Yes there is. I have the right as an American to not see certain examples of religious expression and those examples in the US are mostly confined to public places. Like the ten commandments on the courthouse lawn, or a principle saying morning prayers over the loudspeaker. We deny these rights of expression everyday in this country. The viewing not the practice is believed to be the more important or greater right in this scenario.



Whew! Well finally I am glad we got here because this is exactly where I was hoping we would go. To many European nations separation of church and state isn't so important. That strong advocation you have is mainly due to your culture. All Western societies have embraced democracy and decided which rights and freedoms are best suited for their desired social concept. Americans covet separation of church and state, gun rights, and privacy rights all of which most Europeans don't identify with as strongly or at all.

The Dutch take their approach differently but their justification and advocation is just the same as yours in regards to separation of church and state.

I would not support an all out ban but I don't think woman who will not accept the norms of their culture and wear a burqa should get continued unemployment, or have laws made to insist private companies be made to accept this, or make allowance for government identifications etc. I also don't really feel it is such a bad idea to insist they not wear them in a public or government building..like a school or a courthouse.

I think that in western society it is acceptable to place some restrictions and controls on this extreme religious expression.

That's a real stretch, and I suspect you know it.

What you have here are not breaches of your right not to be faced with public expression on religion (find that right in any law of the land and I'll eat my words.)

These are instead breaches of the separation of church and state which restricts government (and government only) from endorsing religious practices.


Oh, but my advocation of the separation of church and state has nothing a all to do with my opposition to a ban.

I'm aware that is an somewhat American phenomenon and only referenced it is your specific, American, examples.

My point has nothing to do with opinion or feelings but the principles of human rights laid out in international law, to which the Dutch have been signatory for decades.

Feelings on what is appropriate aren't really the issue. The law says Dutch government can't restrict public expressions of religion except in special cases laid out by that law.

Period.

Not quite.

About five years ago there were a series of small riots between extremist left wingers (called Autonome) and the Police, mostly in Copenhagen (the capital city of Denmark). During these clashes the Autonome wore balaclava's and ski masks so the Police were unable to identify them. As a consequence the Danish parliment passed a law forbidding people from covering their faces in public.

Since a burqa is a garment that obscures the face, then by my understanding, it is actually already illegal in Denmark.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Yeah, beacuse of course its just that easy to walk away from your family and everything you've ever known your whole life...

Give me a break turnea, you can't possible be so naive to think that the problem is solved by simply contacting the Police. Thats exactly what most of these women do before they are murdered!

Link.


And just who do you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is talking about?


Yeah, well, with all due respect turnea I've already pointed out to you that the law can't even prevent the crimes that have been reported.

Our existing legislation isn't protecting these women. Its only protecting the religious freedoms of their fathers and husbands to treat them like cattle.


Actually, thats exactly what you are saying. Your whole argument is based on the premise that so long as these women don't say anything then we (the rest of society) shouldn't take steps to help them.


Well, first of all, you have not established how banning the burqa is a violation of article 9 given its second paragraph.

Second, the prevalence of abuse has been established by whistle blowers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the myriad cases of 'honour killings' right across the Islamic world but even here in the heart of Europa.


Yes, well, the Danish state does not keep statistics over religious minorities. So in the mean time, people can continue to turn a blind eye to all this whilst others apologise and justify this milieu of oppression under the guise of religious freedom.


How can you say this? Do you know the future?

Removing the trappings of a culture may not change it, but it will send a clear message that we will not tolerate human slavery, sexual oppression or any other violation of human rights under the pretence of religion.


We do? Speak for yourself. You may be so happy to see racist European bogey men left, right and centre, but I can assure you that people in Denmark do not look upon this issue as a simple matter of 'them' violating 'our' dress codes. This is a matter of freedom, of womens rights and the equality which Scandinavian nations have struggled to acheive for close to two hundred years now.

It may have escaped your notice turnea, but the Muslims are not the only ethnic minorities in Europe, nor are they the only ones who dress outside the European norm. They are however the only ethnic group which makes use of the burqa.


Why? Because Carlsen has a different perspective than Renger.

Its comments like these and the one quoted above that illustrate the underlying anti European hostility in your posts. It seems to me that you appear to be arguing this topic not because you have any thought towards the people involved but rather because your some how convinced that Europeans must be in the wrong.

Muslims are not approached with an attitude of cultural superiority by Europeans. By and large Europeans do not approach Muslims at all since it is they who come here and not vice versa.

Muslims are given the same basic rights and opportunities as all other people. They don't do as well as most other people, largely because they are still outsiders to the established social network due to their own unwillingness to adapt and integrate.

