I know that this is an extremely sensitive topic, but I believe that the people here on AD are intelligent and objective enough to handle this issue.

The story as it unfolds....



There is a heated debate going on in The Netherlands about the more extreme dress-codes of Muslims and the negative effect it has on the intergration process of Muslims and on the Dutch society in general.

(* Note, I am NOT talking about head-scarves, I am discussing the most extreme forms of Islamic clothing like the burqa, the Chador and the niqaab .)

Questions to debate:

Are the Dutch, a people that are known for equality, liberty and a secularization, justified to seriously question these fundamentalistic dress-codes?

Although our Constitution makes it extremely difficult (freedom of opinion, religious freedom etc) to make laws regulating dress-codes, what could be done to solve this difficult issue?

Which part should the Muslim community play in solving this problem?

I'd LOVE to tell you all where that all should theoretically stand in the US... in relation to assigned dress-code.

In the event that a company has an established and well documented dress code, in which case the religious garb violates, they have no legal ground to stand on... of course unless this dress code is found to be unrelated to the position and of discriminatory nature.

In my professional experience, I've actually been down this legal road, both in Texas as well as Louisiana. The dress code must be:
Uniform
industry related
non-discriminatory
documented
and enforced equally...

The only way a muslim woman (or anyone for that matter) could wear something that violated policy would be to prove in court that said dress didn't fit one of the following qualifications.

However, this can be construed in a number of fashions, in which case "non discriminatory" could become an interesting topic.

The reality is that professional dress is established by the company in which you work, and its standards in the United States vary from position to position, industry to industry, and even geographically.

If I were the courts, I'd venture to address whether the dress of a muslim would prohibit the effectiveness of said employee and make a judgement in that fashion. Effectiveness CAN include public opinion in the United States. For instance, if a tie and slacks are required, it can be reasoned in that a sales person might have direct contact with the public. On the other hand, someone working in a physical capacity out of the sight of customers may be able to wear shorts and tennis shoes.

Does the burka violate stated dress codes? Does it denegrate the brand of the company that it represents? What are the norms in said industry? I prepose that all of these are pertinent questions...

Renger, could you please post a link to the story? I can't believe that I am reading this right. The way the story reads, she wants NOT to wear a headscarf, just like 90% of women in the Netherlands do NOT wear a headscarf. What if she was Christian - would she need the headscarf then? It doesn't make sense.

This whole problem runs much deeper than the dresscodes in companies or public. What you see here is a perfect example of the problems European societies have in regard to the intergrationprocess of Muslims.

On the one hand we have the Muslim women who wear these clothes. They are absolutely right when they say that the Constitution states that they have the right to wear what they want. Everybody agrees with this fact.

BUT....

Everybody else in society has the right to not accept certain behaviour. This is where it starts to get difficult and where the real problems arise. The fact that freedom of religion is a high valued right in our country and that these women rightfully hide behind it, does not change the fact the more than 90% of society views this behaviour as totally unacceptable. It goes against some of our most fundamental principles. The problem is we made good laws but they were never ment to deal with these extremes of the Islamic culture. So in liberal, secularized, democratic Holland the ackward situation has arisen that this unacceptable fundamentalistic behaviour is being protected by our own laws. A lot of people in Holland are rightfully upset about this wrong situation, but they do not know what to do to solve the problem. Changing the Constitution might be a solution, but nobody really wants to mess with that, because it can have a serious negative affects on society and as a whole. And why would we change our Constitution for a minority that rejects our way of life?

Probably the only solution will come through change from within the entire Muslim community. My third question. Where are these representatives if you really need them. If they even pick up the smallest indication of discrimination they run to the press with it. But if a serious problem like this arises. An issue that invloves memebers of their community. Then they are never there. They "shine because of their absence" as we say in Holland. They know that this extreme form of Islam is negatively reflected on the entire Muslim community through the media. But instead of blaming the media, they should publicly discuss this whole situation and try to find a reasonable solution. They should confront these people who are negatively influencing the already slow and difficult intergration proces of the Muslim community. Up to now I have never seen it happen.

Editted to add:

Carlitoswhey



I am sorry I forgot to post them
The original link I used in my opening post was this article from the BBC site

The woman in case name is Samira Haddad: if you type her name in google you will find numerous of references to her case. Here is a good one: Link

And if you want to view this issue from a fundamentalist viewpoint there is this Link

Editted to add:

I forgot CW you were reading it right the first time.

First the very phrasing of this question indicates a fundamental problem in the way the subject in being approached.

The West has a big problem with "exceptionalism" and must remember the inherent equality under human rights law of all people.

"The Dutch" are not special when it concerns questions of human rights. The Dutch government has had a well-above-average track record in handling such concerns, I agree.


This affords the Dutch as a people no special right or justification to question other cultures.

On the contrary, every individual and culture, regardless of their past actions has a right to ask questions concerning violations of human rights and it is their duty, to do so.

By extension just as the Dutch has a right to question extremists Islam, Muslims and even extremist Muslim who are Dutch citizens has a right to question mainstream Dutch culture.

It seems to me the real trouble isn't the questioning as much as the "answering"


Which issue? The issue of individuals following a consensual dress code and doing so publicly?

The answer to that would be essentially nothing. The Dutch must resign themselves in principle to seeing the hijab and even the burqa in public life.

Now the non-consensual aspect is another story. That is where the threat to the universal principles of human rights comes in.

A legal system responsive to concern of domestic abuse from all quarters with law making it easy to report and gain protection is another.

A well-educated economically secure Muslim community would go a long way. It has worked rather well in the US.


I see hijab about weekly, but I haven't seen a burqa in a very long time.


The easy (wrong) answer would be to say the vast majority of the part.

That would go nowhere, as just as non-Muslims cannot impose restrictions on religious practice, neither can Muslims.

Groups more strict on female coverings will continue to be so despite pressure from moderates, that is the nature of opinion, it is rarely universal.

The key is to work in the long term to broaden to horizons of Muslims in Holland, to give every opportunity to succeed and learn and to (and this is very important) not approach them with an attitude of cultural superiority.

