Dutch Govt ban Burqa, should we?

gurramok

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm

Should we follow suit?

I think its a sensible move, covering your face in public like wearing a permanent balaclava is not acceptable in a modern style democracy!

mike65

No, not because I'm a fan of such attire (anything but in fact) but because I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Mike.

gurramok

mike65 wrote:

No, not because I'm a fan of such attire (anything but in fact) but because I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Mike.

Well, this is slightly different, they are not telling them not to wear as such, the issue is the covering of the face whether it's by a burqa or a visor on a helmet is the problem.
Maybe allow the burqa but with face visible like in photo on the webpage as a compromise?

Alun

They haven't actually done it yet. The minister in question has received permission from the cabinet to make a proposal for a law to ban them. It then still has to go through all the normal procedures and be voted on in parliament before it becomes law, if ever. Plus it's not specifically aimed at the burqa, but any clothing that covers the face.

FYI

We should ban beards too.

and excessively long fringes.

and bushy eye brows...

Governments are in no way justified telling people what they can and cannot wear.

Time Magazine

So miniature KKK hoodies for all.

I_am_Irish

Please note the first issue was scarf in france, if kate moss wear scarf or will do anything we all will say "that is fashion", how about nuns who also wear scarf, jews also having beard religiously, Burka is also a fashion in middle east and in too many countries in the world.

What Burka or Beard will do, what all Big countries are doing to distroy this world.

U.S, U.K killed 350000 innocent people in Iraq, within three year and several more around the world. Did Burka or Beard kills anyone?

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

Wibbs

This is a tricky one and no mistake. The extent to which individual rights are compromised worries me with any "ban". I do take the balaclava comparison on board and personally I think the full burqha can be both politically loaded and daft with all it's socio/sexual connotations. The scarf is a separate issue IMHO. Can't really see much of a problem with it personally beyond the idea that the sight of a chicks hair is going to reduce me to a slobbering beast. Then again....

if kate moss wear scarf or will do anything we all will say "that is fashion",

Ehh slight difference. Ms Moss can take off her scarf whenever she likes and her wearing of a scarf hardly carries the weight of dogma and history to it, now does it? It's just a scarf.

how about nuns who also wear scarf,

Again it could be seen as a choice made by adult women who chose to become nuns. Again many nuns don't wear a head scarf, are they likely to attract criticism or sanction by some in their community for not doing so? Slight difference again.

jews also having beard religiously,

That's slightly more on the same ground.

Burka is also a fashion in middle east and in too many countries in the world.

The full covering of women implies that the very sight of a woman is bad. That men have difficulty with controlling themselves at the sight of a woman. That alone is a restriction on both women and men. Hardly just "fashion".

U.S, U.K killed 350000 innocent people in Iraq, within three year and several more around the world.

Whole other topic but I see your point.

Did Burka or Beard kills anyone?

Whole other topic again.

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

That sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. In any case acceptance goes both ways.

bk

Actually, in Ireland I believe a number of items of clothing are already banned, such as wearing full military camouflage clothing and also I believe balaclavas.

These are banned for obvious reasons, IRA, criminals. Sometimes the government can limit your civil liberties for the overall benefit of the nation.

That is not a comment on the Burqa, just a FYI.

gurramok

I_am_Irish wrote:

Please accept others because if they will reject you, then you will also suffer, more christians are living in muslim countries then muslims living in Christian Countries, if muslims will start to object every single thing who will suffer more.

And Christians in those Muslim societies obey Islamic dress and code as thats the law of those lands.
Muslims in Western societies should obey the law of the land in Western societies.

As said, this is about covering of the face and NOT what you wear, and the ban is long overdue.

Hobbes

I find the whole thing hypocritical to be honest.

We go on about how the West is all about freedom of rights and equality for women and all that and then we ban them from wearing whatever clothes they want to wear.

And even funnier (like the previous poster) is going on about how because there are fanatical Islam countries that we should copy what they do and force clothing laws on others. :rolleyes:

Oh and in case anyone missed it there is a actually a town in Belguim a few months ago where they made it illegal to wear a burka. (watched it on CNN in Korea).

They had the mayor and a woman spokeperson for the those that it would effect. The Mayor could think of no real excuse. He came up with "Well you can do it in your own house" (which defeats the purpose of it) and finally came up with the gem "Go back to whatever country you came from", at which point the woman pointed out she was born and raised in the town he was the Mayor of and had even voted for him.