That western democratic society is superior to Islamic society is a matter of opinion. Most people in the west, including a good portion of the Muslims themselves however, hold this opinion.
In the end of the day this opinion does not influence how European nations treat Islam though. Muslims are as free under the law as every one else.

If they are treated with reserve and suspicion, then its because they themselves have chosen to remain isolated from the rest of European society.


If you were so concerned with human rights turnea then you wouldn't place one right above all the others.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



editted for formatting

Turnea as I have explained numerous times at this moment there is no ban in the Netherlands and probably the Dutch government will not easily change our Constitution. The main problem is that this approach of just leave them alone, they have their right to wear what they want will not be a solution of the social tensions in our country.

Extreme religious behaviour (including women who wear burqaas) is on a moral and principle level unacceptable in our society. It is not about whether or not these women are protected by our Constitution in some strange way, what matters is the fact that extremists are negatively influencing the positive developments within the Muslim community and the slow intergration process.

Maybe we should completely ignore these people. Just forget about them, let them deal with the social consequences and isolation of their decission and just focuss on the hard-working and moderate Muslims who have to struggle everyday to make something out of their lives in their adopted country.

Cutting down social security for these people is perhaps a better incensitive to change their behaviour than making new laws.

No good.

The feds passed the Anti-Riot Act of 1968, one of the most tumultuous years in modern American history. The act can’t be enforced against Muslim immigrants. It was never intended to cover burqas and cultural veils. Was Danish sentiment against Muslim immigrants in 1995 as pronounced as it is now and included veils? Sounds like the target of the law was home-brewed unrest at the time it was passed.

You are making a supposition using this law to diminish the significance of banning veils.


If this may or may not change the Muslim culture from within, are you lacking in laws that inform the public Denmark doesn’t tolerate human slavery, sexual oppression, and other violations of human rights (except the right to wear a veil by choice, of course)?

European states may stop talking about banning kosher on the basis of whatever honest intentions they weave into the need to do so, and finally get around to banning it. I doubt passing such legislation will deter recognized political leaders from bitching about the existence of an Israeli state. Please inform us how banning veils is the catalyst for a shift in attitude for males within isolated Muslim communities.

I’m not thrilled about defending my position. For the most part I think Muslim women want to unveil and enjoy the liberal community they find themselves in and want to be a part of. Women’s rights is a particular interest to me. However, one form of intolerance is not better than the next. I don’t think I’d be opposed to it if the ban didn’t include the scarves like the hijab or khimar. The burqa, on the other hand, goes beyond the standards of hijab; it is an exegetic interpretation. But so far, the attitude I’m picking up is all or nothing. Such an extreme legal ultimatum for a cultural realignment doesn’t achieve its intended outcome.

Edited to add:


Does Denmark experience humid or dry summers? I found out why some Muslim men and women cover themselves on an operational readiness exercise in the California desert. I was much hotter when I’d roll up my sleeves and exposed my arms to the sun. Usually the command is very specific about how one can wear his uniform. In this case, the command allowed Marines to roll them down. I took advantage of this. I think the day crew maintenance guys working on aircraft covered their faces with a light mask. After two weeks SPF protectoin didn't cut it.

Denmark do experience humid and hot summers, although they may be a bit rare.
You are right, that being clothed in the baking sun is better than being exposed, except when your clothing is made of black or dark material. Covering your head in thick black cloth in very warm conditions can on the other hand be very dangerous.

I remember from my time in the army, that when we were on exercises in the summer it was almost unbereable to wear our helmets, even though they allow for good ventilation, and we took them off at every opportunity. The helmets we had were of course covered in dark green camoflauge, while our troops sent to Iraq have lighter colored uniforms and helmets (which wasn't even available in the Danish army when I left it 6 years ago).

My point is, that almost all of the burqas and hijabs and what not that I see are usually black or dark blue, and I will probably never believe the majority of these women freely choose to wear them.

About the ban on wearing these garments, then I think we should do something similiar to France. Banning them in all government institutions, like schools, or institutions that are funded, fully or partially, by the government (which would mean every muslim owned private school too). Private companies should be allowed to make their own guidelines.

It is not a stretch turnea because you still have not made the effort to recognize what my argument is. It is not that I think we have a right not to see women dressed like this, it is I feel it is abusive, unusual and cruel. Of course I don't like to see something I consider to be abuse in public openly displayed and unquestioned, but it's practice and my viewing are just the mode in which the abuse is recorded. If I didn't see it or the woman never publicly went out would it still not be abuse? No of course it would.

In regards to how this relates to how we practice separation of church and state, I feel we find the idea that the state should not appear to support a religion over another is as important financially and physically as it is visually. Again as I said before in many cases we feel the viewing not the practice is the more important right to uphold.

