If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I was just saying that I agree democracy isn't always right, just because the most MP's vote for it.
Then I was stating my opinion on what should be done.
I think this ban is entirley anti-islam. Why are they trying to ban one religons stuff but not another? France took the right appraoch when the matter surfaced, ban any religious symbol being worn.
What other religious culture do you know that asks women to cover their whole face and body with a garment?
Lets remember, the government of the Netherlands is centre-right, the minister who wants this bill enforced is right-wing and there's already a huge amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in the Netherlands as we speak. It reflects the attitudes of the people and government, they were also clever enough to include helmets with visors and other stuff but we all know the real motive behind it. I don't care really cos I'm not a women who wears a burqa who lives in the Netherlands.
But the motivation is clearly the anti-immigrant sentiment that has grown rapidly in the Netherlands in last decade or so.
I think what he's implying is that this is a violation if religious freedom and that other methods of religious expression are not being prohibited by the government, meaning this is a discrimination against that specific culture. The banning of these veils is just another way to mediate to the world that Islam is being persecuted in Holland (an extreme view, although i still firmly believe that this is not a broad measure being taken and is specifically taken against Islam).
Anti-Islamic sentiment, which i do, to a certain extent, understand, as the sight of a fully veiled woman is notable and people will react against such a major difference to the general culture in the country.
Not long after I decided not to get conformed, signed myself out of the church (everybody is signed into the same church their mother is in at birth) and I have no faith in the existance of a supreme being.
My friends may or may not be religious. I don't know. They occasionally mention God but we never ever talk religion. It just doesn't matter.
State and church haven't been seperated in Iceland. I used to think it was so wrong, and still do to an extent, but in the past year or two I have begun wondering if this anti-religious fanaticism really IS going to help anything at all. I'm starting to think not. I kinda get the feeling all it does is creating an even bigger divide.
Whilst they may not do that, I know plenty of other religious who are oppresive towards women.:rolleyes:
How's that relevant to the discussion?
not to invoke the internat law on this, if the dutch people voted in a government that promised to kill all immigrants on sight, or say carting jewish people off to camsp to work to death or be killed, it'd be alrite, cause the people voted it in
constitutions exist for this reason, to give everyone the same rights on basic principles like freedom of political belief, speech and religion (i know we dont have this in the UK, we should) as long as you don't incite murder or violence against people
Since I have never lived in Holland I couldn't really answer that question. Although, I would imagine Dutch MPs elected by the Dutch people are slightly more qualified on this specific matter than you, me, or Kermit.
Although, I would agree with Jack Straw that in Britain women who wear veils can make community relations difficult. The burqa specifically I feel promotes segregation and I think that those who wear it distinctly separate themselves from the rest of society by imposing a barrier against face to face communication.
I would also say that those who wear it disadvantage themselves and decrease their opportunities in society. Furthermore I think a substantial number of those wearing the burqa do so to fulfil the expectations or demands of their husband, family, community, etc. Of course Muslim groups can get plenty of testimonials from women covering their entire face to talk to the media or whatever about how they chose the burqa but for many (living in silence and submission) I do not think there is much 'choice' on the matter.
I happen to believe that dress like this does not belong in a modern country that supports equality between all men and women. It seems many people in Holland agree.
Well i find it quite astonishing so many people seem to think banning an item of clothing that hides ones identity is on the same level of horrific behaviour as genocide. I personally would say Genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder are worse then banning an item of clothing, but that is just me!
Secondly, if they were elcected on that principle, to commit genocide they would have a mandate by the voters to do so, it isnt a case of right and wrong, it is a case of sticking to their political promises. Saying that been elected to do something makes it right is simply naive and foolish and not remotely the point. The point is what they are elected to do, they do it, if it was war crimes or crimes against humanity, which in this case it is not even remotely, it becomes the responsibility of the UN member states to stop such actions as they break international law, which surely you must know.
If a party was elected to power on the promise of the death penalty for murderers and paedophiles, should the be prevented from imposing this law because removes the right to live for those sentenced to the death penalty even though other countries have the death penalty already and no one says a thing about it?
Finally, constitutions can be amended to fit the popular beliefs of the time. In this case, the constitution could be amended to give everyone the right to be able to see the face in full of everyone else in the country, which they should have the right to. Having a minority of people who can hide their faces and identities at all times doesnt seem right to me. The rest of the people are been protected by having a law that requires faces and identities to be visible.
I'd agree with all of that. But it still not the role of the state to ban it.
Do you ever have a contribution to make to the thread? You really do get quite tedious.