Hey Turnea I expected you to show up in this thread. I am well aware of your strong opinion about intergrating Muslims into Western society. (I also expected some reactions of Moif, I am sure this issue also plays in Danish society. Maybe he is just busy preparing for Christmas. )




In theory you are right, but reality is very different. Everybody in Holland respects the basic principles of equality, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion (although the majority of the Dutch population does not follow any religion and during the ´60s and ´70s have struggled succesfully against the negative influence of religion on society.) The tolerant attitude of the Dutch towards different opinions lifestyles is captured in one simple sentence that characterises Dutch mentality: "You can do whatever you like, wear whatever you want etc. as long as you do not bother me with it!" This sentence is at the core of the Dutch mentality and have been a characteristic almost from the beginning of our independence in the 16th century. This basic idea will not change easily no matter how many foreign sub-cultures are in our country. It is the way we expect everybody to act and if you don´t like it and protest against it, because our culture is different then yours, you will face strong opposition. (!!! It doesn´t matter if you are Muslim, Jewish, Christian or a follower of any other religion, if you try to impose your religious feelings upon our society you will have to deal with resistance. If you don´t believe this, just ask a Dutch Jehovas witness or extremly religious political parties like the SGP)

You say that the Dutch do not have the right to judge or question other sub-cultures in our society. I strongly disagree with this. You were raised in a relatively young country (approximately 250 years old) that was formed through mass-immigration from Europe and other parts of the world. I live in one of the oldest countries in Europe. Dutch culture and mentality has evolved throughout
the ages (the first reference of a "Dutchman" comes from the Roman historian Tacitus: his name Claudius Civilis a Batavian who organised a revolt against the Roman oppression in AD 69!) The Dutch have created their own land and because of the threath water poses to my country we have developped a strong sense of cooperation based on compomises. This attitude is essential for us if we want to live peacefully with 16,5 million people in such a small country (41.526 square kilometers of which 18,41%is water). Foreigners (immigrants from all over the world) have to adapt to this mentality if they want to live peacefully in our Dutch society. We tolerate freedom of speech, tolerate different religions but we do not tolerate or accept the fact that a minority undermines our social structures we developped through the ages because their foreign culture or religion dictates them to behave in a way that is unacceptable in our society. As long as the Dutch remain the majority (at this moment still around the 80%) in our democratic society they will never accept this ever to happen. (I hope you understand this important point)



With the first sentence I completely agree. Your second statement is also correct. With your third sentence you are hitting a really important point!

Muslims have the right to question our mainstream culture. They use this right to the full extent. Problems arise when the Dutch start to question the Islamic culture in public. Critizism towards certain aspects of Islamic culture is always labelled as discrimination by the opponents. Throughout the years I have seen many debates between Muslims and the Dutch and a lot of times Muslims throw around words like discrimination or freedom of religion when their culture is rightly critized. What happens is this: Muslims can say anything they like in Holland and hide behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion, while the Dutch constantly have to think first before they say something because before you know it you are labelled as a rascist. In general it seems an impossibility to discuss important topics with the Muslim community. They do not listen or a just busy blaming everybody else for the problems they have within their own community. Their youths are causing trouble in all the bigger cities: blame the government for not helping them enough, or even better, argue that this is caused because most Dutch people are racist and really do not care about these people (forgetting the fact that the Dutch have financed these people for years and years). Muslim men are beating their wives regularly: that´s their culture, its approved by the Koran, they get upset about the fact everybody else rightfully objects to this. Honor killings, part of their culture that we should respect. The fact that a relationship between a Muslim girl and a Dutch man is regarded as dishonoring the Islamic tradition. Same thing. Or maybe the fact that a lot of Muslims regard Dutch women merely as prostitutes. Turnea, trust me the list is endless.

It is not that the Dutch are troubled by answering difficult cultural questions, its the Muslim community who don´t want to hear any criticism and are shutting down every debate by only focussing on their rights, and ignoring the rights of other people.



Yes, we will have to get used of seeing extreme religious dress codes in public. As I said before our own law protects this right. The issue at stake is this: if Muslim women want to wear a burqaa they have the right, but it is their personal choice and they should to live with consequences of their descission. They never find a job (94.5% of society is not Islamic. 94.5% of the people will never hire people who dress themselves in a burqaa! Would you?) Their social security will get cut down, because they will never get a job if they do not change their attitude and clothing. They will never be accepted by the majority of the Dutch society. In fact by choosing for a extreme Islamic way of life, they place themselves outside the rest of society. I do not want to hear one single argument of discrimination coming from the mouths of these people, because they have the feeling that people are treating them differently than others. Its their free choice, they know nobody accepts this and they have to live with the consequences. The Dutch society will never adapt itself towards these extreme forms of the Islam and this approach has nothing to do with respecting basic human rights.



Yes but the U.S. is a completely different society than the Dutch. If you do not adapt to the American way of life you will die of poverty, whereas in Holland if you consciously put yourself outside society you still receive social security financed by all the people in Holland. Apart from that Muslims only make up 1% (CIA factbook) of the U.S. population, while in our small country 5.5% of the people are Muslim.



We do not approach them with cultural superiority, we object against some extreme aspects that are conflicting on a fundamental basis with the Dutch culture and society (including all the other etnic groups). They have the same opportunities as all the other people in Holland, they just do not use them. For example, because of the economic recession, a lot of couples work (men and women) just to make sure that they have enough money to improve their lifes. Muslim women hardly work, Muslim men hardly work, or hardly have any education (hanging around corners with friends is more important for the majority Muslim youths than to finish an education). If Muslims would encourage their women to work, they will also experience economic growth. As long as they treat their women as mere household slaves they will remain poor and on the bottom society. It is all about choices and accepting its consequences. If you don´t invest in your children or yourself you will never experience prosperity. It is as simple as 1+1=2.

Sorry about the long reply (rant).

My exact words were that the Dutch have no special right by virtue of the accepting nature of Dutch society.

That was the gist of my first point.



Ah, I will refrain on elaborating too much on just how I feel treating cultures as if their ages mattered is simply a mistaken approach.

Simply put a nation is not a person and the mature age of a nation has precious little bearing on it's cultural attributes, other than perhaps a pretty consistent level of nationalism.

Understand that the political entities we call nations are related to culture only tangentially.

Other cultures, such as Arab culture, have been evolving for just as long (longer in the case of Arab culture).



Interestingly, Arab culture is similar in this aspect, though the threat of the lack of water was to blame their, birthplace of civilization and all...

The concept of hospitality and negotiation is strong in Arab lands as well.

Culture is a slippery concept, I would caution against forming conclusions on it very quickly.


Now, here's the fine point.

A moment ago we were saying that Dutch culture was built on compromise, now we have an ultimatum.

It is reasonable to establish conditions for what is unacceptable, as long at these conditions are themselves based in reason in a spirit of cooperation.

"Undermine our social structures" is much too broad to work with, how exactly do they undermine?


You'll find that is a familiar story to most Americans, though I don't have a handle on its severity in the Netherlands it is somewhat overstated here.

The first thing to understand is that there are some racists out there and a minority population is going to be quick (sometimes overeager through fear) to point them out.

Just as some Muslims resent Dutch society for no good reason, some Dutch do the same thing to Muslims I'm sure.