I dare say Americans are not as keen on human right's as other western societies..capital punishment, children's rights, health care etc. I think this is a situation where some European societies have more concern and sense of ownership to promoting human's rights and more specifically in this situation women's rights, over all others.

In blanket response for right now as it seems to me that all of this is boiling down to two issues, one of which Lesly has covered in her last point.

A lot of people feel that the wearing of these forms of Islamic dress is abuse. Ultimately it is not our feelings that can establish that.

If anyone can provide evidence that a majority of women who wear this dress consider it undue hardship then there is a case for a ban.

..but none of this "publicly-financed facility" talk like France. If this is truly abuse one would have to ban it everywhere.

This is why I say it is clear this is not all about women rights (not because I think Europeans are racist or because I don't like them moif)

..but because their actions have not reflected a community that is truly concerned with the right of Muslim women.

Rather, as bucket alluded to, they just don't want to see it.

This is concern?

If any state in Europe can establish that a ban is necessary to protect the right of persons in its territory laid out by the Convention they have grounds for legal efforts that actually do something to combat this danger.

Otherwise, we might as well all go home and watch TV.

Yes. This is my perception of that law but I'm not talking about veils, only burqa's.

I would point out however that there is no 'pronounced sentiment' against Muslim immigrants in Denmark. Not in 95 or now. All the polls indicate that the majority of Danes are quite content to have ethnic minorities in Denmark, provided these respect the laws and morals of the nation. The law to which I am refering had no designs or cause against Muslims, it was a reaction to left wing rioters.


This is a difficult question for me to answer due to the phrasing.

On the one hand we don't lack laws that inform the public Denmark doesn’t tolerate human rights abuses, but on the other hand, our laws and police services are not able to protect these women and children. There simply isn't the resources or political courage to tackle this problem.

So, we are confronted with the appalling spectacle of public execution and whole districts where women live in Afghan like conditions.


I think your getting ahead of me here. I'm not advicating banning veils... I'm only talking about those garments that cover the face. A burqa is not a veil in my understanding.

If it were up to me, personally, then I would make a law that limits the public use of any garment that obscured the face unless it had a practical application.

Most of what I've argued for here is the right of states to decide for themselves as to what is and what is not acceptable in order to protect the public. For example, I personally don't agree with the French ban on religious garments in state institutions. I don't see that it makes any difference if a women wears a scarf on her head. My grandmother often wore a scarf on her head. Big deal!

But.
I accept and understand that the French have the right to decide for themselves where to draw the line for public safety and security and Article 9 of the ECHR grants them that right. France has a history of religious wars and these form the back bone for their laws regarding religious freedoms.

And I can see and emphasise with the argument that says a garment is not religious or justified by the freedom of religion just because some one says it is. By that argument then you can justify chains, manacles and gags also.


Its not all or nothing. No one is debatting banning the headscarf in public. Holland is only looking at banning the burqa and probably will not do so (but as you've pointed out, just look at the response that simple questions have generated).

Denmark has no legislation to ban any garments nor any current plans to do so

I'm not particularly happy about my argument either. I don't like the idea of the law dictating what people can wear. But. No matter how much I dislike that, I find it preferable to allowing a hostile, anti female subculture to develop within our culture and we do nothing about it.

Turnea's arguments that the law and the police are there to protect those women who wish to leave that subculture are hopelessly naive. We have seen several examples of what happens to any woman who tries to leave the extremist Islamic environment. Disfiguration or murder swiftly follow and there is nothing we can do to prevent it because we don't have the resources or the courage to impose our cultural values on the Islamic sub-culture.

Fear of being labelled racist or anti Islamic (as you have already implied Denmark is in your post) freezes all resolve to help these women and in the mean time they continue to live in abject slavery and continue to be bought and bartered like cattle.

That's essentially my position as well, but I got shouted at for it

Mind you, I wasn't conflating it with gang rapes, honour killings and the rest. But then, I HAVE talked to a women wearing a full burqa (a Caucasian convert to Islam that I went to college with, not some gender-oppressed male-dominated immigrant with nowhere to run) and she was doing it because she CHOSE to. We all make judgements based on our own experiences, I guess. It's a pity your experiences of Muslims all seem to have been bad ones.

What do you mean alluded to? I plainly stated that I don't like to see abuse, especially out in the open, unquestioned. You seem to think the objection to seeing something that one considers abusive, or cruel or unusual to cultural norms is in some manner a devalued argument. You seem to allude to the idea that my dislike for viewing abuse is a weakness of my character, but you still have refused to accept the idea that the viewing is secondary and that my perception of what I view is the essence of my argument and objection.