What people fail to realise as well is that for those Muslims it is part of their faith. Forbidding them from wearing it outside the house won't stop them, at best all it will do will force Muslim women to stay inside their houses because they will be arrested if they leave it.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

What people fail to realise as well is that for those Muslims it is part of their faith. Forbidding them from wearing it outside the house won't stop them, at best all it will do will force Muslim women to stay inside their houses because they will be arrested if they leave it.

So it WILL work (for the purpose of stopping them wearing balaclavas in the street)?

I think if this bill is passed then it'd be wise to evacuate all the Dutch embassies..... Because, Allah knows, there shall be riots

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

I find the whole thing hypocritical to be honest.

Yep that it can be.

We go on about how the West is all about freedom of rights and equality for women and all that and then we ban them from wearing whatever clothes they want to wear.

I agree with you. The problem I have with it is that while some Muslim women may want to wear the full burqha, some may not. There exists a social pressure for some to wear it when it may not be their choice(they may want to wear just the scarf). That's the issue I have with the whole thing. Can't really legislate for it though. Indeed the risk of legislation like this one that's mooted is that it may actually force some of them through community pressure or thoughts of defending their tradition to wear it as a form of defiance, or as you point out restrict Muslim women even further by keeping them indoors(that may even be preferred by the more radical Muslim men). There's some evidence of that in France and the UK where women(often young women) were used as poster boys for the nutters on both sides with agendas to push.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

So it WILL work

It depends a lot on how you define as working. People go on that Muslim women are forced to wear this by their husband. It's not always true.

So they are not allowed to wear it outside, so what else can they do? Going out without a burka is not an option, so what you have done is forced these people to house arrest. If anything that makes us worse then those husbands that would enforce the burka on their wives.

And I am with Wibbs somewhat. The womans choice should be paramount for herself. If she wants to wear it then thats fine. If she is being forced to wear/not wear because of someone else (and not because of their beliefs) I'd have an issue with.

and if you feel free about banning this why not ban beards and sunglasses as well.

Dave!

They still allow you to see that (a) it's a male, (b) it has a beard, (c) what colour its hair is, (d) whether they're wrinkly or not [indication of approx age]

With a burka or a balaclava you can see (a) they possibly have eyes.

And plenty of shopping centres and so on don't allow people to even wear base-ball caps in for security reasons. Gross infringement of our rights as it is :rolleyes:, it's a good security measure.

Why should Muslims be exempt from it? Indeed why should any religion be exempt from it in a non-religious state? I would feel the same if there was widespread instances of Catholics wearing something similar.

There was also that incident not too long ago in America of a young boy bringing some Muslim knife into school because it's part of his beliefs. Who cares? It's a f*cking knife. I'm not allowed bring one in, therefore you aren't. I don't care if you're a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

With a burka or a balaclava you can see (a) they possibly have eyes

Still don't get your point? You need to know a persons gender before talking to them?

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

Still don't get your point? You need to know a persons gender before talking to them?

You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting the point.

Wouldn't [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/49247/35719.jpg[/url] make you uncomfortable?

seamus

I don't believe any government has a right to tell people what they can and cannot wear in public (people should be allowed walk around naked if they want to freeze their testicles off). They should however make allowance for public or private buildings to insist on a dress code to allow admission - including the removal of helmets, burkas, headscarves, etc.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting the point.

Wouldn't [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/49247/35719.jpg[/url] make you uncomfortable?

1. Thats not a burka.
2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.
3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

bk

Hobbes wrote:

1. Thats not a burka.
2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.
3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

It may however be a security issue. The reason balaclava and military clothing wearing in Ireland is banned is not because they might be symbols of terrorists, but because you can't identify someone wearing a balaclava.

It is the same reason why banks don't allow people wear motorbike helmets.

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

So yes there are practical reasons for such bans.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

1. Thats not a burka.

No sh*t? It obscures the face completely, that person could do whatever they like and a witness would only be able to assume that it's a bloke.

Just like a burka or a hockey mask.

Hobbes wrote:

2. Are you trying to imply that a burka is a paramilitary uniform.

Oh don't be so sensitive :rolleyes: No, I'm implying that a burka, like a balaklava, completely hides the person's identity, and shouldn't be given special priviledges in any state.

If a balaclava is allowed somewhere then allow the burka; if not, then not. But I doubt a balaclava is allowed on a bus, in a bank, in a shop, or in a pub.

Hobbes wrote:

3. No it wouldn't make me uncomfortable. If he was carrying a rifle now it might be a different story. This isn't the 1960's.