A lack of communication is a critical problem but I suspect that a true public dialogue isn't so poisoned as to become impossible, merely frustrating.

I know concerned Dutch citizens won't want to be labeled racists, but they must not be so angered by those in Muslims community who will level the charge unthinkingly that they forget that there is a majority of Muslims, who will listen and who are just as worried about extremists in their community.


Regular wife beating is certainly not approved by the Quran, though some will say otherwise. Spousal abuse is more common in the Arab world that is true, though that is a recent phenomenon as only a few decades ago it was very common in the West as well.

From a human rights report on the Netherlands in '95:

The Netherlands Human Rights Practices, 1995
That means that it's a lot more than a Muslim problem.

I agree, spousal abuse must be punished and I would be surprised to see that most Muslims are objecting to this. Any numbers of perspective on the Muslim public response to this issue?

I am certain honor killing does not enjoy wide support (it has none in the Quran) and those who do support it should be summarily ignored and it is unacceptable no matter what the culture.

Treating women as prostitutes (and prostitution itself) is not supported by Islamic texts either.

What you are seeing is not religious so much as it is cultural, and it is part of the culture only do to the closed nature of the poorer (and therefore, isolated) societies in the Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa.

It would be just a easy to find a Iraqi "Christian" who is a wife beater, or an agnostic Dutchman as the report points out so clearly.

Laying this at the feet of Islam is a bit unfair.


...actually it has everything to do with it.

Let's be honest, it's not just Muslim women in burqaas that have trouble finding work.

If the dress does not hinder them form doing the job there should be not trouble. After all isn't "live and let live'" part of Dutch culture.


Again, Islam speak strongly against both laziness and ignorance so if you're looking for a source of this problem look elsewhere.

If "no one accepts them" who is at fault here? A person acting, in a way that harms no one else, in respect of their religious beliefs. Of the person who shuns them because it is strange looking?

Sorry for not responding earlier Renger. Christmas has been fraught with illness and obligations.


Are the Dutch, a people that are known for equality, liberty and a secularization, justified to seriously question these fundamentalistic dress-codes? Yes.

Freedom of religion is meant to grant the individual the right to believe and worship as they choose. It is not meant to give aggressive ideology a platform from which to dictate social engineering.

There is nothing in Islam that demands women wear these, or any other garments anyway so the whole notion that women must wear a specific garment in order to follow to their religion whilst refusing to follow the cultural norms of their adopted nations has no religious foundation what so ever.

Rather, this is a cultural dress code, imposed by men on women, using oppressive ideology as a feeble excuse.

Holland has every right to protect all its citizens by ensuring people do not practice apartheid, even if it is self imposed. It has every right to question and criticise any ideology that runs counter to its own democratic and legal principles.


Although our Constitution makes it extremely difficult (freedom of opinion, religious freedom etc) to make laws regulating dress-codes, what could be done to solve this difficult issue?

Change the constitution. The law is simply a human institution created to safe guard those people who make up the nation, not some holy relic that cannot be touched lest it offends.

Religion has always proven itself to be inflexible and because of this belligerent attitiude religion has always been a menace to civilisation. A state that wishes to survive the onslaught of religion should thus take every measure to ensure that religion is not granted political power.



Which part should the Muslim community play in solving this problem?

They should stop thinking of themselves as a seperate culture from the rest of the societies they have chosen to live in and start adapting to those societies instead of belligerently, and even violently, opposing them.

There is certainly some truth to this.

The Quran is not clear on what is meant by "modest dress" and although women of the period (both in the Arab world and in Europe I might remind one) were likely to cover their hair as an expression of modesty (reference is even made in the Bible to such things) that is not necessarily the only reading of the texts that could apply.

What must be understood is that it is at least one possible reading and Muslims have every right to believe what they want and act accordingly.

This is not wholly a cultural phenomenon. Islam is a very multi-cultural religion and headscarves and the like are found, with varying frequency over Islam's enormous geographical range.


Now the imposition aspect is certainly a legitimate concern. Oppression of women is something no one should stand up for, but neither is it right to stand for oppression from the other direction in forcing women to abandon a dress code that they themselves have chosen.

If the government can produce conclusive evidence that the dress is imposed rather than chosen, then and only then can legal action even be considered and an alteration of the constitution should not be necessary at all.

Is it not the expression on the basic tenets of Dutch law, have the rules of civil rights changed merely because Islam have become more prevalent?


There is a blanket, overreaching statement if there ever was one. Strictly speaking religion has far more often been the catalyst of what we call "civilization" though in my opinion the term itself is often misapplied.

Denmark itself, with it's close historical ties the the Lutheran movement has been tremendously influenced by religion over it's history. The motto of the current Queen of Denmark.

Political power based on religion has been the norm in Europe for the majority of it's history and though it did not always prevent conflict neither did it necessarily engender it more than other factors did.

Are the Dutch, a people that are known for equality, liberty and a secularization, justified to seriously question these fundamentalistic dress-codes? Yes.

This is not about freedom of religion in my mind...not in the least. This is about confronting suppression even when it is disguised or wrapped up into religion. Extreme or fundamentalist Islam suppresses women. Have any of you seen a women in a full burqa in person? It is like seeing the shadow of a human..it is not only bizarre but deeply disturbing to me and it is not just about clothes or attire it is about how one is perceived, thought of and recognized in their culture. Some how in extreme Muslim cultures women are considered so meaningless and unimportant that any facial or outward appearance to distinguish one from another is unnecessary as they are all just women. I honestly don't wish to have to see this portrayal of women in my culture.

As I have said before here I find such radical and strong means of exclusion to be a form of violence. This insistence for some followers of Muslim faith to keep their women in this ancient form of clothing in a society where it is considered abusive, abhorrent and unwanted is a form of violence to the women themselves and to the society in which they live in.

We have dealt with this in America ourselves..using the Mormons as an example. Some very extreme or radical Mormons believe religiously it is their right to take many wives. As a society we not only frown on this but essentially consider it to be a form of sexism and abusive in nature. Is it wrong of us to make laws that prevent this kind of lifestyle and in essence prevent them from practicing their religion? Or as a whole do we believe our society benefits from certain restriction on person's religious beliefs and practices?

Extremism in any form..religious or non..is an unwanted influencer in society and I don't think when it is being presented or shrouded as a religious practice it is any more sacred then if it was a nihilistic.



Their right or justification is the fact these are members of their own culture and society. Cultures do not live or thrive independent of one another within a nation-state, least not successfully. The idea of a pluralist society is not to be many multiplied sums or groups of people but instead to be a group of many. Do the Dutch not afford the right to guide, question and yes even restrict cultural actions and influences within their own society? We are all afforded this "special" right.