And if my viewing of it , or hearing of it, or reading of it brings about a feeling that is shared by a large majority in my culture how is my view irrelevant? How is it singular? How is it not the shared reality or perception?

You seem to think my objection is based on an individual preference but it isn't. I identify with these women as women, not as faceless objects, and in accordance to my culture and my society's projections seeing a woman so restricted is abusive. I didn't just come up with my ideas and perceptions all on my own. I am a product of my culture and my society...and these types of extreme expressions are not.

Why should a society be asked to accept something that is such a strong rejection of their values?

And why do you refuse to answer my questions about social construct ?

And this little sideline about it's usefullness as outerwear for hot dry summers. If a guy walked all around town in the winter wearing a ski mask, walked into a school with his ski mask, walked into a shop in his ski mask, and then wanted to be allowed entrance into a government building in his ski mask do you think the town in question would not take issue with it? You think maybe some people would call up the police and report suspicious behavior? You think the entrance guards to the government building might wish to see this man's face before allowing him to enter? Would you want a man in a ski mask wandering the halls of your child's school? Oh relax he would say...it is just a religious requirement.

Debaters have still fallen short of fixing the two fatal flaws in the argument for the ban of burqas or any other Islamic dress.

The first posed so eloquently by Lesly:

The point was evaded by taking issue with the term veils, but the same logic applies to the burqa, how would a ban serve to end the abuse that is so rampant?

The second that I put forward.

Article 9 does not back the French ban the Article clearly states.


The word is necessary, not "intended" or even "popularly backed".

Necessary, clearly the presence of religious symbols in school was not a direct threat to the safety of the public.

There are no tangible benefits to that interest from the ban.

The ban, and any similar legislation are therefore violations of international law as they are unnecessary restrictions on the practice of religion.

Prove that a ban is necessary for "the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

... and you have the beginnings of the case.

For that you must clear Lesly's hurdle, (proposed benefits of the law), or mine (necessary harm from this form of religious expression.


Clearly relying on my "hopeless naivety" isn't going to cut it.

I will again state that burqas, niqaabs, and chadors are NOT religious. So Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is not relative to the debate. These are based on various Arab cultures, not Islam.

Banning cultural wear is not covered by Article 9. So your entire bases for opposing the ban is flawed.

As an aside, even in Saudi Arabia the wearing of chadors has many restrictions. Including all government documents requiring pictures. The women are banned from wearing them.

This point has come up before in this debate so I'll be brief.

That's not entirely true, many Muslims interpret the Quran's references to women cover their body with their veils to refer to just such a dress.

The fact that it is seen throughout the wide range of Islam and not simply in the Arab world shows that it is in fact a religious and not strictly cultural practice.

Actually it proves the opposite. There are 56 Muslim countries in the world of those there are 22 Arab countries.

Of the 22 Arab countries about 6 require the wearing burqas, niqaabs, or chadors and 2 non-Arab Muslim countries, so that is 8 out of 56. According to my math that is less than 15%. As vast majority of the Muslim countries do not support their use, not even among Arab countries. Religious? Not a chance.

Firstly religious beliefs need not be dictated on a national scale so the the idea of certain countries "requiring" this dress is beside the point, the religious nature of the observance is up to the individuals Muslim schools of thought.

Second even if it is a minority of Muslims who feel the dress if sanctioned by Islam that does not at all prove the issue is not religious.

Muslims are allowed varying interpretations just as are members of any other religion. It's a tiny minority of mainly Catholic and Orthodox Christians who, similar to many Muslims, feel making pilgrimages is a religious practice yet if they believe it then it is.

Arguing this is non-religious is pointless, it the persons involved claim it is religious and can point to established religious authorities than can vouch, then it is.

The government has no right to declare a practice non-religious simply because it doesn't agree with it.

Turnea

The Muslim women have their right to wear these extreme clothes but at the same time this minority group within the Muslim community is being veiwed by the rest of society as oppressive, anti-social and living of OUR social security.

This means a very tiny group within our society is consiously stirring up social tension, social conflicts and polarisation. This is bad for our society, but also bad for the moderate Muslims who are already facing difficulties finding their way and place in our society. If such a small percentage of people are causing so much social problems with their extreme way of life (especially with the international terrorist threat that is facing the western world.) and refuse to search for compromises, government has no other alternative than to take measures against it.

This is an aspect that you completely fail to understand. You can point as much as you want towards the E.U. conventions, but that does not solve the problems we are facing. In fact your solution minimises the Dutch culture and you only advocate forced acceptance by the Dutch. As I have said numerous times the Dutch view towards these extreme clothings will NEVER change. Thats something you, I and these Muslim women need to understand!

Laws with respect to religious freedom are important in a society I agree. Muslims, for example, are allowed to build Mosques, they are free to practise their religion, they can even start an Islamic political party if they have enough members to support them.

But one should never forget that freedom of religion is in essence tolerance towards other religions. (this idea first came to the forefront during the 80-years war between the Dutch Republic and Spain in the 16th century) But when a specific religion or a sub-group within a major religion is causing too much trouble in our society the Dutch, as the founders and gaurdians of their SECULAR culture, have the right and even the responsibilty to act against this. Freedom of religion should never negatively influence the stability of society. Religious people should always realize that they live in a secular society that tolerates other opinions / lifestyle, but this tolerance is not endless! That is something these Muslim women and other fundamentalistic Muslims fail to understand.

What is your view on this?

I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear, but I have indeed addressed the issue of possible solution to the crisis.

Before we got embroiled in the argument over the ban if you'll remember, I suggested that action be taken on two fronts.

1. Action to reduce isolationism among Muslims through education, economic advancement, and outreach.


2. Action to reduce reactionary behavior on the part of non-muslims. Again through outreach, the government could fund effort to better educate non-muslims danes on the Muslims community that lives among them including allowing them to explain the reasons for this dress and other religious practices.

Sensitivity training for the masses if you will.

I argued simply that the ban goes to far, is illegal and international law, and won't reduce social tensions anyway as it will just anger the Muslim community.

I propose solution through non-legislative means.


Then the Dutch are already doomed to societal instability no matter what they do. A mindset this inflexible will never engender peace

The Dutch cannot refuse to change and then demand compromise from the other side. Compromise is a two way street.

The limits to freedom of religious expression are set by law not opinion. The law will not change so the opinion must.

Is this not so?

I can tolerate anything but intolerance..... anyone know who said that?
Thats what I strive for.


Well, since I, and others it seem, consider the forced wearing of the burqa a form of abuse, the removal of the burqa would certainly end that particular kind of abuse, wouldn't you agree? Of course a ban won't solve all problems, but it isn't required to.


Can you provide evidence that a majority of children that are abused (in most cases never reported to the police by anyone) is undue hardship for them? Once upon a time it was socially accepted to have 5-10 year olds working in factories in western countries - did we change it because the children complained or because we simply realized it wasn't in the childrens best interest? Some will of course say child labour cannot be compared to wearing burqas, but I would argue they are both different degrees of abuse. One is socially accepted, one is not.

A whole lot of the muslim women and girls that are forced to wear the burqa are under the age of 18 - don't we have a right to at least make sure they are not abused, even if they don't speak out themselves?


Well, that is your opinion and many disagree - we will see how the courts rule.


I we consider wearing a burqa a form of abuse, then a ban would certainly be in the interest of public safety. Society considers a lot of different things abuse, even if they are not directly physically harmful to a person. Like somebody mentioned previously, we wouldn't stand by at watch people shackling their children all the time in public (or private for that matter), and this is in my opinion no different.


There will of course always be exceptions. But they are certainly not the norm.
It is widely reported, and some have posted links to that earlier in the thread, that most Afghani women want to take of their burqa, but they are simply afraid to do so because of the abuse they will face. If these women, who are probably even more indoctrinated into this culture than muslim women in the western world, wants to take of their burqas, then I think the latter wants to too, but they probably fear the same kind of abuse.

turnea.

Its fairly obvious that nothing any one says to you is going to change your opinion that this is a simple black and white issue regarding freedom of religion and that if some cleric or other comes along and says, 'yes this is Islamic', then thats the end of it for you.

I find this view, extremely depressing. Not only are you turning your back on millions of women but your doing it from the high horse of your own moral projections and on the say so of men who's own track record on female rights is appalling.

Although I can follow your arguments, I cannot agree with you that freedom of religion justifies oppression. I know you say that this oppression has not been proven, but frankly, given the few solutions you've offered along the course of the debate, I don't think you honestly care to look closely at this problem. It seems to me that you simply don't want to accept that this abuse is taking place.

Instead, your hiding behind your own personal understanding of article 9 and ignoring the wider issues of women's rights in European Muslim communities and the right of soveriegn states to take measures to protect their populations from internal conflict.


Has already been tried, many times, through many different forms and all to no avail.


When you say 'danes' I assume you mean ALL Europeans...

As for the idea, its old hat. We've been doing this for decades and frankly the costs are out of this world. Our Muslim community makes up something like 3-4% of our opulation, but consumes up to 25% of social spending and stands for roughly 40% of all recorded criminal activity.

And any way, what sort of a bad idea is this any way? Haven't you read anything in this thread at all?

