Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 07:01 PM

I just heard it on CNN.

nonhuman · Nov 17, 2006, 07:03 PM

Load of crap is what it is. I hope Muslims and non-Muslims alike protest by voluntarily wearing Burqas.

Since when is it acceptable to legislate people's wardrobes?

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Load of crap is what it is. I hope Muslims and non-Muslims alike protest by voluntarily wearing Burqas.

Since when is it acceptable to legislate people's wardrobes?

The Muslims are the Ones Who Failed to Present a Positive Image of Islam

"Statements made by preachers in the mosques, in articles and on various media channels accusing non-Muslims of heresy, the [preachers'] curses, and their characterization of Jews as the descendents of apes and pigs - [all these] cause Westerners to perceive Islam as an intolerant religion that rejects religious pluralism.

"The Muslims, therefore, are responsible for the distorted image of Islam prevalent in the modern West, and they are the ones who failed to present a positive image of Islam. Thus, they are responsible for the problems experienced by the Muslims today...

"What Do You Expect the West to Do When it Sees its Citizens Being Murdered in the Name of Religion?"

"Osama bin Laden didn't force anyone to go to Iraq, murder its people and destroy its institutions. He didn't force anyone to murder innocent people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, America and Europe. Bin-Laden did not tell the Muslims in the West: 'Hate the country that gave you shelter when you fled [from your homelands], made you rich when you were poor, fed you when you were hungry, gave you freedom after the bondage you suffered in your Muslim countries, and educated you when you were ignorant.'

"You caused all these catastrophes out of your own choice and your own free will... and failed to repay the kindness [shown to you]. So what do you expect the West [to do] when it sees its citizens being murdered in the name of religion, when it [experiences] hatred in the name of religion and suffers the damages of terrorism [perpetrated] in the name of religion? It is only natural that the West should hate you and tighten the rope around your necks, so you do not 'invade it from within' as you declare in your announcements and sermons...

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...mp;ID=SP113706

nonhuman · Nov 17, 2006, 07:08 PM

What's that got to do with anything? No one should be forced to wear or not wear anything. If I want to walk around in a burqa, why shouldn't I be able to?

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Load of crap is what it is. I hope Muslims and non-Muslims alike protest by voluntarily wearing Burqas.

Since when is it acceptable to legislate people's wardrobes?

because wearing "burqas" is a form of oppression to women no different than what a nun has to wear (which should likewise be banned).

nonhuman · Nov 17, 2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

because wearing "burqas" is a form of oppression to women no different than what a nun has to wear (which should likewise be banned).

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic there.

But if you're not, you're right that it's no different from a nun's habit: in both cases they choose to wear them for their religion and therefore it is not oppressive in the least. In fact depriving them of the choice and the freedom to wear them is what is oppressive. And if they're being forced to wear it against their will, then yes of course it's wrong and that shouldn't happen.

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 07:21 PM

well I'm not a nun, maybe they don't have to wear them all the time, but seems to me to be just a very similar form of oppression.

what I don't like is having to see overt displays of religion in public..if they want to wear their nunnary costumes in private whatever, but they should not be allowed to wear them in public.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

well I'm not a nun, maybe they don't have to wear them all the time, but seems to me to be just a very similar form of oppression.

what I don't like is having to see overt displays of religion in public..if they want to wear their nunnary costumes in private whatever, but they should not be allowed to wear them in public.

If you choose a job that requires you to wear a suit, is that oppressive?

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

If you choose a job that requires you to wear a suit, is that oppressive?

a suit is not an expression of religion...thus it doesn't need to be banned.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

a suit is not an expression of religion...thus it doesn't need to be banned.

No, it's not. It is part of the job.

Just like a nuns outfit is part of their job.

You give people on "the left" a bad name. Please change your nick.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:40 PM

When in ~~Rome~~ Amsterdam.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:46 PM

Liberals always legislate based on emotion, not logic. So if you're trying to find the logic in Netherlands' laws, you probably won't have much success.

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

No, it's not. It is part of the job.

Just like a nuns outfit is part of their job.

