NationStates Jolt Archive

Our immigration minister is considering a ban on the Burka (a muslim garment that covers the entire body). She is yet to work out a reason why to (uhm... safety or something) but is going for banning as much of it as possible.

Ugh... this is IMO just legislation inspired by xenophobia:

Dutch minister considers burka ban

AMSTERDAM — Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk is to investigate the possibility of banning the wearing of the burka in specific situations. A total ban on the Muslim garment that covers the entire body is not possible, the minister believes.

Verdonk has ordered her officials to study whether the burka could be banned at certain times and in specific locations on security grounds. She outlined her ideas to parliament on Monday.

She was responding to right-wing independent MP Geert Wilders, who called for a ban on the wearing of burkas in public. He argued that the burka is not "woman friendly" and it prevented quick identification of the
wearer.

The burka - associated with Afghanistan and other strict Muslim societies - covers the woman from head to toe and even conceals her eyes.

Of course, muslims here have to be uppity too, refusing to employ people who do not wear headscarfs. Silly people.

Teacher and Muslim school clash over headscarf

AMSTERDAM — A 32-year-old Amsterdam Muslim is challenging the decision by an Islamic school not to employ her because she refuses to wear a headscarf. Samira Haddad, a teacher of Arabic, has asked the equality commission to rule Islamic College in Amsterdam was wrong to demand she cover her head in order to work there.

The case comes a week after Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven said she is in favour of a ban on wearing the all-covering burka in schools.

Tunisian-born Haddad argued before the commission that she is not accustomed to wearing a headscarf in public. She said she had not encountered any difficulty when she completed an internship at an Islamic
school in Rotterdam. She never had any problem either when she lived and worked in Islamic countries with her head uncovered.

The headmaster of the Islamic College in Amsterdam said the school's statutes state explicitly that the rules of the Koran and the Sunna must be adhered to. Non-Muslim teachers can be granted an exemption. "If Miss Haddad was to declare she is not a Muslim then she could, in principle, could come and work with us," a member of the school board said.

The equality commission is to deliver its judgement in eight weeks.

I despise burkas and the like, but I despise banning them even more.

Technically, in some US states, it is illegal to go around in public wearing any sort of mask that conceals your identity (exceptions made for children on Halloween).

I could see in any location where authorities deem it to be a security concern, you could ban the wearing of any clothing that obscures the face. This would include ski masks, hoodies, burkas, etc. But people would be free to wear these things elsewhere.

I wouldn't ban something by name - burka - that would be fairly obvious as a xenophobic gesture.

I would also make it a crime to conceal your identity during the commission of another crime. So, if a man dressed in a burka (as an example) in order to smuggle a gun past a checkpoint, you could triple his sentence for concealing his identity. This would also cover wigs, fake beards, etc.

My sentiment as well. This is just to look "tough on Islam" in my opinion. The argument that someone could rob a bank in a burka is just ridicilous, and there are no real instances of this actually having happened here.

My sentiment as well. This is just to look "tough on Islam" in my opinion. The argument that someone could rob a bank in a burka is just ridicilous, and there are no real instances of this actually having happened here.
I don't know.. Looks like proper Feminisim to me... No peoson who believes in the essential human equality of the sexes can support the presuppositions of the Hijab.

"A woman is like a private part. When she goes out the devil casts a glance at her"

Al-Hadis, trans. Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim, vol. 2, p. 692, from Mishkat al-Masabih, by Waliuddin Abu Abdullah Mahmud Tabrizi

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/neqabi.jpg

This women thinks she is 100% vagina.

What is the subliminal message this woman is sending? The subliminal message is that every square inch of my body is private part, every square inch of it can make you horny. Therefore my entire body is an 'awrat, (lit. pudendum, genital) and I am a sex object from head to toe. People cover their private parts. This woman thinks her entire body is private part. Does this in anyway arouse respect? Only one who thinks with her genital may think so.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/hijab-demo.jpg

These women think they are 96% vagina 4% people.

These women have determined that all their bodies, except their faces, are extensions of their genitals, including their heads. Thinking with their genitals they can't distinguish the difference between their hair and their pubic hair. To them both are embarrassing and should be covered. Thinking with their genitals these ambulant vaginas are fighting for the right to be humiliated, beaten and treated as sex objects.

Spread this message and reproduce it in your site. Let all Muslim women know the world sees them exactly the way they see themselves and Muhammad described them - as 'awrat, pudenda, private part and deficient in intelligence (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301). They think of themselves as nothing but a big vagina. As a matter of fact the word "woman" in Urdu is 'awrat. In Iran she is called zaifeh (weak). She is regarded weak both mentally and physically. Muslim women strive to be treated as 'awrat, a walking talking vagina. Why should we think of them differently? Combat stupidity with humiliation. http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

Note also that the Hijab has its origins in an early christian garment and has only relatively recently become an "Islamic" garment/requirement.

what's a burka? what's its use? why have one?