Female Muslim dress is widely perceived as an injustice against women in Northern European society. We don't need 'educating' as to why these women dress like this. We've already understood the reasons. Its been hammered down our throats repeatedly for the last two decades.

This is not a question of Danes, or Europeans having to 'learn the reasons for this dress and other religious practices'. This is a question of Muslims needing to learn and accept our cultural practices.

This is Europe, not the middle east.

We are not obliged to adapt to their culture! We have not moved to their countriess, they have moved to ours and in our countries, they are obliged to adapt to our culture.

Article 9 doesn't change or even challenge that.

Freedom of religion doesn't change it either.

There is no justifiable reasoning or argument on this planet today that requires we should just sit back and let Islamic fundamentalism dictate its cultural demands to us.

I agree with you that a ban is probably going to far and maybe is not even a solution. Dialogue and open discussions will hopefully bridge the differences between the moderate majority of the Muslim community and Dutch society, but it will not have any effect on the die-hard extreme Islamic believers.

These people only physically life in our country, but mentally they reject it almost completely. (although they sure like our "secular" social security) How can society or even government reach these people? How can they be motivated to change their behaviour? It doesn't only limit their own lives, but also has damaging effect on the whole intergration process of Muslims in general.

Should we just accept the fact that slowly a minority group is causing such a big problem for ALL the other people living in the Dutch society?

I believe the answer should be NO. We should never let one extreme minority group destabilize the rest of society. It doesn't matter if your left-wing anarchists, rightwing extremist or religious fanatic.




You still do not understand our position. Maybe you should read more about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her struggle to emancipate the Muslim women. Then you will know what kind of nice and tolerate people these Islamic fundamentalists are. Then you will know what is threatening our society from within. For too long these extremists have terrorised our society with their death threats and aggression. People are tired of this and demand from the goverment to take actions. Which is a perfectly logical reaction towards this intolerant social group.

And btw the Dutch are probably one of the most flexible people in the whole world. But this is going too far for too long . Flexibility and tolerance has its limits.

editted

The difference here is age of consent. Because children were unable to come to a decision for themselves it was appropriate that adult society come to a decision on whether child labor was abuse.

Futhermore, child labor was banned before the Convention I reference came into effect.


Interesting point.

I haven't heard widespread reports of minors wearing burqas, but in my interpretation of the law you may well be right to say that this can be banned as children are too young to truly provide implied consent.

I would be careful in applying this though, Article 18 states.

In this case prevention of abuse. Any family that is able to substantiate the practice is not abusive in fair court should be exempted from any ban as should all adults except in cases where abuses can be substantiated

To extend this to the khimar would as France does would certainly be going too far.

I have no problem if the Dutch government would like to argue before a court that this dress is abusive before they allow enforcement of a ban.

All I ask for is due process, some women who wear this dress do so voluntarily their right to do so should not be infringed upon.
Edited to add:

That is, of course, not my opinion at all. When France passed its ban thousands of women marched the streets protesting.

Protest lead by female Muslims leaders which no visible pressure to participate.

I do not advocate ignoring abuse, if the government can substatiate the practice is abusive, then ban away, if not... follow the law.

Actually I was typing quickly while checking on pots in the kitchen. I meant Dutch, the people under discussion in this particular debate.

You are correct in saying I would apply this same logic to much of the rest of Europe.


No one is "obliged" to do anything. Both sides can resolve to hold their respective breaths until they turn blue and pass out.

What is key here is not "obligation" but what is best for the nation and the international community.

The fact is once they allow Muslims on their soil European governments cannot make extra-legal demands of immigrants or their offspring.

The burden is not more of the Muslims than the non-Muslims. Compromise is a two-way street and compromise is what is necessary.

It doesn't matter if it's "your country" for Muslim citizens it's their country as much as it is yours.


If the problem is threat and agression take measures to solve that problem.

Banning burqas will do no such thing.

Rationality has not failed western government in the past and it will not fail them now, do not get caught in the trap of lashing out at random.

The victor is the person who chooses battles wisely.

If you chose to discuss and address my point about social concept or constructionism you would be more than aware of how I have no intention in avoiding anything.

The attempt is to produce a system of values or ideals in society through legal structure. Saying it is illegal to prostitute does not directly address the issues of women's sexuality being viewed as a commodity that's ownership lies with the patriarch. Instead it is a means of having the state itself not advocate, promote of support this view. Having it illegal to abuse children again does not directly prevent abuse, it just allows the state to disapprove and act accordingly.

Some people believe in the idea that laws within a society have a more important role than just giving legal means to arrest or seek prosecution. Some believe it is a means to establish a set of values and ideals.