You give people on "the left" a bad name. Please change your nick.

do you really think is ok for any woman to be forced to wear a burqa? I don't think anyone does, right or left... that is why this legislation is a very good thing.. it is a start to ending religious oppression.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:50 PM

By oppressing religion!

That being said, I think women should be required to wear skirts.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Liberals always legislate based on emotion, not logic. So if you're trying to find the logic in Netherlands' laws, you probably won't have much success.

No, there's some logic here, for sure.

For example, I can't walk into a bank wearing a crash helmet (for security reasons). Why should a woman be able to do so in a burqa?

One rule for all.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

do you really think is ok for any woman to be forced to wear a burqa? I don't think anyone does, right or left... that is why this legislation is a very good thing.. it is a start to ending religious oppression.

By opressing ones religious belief. That's some amazing logic there.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, there's some logic here, for sure.

For example, I can't walk into a bank wearing a crash helmet (for security reasons). Why should a woman be able to do so in a burqa?

One rule for all.

I guess you're right.

She might have a terroist midget hiding in there.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

I guess you're right.

She might have a terroist midget hiding in there.

Actually, there have been a few recorded cases of blokes dressed in burqas pulling crimes.

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

By opressing ones religious belief. That's some amazing logic there.

religion is oppression

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually, there have been a few recorded cases of blokes dressed in burqas pulling crimes.

There have been people dressed in ski mask robbing stores, but ski mask don't get banned.

I do see where you are coming from though. Some jerks have no level that they won't go below.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 17, 2006, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

religion is oppression

Let me guess. A Catholic priest fondled yer privates when you were 6?

It's gonna take a few sessions of therapy to undo whatever religion has done to you.

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Liberals always legislate based on emotion, not logic. So if you're trying to find the logic in Netherlands' laws, you probably won't have much success.

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 08:06 PM

This is 1938 and there are people who're running roughshod over the politically correct and tolerant Dutch and the peace loving liberal Dutch have finally gotten the message. They are starting to stand up.

When you have a guy like Ahmadinejad who isn't even bothering to hide his intentions you realize you are in deep doo doo.

THEY FELT THEY HAD TO DO SOMETHING!!!

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

religion is oppression

Not giving someone the freedom to choose is opression.

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

Not giving someone the freedom to choose is opression.

problem is though that women are forced to wear those burqas. this legislation will stop that...its a good first step.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by The Left

problem is though that women are forced to wear those burqas. this legislation will stop that...its a good first step.

By outright banning them? That's a load of bullsh*t!

The first step should be within the religion itself, not govenment law.

lpkmckenna · Nov 17, 2006, 08:19 PM

So they banned the Burqa, but are other forms of religious dress still permitted?

Freedom and equality takes another nose-dive. Sad.

BlueSky · Nov 17, 2006, 08:19 PM

Good for the Netherlands. No one wants to import the 17th century into their country.

lpkmckenna · Nov 17, 2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Good for the Netherlands. No one wants to import the 17th century into their country.

So when's America going to send those Pennsylvania Dutchmen home?

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So when's America going to send those Pennsylvania Dutchmen home?

Their banning the burqa is the equivalent of our invading Iraq.

We had to start fighting jihadist aggression somewhere.

BlueSky · Nov 17, 2006, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

So when's America going to send those Pennsylvania Dutchmen home?

That's different, they practically founded the country and chose to stay that way. But what the hell, **** 'em anyway.

lpkmckenna · Nov 17, 2006, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Their banning the burqa is the equivalent of our invading Iraq.

Oh I agree. Both are equally stupid decisions.

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Oh I agree. Both are equally stupid decisions.

And this would be absolutely grotesque!

TheWOAT · Nov 17, 2006, 08:56 PM

I believe nuns do NOT wear burqas. Burqa's can include those that completely cover the face, leaving only a semi transparent cloth over the eyes or a slit.

burqa

Nun

Im not sure about what is what... But I don't see how this law will hold up in any court of appeals. What about during the winter? No scarfs allowed? And what about the children? No ninja costumes for Halloween?

