Dutch to ban Burka?
Discussion
Intriguing.
You will never please everyone all of the time.
Society has gone beyond promoting tolerance of others, to defending the rights of the minority, whichever that may be, to the detriment of the majority.
Is this a simple rebalancing? Banning a garment not because it oppresses the minority wearer but because it implicitly oppresses and gives a two finger salute to the majority.
You will never please everyone all of the time.
Society has gone beyond promoting tolerance of others, to defending the rights of the minority, whichever that may be, to the detriment of the majority.
Is this a simple rebalancing? Banning a garment not because it oppresses the minority wearer but because it implicitly oppresses and gives a two finger salute to the majority.
Interesting that they seem to want to ban it in certain areas on public security grounds.
My own view that a ban is justified where it prevents integration and is on government property. Therefore I back a ban on public employees and school children wearing it.
But a ban on the scale mooted is going too far.
My own view that a ban is justified where it prevents integration and is on government property. Therefore I back a ban on public employees and school children wearing it.
But a ban on the scale mooted is going too far.
"Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman."
Good for her.
Good for her.
timmy30 said:
"Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman."
Good for her.
I liked that bit particularly.Interesting to see this footnote at the end of the article:
How is this being less liberal? These all seem like eminently sensible measures that any country protecting it’s won culture and integrity.
The Times said:
How the Netherlands has become less liberal:
• Immigrants must pass an exam on Dutch language and culture before being allowed to move to the Netherlands. That does not apply to immigrants from US, Canada, Australia, Japan and other EU states.
• Legal immigrants already there must take a Dutch language course at their own expense.
• Immigrants guilty of any minor crime, such as shoplifting, during their first three years in the country can be deported.
• People can bring in a husband or wife only once they are 24 years old, and do not depend on welfare benefits. The measures are aimed at curbing international arranged marriages.
• 26,000 illegal immigrants are being deported, some of whom have been in the country for ten years and have established families.
• Clampdown on foreign imams working in mosques. They must show their appreciation of Dutch values.
• Increase in sentences for a range of crimes, and introduction of “zero tolerance” policing to cities such as Rotterdam.
• Tightening of rules on cannabis-selling coffee-shops and zero-tolerance approach to infringements. About half the coffee shops in Amsterdam have closed.
• The Netherlands is still liberal in some ways, however. In 2001, the country became the first in the world to legalise gay marriages. The Netherlands still has liberal rules on euthanasia, recently extending it to severely handicapped babies and children.
How is this being less liberal? These all seem like eminently sensible measures that any country protecting it’s won culture and integrity.
The Dutch have implmented some common sense policies on immigration recently.
To take two examples from the article
Immigrants guilty of any minor crime, such as shoplifting, during their first three years in the country can be deported.
People can bring in a husband or wife only once they are 24 years old, and do not depend on welfare benefits. The measures are aimed at curbing international arranged marriages.
To take two examples from the article
Immigrants guilty of any minor crime, such as shoplifting, during their first three years in the country can be deported.
People can bring in a husband or wife only once they are 24 years old, and do not depend on welfare benefits. The measures are aimed at curbing international arranged marriages.
t1grm said:
Interesting to see this footnote at the end of the article:
The Times said:
How the Netherlands has become less liberal:
• Immigrants must pass an exam on Dutch language and culture before being allowed to move to the Netherlands. That does not apply to immigrants from US, Canada, Australia, Japan and other EU states.
• Legal immigrants already there must take a Dutch language course at their own expense.
• Immigrants guilty of any minor crime, such as shoplifting, during their first three years in the country can be deported.
• People can bring in a husband or wife only once they are 24 years old, and do not depend on welfare benefits. The measures are aimed at curbing international arranged marriages.
• 26,000 illegal immigrants are being deported, some of whom have been in the country for ten years and have established families.
• Clampdown on foreign imams working in mosques. They must show their appreciation of Dutch values.
• Increase in sentences for a range of crimes, and introduction of “zero tolerance” policing to cities such as Rotterdam.
• Tightening of rules on cannabis-selling coffee-shops and zero-tolerance approach to infringements. About half the coffee shops in Amsterdam have closed.
• The Netherlands is still liberal in some ways, however. In 2001, the country became the first in the world to legalise gay marriages. The Netherlands still has liberal rules on euthanasia, recently extending it to severely handicapped babies and children.
How is this being less liberal? These all seem like eminently sensible measures that any country protecting it’s won culture and integrity.
I personally do not think it illiberal to protect society from criminals, so I would agree with you that the increase in sentences is not illiberal.
However the tightening of cannabis laws is illiberal and some might interpret some of the anti-immigration measures in that way as well.
I thought this pasage was particularly interesting - who is this MEP? Is she British? Who is she representing?
"Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, on the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee, who has been active in opposing bans on the hijab, or scarf, said that there were no arguments for banning the burka. “If there is a genuine belief that someone under a burka is a terrorist, then you invoke stop-and-search laws on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.” "
I think the last part shows how ludicrous this is - how do the police know if they need to stop and search a person if they are wearing a Burka? Surely that is the whole point - anyone could be under there...including a male. I respect the ights of the individual to wear whatever they like in their own homes, but when in public there need to be certain general rules for health and safety purposes.
"Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, on the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee, who has been active in opposing bans on the hijab, or scarf, said that there were no arguments for banning the burka. “If there is a genuine belief that someone under a burka is a terrorist, then you invoke stop-and-search laws on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.” "
I think the last part shows how ludicrous this is - how do the police know if they need to stop and search a person if they are wearing a Burka? Surely that is the whole point - anyone could be under there...including a male. I respect the ights of the individual to wear whatever they like in their own homes, but when in public there need to be certain general rules for health and safety purposes.
gives us all hope I can understand them being banned in schools and the like, but I think this is taking it a step too far.
All it's going to do is stir up trouble and for what gain?
I'm just sick of anything and everything being banned to solve a problem that's probably not even there in the first place.
All it's going to do is stir up trouble and for what gain?
I'm just sick of anything and everything being banned to solve a problem that's probably not even there in the first place.
It will be interesting to see if this makes the Netherlands rate on the 'terrorist hitlist' now. If nothing happens to them a few more countries might follow.
Sounds like a reasonable enough move though, Western women travelling to some some middle eastern countries have to wear a hijab or whatever they are called so its only fair to reverse it here. If they don't like our 'decadant' western society then feck off.
Sounds like a reasonable enough move though, Western women travelling to some some middle eastern countries have to wear a hijab or whatever they are called so its only fair to reverse it here. If they don't like our 'decadant' western society then feck off.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I presume the red dye is to make a 'bindi' (several other names apply - it originates from the groom cutting his thumb on his sword as a show of manliness). It couldn't be seen inside a burka...which also would not be worn by a hindu (who sport 'bindis'.
It's easy to poke fun at other cultures, isn't it kids?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff