There sometimes seems to be a relationship between how white a country is and how averse to face coverings they are.

A lot of Canada's pretty white though and it's really only Quebec that has any trouble with face coverings, prohibiting women working in the public sector or interacting directly with government officials from wearing them.

It's just not a problem when you're not afraid for scary brown people. Of course there are circumstances under which someone's identity needs to be verifiable. Telling women who wear face coverings out of religious devotion they're not allowed to do so in public isn't that. It's just exertion of control over a minority.

It's just exertion of control over a minority.

Too fucking true.

The way I see it:

Why don't you want them wearing it in schools?

Why don't you want them wearing it in hospitals?

Why don't you want them wearing it on subways, trains, and buses?

If you answer includes any of the following:

a) I don't like Islam b) face veils are not a required part of Islam therefore boohoo c) face veils mean the woman are property d) woman don't need to cover their heads this is the free western world, and/or e) I don't like it/it scares me/they might be terrorists

Than go shove your opinion into an elephant's asshole and bask in the stench because all of those are shitty reasons to violate civil liberties.

a) Just because you don't like something doesn't mean other people don't. Again people wear face veils for stylish reasons as well as religious reasons. Don't be judgmental. Part of being in a civilized culture is the tolerance and understanding of DIFFERENT cultures and ideas and religions all COEXISTING together. Such a law if passed or supported for this purpose is not secular, but Islamophobic and that is despicable.

b) Who the fuck are you to determine what is and what is not part of a religion's practice? The arrogance of some people is obnoxious and overwhelming to think that they can make sweeping judgements about the customs of someone as not being part of their religion. To a large group of Muslims head coverings and face veils are part of Islamic expression.

c) Women are not property in the Netherlands as all people should know and as such the state shouldn't treat different women as different because of the way they dress. That is essentially treating them as property.

d) Women can cover their heads all they want to in a free country. Obvious places like a courthouse may have stricter rules but even then a cursory examination for identity purposes and the veil can come back on. Unless of course the Netherlands is one of those Big Brother countries which irrationally parrots the necessity for "security" to protect people's rights....that are not being infringed.

e) This is self-explanatory as to why it is a bullshit reason. You don't like head veils? Don't fucking wear one! Don't like seeing women wear them? Tough fucking shit. I don't like bras. Should legislate all women to stop wearing them. For security reasons of course since they can hide knives and shit in them.

There is no argument for banning them that does not stem from an islamaphobic or misogynistic rationale. To ban them is a violation of civil liberties in the name of "security" which is just authoritarian.

The_Metatron wrote:It's complicated. What speaks strongly to me about such a ban is it defines what people may do in a society. With such a ban, in the Netherlands, people may not make half of their population appear in public as non-persons, as property. Whatever those who such a ban affects may think, the ban prescribes what they may do (or, in this case, not do), at least in public.

It says to me: "Here, in the Netherlands, all of us are people. None of us are property. Behave accordingly."

Covered person is still person.

But .. lets do some social work then. The article mentions:

Only a few hundred women in the Netherlands are thought to wear burkas, most of them only occasionally.

I don't know the situation in the Netherlands, but these people tend to be segregated/tend to segregate so it may be good idea to have enough social and street workers in area anyway. Talk to the women. Find property. This is human approach. Individual.

The_Metatron wrote:Who speaks for the property?

In the Netherlands women have the right to choose whom speaks for them and don't need men to presume to tell her she is not property so don't wear certain clothing

If a woman wants a man to speak for her (not that this is an accurate description of all women who wear face coverings but even if it were) that's her business and doesn't make her any less human anyways.

This bullshit line of "We're empowering you by controlling exerting control over you" is a crock of shit. You don't elevate someone from the status of property by depriving them of rights and telling them how to behave. Illegalising their choice of clothing doesn't give them any choice. Even if their husband or father or community previously decided for them that they'd wear a burkha, illegalising the burkha doesn't put that choice in their hands. It's the state making the choice for them. That's as disempowering as husbands making those decisions.

So, not treating people like humans at all.

Indeed. There's not much point in bra-burning if it's enforced by legal decree. The same goes for burqa-burning - or at least women deciding that they don't necessarily want to be mummified in cloth, whether or not accompanied by a male relative (hint, hint). Yeah, let's not lose sight of the biggest sexists lurking behind these types of discussions. For example, the so-called men who've thrown acid in the faces of unveiled women, because they weren't veiled. Some women say they want to be veiled, and in a great many cases it is undoubtedly true. But the raw (and in some cases rational) fear of not conforming by wearing it, shouldn't be ignored either. When a guy in North Korea tells you he actually and enthusiastically supports King Jong Un, he might or might not be telling the unalloyed truth. There are North Koreas of the mind, too.

If you answer includes any of the following:

a) I don't like Islam b) face veils are not a required part of Islam therefore boohoo c) face veils mean the woman are property d) woman don't need to cover their heads this is the free western world, and/or e) I don't like it/it scares me/they might be terrorists
Than go shove your opinion into an elephant's asshole and bask in the stench because all of those are shitty reasons to violate civil liberties.

I find Islam to be the repository of all the most disgusting, vile, violent, and hateful adjectives one can think of and the colthing is a symbol to promote its intolerance and act as a warning and EXAMPLE of the terror it wishes to inflict on all humanity. And the worst of these cunts live not that far away from me as did the killer of Lee Rigby. (Anjem Chandry, Adebolajo. )

So FUCK YOU if you disagree and BAN the BLOODY THING!