Note also that the Hijab has its origins in an early christian garment and has only relatively recently become an "Islamic" garment/requirement.
http://www.marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=20&scat=&artid=121
August 15, 2003
New York Post
Amir Taheri



France's Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a committee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French ''church'' of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin's government last spring.

Germany is facing its hijab problem with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for ''religious discrimination'' because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear.

In the United States several Muslim women are suing airport security firms for having violated their first amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.

All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.

That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet. This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community.

...continued

Meh, go ahead and ban it. The burqua is rather oppressive and really, needs to be taken off for photo id anyways, what with that being the point of photo id...

Plus, yeah, it really has nothing to do with islam.

Blu-tac: See the picture above. The one Syniks linked.

The issue isn't that I like the thing, or that I do not think that it is phenominally stupid (it is). The issue I'm taking is that there is no actual reason to ban the thing, and people should be free to do what they want unless they are hurting someone, I think.

Forcing people to wear these things is the other way arounds. Thats bad, hmmk?

Blu-tac: See the picture above. The one Syniks linked.

The issue isn't that I like the thing, or that I do not think that it is phenominally stupid (it is). The issue I'm taking is that there is no actual reason to ban the thing, and people should be free to do what they want unless they are hurting someone, I think.

Forcing people to wear these things is the other way arounds. Thats bad, hmmk?

All reasonableness aside.

Sierra's Second Law

"In any situation where you need to answer why someone is doing something, look to stupidity. In any situation where you need to predict what someone will do, look to stupidity."

In this case, assume that the law will pass, that Muslims will react angrily, and so on and so on.

Uhm.... if you were banned from wearing your religious dress you'd be angry too. I don't see how the stupidity factors in there, actually. Wanting to wear the thing in the first place, yeah.... but then people do a lot of silly things for religion and other reasons.

Uhm.... if you were banned from wearing your religious dress you'd be angry too. I don't see how the stupidity factors in there, actually. Wanting to wear the thing in the first place, yeah.... but then people do a lot of silly things for religion and other reasons.

I think you misunderstand.

If you ask yourself, "what will this government woman do today?"
don't think, "she's the government, she'll do what is right"

think instead, "she'll do something stupid today".

and more often than not, you'll be right.

Same for Muslim reaction. Riots, church burnings, murdering people - whatever is the most stupid is the thing you'll see happen.

And the government will of course overreact and do something even more stupid.

Of course, muslims here have to be uppity too, refusing to employ people who do not wear headscarfs. Silly people.

Humm. A little bit of reverse descrimination here?

So are we then heading towards mandatory nudity?

Look, as long as nobody's forcing the woman to wear it, it's her choice. Arguing that it's not "woman friendly" is absurd, given that lots of people think bikinis and other revealing garments aren't "woman friendly".

I myself think high heels, particularly stiletto heels, aren't "woman friendly" - anything that makes it that hard for you to walk can't be very friendly - but I certainly don't propose banning them. I don't understand why women want to wear the damned things, but it's obviously their own choice if they do, so who am I to tell them they can't?

Wear what you want, ladies. As much or as little as you please - it's not my business or anyone else's to tell you otherwise.

:rolleyes:

Humm. A little bit of reverse descrimination here?

Basically... yes. And mind you, this woman who is refused a job at the islamic schools is an Arabic teacher who has worked *in* Muslim countries *without* a headscarf, only to come to the Netherlands and be refused a job for not wearing one.

People have the right to wear whatever they want. Trying to stop people is just an abuse of power.

People have the right to wear whatever they want. Trying to stop people is just an abuse of power.
As is telling them they must (simply because they hav the misfortune of being married/born into a society that considers women to be walking vaginas...

O wait, am I talking about repressive Islamic sects or Eve Ensler on college campuses? Now I'm confused... ;)

As is telling them they must (simply because they hav the misfortune of being married/born into a society that considers women to be walking vaginas...

O wait, am I talking about repressive Islamic sects or Eve Ensler on college campuses? Now I'm confused... ;)

The government isn't mandating the Burka by not banning it though, is it?

The government isn't mandating the Burka by not banning it though, is it?
Nope. But because the Burka-wearing sects of Islam also tend to be the Punishment-by-violent-death sects, the woman isn't really "free" to choose, is she.

It's like telling a Slave that banning slavery isn't necessary because a they can walk away at any time.

Let the Woman choose... with no men around and no physical ramifications.

Well, I fully agree with you that pressure is bad, and an issue to be tackled by the government to prevent such things from happening. But ensuring free choice by banning the choice the government does not like isn't really libertarian, so I'm a bit surprised to see this coming from you.

Nope. But because the Burka-wearing sects of Islam also tend to be the Punishment-by-violent-death sects, the woman isn't really "free" to choose, is she.

It's like telling a Slave that banning slavery isn't necessary because a they can walk away at any time.

Let the Woman choose... with no men around and no physical ramifications.

Yes, but we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. In the Netherlands, the Burka-wearing sects of Islam aren't in control of the government and have no power to enforce the wearing of the burka. If they killed a woman for not wearing it, those responsible would be tried for murder and locked away for many, many years.