Are you kidding me? Have you seen how the Dutch have been answered? Van Gogh was slaughtered in the street like an animal...sometimes the other side has NO reason and has NO desire to answer or engage in any sort of rational communication. And the more political Muslims most often support restrictions on extreme religious practices and again how are they answered? Usually with death threats.



I actually disagree with both of you on this point. It is not so much the America has better system for integration when it comes to Muslims or that America's economics are more fear based. It is the simple fact that the socio-economic classes of Muslim immigrants in America and Europe differ greatly. America has had more highly educated and sought after Muslim immigrants whereas the Netherlands and others have seen more unskilled Muslim immigrants. The immigrants themselves bring with them their advantages or disadvantages. And as we see the poorer less educated Muslim not only bring with them the disadvantage of poverty but often this liking to a more extreme, radical form of Islam which insists on not only refusing to take a pluralist view of society but shuns most if not all exchanges with other cultures.


Which part should the Muslim community play in solving this problem?

Obviously the mainstream moderates. I don't believe this is how all Muslims believe women should have to dress or act. I do think this is a very extreme and radical view of Islam and I think for too long we have found it too sensitive of a topic to honestly and appropriately address.

Yep. I saw a woman in dress close to one Monday, the only thing visible was eyes through a slit at the appropriate level.

I've seen the full burqa as well, though it's been some time.


The emotions it elicits in we who are unused to such a sight are entirely irrelevant.

Heck, I find clowns to be positively goulish and can not imagine why someone would want to dress that way or why children would be entertained by it.

"Bizarre" dress is not a legal issue.



That's your own interpretation of the reasoning behind the dress, I've not heard one word either form the Islamic sources or prominent Islamic leaders to support such a view.

It is an expression of modesty, much as is a nun's habit.


In my opinion?

Yes, it is wrong for the government to regulate in any way relationships between consenting adults. A limit on tax benefits would be reasonable, but the ban on polygamy is a silly outgrowth of our own cultural dictates.


Extremism is a relative concept. Better to say that the constraints are set by the universal principles of human rights.

Violations of these principles should be fought, including violations of the right to religious expression.


To a point, they are limited by human rights consideration both in principle and in law as signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.


..and when does the murder of one man by one loon count as representing the whole of the "other side?

Muslim leaders condemned the Van Gough murder, does that sound like a community uninterested in rational communication?


Death threats come from radicals on both sides.

A Woman's Head Scarf, a Continent's Discomfort
In a modern society with tons of people and quick dispersion of information, lunatics are going to come out of the woodwork. This does not reflect on either community as a whole.

The emotions are in theory maybe irrelevant, but in everydays life these emotions are very relevant. I think Bucket hits an important aspect. The fact that these women have the right to wear these clothings does not mean that this will be accepted by mainstream Dutch culture (i.e. the rest of our society). This is the center pieces to this problem. Our Constitution provides freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It grants these women to wear these clothes and at the same time grants other people the right NOT to accept certain behaviour or cultural / religious extremes. That's the whole problem. Wearing a burqaa means you consciously place yourself in a difficult social position. The chances that somebody hires you is almost zero. People will be afraid of your appearance, will not easily interact with you. What happens if police stop you and want to see your I.D.? Do you show your face or will you hide behind your religious rights? Life becomes hard, but thats your choice. That is the consequence.

BTW If you walk around in a clownsuit all day every day, people will think you are a fruitcake. Also doesn't help your social and working life.



Do not worry Turnea the Dutch have always been at the forefront in defending Human Rights. That's not the issue. Social Acceptance. The key word in this whole debate. We cannot force them to change the way they dress, they cannot force us to accept them in our society. A social dilemma. How should the government respond?

So what? As you said yourself earlier, and with which I agree, history carries no justifications for the decisions of the present. What was once considered modest in Muhammeds time has nothing what so ever to do with what is considered modest by our modern European understanding.

To 'dress modestly' in Denmark, or Holland, does not require any form of traditional Arabic dress or to cover the hair. In Europe, to 'dress modestly' means to wear the sort of sober clothing one might wear to work.

To make the claim that Islam requires women dress as if they were living in the 12th century is absurd.


Well, then it is a wholly cultural phenomenon as opposed to a religious phenomenon.

What we are seeing here is Muslim families from ignorant, poorly educated and highly religious regions coming north and bringing their male dominated culture with them. A large proportion of the Muslim immigrants in northern Europe treat their women as slaves, bartering their daughters for status, money or social influence and forcing all their females to submit to a dress code that isolates them from the rest of society.

That they do this and call it religion does not make us obliged to accept it as anything other than the oppression it is.

Once upon a time, slave traders and plantation owners used to make the same kinds of arguments. By your reasoning, we'd still have slavery and you and I would not be having this debate.


Do you have any idea of the social upheaval your proposal would result in?

Denmark is already having to endure heavy international condemnation due to the new laws to restrict immigration and the ridiculously overblown reactions to the Mohammed cartoons.

If the state did as you suggest and conducted an investigation into every Islamic marriage that seemed suspicious to the European mentality, never mind the enormous cost such an undertaking would result in, then the international reaction would be devastating.
You yourself would argue against such a course of action.
You'd be here at AD calling it an intolerable and unjustifiable attack.



Yes, perhaps you're right and it is a blanket statement. Yet I do not retract or regret it. Sometimes blanket statements are justified because the truth is so stark and obvious.

The whole concept of religion is as I said. Inflexible. Religion is the opposite of science. Religion is when people believe they already know the answers. When faith gives you the answers to all your questions, regardless of evidence or proof.

I disagree completely that religion has been a catalyst for civilisation. Religion, by definition is the ultimate conservative stand point and that the human race has evolved at all these last many centuries has only been because rational men and women have had to drag the Popes, Mullahs and Clerics, kicking and screaming and calling down the wrath of heaven upon 'the unbelievers' into the modern age.


Ahh... well, perhaps since you already know so much about my nations history then you won't mind my pointing out that Denmark was not always Christian?

That once upon a time the Danes were asertro (they believed in the Nordic Pantheon of Gods) and it was missionaries and pilgrims sent clandestinely by Rome that hammered the keel of Christianity into the foundation of this country.

That once it had a foot hold in Denmark, Christianity used every and any violent means to stamp out and destroy anything that threatened it. That soon it used this country as a base of operations to spread crusade into the east. That our very flag is a Christian battle standard.
Our culture, our art, our traditions and holidays and festivals were all cast down. Even our names were changed.

Denmarks history is the perfect example of what happens when you let a religion hold political power. Our history is an 1,100 year lesson in how Christianity brought us war, misery, oppression, poverty and intolerance.

What bothers me most about modern religion is that when the churches and priests held the power in Europe, they conducted centuries of persecution and did everything they could to keep the people ignorant. Now, in this world where religion has almost been pushed to the sidelines by rational thought and democratic politics, we are constantly lectured to and attacked by these same religions as if they had some moral foundation for their sanctimonious, holier than thou attitudes. Scratch to deeply though and you'll find the same narrow minded, stone age attitudes that would deny Darwin, repress homosexuality, discourage the use of condoms and would keep women covered up in garments to hide their 'shame'.


'Did not always prevent'

Give me a break turnea. There was never a war fought in Europe that wasn't sanctioned by priests or mullahs or druids or pontiffs and a good many were directly started by them. Look at Bishop Absalon in Danish history, or Bishop Odo or Gundulf in Norman Britain. Read about the history of the HUNDREDS of crusades that were fought on behest of the Popes, in the name of God.

To write of the history of Europe that religion didn't necessarily engender conflict more than other factors did is so naive that I don't know how to respond to such staggering ignorance. You sound like Irving denying the Holocaust.



I agree with you bucket. Totally.
I live across the road from a Somali shop and I see women in burqa's, niqaabs and hijabs all day long, every day. There are many Turks, Pakistani's, Arabs and Somali's here and they live in self imposed isolation. The women are not allowed to talk to any one, and indeed, most of them can't, or simply won't speak Danish (or English).

Attempting to communicate with one of these women, for what ever reason, yields no results.



Why?

Why are our emotions entirely irrelevant? This is our country, our culture. We have a shared history that binds us all together and a part of that history is the equality of men and women.

We've worked hard for decades to build up a society of equality and mutual respect and now, along comes an exterior ideology and imposes itself upon us with no regard to us or what we believe in.

There is nothing special about Islam. Muslims do not deserve special treatment. They bear no holy permission to threaten our culture and yet they do. They take every advantage and give nothing but hostility in return.

If our emotions are entirely irrelevant then so are we.


The only problem is, there is nothing 'universal' about these human rights.

In most of the world they are ignored and in the rest they are circumvented. Your own country executes people and holds others in prisons without trial and yet you see fit to talk about 'the universal principles of human rights' as these were some sort of gold standard by which the world operates.

Denmark, like Holland, has laws to protect people. These laws guarantee freedom of religion, but they also guarantee many other freedoms, such as the freedom to choose one's own partner, the freedom to speak your opinion without being killed for it, the freedom to draw a picture and not receive death threats.

Most relevent to this topic is the simple fact that freedom of religion is safe guarded in Holland, as well as Denmark and most other European nations, but the freedom of religion as it exists today is being abused in order to carry out an aggressive policy of social violence and sexual oppression.

And every one knows it.


I've pointed out to you before that the European Convention on Human Rights only grants freedom of religion only so long as this does not threaten public safety.

Also, the European Convention on Human Rights does not limit the asking of questions.


Never.

What represents 'the other side' as you call it, is the endless social violence, the fights, the stabbings and beatings, the gang rapes, the death threats, the murders and honour killings, the blood feuds, the riots, the bombings, the mass murder of school children, the beheading of hostages, the fake charities and political organisations sending money to support terrorism, the endless parade of martyrs exploding their suicide bombs in order to reach Mohammed's paradise and their quota of 72 virgins and the vast outpourings of happiness and glee these produce in boisterous public displays.

Most of all though, what most represents 'the other side', is the resounding, deafening, SILENCE.
The total lack of acknowledgement that Islam has any responsibility for this avalanche of violence done in its name.

Yes, Theo Van Gogh was just one man, just as Salman Rushdie is just one man and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is just one woman but they are all also symbols of what is really going on here.

Europeans, whilst being accused of racism, are not forcing Muslims into hiding, nor murdering them, nor gang raping their daughters, nor carrying out terrorist actions against them.

By and large, the vast majority of Europeans are sympathetic, easy going and indifferent as to whether or not some else belongs to this religion or that.


Bah! For every instance of lip service I saw paid by a few Mullahs and 'Islamic intellectuals' I saw half a dozen or more examples of Muslims cheering on the 'loon'.
After the slaying of Van Gogh we saw Muslims here, interviewed in the street, jeering and laughing, happy to voice their admiration for the work done in Allah's name.


Are you trying to balance that one paltry example with the slaying of Theo Van Gogh?

Sure, death threats come from radicals on both sides, as does violence but trying to draw comparisons like this with no regard as to the difference in scale is just dishonest.

A rain drop does not equal a thunderstorm.

I sing in a large choral group with a woman whose religious affiliation (I'm not sure what it is) requires her to keep her hair covered and dress modestly. Her normal attire is an ankle-length dress and pinafore apron, with a matching headscarf. The only time I have ever seen her without a headscarf on is at performances -- and she wears wigs on those occasions, to cover her real hair. Our concert garb consists of long formals for the ladies and black tie for the gentlemen, and she wears a formal like the rest.

I think that people should be allowed to dress according to their religious requirements, and I personally would be much less disturbed by seeing a woman modestly attired in her traditional garb than I am by seeing its polar opposite -- the American woman with no modesty or sense. LOL I'm describing the multi-pierced, heavily-tattooed, 20-pounds-overweight-with-a-belly-spilling-over-her-hiphuggers type. If I could manufacture a bumper sticker, it would say "Just because Lane Bryant MAKES it in your size, doesn't mean it should be WORN in that size." lmao

Oh you have my attention now surely turnea as I really detest seeing this subject portrayed and packaged as if it were a matter of religious rights and freedoms. Or that is but another example of Western society's misunderstanding and lack of tolerance for another's culture. I could not disagree more as I find there is little in regards to imagery that best portrays or represents women's suffering and suppression in the Muslim world as the burqa does.

Some topics I don't feel uneasy or boastful to admit that I feel Western society is not only morally right but far superior in their thinking..one of those would be how women are portrayed and what rights..legal or socially acceptable..that are afforded to them in our culture.

The burqa goes against most everything I believe and I am not discussing religion here as I completely devoid of any faith..but I do have a few principles I hold dear and one of those would be individualism and to me the burqa demands the wearer to no longer portray themselves as an individual..it is a denial of individualism.



Not true. The emotions it elicits in those of us who are uneasy and uncomfortable and unwanting of it in our society are what this entire debate is about. Unused to it yes our culture has never promoted or required women to dress anything like this and the cultures it derives from and still survives in are ones where abuse against women is great and yes also something far more common and something many more are not unused to. Is that irrelevant too? You seem to like to think it is. Do you not feel symbolism is important within a culture? And why do you not feel the prominent and mainstream culture's ideals and symbolic images are so irrelevant to this discussion?



