Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

I've read several articles on similar topics. The people who're interviewed express that it's a personal preference to don such garments, not just religious beliefs.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with certain countries banning it. In some regions in the middle east, women are required to cover their whole bodies. If I went there, I would be required of the same. In other countries, you're required not to wear them.

It doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. One requires you to wear something, one requires you not to. It shouldn't be as such, but I'd rather be naked everywhere I go and that's not allowed.........*Shrug*

The way I see it, this is too much of an imposition on the lives of the people.

It is, to an extent, a restriction on religious freedom. Inasmuch as it the burqa (or more correctly, niqab) is a recent developemnt in fundamentalist thinking in islam, the protestant idea of mass in the native language of the people is a recent developement in the (then) fundamentalist thinking in christianity.

It may not be right, but i personally draw a paralell between this ruling, and middle-ages rulings that banned protestant religions. It is a clearly biased ruling that infringes on SOME peoples right to interperet their religion for themselves. I do wonder if the law specifies anything about more traditional nuns who don a similar facial obscuring habit. I highly doubt it.

*shrugs*

I just don't see this law as just. Let the people dress as they will, as a form fo personal expression (and therefor an extension of free speach).

If i walked into my local store wearing a particularly narrow balaclava the fuck would happen to me.

I feel the law is very leniant on religion and the fact if its your religion you can get away with pretty much anything. I personally detest the majority of major religion and see them as brainwashing tools.

but i also firmly believe that people have the right to worship in anyway they see fit.

this is one of those questions i can see both sides off. although in fairness its not quite the same as those big ass knifes that a lot of muslims were carrying to school for religion.

And this is really the point of this story which has been transformed into an 'Islamophobia' rant by the press: the Dutch law plans to prohibit all forms of facial covering that impede identification, including eye- and mouth-slit balaclavas, motorcycle helmets with reflective visors, etc.

Such cases are likely to be far more consequential than those relating to the burqa or niqab in the Netherlands; for while Muslims in the Netherlands account for 6% of the population (or around 960,000 people in real terms), most sources state that fewer than 100 women in the Netherlands actually wear a burqa or niqab; with the Dutch Muslim community placing this estimate lower still, at around 50 women nationwide.

Those figures are wholly in keeping with the notion of this item of clothing as wholly untraditional for the majority of Muslims. As a recent imposition, one could well argue that it should therefore be extended no more rights than a motorcycle helmet or face-covering balaclava, neither of which has a long religious tradition either.

Sources of statistics:
BBC, Reuters

The way I see this law is this: "we're going to make it illegal to look like you might do something illegal."

I do hope halloween in the Netherlands doesn't include masks, because they are outlawed now (or very well should be, to be fair). It's a very good thing the netherlands is pretty flat, as ski-resorts would suffer (most people wear ski masks to protect their faces from chapping). Gay Pride parades in Amsterdam are going to be very boring without all the costumes. And yet, i'm sure, if someone wants to perform an illegal act with some ammount of anonymity, he/she will wear a mask of some sort.

I sincerely feel that this is an imposition on anyone (muslim or otherwise) who may wear a naqib or something similar as a form of personal expression. It doesn't really matter to me if he/she is wearing it for personal reasons or religious reasons. For me, it's about freedom of expression in a society that was heretofor the most "free" of them all.

I dislike this law. If similar measures were introduced where i live, i would vocally advocate against them.

I see what you mean, but then again, there really hasn't been an issue in the past where religious clothing was designed to "de-identify" the wearer. Allowing worship services in the local native language, as an example, does nothing to hide the identities of the congregation members.

Halloween is an American tradition and exists virtually nowhere else.

Your arguments regarding skiing, Gay Pride or other parades and I might add diving to the list are very lame. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask for protective purposes or wearing one for celebrations and wearing one ALL THE TIME for religious reasons.

I have a severe hearing loss, if I can't see a person's face then I simply won't be able to understand what they say. If the teller at the bank is wearing a niqab, aren't I being discriminated against? There was a major case in the UK recently where a woman teacher wanted to wear a niqab. Guess what she was teaching, yep, English as a second language to immigrant students. How effed up is that?

Common sense needs to come first, not religious ideology.

Not true. Halloween - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well, sir. As was pointed out to me, this law doesn't make that distinction. BTW, a niqab isn't a mask, it's a veil.

If a teller at a bank is wearing a niqab, can you not wait in line for a different teller? Of course, in a professional setting a PRIVATE institution (such as a bank) can set a dress code. Since employment in most countries is voluntary, businesses may set dress codes that do not comply with the religious sensibilites of all people. If you don't agree with the dress code of your employer you may seek employment elswhere. This is different, as it is a country-wide policy.

Funny, much common sense actually comes from religious idealogy: Common sense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forgive me for believing that diversity of religious thoughts and practices is important and should be protected. As someone who is not a member of the religious majority of my own country, i can in many ways sympathise with those women in the Netherlands who feel their religious freedom is being encroached upon.

Halloween as celebrated in the US, is rarely experienced in the same way in the bulk of Europe. In Catholic countries, 1 November is far more important and is a day for honoring the dead.

