Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Is Dutch government right to back burqa ban?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
.
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is it right to propose a ban on wearing the burqa in public places?
    No.

    Well that was easy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I think it's ridiculous! How dare they say what someone can wear!? It's not harming anyone so who gives a shit!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No.

    Well that was easy.

    Seconded.

    [edit]

    Thirded even.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't see why. OK there may be specific roles where wearing a Burqua interferes with your job and then its fair enough to say they shouldn't be worn.

    But banning people from walking down the streets wearing one? Can't see its any of the states business what they wear in public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ....never trust the Dutch....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so much for Dutch liberalism
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    I''d only agree if they banned wearing anthing religious in public at all.

    That would make snese!
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Can't see why. OK there may be specific roles where wearing a Burqua interferes with your job and then its fair enough to say they shouldn't be worn.

    But banning people from walking down the streets wearing one? Can't see its any of the states business what they wear in public.
    Exactly.
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I''d only agree if they banned wearing anthing religious in public at all.

    That would make snese!
    Also exactly.

    As long as there's no specific reason that a kind of clothing can't be worn, I say let people wear anything they want.

    On the other hand, there's the issue on whether someone is being forced to wear a burqa when she doesn't want to...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is their country, they are the government, they are lected by the people and have a mandate and if their is support for this move by the people then they have as much right to ban the burqa is they like. May not be popular anywhere else but its got nothing to do with other countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^^^

    Very good point. They are the elected representatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read it in the papers this morning, and I was shocked at the thought of such a measure. It is no more than a violation of religious expression and I hope that it isn't enforced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, thats the point though, it is their country, who are we to force our beliefs and systems on them and force them as a country to change the way they want to be. In Holland clearly they believe in majority rule and not minority rule unlike here in the uk, so if they have a majority to pass such a law it is that nations free right to do such a thing and not be forced to stop. Forcing Holland to not be a free country and make its own laws and be self-determind is the same as taking over a country and forcing the once free people to not be free and do as they are told, no matter how liberal it is, which is in fact more tyranical.

    Just because we might not agree with them, doesnt mean they shouldnt do it, if it is clear the people of Holland want such a thing to occur.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read it in the papers this morning, and I was shocked at the thought of such a measure. It is no more than a violation of religious expression and I hope that it isn't enforced.


    Isnt that what the France is like though? They do not allow any religious expression of any kinds in Government or educational facilities. Holland are attempting to impose the same measures but on a much lkarger blanket scale.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote:
    Isnt that what the France is like though? They do not allow any religious expression of any kinds in Government or educational facilities. Holland are attempting to impose the same measures but on a much lkarger blanket scale.

    I never said I was pro France's policy on religious expression (save myself from hypocricy :p). I found a quote from president Chirac:

    "Wearing a veil, whether we want it or not, is a sort of aggression that is difficult for us to accept."

    I haven't done enough research on intolerance and built a personal view to simply pinpoint the line of religious tolerance but I do agree that in public places, you should be allowed to express your religion. However, i am strictly against wearing full veils in schools and i am generally pro a completely secular state (although this is not always possible). I find it sad that Holland are following France's past road towards complete religious intolerance and that you have, as an individual, the right to wear whatever you want, providing no harm is being caused (which, clearly, it isn't - i find Chirac's view of a veil being a sign of agression completely ludicrous).

    Secularism and religious expression can co-exist and, in fact, they should.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see anybody complaining about Western women being forced to cover up in the Arab world...Maybe the Dutch are going too far but since the majority of Dutch MPs support the ban I respect and support their decision. It's called democracy. If the Dutch people object they can have their say at the next election however I suspect public opinion is on the MPs side.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see anybody complaining about Western women being forced to cover up in the Arab world...Maybe the Dutch are going too far but since the majority of Dutch MPs support the ban I respect and support their decision. It's called democracy. If the Dutch people object they can have their say at the next election however I suspect public opinion is on the MPs side.

    So, if the majority of the MPs of country X were voting for genocide, you would support their decision? Democracy is not always the way to go. Other factors simply have to be taken into consideration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is Holland secular?

    Expecting people to conform to local standards is not unreasonable, and lots (and that means lots as in more than a few, rather than a majority, just so we're clear) of people feel threatened or intimidated by someone who is hiding their identity, which is what wearing a burkha in public does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    You seem very confused about what it means to be a liberal democracy.

    In a liberal democracy the majority are prevented, by checks and balances which enshrine the rights of all individuals, from forcing their will on the majority, even if they could do so through democratically fair procedures. Without such mechanisms, there would be nothing to prevent the majority from voting in favour of cruel and oppressive policies which would violate the rights of minorities, for example they could democratically decide to forcibly remove all ethnic or religious minorities, or engage in ethnic cleansing.

    We are not forcing our beliefs on anyone. Holland is a liberal democracy and as such has duties to uphold the rights of all its citizens, and prevent vulnerable minorities from being oppressed by the majority. One of the most fundamental liberal rights is that of freedom of religious expression, and to allow a majority to decide to strip a minority of that right is counter to everything liberal democracies stand for.

    After all, the reason we value liberal democracy and think it is preferable to other systems of rule, is because it allows people to pursue their own different conceptions of the good life, and allows freedom in matters of personal consicence such as religion. If you deny that right, you're not a liberal state at all, but an authoritarian one.