Somehow I doubt "clowns" have to remain their entire lives dressed in their costumes..but what if they did? What if a culture demanded that all clowns in society (who were determined at birth) in order to be true and faithful to their proper roles in society were asked to remain in full clown costumes always? And that reprisals for a "clown" not wearing their clown costumes would be death, or being physically kept in a burning building to die, or to have acid thrown at them? Wouldn't you perhaps find that a bit cruel? All of which have happened to women for not wearing their culture's determined Islamic attire.

And again bizarre attire most certainly is a legal issue. You keep claiming the debate is not about the exact thing it is about. As much as we like to believe we have ultimate freedom to do what we please and desire we don't. We can't wear things that a large majority of others in our society find to be symbols or manifestations of abuse or cruel or inhuman treatment. I doubt I could lawfully shackle my children in public without some person asking the law to intervene. I doubt muzzling would go over too well either, as would any other such bizarre attire.
The burqa is just that , it is something to be worn to elicit more control and restraint over another, more specifically over women.




What percentage of Westerners do you believe would view a woman in a full burqa..covered from head to toe with their mouths shunned, their eyes hidden their human form completely distorted and think ah yes freedom! I imagine it would be a very very small number. I don't feel it is my opinion that matters less as I feel you represent the smallest of minority view on this topic.

And comparing it to a nun is just as silly as the clown comparison earlier. Nun's choose their professions...not have it chosen for them in accordance to the gender they were born with. And nuns are not required to wear such attire since the moment of puberty and a nun's costume is far more revealing then the burqa. Nuns are still afforded the freedom to be recognized as an individual rather than faceless nothings. Nuns still have the luxury of looking, speaking and communicating with others in her society with the most basic of all human interactions...face to face. None of which a woman in a burqa is allowed.


Well it is from my understanding that in most cultures who still practice the wearing of the burqa that this requirement is made not when they are adults but in fact still children in the western sense of the word. Or do you also allow this form of moral equivalence you practice to define this concept of consenting adults for you too?

And the government dictates what consenting adults do all the time. The ban on polygamy is not silly..as consenting adults can play marriage as much and often as they like. The government of America has just refused to acknowledge it. Why should we be asked to lend support and recognition to something we, as a collective, feel is immoral?



I disagree I feel as Westerners even beyond just Dutch, American or what have you that we all share a collective distinction of right and wrong and what is a rightful existence for a human, and what is not. I would argue that our own perceptions of this are far more closely mapped with one another than they are with many in the Arab world where they burqa originates from.

Society as a whole has it's own perception of extreme and a burqa in the Netherlands is extreme far more so than it would be in Afghanistan. This is not about universal principles because we don't share the same principles on this subject universally.

That is what the kernel of this debate is about...in a pluralist society all cultures within that society are considered to have advantages and values to the society...what value is it for the Dutch to protect and assist the practice of women wearing the burqa? I think it is none. In fact I feel it is a negative value.


Society still has the right and responsibility to ensure that such expressions are not at the cost of such principles and you have not addressed this in your argument at all. How is the wearing of the burqa in a nation like The Netherlands beneficial and in need of preservation? When the majority view it as a means of suppression and consider it abusive why is the small minority view so much more important that you feel this belief of a compromise the Dutch feel they have over human rights must be set aside?


When it becomes symbolic. Van Gogh's death is immensely symbolic why can't you see this? Van Gogh the name the whole world knows for Western influences and contributions to the human mind's perception and understanding of artistic expression and a Van Gogh was killed over what? Because he chose to express his own views? And he is one of many....
Rushdie the famed writer was targeted for death...Dr. Farag Foda an Egyptian Journalist and critic of Islamic fundamentalism was killed, Naguib Mahfouz Egyptian Nobel prize winner was attacked and stabbed, Amina Wadud who endured bomb threats for leading a Muslim prayer because she is a woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is under constant police protection because she too has chosen to express herself, Taslima Nasrin a Bangla feminist who has had to live in exile for over 10 yrs because of her beliefs she shared on how women are treated in her country..and these are but a few of the more famous people. There must be millions more as apostasy is still a crime punishable by death in many Muslim countries. All this talk about choice and freedom...was there ever a choice for these women to be Muslim?

This is not about one man, why do you insist on constantly trivializing the other side's own rights of expression?

This I agree with entirely but I think that Dutch society can be a little more creative in devising solutions other than changing the law, or worse the constitution.

The law is a blunt instrument and this is a fine problem.

You asked rightly, what then can be done?

I say that there are two communities to whom pressure (I use the term is a very general sense) needs to be applied. This debate is on Muslim dress so I'll stick there, but there are other problems that can use this analysis.

As you may have guessed a true solution will not turn only to the Muslim community and demand change.

Dutch society is built on compromise right?

I would settle on education and mediation as the first possible solutions here.

Some posters have referred correctly to the fact that is the more economically disadvantaged Muslims who are likely to seek intellectual security in relatively restrictive reading of the texts of Islam. Countering this will clearly involve making special effort to improve the education opportunities of those less well-off so that they feel more at ease in Dutch society and have no reason to take refuge in "extremism" (for lack of a better word as this is a dreadfully misapplied term).

A large measure of responsibility rests with the ethnic Dutch community as well. Some of the objections to Muslim dress are simply irrational. It makes no sense for adults to be afraid to see someone in a burqa, that is simply an irrational reaction to one too many ghost stories.

This side of Dutch society needs education and exposure to understand and become comfortable with seeing unusual dress for what it is...cloth nothing more.

You really have a knack for asking pertinent questions it seems.

If there was one word key in that question I would have to say it is the word "force".

Why force when we can encourage?

If the government can encourage Dutch society to accept public expression of Islam it would go a long way towards easing tensions.


Let's review exactly what I said again.

Did I suggest an investigation into every suspicious marriage?

No, not at all. The government can commission a non-intrusive study, that need not target the Islamic community is particular by the way as marital abuse is not only something that happens in "foreigner" homes... , to gauge to level of "oppression" among married couples.

All I ask for is some evidence that this dress is a form of abuse before we start making laws to stop it.

No one is arguing for treating women as slaves, not even Islam which is quite clear that this is not acceptable.


I see that to explicate further on religion in general would take us both off topic as it is a very big subject. I will likely star another thread as soon as I think of a decent introduction to the topic.


..and you even admit here that this is purely you own view. It does not reflect in any way the reasoning Islamic scholars give for this dress code.

Think for a moment, you can't truly believe that the essence of the individual is in their appearance.

Actually Western cultures have been quite restrictive towards women historically, including in dress. It got to the point that the face was the only skin allowed to be shown, not so different from the hijab really. It is different now of course, but "never" is simply inaccurate.


Come now this is a strawman if I've ever heard one. I do not defend imposing the dress code on the unwilling nor violence to that end. (neither does the Quran).