I'm not an ideologue... I agree with Libertarians and the Libertarian Party on some things like taxation, welfare, drugs and I share their belief in small government. However, I do not agree with them on everything, I certainly disagree with many of them on foreign policy for instance. And supporting the reasoning behind anti-masking laws when they were enacted in some states in the US and agreeing with the Dutch on burqas I'm probably at odds with the Libertarians.
This piece of legislation would ban women from wearing burqas in ANY public place. Not just in banks and airports and places where there is practical reasons for being able to identify people's faces. Not giving Muslim women special treatment is one thing, putting restrictions that apply specifically to them is something quite different
But the restrictions don't apply specifically to them.
Garmets that cover the face, or something like that, is what is being banned, including helmets with tinted full face visors. It seems to be a case of journos reporting to stir, funnily enough citing the burkhas bit gets a far better response than citing the bikers side....
I remember i got kicked out of class a couple of years ago for wearing a mask during halloween. It was never a problem before 9/11, but a culture of fear seems to make rather stupid decisions.
ou asked if I knew an other religions that ask women to cover thier faces. Nope, but I know some that are just as oppressive towards them. Even worse at times.
So, if a woman belives in Islam, and wants to cover herself... how is that different from believing in Christianity and wanting to wear a cross?
I'm wondering what counts as a contribution in your eyes? Do you have a rule book you refer to?
Oh the irony.
Thank you for making your (somewhat odd and inconsistent) position clear. That's what I was after with my "contribution", ta.
There is only supposed to be about 100 women in the whole country who wear the full burka, are those 100 women so very dangerous?
Yes, I'd rather women didnt wear the burka, but then I'd rather the kids who nicked my car werent wearing hoodies when they did it, but I dont think either form of clothing should be banned.
It is not a religious requirement to wear a full-body veil- the Koran says nothing more than that women should dress modestly. The jilbab is a cultural creation of the Saudis, and as such it does restrict religious freedom. It is no more a religious item of clothing than a hoody.
I think that items that deliberately block the face should be banned from public, unless there's a good reason to be wearing one (e.g motorcycle helmet).
Banning the burqa and the jilbab, which is nothing more than a symbol of oppression, is nothing but a good thing. As usual people try and confuse the issue between what is religious (modesty) and what is cultural (making women wear a full-length black veil in 40C desert heat).
Why you are so arrogant you think i was talking to you specifically when i said people on here think Genocide is comparale to wearing a veil, which they must do to constantly use that example when comparing this law to another law that a government that is elected could impose is what is astonishing, since you never mentioned this comparrison. It had nothing to do with what you were saying as i find using an entire post to answer a single person a waste of time, though you have now left me having to reply solely to you because you have insulted me.
My next point is quite clear, if a party stands for something, they should follow through with it if elected. Like the Spanish opposition party opposing the war in Iraq, they got elected, they pulled out of the coalition, but i suppose in your mind it should only apply if it is a cause that is completely ethical, morale and most importantly something you agree. If a party stands for Genocide and promises it and for some reason they are elected to power, should they say it was all a political lie to gain power? No party would advocate Genocide to get elected but if it would be successful its a tactic of politics. The point was that so many people are enjoying dragging the comparison with Genocide up that i thought i would use such an example myself, but i guess it is only ok to use it when it is the pro-veil people using it.
The articles of human rights say a lot of things, but even you must know by now that they are open to interpretation, it was the whole basis of our degree. Politics change and are fluid and can be amended no matter how set in stone they may appear.
Article 18 is right, you can be free to worship however you wish, that is fine so long as it doesnt interfere with another person right to the same freedom. So i do not see why you bring this article up as it is not in dispute.
Article 19, the freedom of expression on the other hand promises freedom to express ones self. That is fine too, unless it interferes with another individuals right to express themselves.
But you do not mention the right of an individual to actually see the face of the person they are with, talking to, serving in a shop, working alongside in a business, etc. It has nothing to do with just myself, it is to do with every person who doesnt like it when people hide their identities for no reason.
It is indeed a person right to choose to wear a veil, men, women, muslims, atheists, jews, who ever, when ever, what ever, but not where ever. If a government want to have a dress code to some extent on their buildings, transport systems, schools, etc, it is their right to do so as they are elcted to represent the people who in this case stand by such an action.
Now, maybe it makes you feel big and clever to say some one else is an idiot, but it really just makes you look rather foolish and gives the impression you don't have much of an argument if thats the first thing you can say to some one else, instead of been able to be grown up, civilised and an adult about a serious political debate. Maybe this isn't much of a serious political debate to you, but resorting to juvenile behaviour is an insult to people who do desire serious debates. I await an apology for it and hope you will learn from this lesson and not insult people on these boards again.
This is exactly the point i stand by, by the way.
Or has this purely been done because others dont like looking at them?