I personally don't feel Americans are very qualified or objective in defining very well this fine line between religious freedom and human rights, especially in regards to the most needy in our society.
I think in regards to this issue Americans can't be said to have set what I would consider an admirable example to follow.

There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer ac­cording to the tenets of a recognized religion. Al­though these exemptions take various forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of "religious practice."
source

Some would call that "legislating morality" and it is a point of contention , yes.

I have mixed views on such things, it depends on the value in question (I have my own values you see.)

..One thing is certain, social construct cannot serve as a reason for violating human rights law and freedom of religion. That is a universal value of modern society, part of the agreed upon "social construct" of all nations signatory to that law.


It is irrational to extrapolate views on "faith healing" and other such nonsense and then say that "Americans" are unqualified to deal with religious freedom and human rights.

This blanket judgement is uncalled for and serves no purpose in furthering constructive debate.

Yet you give reason as to why human rights should be violated over freedom of religion.
What if the Dutch feel overwhelmingly that they are being asked to violate their interpretation of Human Rights in favor of a small minorities interpretation of a religion? Over and over again here it has been explained to you that those actually living in these nations and products of it's culture feel this is abusive and degrading treatment. Does the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Who get's the right to determine if the action or treatment is or is not cruel, inhuman or degrading? The small minority calling for it's practice? Or the consensus?

Some in our society who practice abuse against their children lay claim to justification from religious teachings and also claim it is not cruel or abusive, yet in other western societies abusing a child in this manner is considered abuse and is illegal.

Spanking is illegal in 11 nations in Europe.
Not everything is universal.


I am not "extrapolate views on "faith healing" and other such nonsense" read my post again it says ...There are now statutes in 44 states Statues as in laws, not views or nonsense but legal allowances and even state protection afforded to parents to abuse their children by denying them medical treatment. And these legal or state mandated exceptions to child abuse are occurring in a large majority of American states, 44 is more states than those who lawfully permit capital punishment. So it isn't a "blanket judgement" I have to assume that because such a large portion of American state governments support the sanctioning of child abuse in order to preserve this believed value of "freedom of religion" that most Americans have a very skewed and extreme view of what constitutes religious freedom and it's importance over human rights.

Why not explain to us how having a child die a long and painful death from an illness that is completely treatable " is a universal value of modern society"

I wish I still had a wall behind my back at work.


I’m confused why you would pass it off as applying to Muslim women.


Are you saying there aren’t enough first responders, investigators, crime scene specialists, etc., to go around when someone reports a crime?


The burqa is most closely associated with the Taliban. The Times Online article I provided says few Dutch Muslims wear a burqa. I agree with the government’s reason to ban the burqa, no matter how many Muslim Danish women wear it there is a security risk involved. What do you mean by whole districts? According to the Times Online few women wear the burqa. Or do you include women wearing hijab in general when you say living in Afghan conditions?

Concerning the previously unheard of domestic violence against women and children, your country is not alone in its frustration to prevent these crimes. According to the Times article it looks like it is reversing itself on unchecked immigration. This is a step in the right direction.


It sounded like you wanted to ban veils by your response to Julian’s post.

Also, from Renger’s article: “Utrecht city council says it will stop paying social security to women who wear the burqa and headscarves to job interviews.” Isn’t Holland part of the Netherlands?


I want to drop out of the discussion concerning the veil being a religious requirement. It is up for interpretation. Painting it in stark terms means boxing Muslims, a relatively unknown culture to most Westerners, myself included, in ways we wouldn’t box a familiar culture.

If I remember correctly there’s a similar passage in the Bible concerning modest dress nearly all Christians with the exception of nuns ignore. Although Islam doesn’t have a fine-tuned hierarchy like the Catholic faith, setting standards on everything from birth control to the death penalty, the papal edicts aren’t always followed. If a Catholic woman goes on birth control does she stop being a Catholic? Islamic believers likewise are free to ignore fatwas concerning the veil. A Muslim reformation is in the best interests of Muslims and the rest of the world. I think it would help if we think of Muslims, with the exception of extremists, as we think of ourselves; culturally complex and not in short supply of idiosyncrasies. What I’ve read concerning the veil indicates it can be a religious, cultural, and political symbol.

If I read Renger’s article in this context regarding the Muslim woman that doesn’t want to cover herself, it makes perfect sense. On the other hand, the Utrecht city council (is Utrecht is part of the Netherlands as well?) refusing to pay social security to women who show up with headscarves to job interviews, doesn’t.

The French have taken secularization too far, IMO. I’m not familiar with their Constitution (they’ve passed several Constitutions) and as long as they restrict the ban to government employees and schools I won’t argue the point. In contrast I think the state funding religious institutions of any persuasion is a suicide pact and undermines laws the French deem necessary for the peace and security of the state.