..but a willing adherent to the dress code has every right to dress as she wishes.


More of your own opinion... without evidence to suggest this is the true purpose of the attire that argument, which forms to basis of your post it seems, goes nowhere.

Quite relevent to this topic, there is a set of recordings on the BBC Asian network radio channel that looks at the French ban, one year on. These can be found at the BBC Asian network radio site. (start the player by clicking on 'Listen live', then choose to hear any of the following programmes:

Note, the recordings took place before the 'Paris riots'.

The BBC World Service also has another radio article, here, that describes one womans struggle to become an imam and which is also quite pertinent to this debate.


In effect, yes.


Which other community requires its women to wear burqa's?

As to the rest, the Danish state already has various studies and commissions looking into domestic violence. These have not been able to breach the walls of silence that surround this issue.


And the opinions of Muslim women who have managed to get out from under the thumb of their men make no difference? We see that when Muslim women in Denmark actually escape from the bonds of marriage, that is to say they aren't murdered as a result, more often than not, those who have a mind, and the courage to speak out, almost always do so against the burqa, the niqaabs and even the hijab.

You ask for evidence but what evidence would you accept?

There is a lot of evidence that Muslims in Denmark, especially Pakistani's, Afghan's, Iranians, but also Africans and Turks, arrange their children's marriages. We know this is going on. It is a high profile problem, much examined by the media here.

But, despite the wealth of information and the immense cost of investigating this matter, the Danish state has not been able to stop this traffic in children. Every measure undertaken to safe guard childrens rights has met with cunning, countermeasures and ever more complex smuggling rackets and the practice has continued unabated.

For most Danes, this problem is near invisible of course, and we could just shrug and look the other way... but how can we do this well knowing that Danish children are bartered back and forth like common goods or Danish women are forced into domestic slavery?
How can we ignore the fall out when Danish women are gunned down in the streets by their own fathers and brothers, right before our very eyes on the pretexts of culture, tradition and/or religion?


Yes, well this is what I've been saying all along!

Islam does not require children be sold as slaves to their parents ambitions.

Nor does it require that women be fettered to their homes, or forced to wear burqas, niqaabs or any other specific garments. Only the extremist view demands such obedience, the same extremist view that seeks to drive a wedge between the Muslims and the rest of society.

I can appreciate your stand point turnea. Its not like I want to oppress these people and take away their religion. My own opinion mirrors that of the Dutch. People are free to follow their religion as long as they don't bother me with it.

But I can't ignore murder, slavery and abuse, nor accept that religion justifies sexual oppression.

If we saw the Islamic community embracing those Danish cultural values they claim to have come here for, and doing away with honour killings, gang rapes and arranged marriages, THEN I could accept that wearing a hijab, or a burqa was a personal choice... but until then I will continue to judge the Islamic communities of Europe by their actions, not by their words.

Just as I do with every one else.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another trouble here is, religions like Christianity and Islam are 'pschitzophrenic' and what is described in the texts seldom has anything much to do with the practices of the faithful. Christianity for example forbids murder, but the Catholic church has the blood of millions on its hands.

With regards to Islam, I have to ask, what is Islam? Is Islam just the text of the Quran? Or is it in fact the cultural miasma of 800 million people? Which takes precedence over the other?

Or in other words, who decides what is Islamic? Osama Bin Laden and his followers have one interpretation, Selma Qureshi obviously has another.

Our politicians keep on insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. They argue this on the basis of the moderate understanding of the Quran. Essentially though this doesn't make any difference. The problem does not arise in any moderate reading of the Quran, but in the solid reality of millions of people who call themselves Muslims and who'se own perception of Islam is welded to their own culture.

For us on the outside, as well as for the moderates on the inside, then Islam is not about forced marriage or honour killings, but for millions of Muslims all across the world, it is and if we are to respect all religious beliefs, then we can't simply accept those we like and those we don't.

Our only recourse to controlling extremist religion in western democratic society therefore is to safe guard public safety by which ever means we see fit. In France, and maybe now in Holland, this has meant looking at banning certain forms of dress. In Denmark, it is already illegal to cover one's face in public due to the practice in recent years of left wing rioters wearing masks when confronting the police. This law, in effect already makes the burqa illegal, but I've never heard of any burqa wearing woman being arrested because of it.

The point I'm making though is that we, in Denmark already have laws concerning dress designed to maximise public safety and if we see the need for it, then such laws should be extended to include religious garments and people should understand that we do this not because we are Islamophobic, but because we have no other choice if we are to safeguard the rights and freedoms our countries defend!


edited to fix a link.

edited a second time to add the following:

German plans to introduce a loyalty test.

Turnea I agree with you that changing the Constitution is not the best solution, although it is certainly not a holy institution as Moif argued. Changing our constitution is tricky, complex and there is always the chance that it will result social conflicts. There are voices that argue to dismantle the freedom of religion article and place it completely under freedom of thought and speech. Not being brought up with any religion, a change like is maybe preferable, but for a lot of people (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. etc. etc.) an action like this will certainly result in a reactionary and uncompromising stand. Apart from that the biggest political party at the moment, the CDA, is a Christian party. They will never agree with dismanteling the Freedom of Religion. Together with other religious parties like the Christian Union and the SGP (extreme protestants) they have the power succesfully object to any change in the Constitution regarding religious freedom even if they accept the fact that freedom of religion is one of the obstacles to solve the intergration problems of Muslims.

Apart from that, should we change our Constitution just because an extreme minority of the Muslim community are causing problems? We should first look at different solutions that do not have such a big impact on our society.





You know what Turnea, during the nineties up till today education of these Muslim youth have been a prime focus of our governments to try to solve the social and economic problems of Muslim youths. Elementary school is free for all, high school is highly being subsidized by the State and every kid up till the age of 16 is forced to go to school. We have public high schools, special religious high schools, Muslims schools etc etc etc. The result: In general Muslim women / girls do rather well in our educational system. Problems is, they will hardly use their educational skills. Their parents arrange a marriage with a distant cousin who never heard about educated women and in general view their wifes as their possession forcing them to stay at home. (for a lot of these men the fact that their wife is better educated than themselves is felt as a personal disgrace.) Muslim men / boys are not as succesfull as their female counterparts in getting a good education. It appears that hanging around on streetcorners with your friends is more important than getting a good education. The fact that a lot of them will not find a good decent job, because they never finished an education, is a result of poor decissions not because the government didn't care for them or didn't tried to help them.



