AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

 

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe's most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent's toughest laws against concealing the face.

 

"The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face -- including the burqa -- should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens," the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

The debate on face veils and whether they stymie Muslim integration has gathered momentum across Europe.

 

The Netherlands would be the first European state to impose a countrywide ban on Islamic face coverings, though other countries have already outlawed them in specific places.

 

The move by the centre-right government comes just five days before a general election. The campaign has focused so far on issues like the economy rather than immigration because most mainstream parties have hardened their stances in recent years.

 

Last December Dutch lawmakers voted in favour of a proposal by far-right politician Geert Wilders to outlaw face-coverings and asked Verdonk to examine the feasibility of such a ban.

 

Because veils were worn for religious reasons, she had feared new legislation could come into conflict with religious freedom laws. But she said on Friday this was not the case.

 

MUSLIM HEADSCARF

 

Existing legislation already limits the wearing of burqas and other total coverings on public transport or in schools.

 

France has banned the Muslim headscarf and other religious garb from state schools while discussion in Britain centres on limiting the full facial veil, or niqab.

 

Italy has a decades-old law against covering the face in public as an anti-terrorism measure. Some politicians have called for this rule to be enforced against veiled Muslim women.

 

The Muslim community estimates that only about 50 women in the Netherlands wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.

 

Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would make the country's 1 million Muslims feel more victimised and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.

 

"This will just lead to more girls saying 'hey I'm also going to wear a burqa as a protest'," Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community.

 

Job Cohen, the Labour mayor of Amsterdam, said he opposed burqas in schools and public buildings, and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.

 

"From the perspective of integration and communication, it is obviously very bad because you can't see each other so the fewer the better," he told foreign journalists.

 

"But actually hardly anybody wears one ... The fuss is much bigger than the number of people concerned."

 

Since the murder of anti-immigration maverick Pim Fortuyn in 2002, the Dutch have lost a reputation for tolerance, pushing through some of Europe's toughest entry and integration laws.

 

Social and religious tensions have escalated in the last few years, exacerbated by the murder of film director and Islam critic Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-Moroccan militant in 2004.

 

 

I would be fascinated to know how many suicide bombs in the west have been let off by muslims wearing burqas and veils, security risk my ass its pure racism and nothing more and demonises members of a particular religion, I have no objection to ALL religious regalia being banned but its obscene that muslims are being demonised while sikhs can still wear turbans, nuns can wear their religious gear, jews can wear skullcaps and so on

 

I don't know why countries don't just be upfront about it and bring in a law saying its a criminal offence to be a muslim because that is the next stage :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wait wait wait, look at this gem from the AP version of the story...

 

''From a security standpoint, people should always be recognizable and from the standpoint of integration, we think people should be able to communicate with one another,'' Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk told national broadcaster NOS. She said the ban also would apply to headgear like ski masks and full-faced helmets.

 

Yeah... I'm sure they're gonna ban ski masks and helmets.

And the best part:

 

Tonca estimated that as few as 30 women in the Netherlands wear a burqa and said the proposed law could be unconstitutional if it is interpreted as targeting Muslims.

 

( source: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-N...artner=homepage )

It is purely racism dressed up as security measure, how many of the 7/7 or 21/7 or 9/11 or Madrid bombers etc where burqas ? none, there is no evidence that they are a threat to security so it is purely playing the race card to try win votes off extremists in the election, plus if what the above says is true they will have to ban motorcyclists wearing helmets too, I like Holland and its people but their politicians leave a lot to be desired

You have to love the Netherlands. :wub:

Thank GOD Holland has had the balls to do this.

 

Far from being 'racist' - it's a clear statement that, no, you CANNOT just wear what the hell you like - certain items offend people, and I'm glad the Government in Holland has made it clear that, yes, burqas ARE offensive and degrading and simply unacceptable. Holland is a very modern, forward-thinking country, I have a lot of family there - this is a wise, brave move - so let's hope this sets a precedent for the rest of Europe.

 

In the same way going topless is banned in many countries, blasphemous t-shirts are banned in many countries, that swastikas are banned in many countries, so should be the burqa - it's a sign of utmost opression, is insulting to modern women AND men, and as has been said on these boards before, the ONLY reason these women wear these disgusting garments is to make a separatist STATEMENT. The wearing of them in their own countries symbolises that the woman is a peasant, is of a lower class - hence you see very few in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq.

 

As for the British nationals who choose to wear them in this country - it's time they got the message - and loud and clear too - burqas are nothing more than an antagonistic item of clothing, they are ominous, sinister and wholly unpalatable to the majority of British people. Off they come.