Dress code rules in companies are highly controversial and there is no clear cut line drawn by the law. Much of it is case by case.

Common sense predates religion by a long margin, if it didn't, early humans would have been eaten up very early on. To claim it's religious based is ludicrous.

Cultural and religious diversity is important but here in the US, women's rights are equally if not more important. Few women choose to be masked, it's often imposed upon them by their patriarchal cultures.

It was also common for women who bore children out of wedlock to be locked up in insane asylums in Ireland. Should the Catholic Church still have that right if religion, in your opinion, trumps all?

That text states: "In recent years, Halloween has also been celebrated in parts of Western Europe, such as Belgium, France and Spain." What that equates to in real terms is a little merchandising in the stores, and very rare instances of trick-or-treating. Even living in a city with a long history of US links, I've experienced all of 2 children trick-or-treating at my door in the past 3 years.

However, even if the example is bad, I am sure the idea behind it will come into play as some kind of labored test-case. Personally, my money is on somebody trying it with relation to a Santa Claus costume whose beard/fake glasses etc. obscures their face. The (pseudo-)religious aspects (especially in a nation where he is known as St. Nicholas) and element of tradition will doubtless be brought fully into play.

Ultimately, I think this (as of this time, still merely proposed) law could go either way, and that much will be dependent on whether the niqab is viewed as a recent political imposition, or as a traditional articulation of religion. My argument remains that it is very much the former, as per the fact also that it is much frowned upon in several Islamic states as well, in addition to the reasons I've outlined previously on this thread.

The point i was trying to make is that there are many traditions in the western culture that involve masking one's face. Most people in western society look upon the niqab as an oddity; something that has no parallel in our own societies. However, the parallels abound, and we simply take them for granted. I think you can agree with me on that, Alex.

Whether they are worn for religious, political, or traditional reasons, the niqab is a personal expression. This reminds me of victorian times, when women weren't allowed to show any skin because it would distract men and cause the end of the world as we know it... many very biased and downright discriminatory laws are written under the veil of "security."

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers were a classic example of Islamic oppression of women. They beat women who refused to wear the veil severely. Furthermore they forced women to quit their jobs and stay at home. Schooling for their daughters was discontinued as those rulers thought only men should be educated.

Muslim women know that this attire is concomitant with repression and not freedom. It is a form of dress imposed on them by males. It is well known that the fundamentalist Muslim does not agree with freedom of expression in the case of religious debate or that women deserve the same legal protection and humane treament as men.

Danish court dismisses Muhammad cartoons case | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

47

There are parallels in a literal sense, Alex alluded to one but these are not considered true freedoms of expression, religious or otherwise in the sense we're discussing here because most are so embedded in the fabric of our societies as to be accepted unconciously. Alex's point, and I agree is that the wearing of the niqab is not one of them, in our society most certainly nor is it so in the wider muslim society.

NB The Victorian example is largely irrelevent, because that was primarily about morality and had nothing to do with security - unless one believed the sight of well formed ankle could incite criminal activity. It may have done but I consider it unlikely.

I can't help but feel that this is at least in part a veiled (no pun intended) attempt to appease what may be a growing backlash within a predominately Christian Western society for perhaps having conceded too much to the increasing demands of, inter alia, the Muslim faith. Perhaps in the name of tolerance for fear of tarring them with that broad Islamic terrorist brush.

But, lets be fair; many Islamic states don't extend the same level of tolerance for western 'decadence' and that apparant imbalance I'm sure has caused resentment, in fact I know it has, I hear such comments often. Of course there is a world of difference between what can be demanded in the ones home and society as a whole. Inevitably some will see tolerance as surrender, but it's not surrender it's balance. Should we set a high standard of tolerance? Of course we should, but who decides how high, you, me, our Government?

I agree with you that the use of security is weak but these days it's a convenient vehicle for such legislation. But there is precedent, many institutions (banks notably) deny the wearing of full face bike helmets etc on their premises for security reasons. In that instance no one is claiming exemption based on a historical religious right and neither should one be claimed in the case of the niqab, why because one simply doesn't exist.

But, where security is a genuine concern, any right to religious expression, real or not should be a secondary consideration. For example, are you suggesting that people should be allowed to pass US border controls without proper identification or be issued with key identity documents showing them veiled? Your indignation is heartfelt I'm sure but think about this before you say in blanket terms, it's wrong. What's really wrong is that such considerations are necessary at all.

The point made about disrimination against the difficulties veiling causes the hard of hearing; no lip reading, muffled speech etc was interesting, I don't consider that discrimination, because in day to day life no right to 'clear speech' exists though I do consider it rather inconsiderate, but then of course is asking a person to show their face against their beliefs any less so? Now, consider a professional environment; teaching, healthcare, the law or it's enforcement; would such a request still be so unreasonable?

I'm pushing the point here of course but you surely must concede there is a line to be drawn, that's easy, the hard part is knowing where to draw it.

It's not that difficult.
In Holland I can go on the street smoking weed, try this in other countries, how many are oke with this?
In Holland a guy can walk hand in hand with another guy, and kiss on the street, try this in a Muslim country...

Not legally you can't. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.