I am sorry but a burqaa is not just a dress. It is a specific cultural dress with a lot of religious symbolism attached to it. If the burqaa was just cloth, we wouldn't have to deal with all these problems. It is the religious aspect of these clothes that makes this problem so difficult. The purpose of a burqaa is marginalising the individuality of women. Nothing more nothing less. In a society were equality between men and women is almost a universal rule and individuality is praised as one of the most important aspects of our society, this is unacceptable. Why should the Dutch society, with Muslim fundamentalists treathening our way of life by butchering Van Gogh and sending deaththreats to every politican who tries to solve this problem (from the right and the left!), to make special arrangments and privileges towards this fundmentalistic minority?



I am doing my best!



I completely agree, but reality shows that it is not so simple. We are talking about unacceptable cultural expressions. We have tried to talk and listen to these people. We tried to explain that this is something that goes against some of our basic principles! We compromised a lot but this is were we draw the line! AQpart from a small minority, Muslims in general do not listen to this warning and are trying to hide behind words like racism, freedom of religion without any sense of self-reflection. They have showed that they are unable to understand our position in this case. They even managed the Dutch to openly question their tolerant position. Although there should always be a focus on dialogue, it seems that at this moment "repressive" actions against some of the extreme cultural aspects of Islamic culture is the only solution to break through the stalemate.



It really is of no concern if wearing a burqaa is being seen as abusive by the Muslim women who wear it. What matters is the fact that the general population does not tolerate this. What is more important is the fact that the general Dutch population is pressuring the government to find an appropriate solution. And the politicians will listen sooner or later and will come with a plan, otherwise they will loose votes!



Everybody has the right to form his or her own opinion. The problems these Muslim women are facing is the fact that Bucket's opinion is being shared by the majority in Dutch / European society. In a democratic society this means that sooner or later the opinion of the majority will be heard by politicians and sooner or later they will act to the wishes and demands of this majority.

Nobody is really interested in what some Islamic scholar say about this issue or in what way they are defending it. These are the same people who urge their followers to disrespect and even attack homosexuals. The same people who have principle problems with the way our society is formed and would rather see the sharia introduced in the Dutch society. The same people who are defending hideous actions of their Muslim brothers because in some way it is written in the Quran. They have completely lost their credibility in the eyes of the general public.

I noticed a lot of suspicious qualifications are accompanying that claim, have you any evidence of the real scale of Muslim women decrying this dress code as compared to the ones who support it?

Here's my point, so much of this argument of oppression is built on extrapolation of tiny bits of anecdotal evidence pasted together with huge quantities of assumptions.

The only good reason for even considering a legal change here is the concern over the rights of Muslim women. It isn't a very good reason considering changing how they dress will not change their status in relationship to their husbands... but it is the only reasonable argument that has been presented so far for a legal change.

Legally, the only reason constraints on religion expression can be enacted is the protection of the rights of others.

No one has to right not to see a burqa.


If the Dutch state can establish that the religious dress constitutes, in and of itself, oppression or a threat to public safety or morals, then and only then can they pass a law.

So far that has not been established.


That's just it. Freedom of religion is not a "problem" it is a one of the foundational principles of modern society.

The problem lies elsewhere.


This has nothing to do with their culture, it is the common complaint of every society with rebellious male children, that would be all of them

I hear this exact same speech repeated with "Black" or "Hispanic" in place of Muslim every week in America.

Our response cannot be to throw up our hands because this issue is never going to simply disappear.

If the governmental response is insufficient, the government should find another, better, response.


Purely a personal assumption on your part, without substantiation this has no bearing on the debate.


This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

If there is one thing that must be understood it is the following:

Indeed, the critical opinion here is that of the Muslim women who where the burqa.

If their rights are not being violated (absent a corresponding threat to public safety or morals) then international law holds their right to dress as they please in respect to their religion as an absolute, with no legislative recourse available to the government.

As simple as that.

turnea.

Your asking for a lot of evidence but offering nothing in return. Instead of picking at other people's points so much, how about offering something to back your own up?


What you call 'suspicious qualifications' I'd call carefull wording.

Muslim women in Denmark actually escaping from the bonds of marriage are rare.

Many have been murdered as a result of trying to break out of unwanted and/or oppressive marriages.

It requires a lot of courage to speak out,

Most who do, speak out against the burqa, the niqaabs and the hijab.

The end result is a very small amount of Muslim women who are totally free to speak their minds. A direct result of this is that Denmark does not have any one like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Selma Qureshi. All we have is the views of men like Raed Hlayhel (Imam of Århus, on record as refering to Danish women as 'whores'), Leif ‘Abd al Haqq’ Larsson (Swedens top Imam. On record as denying women have any role outside the home) and Kasem Said Ahmad (Head of the Islamic Faith Society, Kasem Said Ahmad recently told the media that he was so disturbed by drawings of the prohet Mohammed that he felt the urge to become a terrorist.)

When we do see Muslim women who have managed to walk away from the Islamic community, we see the other side of things. Sometimes these women give interviews or participate in TV documentaries. One group of Somali women actually made their own documentary, focusing mostly on how Somali women and girls were mistreated, but, as always the underlying message was the same as that conveyed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the film she made with Theo Van Gogh.


No it isn't. It is based on many accounts in the media, over a period of many years, combining over time to persuade me that women are oppressed by Islam as it is practised by the majority of Muslims in Northern Europe.


No. The only good reason for considering a legal change in what is permitted with regards to clothing are the rights of ALL women.

This is NOT just a simple matter of the cultural/religious sensibilities of a few Muslim women. This is a matter of how all women are treated in society. Danish girls are regularly attacked and raped by immigrant Muslim men because they do not conform to their, Islamic perception of how women should dress and act.

This is utterly intolerable and since the environment that encourages such crimes is based around a perception of women that requires them to dress in such garments as those we are debating, then such objects of oppression should be questioned, and if needs be, banned.


A pointless and irrellevent argument. No one has the right not to see chains or shackles either.


Holland has yet to decide whether or not it even wishes to ban these garments so we shall have to wait and see as to what they decide.



This is one of the reasons why I am wary of your arguments turnea. Every so often during these debates you make comments that equate what we are seeing in Europe to what has happened in the USA. As if all problems are essentially the same, so there is no reason for individual societies to create individual solutions.

Rather, you appear to be saying we should all just do as the Americans and everything will be just fine.

You've also made comments to the point that the USA does not have these problems with Muslims, apparently implying that this must mean the real problem lies with the Europeans.

I am not convinced you have grasped the nature of what is happening in Europe. In fact I am convinced you are so blinded by your own African American perspective that you are unable to see beyond it.


It is no more an assumption than your own assumption that counters it.

The evidence however is there for all to see. Women, in extremist Islamic communities are required to cover them selves and all across Europa Renger is not alone in his perception.


No. The critical opinion is that of the average citizen and what they are prepared to tolerate in the name of religion.

That a slave chooses slavery does not make them any less of a slave.