 

To liken wearing a top-to-toe garment that displays just the eyes (rather like talking to someone through a letterbox) to the wearing of a skullcap, crucifix or turban is absolutely, utterly, laughably LUDICROUS, Kimi.

I'm totally with Craig on this one, this is a disgusting racist attack from a country which should bloody well know better... And the justification for it is utterly laughable.... So, it was decided shortly before an Election then, eh..? No surprises there then... Politicians, same all the world over really, jump on any bandwagon as long as it gets them a few votes. W/ankers... <_< Wont do fukk-all about the illegal sex traffic and exploitation of Eastern European girls in the red light districts, but, hell yeah, let's get on the case of a few women who decide to wear a veil in public....

 

"Security"??? Oh, please... absolutely NONE of the suicide bombers on 7/7 or 9/11 were wearing any kind of Islamic or Religious regalia - they were all dressed in WESTERN fashions, business suits, etc....

 

So what if it's antagonistic..? I'm all for legit forms of protest, who are these women actually harming by choosing to wear a burkha as a form of protest..? Are they chucking petrol bombs or rocks at anyone..? Are they threatening people's lives like the Anti-Vivisection protestors..? Are they strapping 2 kilos of semtex to themselves and blowing themselves up on the tube...? No, it's the guys in Hoodies and Gap T-shirts or Paul Smith suits carrying rucksacks that are doing that..... The modern useage of the Burkha is a bit in your face, sure, (but so is dressing up as Batman and engaging in totally foolhardy stunts to gain publicity for a cause like "Fathers 4 Justice"...) but it is fundamentally a peaceful form of protest, none of these women are committing acts of violence, merely making a stand for who they are and what they believe....

 

I'm all for banning ALL forms of religious iconography (especially in State Institutions), but it has to be totally across the boards, otherwise it can be only interpreted in one way - as targetting a racial or religious group, and I aint down with that, at all....

 

And why is it that there's all this focus on Muslim women anyway... Hmm, anyone would think that Western politicians had some sort of unhealthy fixation for the 'exotic', dusky-haired maidens just like their Victorian forebears had for the Harems and the 'mysterious East'.... "Orientalism" rearing its ugly head in the 21st Century....

 

Yeah, let's rip off their veils and show 'em who the massa is..... <_<

Scott...

 

would you like talking to someone through one of these things? Don't you think it's offensive knocking on someone's door only for them to staunchly refuse to open up - and only agreeing to talk to you through their letterbox? And wouldn't you think it rather ludicrous and offensive if the reason they gave for not opening the door was that they were afraid you may rape them or look at them lustily?

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/russy68/officer-letterbox.jpg

 

And as for giving evidence in court or TEACHING in one?!?!? Oh please.....

I watched a documentary about the Muslim community in Holland. It was screened just after the murder of Theo van Gogh and they were interviewing various Muslim families who lived in the sprawling suburbs of Amsterdam. In effect they lived in a Muslim ghetto. The housing schemes were basically populated by North Africans with very few indigenous Dutch anywhere nearby.

 

These families were being asked about integration and what they thought could be done to help the Muslim Community to integrate more with the rest of the population (so to build understanding between the communities and avoid similar religious murders).

I was expecting them to go for the usual suspects (alleviation of poverty, positive discrimination in the workplace etc etc). But they didn't. To a man (and I think it was only men who spoke), they said they had no desire to integrate with , as they saw it, decadent Westerners. They said they didn't consider themselves Dutch or European but Muslim. And they wanted to live in their own self-contained Muslim society in Holland, ideally following Muslim Sharia law.

Is that the prevalent view of Dutch Muslims? I've no idea.

 

But if it is, is that a view a Western liberal democracy can accept? Does a Western Govt just say, well, ok then, you may live in this country but we as a State will accept your complete isolation. You may cut yourself off completely, live as your religion dictates, follow your own laws.

It can be done. Just look at the Amish Community in America.

 

But the difference was that most of the Dutch Muslims they interviewed were not 'self-supporting'. They either had no jobs or very low paid jobs. The young men had no prospects. They survived on State handouts. The resentment was very evident.

 

So does a Government say, look, this situation is not sustainable. We cannot allow an increasing number of our countrymen to cut themselves off, never speak to a 'Western' person, play no part in the wider society.

 

But then what? You can't force people to integrate. That only leads to further alienation.

 

I don't have the answer. It's not simple. It's not black and white. I don't think for a minute that a Muslim woman wearing a veil is a Security risk. That's just a ludicrous assertion.

But I do think that the veil (and particularly burqa) is a major barrier to any possibility of integration. As a feminist (of a very secular disposition), I do find it very offensive. To me the connotation is that that woman is at best a second class citizen. Someone who cannot be seen by a man outside her immediate family is , lets face it, going to struggle to carve a career for herself. And surely it must be demeaning to men as well?

Is this why my forebears fought for centuries to get equal treatment? So increasing numbers of women cover up from head to toe and see the world through a mesh?

But again, even that is not as straightforward as it first appears. Because again from what I understand, it's the younger generation of women in Western Societies who are choosing to dress this way. They are not it seems being forced to do it. When I was at Uni many years ago I had several Muslim friends. Not one of the girls wore a veil. Their dress was quite western. That's not the case nowadays. Muslim women in their teens and twenties are opting to wear much more 'restrictive?' clothing than their own mothers did. Apparently less flesh on display equates to being a more devout Muslim.

So I guess from a feminist perspective you could say they have the right to dress exactly as they want.

 

I find it all very depressing actually. I don't want to impinge on anyone's 'rights' but at the same time I don't want to see increasingly separate societies within a society. Allowing the latter may cause much greater problems than banning a burqa. :cry:

I watched a documentary about the Muslim community in Holland. It was screened just after the murder of Theo van Gogh and they were interviewing various Muslim families who lived in the sprawling suburbs of Amsterdam. In effect they lived in a Muslim ghetto. The housing schemes were basically populated by North Africans with very few indigenous Dutch anywhere nearby.

 

These families were being asked about integration and what they thought could be done to help the Muslim Community to integrate more with the rest of the population (so to build understanding between the communities and avoid similar religious murders).

I was expecting them to go for the usual suspects (alleviation of poverty, positive discrimination in the workplace etc etc). But they didn't. To a man (and I think it was only men who spoke), they said they had no desire to integrate with , as they saw it, decadent Westerners. They said they didn't consider themselves Dutch or European but Muslim. And they wanted to live in their own self-contained Muslim society in Holland, ideally following Muslim Sharia law.

Is that the prevalent view of Dutch Muslims? I've no idea.

 

But if it is, is that a view a Western liberal democracy can accept? Does a Western Govt just say, well, ok then, you may live in this country but we as a State will accept your complete isolation. You may cut yourself off completely, live as your religion dictates, follow your own laws.

It can be done. Just look at the Amish Community in America.

 

But the difference was that most of the Dutch Muslims they interviewed were not 'self-supporting'. They either had no jobs or very low paid jobs. The young men had no prospects. They survived on State handouts. The resentment was very evident.

 

So does a Government say, look, this situation is not sustainable. We cannot allow an increasing number of our countrymen to cut themselves off, never speak to a 'Western' person, play no part in the wider society.

 

But then what? You can't force people to integrate. That only leads to further alienation.

 

I don't have the answer. It's not simple. It's not black and white. I don't think for a minute that a Muslim woman wearing a veil is a Security risk. That's just a ludicrous assertion.

But I do think that the veil (and particularly burqa) is a major barrier to any possibility of integration. As a feminist (of a very secular disposition), I do find it very offensive. To me the connotation is that that woman is at best a second class citizen. Someone who cannot be seen by a man outside her immediate family is , lets face it, going to struggle to carve a career for herself. And surely it must be demeaning to men as well?

Is this why my forebears fought for centuries to get equal treatment? So increasing numbers of women cover up from head to toe and see the world through a mesh?

But again, even that is not as straightforward as it first appears. Because again from what I understand, it's the younger generation of women in Western Societies who are choosing to dress this way. They are not it seems being forced to do it. When I was at Uni many years ago I had several Muslim friends. Not one of the girls wore a veil. Their dress was quite western. That's not the case nowadays. Muslim women in their teens and twenties are opting to wear much more 'restrictive?' clothing than their own mothers did. Apparently less flesh on display equates to being a more devout Muslim.

So I guess from a feminist perspective you could say they have the right to dress exactly as they want.

 

I find it all very depressing actually. I don't want to impinge on anyone's 'rights' but at the same time I don't want to see increasingly separate societies within a society. Allowing the latter may cause much greater problems than banning a burqa. :cry:

 

 

good points bri...

security risk my ass its pure racism and nothing more and demonises members of a particular religion, I have no objection to ALL religious regalia being banned but its obscene that muslims are being demonised while sikhs can still wear turbans, nuns can wear their religious gear, jews can wear skullcaps and so on

 

I don't know why countries don't just be upfront about it and bring in a law saying its a criminal offence to be a muslim because that is the next stage :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

 

theres no comparison between turbans, skullcaps etc and a bloody mask!

theres no comparison between turbans, skullcaps etc and a bloody mask!

