You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Dutch Muslims hit out at proposed burqa ban
2006-11-18
Dutch Muslims have hit out at a proposed government ban of face veils, saying it was over the top, ill-conceived and infringed religious rights.
Whoa! Didn't see this one coming!... Oh. We did. Never mind.
On Friday the Dutch cabinet said it was proposing a bill banning clothing that covers the face in public, targeting in particular Muslim woman wearing the burqa or niqab.
Targeting also young Muslim men who're into dressing up as Muslim women, whether it's because they're transporting ammunition, on the run from the coppers, or they just like wearing women's underwear...
The burqa is an Islamic veil covering the entire face and body and a mesh screen to see through, while the niqab is a veil covering the face but leaving the eye area clear. The garments are worn by a few dozen women in the Netherlands.
"So, really, y'see, it's not a problem..."
Rita Verdonk, minister of immigration and integration, said the bill proposed a ban on the basis that covering the face constituted a risk to public order and safety. The ban would be imposed in public and "semi-public" places such as schools, courts, ministries and trains, her spokesman Martin Bruinsma told AFP. "In this country, we want to be able to see each other. The ban is a question of security," daily De Telegraaf quoted on Saturday the minister as saying.
If government has the power to ban running around nekkid at the beach, it should also have the power to ban its exact opposite at the bus station. That's logic.
But representatives of the country's Muslim population were unimpressed.
They've never been particularly impressed by logic, have they?
"They are going to have to find a better argument than security.
Why would they have to? It's gummint's responsibility to ensure citizens' security.
"It is an infringement on the freedom of religion," said Ahmed Markouch, a Moroccan mosques representative. He predicted that the bill would go down badly with the country's sizeable Muslim population, "because it comes from Verdonk, not because they are in favour of the burqa."
Meaning that if it came from somebody else they'd accept it without a grumble. I somehow doubt that. It it came from somebody else, they'd be "just as bad as Verdonk."
Green Party lawmaker Mustapha Laboui, who is of Moroccan origin, said that although he believed the wearing of the burqa in Dutch society was "not logical", he was sceptical as to the bill's legality. And Ayhan Tonca from the CMO, a group representing Muslims, said that such a law would be "useless". "The existing laws are sufficient for dealing with the problems. It's over the top, a law for a dozen people!," Tonca told AFP.
Posted by:Fred

#4  You can always go back to your own s**thole countries and wear the burqa back there. And practice your misogyny, honor killings, and all the other religious trimmings as well.
Posted by: Dar   2006-11-18 13:40  

#3  Hiding wimmen and over-sexualizing them at the same time, reducing them to objects, go against the very basis of dutch (and western) culture.

The veil is already bad, and should be seen as what it is, IE a flag, but the full-body covering niqab or burkha is just PLAIN INSULTING.
It is the exact same behavior as a western woman going outside in bikini in soody arabia. Muslims wouldn't tolerate that, we westerners shouldn't have to bend backward to tolerate behaviors that aggressively go against our own values.

Anyway, such garnment is not meant to do anything else that conquer public space and impose the superiority of the muslim "civilization" over the host society's.
Cultural imperialism. Should. Not. Be. Tolerated.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-11-18 12:37  

#2  They are going to have to find a better argument than security.

Kinda interferes with your plans then, eh?

Simple. If the Muslims are howling, the Dutch must be doing something right. As Fjordman says in his article, "Suggestions for Solutions";
The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin

Westerners need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws.

As columnist Diana West points out, we should shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive, and amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from sharia states. Calling this the War on Terror was a mistake. We need to give it another name, maybe “War of Self-Defense against the Jihad.” Another possibility is “War against Apartheid.” [Baron Bodissey’s two cents: Call it “Take Back the Culture.”] Given sharia’s inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, it is de facto a religious apartheid system. Calling this struggle a self-defense against apartheid would make it more difficult for Western Leftists to dismiss it. We should also focus on how ex-Muslims are treated just like runaway slaves: Harassed, beaten, and frequently murdered in their quest for freedom.

Nations that want to survive the Muslim onslaught must adopt such anti-sharia measures and become increasingly unfriendly towards Islam. So long as MME (Muslim Middle East) countries prohibit or do not enforce freedom of religion, Islam must be banned wherever there is such freedom in the West. Reciprocity must become the byword in all dealings with Islam.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-11-18 11:51  

#1  "In this country, we want to be able to see each other. /EM>

Is it still so in Holland that people don't close their curtains, so that passersby should be able to see into their parlours?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-11-18 11:23  

00:00