Women in the Netherlands are free to chose whether or not to wear the burka. And they should remain free to make that choice.

:rolleyes:

Yes, but we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. In the Netherlands, the Burka-wearing sects of Islam aren't in control of the government and have no power to enforce the wearing of the burka. If they killed a woman for not wearing it, those responsible would be tried for murder and locked away for many, many years.

Women in the Netherlands are free to chose whether or not to wear the burka. And they should remain free to make that choice.

:rolleyes:
On feeling safe to be free in the Netherlands:
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=19160&name=Man%20suspected%20of%20honour%20killing%20of%20sister

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2157/context/archive

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=16870&name=Cabinet+in+crackdown+on+'honour+killings'

This is but a few. If you are dead, what does it matter if your "honor killer" gets punished? Better to wear the Burka & live. :rolleyes:

As is telling them they must (simply because they hav the misfortune of being married/born into a society that considers women to be walking vaginas...

True.

Hirsi Ali tends to overstate the problem just a little, methinks. And where she gets her magic statistics I have no idea. Fact remains, though, that there is the rule of law to deal with crime. Banning something because other people might take offense should not be a reason. The problem should be tackled at the root.

Hirsi Ali tends to overstate the problem just a little, methinks. And where she gets her magic statistics I have no idea. Fact remains, though, that there is the rule of law to deal with crime. Banning something because other people might take offense should not be a reason. The problem should be tackled at the root.
And that means "attacking Islam" (or the weirder sects anyway). Since we can't do that, it comes back to (A) Mockery (which is still an attack) or (B) calls to public safety. There are many good reasons to be suspicious of people who conceal their Identity. Not the least of which is that a Burka seems like a really good disguise for robbing banks or blowing up buildings.

That is basically detournement de pouvoir, as we call it here in French – using a government power for the purpose for which it was not intended.

Generally, this is banned for laws that have already been established, and I feel it is very bad politics as well.

Personally, I agree, we would complain and feel justified in the interdiction of tonsures upon children, their wearing monastic robes, or attending prayers at appointed hours, yet no for a muslim child. Arbitrary justice indeed.

I don't know.. Looks like proper Feminisim to me... No peoson who believes in the essential human equality of the sexes can support the presuppositions of the Hijab.

*snip*



This is the most idiotic bullshit I've ever heard. I don't feel modest when my belly is uncovered. Does that mean I think my belly is a vagina? I don't feel modest with my breasts uncovered. Does that mean I think my breasts are a vagina? I don't feel modest if I am not wearing a bra. Does that mean I think my vagina has to be held up by a garment? I don't feel modest in hoochie shorts. Does that mean I think my legs are vaginas?

That is basically detournement de pouvoir, as we call it here in French – using a government power for the purpose for which it was not intended.

Generally, this is banned for laws that have already been established, and I feel it is very bad politics as well.
I guess I am confused about your position. I do not think it should be banned (I think stupidity should be banned, but that's another issue), but I do not think it should be treated with respect either.

There are many good reasons and situations where a concealing garment SHOULD be forbidden (maybe not globally, but in certain situations). I cannot wear a ski-mask into a bank (or really any commercial establishment) for good reasons - why should someone else get a religious exemption to that good rule?

That is basically detournement de pouvoir, as we call it here in French – using a government power for the purpose for which it was not intended.

You mean like telling young girls they can't come to school in dress that they find to be modest?

I guess I am confused about your position. I do not think it should be banned (I think stupidity should be banned, but that's another issue), but I do not think it should be treated with respect either.

There are many good reasons and situations where a concealing garment SHOULD be forbidden (maybe not globally, but in certain situations). I cannot wear a ski-mask into a bank (or really any commercial establishment) for good reasons - why should someone else get a religious exemption to that good rule?

Good point, why on earth don't ehy meerely join the star wars fan club and have Darth Vader parades?:p

This is the most idiotic bullshit I've ever heard. I don't feel modest when my belly is uncovered. Does that mean I think my belly is a vagina? I don't feel modest with my breasts uncovered. Does that mean I think my breasts are a vagina? I don't feel modest if I am not wearing a bra. Does that mean I think my vagina has to be held up by a garment? I don't feel modest in hoochie shorts. Does that mean I think my legs are vaginas?
Are you a Muslim woman that subscribes to the quoted passage?

"A woman is like a private part. When she goes out the devil casts a glance at her" Al-Hadis, trans. Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim, vol. 2, p. 692, from Mishkat al-Masabih, by Waliuddin Abu Abdullah Mahmud Tabrizi

If not, then I don't see your point. The point of the FaithFreedom article specifically addresses the Islamic theological "justification" for body covering. Unless you subscribe to that interpretation, it doesn't apply to you.

I wouldn't ban something by name - burka - that would be fairly obvious as a xenophobic gesture.Yes, it's important to be subtle when you're being xenophobic.

You mean like telling young girls they can't come to school in dress that they find to be modest?

I do not see your point. My point was that using excuses when drafting legislation is a Bad Thing.