 

Its discrimination against a particular religion therefore as far as I am concerned its a racially motivated decision to try and claw some votes from extremists and neo nazi's in the forthcoming election, each religion has their own traditions, muslims despise the wearing of short skirts and of people wearing no shirt yet they respect the right in the west for people to wear short skirts and to wear no shirt in the summer so if they are putting up with something that is offensive to them then why can't we put up with something that might be offensive to some of us ? Islamic muslims do not like the exposing of flesh, it may seem weird to us but what we wear is weird to them so live and let live as far as I am concerned. I am not a particular fan of burqas but I respect people's human rights to wear one should they so wish

 

The point I was making above was that it is a nonsense to ban the things on the grounds of SECURITY hence why I asked for instances where muslims wearing burqas had set off suicide bombs in western cities, given there has been NONE how can it be a safety concern ?? maybe we should ban everyone from wearing suits on safety grounds given all the 9/11 bombers were dressed in suits :rolleyes: there is just no evidence at all that banning burqas is going to improve public safety and this law is supposedly coming into effect on safety grounds.

 

These measures are the first step towards bringing in a criminal offence of being a muslim, trust me it will happen somewhere in Europe in the next 10-15 years

Edited November 18, 200618 yr by Kimi Räikkönen

Jupiter - thank you for that post - some superb points raised, and some really interesting insights.

Scott...

 

would you like talking to someone through one of these things? Don't you think it's offensive knocking on someone's door only for them to staunchly refuse to open up - and only agreeing to talk to you through their letterbox? And wouldn't you think it rather ludicrous and offensive if the reason they gave for not opening the door was that they were afraid you may rape them or look at them lustily?

 

 

 

And as for giving evidence in court or TEACHING in one?!?!? Oh please.....

 

Whatever my own personal likes or dislikes are, it's utterly irrelevant... I respect people's choices at the end of the day, and so should you.. You expect people to respect your right to be gay, well, respect works both ways mate. I'm pretty damn sure plenty of people in society are offended by gays picking up each other in places like Hampstead Heath or Clapham Common, so perhaps you should bear that in mind when you bang on about things that you find offensive....

 

My own mode of dress has probably offended a fair few people down the line as well, but I dont give a fukk, it's their problem, not mine, or would you actually suggest that I modify my own mode of dress when I'm going out just so I dont 'offend' someone....? Bollox to that....

 

I dont defend the case of the woman who was trying to teach in one, but I dont agree that ANY form of religious Iconography is appropriate in ANY state institution, especially schools, in fact, I dont even agree that we should have "Faith Schools" at all.... "Separation of Church and State" and all that....

I watched a documentary about the Muslim community in Holland. It was screened just after the murder of Theo van Gogh and they were interviewing various Muslim families who lived in the sprawling suburbs of Amsterdam. In effect they lived in a Muslim ghetto. The housing schemes were basically populated by North Africans with very few indigenous Dutch anywhere nearby.

 

These families were being asked about integration and what they thought could be done to help the Muslim Community to integrate more with the rest of the population (so to build understanding between the communities and avoid similar religious murders).

I was expecting them to go for the usual suspects (alleviation of poverty, positive discrimination in the workplace etc etc). But they didn't. To a man (and I think it was only men who spoke), they said they had no desire to integrate with , as they saw it, decadent Westerners. They said they didn't consider themselves Dutch or European but Muslim. And they wanted to live in their own self-contained Muslim society in Holland, ideally following Muslim Sharia law.

Is that the prevalent view of Dutch Muslims? I've no idea.

 

But if it is, is that a view a Western liberal democracy can accept? Does a Western Govt just say, well, ok then, you may live in this country but we as a State will accept your complete isolation. You may cut yourself off completely, live as your religion dictates, follow your own laws.

It can be done. Just look at the Amish Community in America.

 

But the difference was that most of the Dutch Muslims they interviewed were not 'self-supporting'. They either had no jobs or very low paid jobs. The young men had no prospects. They survived on State handouts. The resentment was very evident.

 

So does a Government say, look, this situation is not sustainable. We cannot allow an increasing number of our countrymen to cut themselves off, never speak to a 'Western' person, play no part in the wider society.