At least in Europe if it is banned it is not so likely you will get acid thrown in your face by the fanatics who believe in this arsehole of a religion and force with threats everyone to submit if they believe or not.

thank you

Islam violates civil liberties!

Scot Dutchy wrote:Islam violates civil liberties!

absolutely

I'm not the type to go crying but if I were then ex Muslims like this in the radio show would have the tears flowing



how the hell can anybody here plead for the toleration of Islam totally eludes me!

Peter

I am afraid that certain members here seem to think that all muslims are pink and furry.

If I visit the shopping centre I will see people wearing different clothes, some might be wearing a bit of the latest styles and a few will be the hardcore wearing it all!!!!
Well Islam is like that, some might just cover the hair and not be hardcore, but the Burka is the full declaration you want Islam to rule the political and spiritual world.

I rather we remove a few of the freedoms they would NEVER allow us, to prevent the march of world domination. It really is that serious a problem and our governments have been hiding from it.

The political wake up call came when youngsters of 14 years old and upwards fled Western countries to join ISIS. Explain that if you can.

Even young girls of 15! Fucking madness.

Peter Brown wrote:

If you answer includes any of the following:

a) I don't like Islam b) face veils are not a required part of Islam therefore boohoo c) face veils mean the woman are property d) woman don't need to cover their heads this is the free western world, and/or e) I don't like it/it scares me/they might be terrorists
Than go shove your opinion into an elephant's asshole and bask in the stench because all of those are shitty reasons to violate civil liberties.

I find Islam to be the repository of all the most disgusting, vile, violent, and hateful adjectives one can think of and the colthing is a symbol to promote its intolerance and act as a warning and EXAMPLE of the terror it wishes to inflict on all humanity. And the worst of these cunts live not that far away from me as did the killer of Lee Rigby. (Anjem Chandry, Adebolajo. )

And that is nice. No one is forcing Islam on anyone. People in the Netherlands are FREE TO CHOOSE to practice Islam. Religious expression and evangelism under the Dutch constitution is a right. There are restrictions on where you can solicit but there are those kind of restrictions equally for other kinds of speech as well so it is consistent in its application of the law.

The women are free to choose to wear it or not. Not all Muslim women wear head veils, not all women who wear head veils are Muslim.

So FUCK YOU if you disagree and BAN the BLOODY THING!

The childishness of this statement is droll. It translates into: "I disagreed with everything you said for purely subjective reasons on the grounds that I don't like a particular religion despite the fact we live in a humanistic 21st century where tolerance and coexistence in a secular environment with all denominations of religions is a cornerstone of our society so have the thing which does absolutely no harm, is not forced on anyone, and is the woman's choice to wear."

Got it.

At least in Europe if it is banned it is not so likely you will get acid thrown in your face by the fanatics who believe in this arsehole of a religion and force with threats everyone to submit if they believe or not.

You are talking about a place that had a recent terrorist attack over a drawing of Muhammad.

thank you

Your post and attitude are dripping with misogyny and islamophobia.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Peter

I am afraid that certain members here seem to think that all muslims are pink and furry.

Really? Care to back that up?

Or instead of dehumanizing people perhaps you should start to actually treat people as people as several posters have said in regards to why this ban needs to be placed.

NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS.

Some Muslims are intelligent, well-productive contributors to the cities, countries, principalities they reside in.

Too put it into another perspective. Christian woman oftentimes engage in voluntary abstinence from sex until marriage because they believe that sex is for marriage alone. They have the right to CHOOSE to abstain from sex because not only do they have the religious right to do so, but the same religious right applies to the secular world as well. Women can choose not to have sex. The state cannot force them to have sex.

The same is true with this particular ban. Women have the freedom to choose what they wear in the secular world and they have the freedom to choose what they wear from the religious side. It is a massive abridgment of civil liberties.

last time I checked Scot, the Netherlands was not Islamic run. The state was not using Islam to abridge civil liberties. The state however is using Islamohobia to abridge civil liberties and that is just as despicable...when hatred and intolerance are used to justify curbing civil liberties.

What planet are you on Will?

The Burka is a message to you, it says I hate you, I want you dead I want Islam and Allah to dominate everything humans do, and we must follow every act Muhammad did. If you don't understand this simple message then you are as stupid as they are.

Just google acid thrown in face you are bound to find examples in the news of it happening in Islamic state around the globe. Islam is based on making you afraid, to live in terror of Allah, to keep everyone else in fear, to submit and conform.

In Europe we had the Saudis pump trillions of dollars to promote Wahhabism and we saw many go join ISIS!!!

Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf ... 01916.html
.

America I expect never had that sort of money spent over there so you'll have less home grown Islamists, but you still have 9 / 11 to remind you, they don't like you one little bit, they want you dead!!!

I hate the Tory party as well, so make a word like Toryphobe to ignore the death cult coming for you

and don't bring Muslims into this because 145 Muslims children who were not Muslim enough were murdered by Islamists! Islam is the evil, and the Qur'an the rule book they follow, and the Arab bandit Muhammad who also killed captured children, the man who's example they do follow. You will not find anything ISIS does not discribed as an action performed by Muhammad during his lifetime, they really do follow Islam....literally

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world ... ol-attack/