Atomic Rooster · Nov 17, 2006, 09:05 PM

It could be Michael Jackson the pedophile under that burqa.

The Left · Nov 17, 2006, 09:11 PM

wearing a scarf is not a overtly religious act and thus would not qualify to be banned.

lpkmckenna · Nov 17, 2006, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by marden

And this would be absolutely grotesque!

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The Tanforan detention center in San Bruno, CA. It was one of many places which served as the first stop before Japanese and Japanese Americans were relocated to Internment Camps during WWII.

tie · Nov 17, 2006, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by marden

Their banning the burqa is the equivalent of our invading Iraq.

We had to start fighting jihadist aggression somewhere.

Eight posts back you said it's illogical. I'm confused, are you now a liberal (i.e., dimwitted flip-flopper)?

Timo · Nov 17, 2006, 09:54 PM

You know, the Times has this story as "Dutch Consider Banning Burqas in Public".

Would it kill people to be more accurate about the stuff they so passionately shout about?

Spliffdaddy · Nov 17, 2006, 10:16 PM

accuracy be damned.

we do this for the entertainment.

marden · 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Timo

You know, the Times has this story as "Dutch Consider Banning Burqas in Public".

Would it kill people to be more accurate about the stuff they so passionately shout about?

I'll betcha CNN and the Scotsman got their news out right before their young, well paid liberal staff members called it quits for the weekend.

As for the Times?

Oh, and for your trouble here's a little cartoon.

That's the problem with not posting the article. Some people just won't believe you and it always ends up you have to produce proof, anyway. But you risk being accused of posting and running. And/or a mod will cite you for an infraction on the poster's say-so.

However, I still believe it's better to just post it up front and be done with it.

Dutch ban face veil and burqa as security measure

THE Dutch government agreed yesterday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Rita Verdonk, the immigration minister, will 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 move by the centre-right government comes only five days before a general election. Legislation already limits the wearing of burqas on public transport or in schools.

Dutch Muslim groups complain that a burqa ban would make the country's one million Muslims feel more victimised.

"What the government is doing now is totally disproportionate to the number of women who actually wear the burqa," Ayhan Tonca, the chairman of an umbrella group of Dutch Muslim organisations, said.

Last updated: 18-Nov-06 01:34 GMT

The Scotsman - International - Dutch ban face veil and burqa as security measure

EDIT: I looked for other sources and found none and I think I heard CNN correctly, and may have happened upon this particular account innocently, but the reporter MAY have lost something in translation. It DOES appear that the ban wouldn't actually take place until next week. But I had a verbal source and an online source. I think that should suffice in most cases.

My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the inaccuracy.

Atomic Rooster · Nov 17, 2006, 10:51 PM

"As yet Europe is not an Islamic state and (as has been said many times in these posts) if the European culture is unacceptable then Muslims are free to leave and find a country more suited to their belief. This is not the statement of a racist but a pragmatist."

Quoted by Sanny.

Railroader · Nov 17, 2006, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

By oppressing religion!

That being said, I think women should be required to wear short skirts.

fixed™

TheWOAT · Nov 17, 2006, 11:40 PM

This is a burqa I would not object to.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

accuracy be damned.

we do this for the entertainment.

Post of the day®.

Nicko · Nov 18, 2006, 04:15 AM

Why do Western publishers have a veil fetish? - By Asra Q. Nomani - Slate Magazine

Interesting

vmarks · Nov 18, 2006, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Timo

You know, the Times has this story as "Dutch Consider Banning Burqas in Public".

Would it kill people to be more accurate about the stuff they so passionately shout about?

The BBC -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6159046.stm --

has it as "Dutch government backs burqa ban"

"The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places."

Which is different in character than the Times' headline.

vmarks · Nov 18, 2006, 08:45 AM

For the record, the Niqab is the eye-slit style, the Burqa is the full face covering with the woven transparent eye cover.

Kevin · Nov 18, 2006, 08:45 AM

Not so sure if I can agree with this at all. I don't think anyone should be MADE to wear one. But if it's their own choice. Let them.