 

But then what? You can't force people to integrate. That only leads to further alienation.

 

I don't have the answer. It's not simple. It's not black and white. I don't think for a minute that a Muslim woman wearing a veil is a Security risk. That's just a ludicrous assertion.

But I do think that the veil (and particularly burqa) is a major barrier to any possibility of integration. As a feminist (of a very secular disposition), I do find it very offensive. To me the connotation is that that woman is at best a second class citizen. Someone who cannot be seen by a man outside her immediate family is , lets face it, going to struggle to carve a career for herself. And surely it must be demeaning to men as well?

Is this why my forebears fought for centuries to get equal treatment? So increasing numbers of women cover up from head to toe and see the world through a mesh?

But again, even that is not as straightforward as it first appears. Because again from what I understand, it's the younger generation of women in Western Societies who are choosing to dress this way. They are not it seems being forced to do it. When I was at Uni many years ago I had several Muslim friends. Not one of the girls wore a veil. Their dress was quite western. That's not the case nowadays. Muslim women in their teens and twenties are opting to wear much more 'restrictive?' clothing than their own mothers did. Apparently less flesh on display equates to being a more devout Muslim.

So I guess from a feminist perspective you could say they have the right to dress exactly as they want.

 

I find it all very depressing actually. I don't want to impinge on anyone's 'rights' but at the same time I don't want to see increasingly separate societies within a society. Allowing the latter may cause much greater problems than banning a burqa. :cry:

 

Good to see someone actually capable of seeing the argument from both sides....

 

If they were only talking to men though, then it kinda presents a pretty distorted picture. And I dont think it's really their fault they dont particularly feel 'Dutch'... There are similar problems with Arabic/North African communities in France who have basically been herded into ghettoes, told that they are 'French', but when they've actually gone out and tried to be French, they're treated like second-class citizens and given very few meaningful opportunities to contribute to French society....

 

I can see similar problems in Holland. Holland likes to think of itself as this wonderfully liberal utopia, but it seems that it only works that way if you're white and anglo. I dont believe for a minute that it's mere coincidence that the majority of the poverty and lack of opportunity that exists in France and Holland seems to be concentrated amongst the immigrant or second generation immigrant population, if people are growing resentful, then frankly it's little wonder, you can only take so much bullsh!t for so long... If Holland doesn't watch out, then they'll be experiencing their own race riots like the French did a couple of years back...

 

You expect people to respect your right to be gay, well, respect works both ways mate.

 

"Homosexuality is harmful. It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not, in any form, encourage the community to be involved in. It is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is harmful. It is not acceptable. Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

Quote from Head of the Muslim Council of Britain Sir Iqbal Sacranie ~(January 2006)

Islam condemns homosexual acts between consenting adults, but will never condemn the actions of its Prophet who had unnatural sex with a minor - it appears, Scott, that Islam is not tolerant of anything that its paedophile prophet condemned.

 

The consummation of the prophet's marriage with Aisha when she was nine (yes, NINE) means that in countries like Iran, a nine-year old girl is classed as an "adult" and under the Iranian penal code can be hanged from the age of nine upwards, or married.

 

An adult can give or refuse consent for sexual activity, a child can never give that consent. So why is the Leader of the Muslim Council of Britain condemning homosexual acts between adults? I would love to see the day that Sacranie condemns paedophilia, personally, Scott - surely a far worse "crime" against nature and people's morals.

 

Sacranie so far has made no effort in this direction. I wonder why?

 

 

Hell yeah, finally a country with some sense :cheer:

 

Muslim veils are completely unecessary. Our country bends over backwards to accomodate other religions and cultures and ours are under threat.

 

How is ours under threat ? :unsure:

 

What British traditions have been banned due to large scale protests by muslims ? and I am not talking about 1 complaint by a crackpot I am talking about large scale ones

 

Has Christmas been banned ?

Has alcohol been banned ?

Has pork been banned ?

Has Easter been banned ?

Do we have to observe Eid and Ramadan ?

Have short skirts been banned ?

Have beaches been banned ?

Has not wearing a shirt in public been banned ?

Do we all have to eat halal meat because muslims do ?

 

I am curious what British traditions are under threat from muslims

"Islam is harmful. It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not, in any form, encourage the community to be involved in. It is a practice that in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is harmful. It is not acceptable. Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other religions that are there, surely it points out that where Islam is practised there is a greater concern in that area."

Quote from Russ Thomas, in answer to Head of the Muslim Council of Britain Sir Iqbal Sacranie ~(November 2006)