, an incredibly small number of people can manipulate that huge majority through expensive, relentless & skilled propaganda only they can afford called “advertising.”
I thought 33 was a shade more clear. Deeply religious people are accused of being both unreasonably slavish to the beliefs of their religions as dictated by fear of their God and a fiery death – on one hand – but able to toss all that aside for the purposes of acting any way they want when it is convenient for them to do so. How can you have both?
RBG
#40
Thanks for the clear talk RBG, and the humor 😉
And you know what? I think I agree pretty darn close to 100% with you this time.
I’ll be back 😀
Nice Lil Kim photo.
The women are wearing masks. I know of few places — none — that allow you to go about your business fully masked and shrouded. There are reasons why we can’t wear masks. Even I, super-libertarian, understand that people don’t want to look over their store counters at masked customers.
That is our law, mostly, and if the muslims don’t like it, they can leave. Sorry. This is the way we live, and they are free to go if they want to mask their women.
And it’s not a “religious” custom, it’s a cultural relic welded to Islam. People often confuse the two concepts. They seem to think seeing an unshrouded woman incites lust and thoughts of rape in men who look upon them. I’d say that perhaps the problem is their acceptance of rape as a natural result of seeing women who don’t dress to cover every inch of their bodies. It’s a culture badly in need of deep therapy. Men who believe that they are justified in attacking women because they are immoral and flaunting themselves are sociopaths.
Oh, and there is no such biological designation as “race”. That term is a holdover from the 19th century, when geniuses decided that people of different geographical locations were sub-species. There can be no such concept as racism, as it lacks a referent to define it.
But we can dislike and despise men who hide women, wrap them in shouds, and claim the right to punish and rape those women who don’t obey. Call it what you like; they are wrong. But all cultures have had such beliefs, and we are slowly moving away from our mistakes. They need to start their journey into sanity — or leave. Men who believe they can attack women for “moral” causes are too dangerous to tolerate.
OK, not like this isn’t an important issue and all – but John if more women looked as hot in a veil as the one in the pic. (red veil) I expect the discussion would drop off pretty quick.
So, in support of this side of the discussion can we see more pics of the hottie in the red veil ? 😉
43. “I’d say that perhaps the problem is their acceptance of rape as a natural result of seeing women who don’t dress to cover every inch of their bodies.” -catbeller
Someday, maybe those backward people will finally submit to our more enlightened standards where, for example, “in France a woman is raped only every two hours.”
And maybe they can learn from last year’s British survey that determined “34 percent of those questioned thought a woman was at least partially responsible for being raped if she had behaved flirtatiously.
Another 26 percent thought she was at least partially responsible if she wore sexy or revealing clothing. Some 22 percent also lay some blame on the woman if she was alone in a dangerous or deserted area when she was raped.”
“Men are not mindless creatures at the mercy of their desires, but intelligent adults capable of delaying gratification, capable of resisting temptation, capable of respecting women.”
Oh, all the above from Iman Kurdi writing in Saudi Arabia’s Arab News
http://tinyurl.com/uj2ba
Maybe you’re right catbeller, and the two rapes in Saudi Arabia that have made headlines over the last couple years only resulted in rape-friendly sentences:
“Four men have been sent to jail for periods ranging from one to five years and will be given 80 to 1,000 lashes.” Being appealed as too lenient. And another:
“The man who filmed the attack was sentenced to 12 years and 1,200 lashes. The Nigerian rapist was given 6 years and 600 lashes” (Don’t ask because I don’t know the answer to your obvious question here.)
Maybe you’re right and what needs to happen is for these randy Arabs to be forced into the West’s more enlightened level of acceptance of rape as a natural result of seeing women who don’t dress to cover the parts you and our society specifically require to be covered.
RBG
So, in the name of being understanding and accepting of other people’s crippled mindsets, we should just turn away and say :
“It’s their way of life. Let them be”?
I think we must reconsider.
In today’s paper, they have a story with the headline “Afghan women seek death by fire”, and it’s interesting reading to say it least.
What does it take for someone to pour flammable liquid over oneself and then ignite? I’m lacking words…….
The numbers of self-immolation in the capital has doubled since last year. In Herat, there are daily cases.
It’s so alarming for the male run countries that they even held a conference discussing the problem. (I wonder if they concluded with a recommendation of how to keep flammables away from women?)
I am reading and can hardly believe it (unfortunately I do): “Women and girls are also often given away to settle conflicts in the country.”
Apparently, many improvements that was gained after the fall of the Taliban, have been reversed.
So, what am I saying? This thread’s discussion is valid and sadly overly important. The same goes for signs of some immigrants stone aged mindsets, like not allowing bacon in a cab.
Should we “understand and accept” these male’s corrupted and totally appalling ways, mindset, rules and “laws” of living?
Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Did I say “Absolutely not”?
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/y8zvmo
if all women in burquas and all burqaus looked like that i dont see any problem.
On a related note: It’s important to keep state and church separate.
Just imagine if one day, we’d have “In Allah we trust” on our money.
“It’s so alarming for the male run countries”
I’m confused. Are you talking bout their male-run countries or our male-run countries?
You already have “In Allah we trust” on your money. It means the same God. They would be just as happy calling Allah, God for English audiences.
RBG
#50
I wrote:”….so alarming for the male run countries that they even held a conference discussing the problem.”
And I did so because the participating countries were not unified with one religion.
If you have followed the link, you would have seen which countries were involved.
I don’t see why “our male-run countries” would even bother having a conference about a tragic phenomenon we have hardly even heard of.
‘You already have “In Allah we trust” on your money. It means the same God. They would be just as happy calling Allah, God for English audiences.”
Nice try RBG 😉 If the money speaks of different gods, shouldn’t it have been “Gods” then? The invention of god on the money are just a few decades old, and I don’t think there should be any doubt about which god the money “calls upon”.
So, would a possibly muslim majority be happy with the inscription “In God We Trust”?
I don’t think so. Why should they? Do you really think they’d let it be unchanged if they could change it?
I think they’d make it as distinct for their god as it is today for christians.
My point is: Keep it personal. There is no need to have a reminder for trusting god every time one looks at money. Or is it for some?
And isn’t it funny to observe: The god that rules is the one the majority have faith in? Interesting 😀
51.
Oh, those particular male-run countries. Hard to keep them all sorted out.
I had to produce a couple dozen videos for the Saudi government once. They actually asked me if the English version should say “God” or “Allah”. In my infinite wisdom, I recommended “Allah” (because to me it just sounded cooler). It didn’t matter a whit to them. They know that the “people of the Book” – the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims – all have the same God. That’s why they all hate each other so much, it’s like kids fighting over a prized toy.
RBG