Dutch cabinet approves partial ban on Islamic veil in public areas

[midnight_rendezvous]

that's exactly the point,they're not

do you really think muslim women dress like that out of choice?

It's not a religious requirement and contrary to popular belief most woman aren't forced to wear them by malicious and jealous husbands. A friend of mine did a study when she was at uni and found a lot of young Muslim girls donned the burka as a source of defiance and religious pride post 9/11 because of the rise of Islamaphobia in the West.

 

[pastafarian]

"Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions,
government buildings and on public transport," the government said in a statement after the
cabinet approved Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk's bill.

Seems to me this applies to everyone who wears face covering clothing in situations where the government are simply asking you not to ,
there is no specific targeting here only targeting people who wear face covering clothing in certain situations

People should abide by the laws of the land where they reside,if they find the
democratically enacted laws that distasteful or abhorrent they have the option of moving to an area where said laws are not enforced

 

[The Spanish]

"Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions,
government buildings and on public transport," the government said in a statement after the
cabinet approved Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk's bill.

Seems to me this applies to everyone who wears face covering clothing in situations where the government are simply asking you not to ,
there is no specific targeting here only targeting people who wear face covering clothing in certain situations

People should abide by the laws of the land where they reside,if they find the
democratically enacted laws that distasteful or abhorrent they have the option of moving to an area where said laws are not enforced

Oh come on mate this is about keeping people happy, the agenda is clear. yet another half baked and ultimately disastrous policy attempting to deal with mass migration and significant changes in population and culture, without making very very difficult decisions on, or proposals to deal with, the make up of our society and planning for the future.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

If you start to question their decissions you question democracy !!!

What a load of rubbish. The ability to question your government and hold them accountable is a democratic right. Sounds like you seem to be confusing democracy and totalitarianism.

 

[The Spanish]

It's not a religious requirement and contrary to popular belief most woman aren't forced to wear them by malicious and jealous husbands. A friend of mine did a study when she was at uni and found a lot of young Muslim girls donned the burka as a source of defiance and religious pride post 9/11 because of the rise of Islamaphobia in the West.

Was with you until this bit

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Was with you until this bit

So you don't believe there has been a rise in anti Islam sentiment in the West since the attacks in 2001?

 

[The Spanish]

So you don't believe there has been a rise in anti Islam sentiment in the West since the attacks in 2001?

That's not the same as not believing the rise in the adoption of Burqas etc by Muslims in the west is exclusively or even primarily caused by islamaphobia, even though it's proved indisputable by erm a survey in a college.

Why try to trip someone up on a point that's quite clearly different? It's not going to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

 

[Soulman]

It's not a religious requirement and contrary to popular belief most woman aren't forced to wear them by malicious and jealous husbands. A friend of mine did a study when she was at uni and found a lot of young Muslim girls donned the burka as a source of defiance and religious pride post 9/11 because of the rise of Islamaphobia in the West.

""Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions,
government buildings and on public transport," the government said in a statement after the
cabinet approved Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk's bill."

Surely if you turn up with a crash helmet or balaclava on in these places you would have to remove them. Likewise there is no restriction on the streets in either case.
If as you stated "It's not a religious requirement" then removing the face covering should not be a problem.
As for your comment " a source of defiance and religious pride post 9/11 because of the rise of Islamaphobia in the West", don't you think that having the face covered on "public transport" is worrying after 7/7 here and the killings on our public transport.
This "Islamaphobia in the West", so how many Muslims have been killed in the UK because of this "Islamaphobia "?, perhaps posting this one day after Drummer Rigby's birthday is the wrong time.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

That's not the same as not believing the rise in the adoption of Burqas etc by Muslims in the west is exclusively caused by islamaphobia. Why try to trip someone up on a point that's quite clearly different? It's not going to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Well firstly I reiterate it was my friends dissertation so I don't have any of her data or research to go on but I can only assume it was a conclusion she came to with extensive research. Her findings didn't say the donning of religious attire was exclusively because of islamaphobia just that many of the young (teenagers/ early 20's) Muslim girls she spoke to felt they had been marginalised since 9/11 and to show a sense of pride in their religion and as a middle finger to those who would pass judgement on them becaue of their beliefs then donned the burka. That is from what I can remember. I'd be doing her a disservice if I tried to pass of her findings as my own and I'm not place to back them up without any research.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

""Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions,
government buildings and on public transport," the government said in a statement after the
cabinet approved Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk's bill."