That's handy isn't it? :rolleyes: Well I would wager that you are in the minority in this instance. Most people would feel a tad uneasy about someone wearing a balaclava sitting at the back of the bus. Likewise with a burka.

mackerski

It's curious that most of the arguments in favour of this ban are on the basis of the threat posed by people who can't be identified. Yet the thread title wasn't "Dutch Govt ban full face covering, should we?". I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

So the folks here who are in favour of the ban, will you really feel safer walking the streets or are you just seizing on a chance to have a cheap shot at people of a different culture?

RedPlanet

gurramok wrote:

Should we follow suit?

I think its a sensible move, covering your face in public like wearing a permanent balaclava is not acceptable in a modern style democracy!

But they are not wearing a balaclava, they are wearing clothes that have a religious significance.
Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.
You apparently, advocate removing that freedom.
Should we all wear business suits?
Cut are hair to a certain length?
Should we be forced to shave our facial hair too?

philologos

No we shouldn't ban the burqa because freedom of expression should be welcomed in all countries of the world even if the Dutch don't want to realise it. The freedom of choice to wear the burqa or not should be respected. If the burqa should be banned the wearing of the Cross or the wearing of the Jewish skullcap should also be banned. However I don't think this is the way forward for anyone and it is just another way or marginalising Muslims even more from our society.

gurramok

RedPlanet wrote:

But they are not wearing a balaclava, they are wearing clothes that have a religious significance.
Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.
You apparently, advocate removing that freedom.
Should we all wear business suits?
Cut are hair to a certain length?
Should we be forced to shave our facial hair too?

If you managed to read the BBC link, the issue is not what you wear but what IS hiding your face.
Hence the comparison with a balaclava.
For instance, someone wearing a burqa steals something from a shop and is caught on cctv, what are the chances of identifying that person?!
Its the same analogy as the balaclava wearing person on the bus as discussed.
The same cannot be said for business suits, hair, facial hair....the face is still visible and identifiable in those circumstances.
By your logic, you'll have no objection to balaclava's, hoodies with scarfs as well??

John R

mackerski wrote:

I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

Who's to say that a person wearing a burqa is a muslim woman? TBH I am surprised more criminals haven't realised that it is an excellent disguise to cover their tracks from security cameras. Maybe not so much here but certainly in areas with high muslim populations.


The smart way to kurb burqa wearing without passing silly laws would be to lobby businesses and public service providers to ban any facial covering on their property, that would make life very difficult without leaving governments open to anti-muslim accusations.

Dave!

mackerski wrote:

It's curious that most of the arguments in favour of this ban are on the basis of the threat posed by people who can't be identified. Yet the thread title wasn't "Dutch Govt ban full face covering, should we?". I'm not sure what the actual statistics are for crimes perpetrated by unidentifiable muslim women, but I wouldn't have thought it would be a big driver of legislation.

So the folks here who are in favour of the ban, will you really feel safer walking the streets or are you just seizing on a chance to have a cheap shot at people of a different culture?

I don't think it's anything to do with having a cheap shot. More like people are getting sick of the special priviledges given to religions, especially Muslims. Everyone has to tip-toe around the subject of religious tolerance because if they don't, people will get offended, and there'll be more violence and rioting.

So no, I won't feel safer if they're banned. But I will feel like society is moving forward if we stop bending over backwards for ANY religion, and this is just an example. I will feel even better if we start allowing abortions in this country, and stop playing the angelus.

But that's just me.

RedPlanet

gurramok wrote:

For instance, someone wearing a burqa steals something from a shop and is caught on cctv, what are the chances of identifying that person?!
Its the same analogy as the balaclava wearing person on the bus as discussed.

That is rubbish.
How many robberies occur by someone wearing a burqa for example, rather than a hoodie.
You should be calling for banning hoodies.

Schuhart

I think its firstly necessary to get a sense of proportion. According to the article at the start of this thread.

An estimated 6% of 16 million people living in the Netherlands are Muslims.
But there are thought to be fewer than 100 women who choose to wear the burqa, a traditional Islamic form of dress.

What we’re talking about is very much a minority practice, which very few Western Muslims see as a religious obligation. So few, that its next door to being a fetish. The nearest equivalent would be people walking about in rubber fetish wear. In fact, the more one reflects on it, the more that emerges as an equivalent.
I can’t see the point of banning someone from wearing a rubber dress on the street. I would expect that a teacher turning up for work in a rubber dress (of either gender) to be sent home to change. I’d take that to be common sense. So I think the balanced position on this was given very early in this thread.

mike65 wrote:

I don't think the state should be telling anyone "what not to wear" in the street. I'd take a different view with respect to teachers in schools etc.