    You see very confused as to what i am saying, as you keep using this word "liberal" which i am pretty sure i have not used so far when describing Holland, though if i have i am sorry i led to this misunderstanding as i did not mean to use the word. I used the word Democracy and pointed out they can vote such things into law. Maybe in a "Liberal Democracy" it is the responsibilty to uphold minority wishes and freedom of religious expression, but i am not saying Holland is Liberal, i am only saying it is a Democracy, a highly conservative Democracy if i am not mistaken and to force them to be Liberal by telling them how to be is not our place. We can just dislike it from a distance, after all there are countries in thw world where it is the law women can not show any part of themselves except for their eyes and must be covered at all times and not go anywhere with out a man escorting them, yet this is already the law and has been for a long time so people in the rest of world mostly turn a blind eye and accept it. It is only because Holland is trying to change its own laws that any one has noticed or cares.

    It maybe the first step to ethnic cleansing or it may only be the first step to a Holland with out self imposed exclusions by minorities with in the nation.

    Would there be such a fuss is single faith school were been abolished in Holland or would most people agree thats a good idea? It is after all just another law that could come into effect if the majority desired it and it was put into effect by the government on a religious based issue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I never said I was pro France's policy on religious expression (save myself from hypocricy :p). I found a quote from president Chirac:

    "Wearing a veil, whether we want it or not, is a sort of aggression that is difficult for us to accept."

    I haven't done enough research on intolerance and built a personal view to simply pinpoint the line of religious tolerance but I do agree that in public places, you should be allowed to express your religion. However, i am strictly against wearing full veils in schools and i am generally pro a completely secular state (although this is not always possible). I find it sad that Holland are following France's past road towards complete religious intolerance and that you have, as an individual, the right to wear whatever you want, providing no harm is being caused (which, clearly, it isn't - i find Chirac's view of a veil being a sign of agression completely ludicrous).

    Secularism and religious expression can co-exist and, in fact, they should.


    :yes: I find this a very agreeable and intelligent point :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, basically based on that there are very few "Liberal" Democracies then anywher ein the world, hardly any at all in fact.

    I never said in the remotest sense that Liberal meant Liberalism, i did study politics and learn what the ideology of Liberalism is, i also learned to be democratic does not mean the state has to defend minorities with in that state. It is pretty clear what i said and my point is the same.
    It even says in that wiki quote that the individual has a part to play in the choice of those who govern them, it does not say that those who govern them cannot make laws that a minority disagree with. If they do, then that government can be voted out of power, well only enough people disagree with such a policy that is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Getting back to the OP, yes, I do think its right, and it should be brought in over here too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure. I don't like seeing women in the niqab but if they choose to wear it, it's up to them. It's just an item of clothing. I don't like the idea of banning it and where that may lead, what next, banning other items? I mean if you ban the niqab, is that just banning covering the face? Sometimes I wear a hoodie when it's cold and pull it tight round my face, or wrap a scarf around my face so you can only see my eyes. Should that be banned too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some states in the US have anti-masking laws, these were originally brought in to combat the KKK and they ban the wearing of a mask to conceal identity. I don't think these laws have ever been used against Muslim women in America covering their entire face. However, I would not object to the use of these laws in America to ban anybody - whether they're a Muslim or a member of the KKK from entirely hiding their face in a public place.

    Members of the KKK might have had more extreme and more offensive beliefs than most women wearing the burqa but if Klansmen cannot hide their face it is discriminatory to allow Muslim women to hide their face. For the state to assign different rights to people depending on what their religious/political beliefs are would be ill-fitting with the attributes of a liberal democracy.

    There are some pretty sound security and identification reasons for banning the burqa in public places; someone wearing a motorcycle helmet has to remove it when entering a bank, an off license or an airport - I can't see why Muslim women should get special treatment. I don't care what their religious beliefs are, if I invent a religion stipulating that followers must wear a motorcycle helmet - and this religion in my mind would have as much validity as Islam do you think I would be allowed to stroll into NatWest wearing a motorcycle helmet?

    I would not like to contemplate the response of many of Britain’s 1.8 million Muslims however were we to ban the burqa in public places. It's partly for that reason that I probably would not extend a ban on the burqa to public places - I would only ban it in schools funded by the government and government buildings. (Unless discreet and inconspicuous religious paraphernalia has absolutely no place in a school).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Now reread my point. All democratic states incorporate mechanisms for the protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and freedom of conscience and religious expression is one of the most fundamental rights of all individuals that ought to be protected.

    But when this is seen to infringe on safety and public order then the government has the right to pass a bill that takes away the freedoms. Look at the Patriot Act in America, hardly a sign of a liberal democracy.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    So, if the majority of the MPs of country X were voting for genocide, you would support their decision? Democracy is not always the way to go. Other factors simply have to be taken into consideration.

    Exactally.

    I think all religious stuff should be banned in public to make life easier. Then it is at least fair and not descriminating against one religion.

    Fuck it, ban organised religion whilst you are at it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find the burqa extremely unpleasant myself but I don't think banning it is the right approach at all.

    I'd rather ban brainwashing (sorry, religious education) of children, but that still would not solve the problem as people who grew up elsewhere would have still been influenced by it.
Sign In or Register to comment.