It’s true that with the noise coming from the Christian Right and deference to parents in child welfare cases don’t give the impression of objectivity where Church and State is concerned in America. However, relying on laws to establish a prevailing set of values has led to criminalizing behavior that poses a limited harmful effect (soft drugs and prostitution) on society compared to other legal behavior (drinking and driving). That’s why more American liberals and libertarians argue in favor of legalizing both of the above. The argument that a prevailing attitude can set the standard because the majority holds that view is not enough. In the case of gay marriage, that rationale is enough to withhold rights from gays.

Neither, I have stated repeatedly that interpretation of the Convention is not up to a vote. When a law is challenged to case is not sent to the voters but to a court, in this case the Strasbourg court which must rule not based on any society's "perception" which is not addressed in the law but on the absolute facts of the case.

If it cannot be objectively determined that the wearing of this clothing is (not "considered" or 'felt" but absolute "is) abuse then any ban would be illegal regardless of public opinion.

That is what I'm trying to get across, it doesn't matter what the "societal norms" are the Convention takes no account of them.


If you wish to debate these laws you'd need to start a thread that deals with them. None of the questions for debate here are related.

Furthermore attempting to invalidate the opinion of posters based on national origin and laws they have nothing to do with is, as I said, not conducive to constuctive debate.

The laws on the books tell us nothing about what "Americans" are qualified to decide upon.

Hey Lesly, a quick respons to these questions:
Holland and the Netherlands are the same, although it can be confusing because we also have two provinces (of 12) that are called Holland (North-Holland (were I live) and South-Holland). Utrecht is a Dutch city but it is also the name of the province. I know, it is confusing.

Well gee I like to consider myself liberal and I think the libertarians, least the ones I am familiar with, actually advocate the government's complete removal from issues such as marriage entirely gay or straight.
And legalization is also a form of relying on laws to establish a prevailing set of values. Yes prevailing attitudes do in fact set standards, some through laws other's through social condemnation, this is just a reality of society, something we must accept. Every time we are asked to weigh the value of our standards and what objective we hope to achieve..is it worthy enough to allow restriction? Is it's hindrance too great? It is a constant evolution as it should be..we have a constant sense of evolving decency. Laws change in accordance to all of this. Sometimes laws are needed only for the moment and transition they hope to address other's are considered to be the basics of our society's values.

I believe that in Europe religion is no longer viewed as the unquestionable. I think in some cases society in Europe has chosen to pursue actions that not only directly question the authority religion has over one's pursuits in life but even what role or influence it has in society as a whole.

I don't see this in America and I feel we often have a very unhealthy relationship with religion and human rights and how it all relates to our nation's progress.

In the form of public opinion yes, but the world including America and Europe learned long ago that allowing public opinion to drive legislation unimpeded is not acceptable.

The dictates of societal norms must have limits. No matter what German opinion was on the matter forcing Jews to wear identifying badges that marked them for persecution was wrong.

It may not have killed them (yet), but the act was harmful to their basic human rights.

Europe agreed fifty years ago through a legally binding treaty that freedom of religion was a fundamental human right.

"Social construct" will never be important enough to change the basic principles that form a free society.

turnea
If you had included my quote in it's context you would see that I then recognize the fact that our standards or social concepts are necessarily questioned...." Every time we are asked to weigh the value of our standards and what objective we hope to achieve..is it worthy enough to allow restriction? Is it's hindrance too great?"

You just insist on supporting your view at all costs..regardless of context, mine or history's.

Do tell us what laws or authority did the Jews have access to in order to question Hitler's concept on social construct? I don't think such designs by a majority do much good when they exist in a vacuum of a tyrannical, despotic government. If you recognize the value our democratic system provides for us in regards to providing us with basic human rights then why are you so fearful for it to be tested? Muslims won't be afforded the rights of their society in the Netherlands? How so? Won't they be able to question any restrictions and ask them to be reconsidered or evaluated? Where is your faith?

Why do you feel it is unreasonable to allow society to test any other means of governing within it? Why can't actions that some claim to be religious be tested and questioned within the democratic system to ensure that human rights are in fact being upheld? Why devalue the loss of society's ability to question government but uphold the idea that religion is incontestable?

You seem to confuse social construct with that of control. The constitution is meant to construct a free and democratic society, the article 9 you keep quoting is another means of a social concept. Religion is a construct of morality. There is nothing sinister in having your religion be influenced and reinterpreted by your culture, when has that not been happening?

Why must so many extreme Muslims in Europe reject this idea..it is because they are actively and as I already said in my opinion violently rejecting the "basic principles that form" Dutch society. And why should the Dutch be asked to not question this?