Surely if you turn up with a crash helmet or balaclava on in these places you would have to remove them. Likewise there is no restriction on the streets in either case.
If as you stated "It's not a religious requirement" then removing the face covering should not be a problem.
As for your comment " a source of defiance and religious pride post 9/11 because of the rise of Islamaphobia in the West", don't you think that having the face covered on "public transport" is worrying after 7/7 here and the killings on our public transport.
This "Islamaphobia in the West", so how many Muslims have been killed in the UK because of this "Islamaphobia "?, perhaps posting this one day after Drummer Rigby's birthday is the wrong time.

There's a difference between a requirement and a choice. You need to grasp that concept otherwise there is no point having a discussion with you. If a woman choses to wear a burka because of her believe regarding modesty or whatever you have no right to tell her she's wrong just because you disagree and it makes you uncomfortable. You don't like it? You're an adult deal with it. As for your comments regarding islamaphobia, well they just go to show why those girls chose to wear them. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that because no Muslim or few Muslims have been killed due to hate crimes that hate itself doesn't exist?

 

[Soulman]

Well firstly I reiterate it was my friends dissertation so I don't have any of her data or research to go on but I can only assume it was a conclusion she came to with extensive research. Her findings didn't say the donning of religious attire was exclusively because of islamaphobia just that many of the young (teenagers/ early 20's) Muslim girls she spoke to felt they had been marginalised since 9/11 and to show a sense of pride in their religion and as a middle finger to those who would pass judgement on them becaue of their beliefs then donned the burka. That is from what I can remember. I'd be doing her a disservice if I tried to pass of her findings as my own and I'm not place to back them up without any research.

Perhaps we could put the "middle finger" up to drinking on the streets and trotting around in speedos and bikinis in countries where it is against the law..........but we don't because firstly most would be worried about the consequences, and secondly most realise that it is not allowed. Probably why i have no intention of visiting or living in these countries, the choice is there.

 

[Soulman]

There's a difference between a requirement and a choice. You need to grasp that concept otherwise there is no point having a discussion with you. If a woman choses to wear a burka because of her believe regarding modesty or whatever you have no right to tell her she's wrong just because you disagree and it makes you uncomfortable. You don't like it? You're an adult deal with it. As for your comments regarding islamaphobia, well they just go to show why those girls chose to wear them. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that because no Muslim or few Muslims have been killed due to hate crimes that hate itself doesn't exist?

Bit dramatic, there is no ban on these women "regarding modesty" in their homes or in the streets, just removal in certain places where the face needs to be seen, the same as every other Tom, Dick and Harry.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Perhaps we could put the "middle finger" up to drinking on the streets and trotting around in speedos and bikinis in countries where it is against the law..........but we don't because firstly most would be worried about the consequences, and secondly most realise that it is not allowed. Probably why i have no intention of visiting or living in these countries, the choice is there.

Well as the burka isn't illegal I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make...

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Bit dramatic, there is no ban on these women "regarding modesty" in their homes or in the streets, just removal in certain places where the face needs to be seen, the same as every other Tom, Dick and Harry.

Yes but you're ignorabtly comparing to a bicycle helmet. At least compare to something vaguely relevant so you don't just look like a bit of a numpty. Regardless of it being a choice or a requirement you should still show some respect. The same as you hopefully would to a Christian, Budhist or Jew in regards to their religious attire.