Hobbes

bk wrote:

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

Have you actually even seen a burka? I don't think you have. It's the most restrictive of movement of all the clothing that Muslims may wear.

Here have a look.
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/burqa.jpg

To Rob a bank your going to want to be able to see where everything is and able to move fast. Try running with a blanket to get a feel for it.

Even the Niqab is the same (you can see the persons eyes).

However from what I see of this bill it also bans other headwear that a Muslim woman may wear.

For example the Khimar + Chador, where either half the womans face is shown or all of it.

But all those going on about fear of being mugged/robbed from someone wearing a burqa. Get me a list of how many such things have happened. Good luck with that.

TBH if you wanted to not be reconised there are 101 ways that doesn't require hiding your face.

Schuhart

FWIW, the BBC have a series of pictures starting here that explain what the various forms of headgear are called and illustrate how much they cover.

And if the Burqa doesn’t do it for you, the Ann Summers PVC Maid outfit can be found here. Personally, I can’t see why anyone would have a problem with me teaching a class of 11 years olds dressed like that. It even comes with a cane.

simu

No, we should not. I find it strange seeing women in burqas because to me, they seem oppressed, but banning the clothing is attacking a mere symptom of deeper problems and does nothing to solve these.

monument

DaveMcG wrote:

You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting the point.

Wouldn't [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/49247/35719.jpg[/url] make you uncomfortable?

Of course, on more then a few Dublin Bus routes there’s actually nothing that makes people comparably “uncomfortable” on a regular bases. And of course if there was laws to stop such it would stop this behavior. Of course.

No, really, I’m fine with this, just as long as it’s an outright ban on anything that might hinder an id of a potential criminal (that’s all of us, btw) – hats, caps, any kind of hoods (even on rain jackets), large headphones (earphones will still be legal), any kind of male or female hair obstructing the face… oh, **** it it’d be easer if we were all electronically tagged.

Just think about it, no need for costly CCTV then. If the tagging system says you were there at the time of the crime, you are a criminal (it’d be really accurate).

It makes the whole thing easer – if a fine is justified for the crime a Special Criminal Direct Debt Mandate (or SCDDM) is automatically set up. If it’s a big deal, but not too much of a one, you’re automatically confined to your house for X amount of days. And if you need jail right here, right now, you’re really just gone beyond help, so the ERU have to track you down (which is easy with the tracking system) and blow your head off.

bk

RedPlanet wrote:

Fortunately we live in a free society where we are free to wear what clothes we prefer.

Again just to point out, if you walk down O'Connell St in military camouflage suit and balaclava, you will be stopped and probably arrested by the Gardai.

A friend of mine was once arrested (but not later charged) for wearing camouflage in public on the way to a fancy dress party.

I'm not making any point about the burka, I'm just wanted to point out that they are laws that can and do restrict what people can wear and do in public.

spanner

I feel a little uncomfortable when I see a person in a burka but that is it, I also feel uneasy seeing lads in ben sherim tops and fila tracksuit but what the hell I walk by and that is it, it does not effect me, It isnt a risk to to public safety, It isnt displaying any racist or insightful material.

I can fully understand that somebody who teaches should be told they cannot wear the burka, you have to follow strict dress codes, I couldnt turn up to teach in a pair of jeans and t shirt but starting a ban on the streets is dangerous, within reason people should be allowed to wear anything they want on the streets and this is well within reason

FYI

Are balaclavas banned?

RedPlanet

DaveMcG wrote:

I don't think it's anything to do with having a cheap shot. More like people are getting sick of the special priviledges given to religions, especially Muslims.

What special priviledges do muslims have that the rest of society doesn't?
What exceptional laws give effect to this special priviledge?

DaveMcG wrote:

..stop bending over backwards for ANY religion, and this is just an example.

The only religion we are bending over backwards for, is Christianity. Particularly the Catholic Church.
I think you're looking at this from a wrong perspective.
There are no special priviledges for Muslims in this country, they are just ordinary people some of which choose to wear a particular fashion of clothes.
What you are doing, is taking a special exception to them.

nacho libre

bk wrote:

It may however be a security issue. The reason balaclava and military clothing wearing in Ireland is banned is not because they might be symbols of terrorists, but because you can't identify someone wearing a balaclava.

It is the same reason why banks don't allow people wear motorbike helmets.

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

So yes there are practical reasons for such bans.

interesting point... I say this because a lot of drugs are smuggled by men and women dressed as priests and nuns. So for practical reasons anyone dressing like this should be banned from wearing religious garbs on transportation routes. Aside from the practical reasons i, as an atheist, am offended by the outward expression of christanity by people holding rosary beards, wearing necklaces with religious imagery and anyone wearing religious grabs. How dare anyone have the right to practice their beliefs systems in occidental society.
We should only be a democracy in name.

Liberal Democracy

Frederico

Having spent alot of time in Holland I am not surprised by this..

This may not sound very politically correct.. but just about every Dutch person I met ver there seemed to have a BIG problem with muslims/immigrants.. it all seems to be barely simmering below the surface.. thats just my opinion..

philologos

bk wrote:

I'm just waiting for the day some clever bank thief wears a burka while robbing a bank.

I'm waiting for the day some thief wears a cross while robbing a bank whatever it boils down to it is still a sectarian based law and shouldn't be allowed pass at all.

SeanW

You mean like Saudi Arabia where all religion except Wahibi Islam is banned? Or women can't drive or be seen without wearing one of those stupid tents

Also, American TV columnist Glenn Beck recently showed an exposé of the kind of "education" and TV messages and other hate filled propoganda Middle Eastern governments give their people.

You can see that here.

Remember that the Netherlands is where a descendent of the famous Van Goghs, Theo Van Gogh, was brutally mudered by a Muslim, for making a documentary that called Islam violent. Which in the eyes of many, no doubt proved whatever point Mr. Van Gogh was making. Recently of course there has also been the furore of the Danish cartoons. And the Popes comments. All supposidly responsible for wave after wave of riots, killings and general mayhem. Then of course there's Darfur, which again is state sponsored genocide by Islamofascists.

Remember also that the Netherlands has always historically been a very tolerant country, with some of the most lax laws in the world on various matters. This looks to me like a complete U-Turn.

While I'm not saying I agree with the Dutch decision, it does make logical sense and I understand why it happened.

CharLit

As a Dutch person (I'm posting here as irish-by-association, have Irish boyfriend ) I feel the need to contextualise this a little:

We are three days away from parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, and Islam-bashing is a vote winner. THAT's what this is about, not the 100-or-so women who actually want to wear the burqa. The motorcycle helmets are just thrown in there to contest claims of religious discrimination.

Slightly off-topic, but FYI: I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts. The dutch islamic community is built up of mainly Turkish, Moroccan and Indonesian (children of) immigrants, and the burqa is not a part of any of their cultures. This is a mainly symbolic debate.

I agree with Frederico that there is a great deal of hostility towards immigrants and especially Muslims here, but it is by no means below the surface. It's being debated very publicly, especially with the elections coming up. Another politician recently compared the "rise of Islam" in The Netherlands to the rise of nazism in 1930s Germany. Myself, I would be inclined to compare the rise of hatred against Muslims to the beginnings of the holocaust, and I am by no means alone in that opinion. While yes, there is a great deal of hostility towards Muslims, there is also a large opposing camp that believes we should return to the equality of religions and the tolerance and multiculturalism that Holland was once known for.

The left-wing parties are doing really well in the polls, fingers crossed for Wednesday!!!


edit: Ahem... and to answer the original question, I don't believe the government of any country should be allowed to dictate what its citizens wear.

CharLit

SeanW posted while I was typing my post:

The guy who killed Theo van Gogh is a nutcase. A Dutch university professor who was later murdered by the Germans during the second world war said in 1940: "Antisemitism is when a Jew in Amsterdam commits a murder, and a Jew in Rotterdam is blamed for it". One murderer says nothing about the rest of Muslims in the netherlands.

Neither does what other governments or societies do have any bearing on what our own governments and societies should do. The American occupying forces in iraq torture Iraqi prisoners, and people have been kept in cages in Guantanamo bay without charge for over four years now. That does not mean we are then entitled to torture Americans and hold them without charge because "they're doing it too". Similarly, what the Saudi government does has nothing to do with how we can treat Saudi nationals/people of Saudi descent in our countries.

SeanW

CharLit wrote:

One murderer says nothing about the rest of Muslims in the netherlands.

I agree 100%, but my point was that it may have created a perception of Islam as violent: i.e. that this is how an insult/accusation is met. Even though that is not really the case it might look like that to some people.

I also know there is distinction between the vast bulk of people of the Islamic faith, versus the few who are extreme. But the few who are extreme seem to wield most of the power.

Neither does what other governments or societies do have any bearing on what our own governments and societies should do. The American occupying forces in iraq torture Iraqi prisoners, and people have been kept in cages in Guantanamo bay without charge for over four years now. That does not mean we are then entitled to torture Americans and hold them without charge because "they're doing it too". Similarly, what the Saudi government does has nothing to do with how we can treat Saudi nationals/people of Saudi descent in our countries.

Agreed. Common sense tells us all of this, but unfortunately this commodity is in short supply

CharLit

Hey Sean,
Sorry, should have said: I realise you weren't propagating your own views there, but they are fairly widely held views, i was just countering them in general.
cheers,
C

Schuhart

Very interesting post from CharLit.

CharLit wrote:

I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts.

Which adds to that picture of S&M fetish with vague religious overtones.

I see absolutely no need to ban people from wearing their chosen fetish costumes out of doors, subject to relevant workplace issues being respected.

Dave!

RedPlanet wrote:

What special priviledges do muslims have that the rest of society doesn't?
What exceptional laws give effect to this special priviledge?

The only religion we are bending over backwards for, is Christianity. Particularly the Catholic Church.
I think you're looking at this from a wrong perspective.
There are no special priviledges for Muslims in this country, they are just ordinary people some of which choose to wear a particular fashion of clothes.
What you are doing, is taking a special exception to them.

I think the perception is that if you were to walk into a shop wearing a balaclava, then you'd be asked to take it off, whereas if a Muslim walked in wearing a burka, then there's not a chance. Now you can say that wearing a balaclava indoors usually means you're going to do something bad whereas a burka not so, which is true enough although there is perfectly legitimate reasons to wear the former indoors (might be just going into a shop for a second then back out to the freezing cold). But the problem is that the regulation isn't being universally applied. You can't say "you're not allowed to obscure your face", and then throw in at the end "unless you're a Muslim". That's what is likely to upset the masses -- widespread fear of upsetting religions is infiltrating various sections of society.

We've had Father Ted on TV for years and years with no violent protests, but can you imagine someone made a new show called Imam Ted? I think it's a safe bet that we'd see plenty more of this, only with an Irish flag amidst the flames.

There was also an incident at the start of this year in Canada, where a 12-year-old Sikh brought a kirpan (8 inch knife) to school, and the school board wouldn't allow it. It ended up going to the Supreme Court and the school board's decision was found to be in breach of the boy's freedom of religion.

CharLit wrote:

As a Dutch person (I'm posting here as irish-by-association, have Irish boyfriend ) I feel the need to contextualise this a little:

We are three days away from parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, and Islam-bashing is a vote winner. THAT's what this is about, not the 100-or-so women who actually want to wear the burqa. The motorcycle helmets are just thrown in there to contest claims of religious discrimination.

Slightly off-topic, but FYI: I get the impression from hanging around on dutch islamic message boards that most women wearing the burqa are dutch converts. The dutch islamic community is built up of mainly Turkish, Moroccan and Indonesian (children of) immigrants, and the burqa is not a part of any of their cultures. This is a mainly symbolic debate.

I agree with Frederico that there is a great deal of hostility towards immigrants and especially Muslims here, but it is by no means below the surface. It's being debated very publicly, especially with the elections coming up. Another politician recently compared the "rise of Islam" in The Netherlands to the rise of nazism in 1930s Germany. Myself, I would be inclined to compare the rise of hatred against Muslims to the beginnings of the holocaust, and I am by no means alone in that opinion. While yes, there is a great deal of hostility towards Muslims, there is also a large opposing camp that believes we should return to the equality of religions and the tolerance and multiculturalism that Holland was once known for.

The left-wing parties are doing really well in the polls, fingers crossed for Wednesday!!!

Thanks for the clarification, I don't think most of us have much insight into Dutch politics so this post gives a bit of perspective.

Hobbes

DaveMcG wrote:

I think the perception is that if you were to walk into a shop wearing a balaclava, then you'd be asked to take it off, whereas if a Muslim walked in wearing a burka, then there's not a chance.

Which is not the same thing as what the law is implying. It refers to public areas.

A shop would be a private area and a shopkeeper would be well within their rights to put up a sign "Remove all face gear before entering shop" as it stands now.

Dave!

Hobbes wrote:

Which is not the same thing as what the law is implying. It refers to public areas.

A shop would be a private area and a shopkeeper would be well within their rights to put up a sign "Remove all face gear before entering shop" as it stands now.

Okay then transfer the example over to a public secondary school or a library.

They should either have everyone show their face or nobody.