 

[Soulman]

There's a difference between a requirement and a choice. You need to grasp that concept otherwise there is no point having a discussion with you. If a woman choses to wear a burka because of her believe regarding modesty or whatever you have no right to tell her she's wrong just because you disagree and it makes you uncomfortable. You don't like it? You're an adult deal with it. As for your comments regarding islamaphobia, well they just go to show why those girls chose to wear them. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that because no Muslim or few Muslims have been killed due to hate crimes that hate itself doesn't exist?

" Are you implying that because no Muslim or few Muslims have been killed due to hate crimes that hate itself doesn't exist?[/QUOTE]"

I am implying that if this feeling "Islamophobia/hate crimes" is being over egged, the fact that few Muslims have been killed in the West surely points to that.
Meanwhile Coptic Christians are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in the East. Surely better evidence of Christianophobia in the East, rather than your example/hearsay with no slaughtering in the West.

 

[Soulman]

Yes but you're ignorabtly comparing to a bicycle helmet. At least compare to something vaguely relevant so you don't just look like a bit of a numpty. Regardless of it being a choice or a requirement you should still show some respect. The same as you hopefully would to a Christian, Budhist or Jew in regards to their religious attire.

A Christian, Buddist or Jew do not have their faces covered for religious reasons.........the same as the Muslims do not have their faces covered for religious reasons.....in short it is not part of their " religious attire"...is it. Perhaps look at your own opinion before deciding who is the numpty eh.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

" Are you implying that because no Muslim or few Muslims have been killed due to hate crimes that hate itself doesn't exist?

"

I am implying that if this feeling "Islamophobia/hate crimes" is being over egged, the fact that few Muslims have been killed in the West surely points to that.
Meanwhile Coptic Christians are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in the East. Surely better evidence of Christianophobia in the East, rather than your example/hearsay with no slaughtering in the West.[/QUOTE]

So racism doesn't exist anymore because since the days of lynching hate crimes, resulting in death, against block people have been in decline? Superb logic. Past experience tells me that usually the people that deny that islamaphobia or anti Islamic sentiment exists are the people that harbour such feelings against Islam. Not saying you are but you're not doing a very good job at proving otherwise...
Furthermore a look at the front page of aby right wing newspaper every now and again is a good indication of the way some people view Muslims on this country.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

If they want to dress like that then yes. You must be a very small minded individual to take real offence to how someone else chooses to dress. If you're fishing then congratulations, otherwise, you're an idiot.

Hooked you Husty but you are the idiot.
These people can go back and live in their mud huts in the desert where they belong.
Then they can carry out their medieval practices to their hearts content.
Fancy joining them Husty.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

A Christian, Buddist or Jew do not have their faces covered for religious reasons.........the same as the Muslims do not have their faces covered for religious reasons.....in short it is not part of their " religious attire"...is it. Perhaps look at your own opinion before deciding who is the numpty eh.

It's like talking to a brick wall. Just so I'm clear on this, you think it's only religious attire if you are required to wear it?

 

[Soulman]

"

I am implying that if this feeling "Islamophobia/hate crimes" is being over egged, the fact that few Muslims have been killed in the West surely points to that.
Meanwhile Coptic Christians are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in the East. Surely better evidence of Christianophobia in the East, rather than your example/hearsay with no slaughtering in the West.

So racism doesn't exist anymore because since the days of lynching hate crimes, resulting in death, against block people have been in decline? Superb logic. Past experience tells me that usually the people that deny that islamaphobia or anti Islamic sentiment exists are the people that harbour such feelings against Islam. Not saying you are but you're not doing a very good job at proving otherwise...
Furthermore a look at the front page of aby right wing newspaper every now and again is a good indication of the way some people view Muslims on this country.[/QUOTE]


I never quoted the line you have highlighted first in your reply.......you did

And your quote "Furthermore a look at the front page of aby right wing newspaper every now and again is a good indication of the way some people view Muslims on this country.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree, there is big mistrust and some people are sick to death of their wants and trouble making etc, but I'll ask again, apart from just words, has their been killings in the West due to this "Islamophobia in the West".......or do the "words" compete with the ACTUAL slaughter or Christianophobia ACTUALLY going on in the East.