Friday, January 27, 2012

The Netherlands To Ban Muslim Face Veils In 2013

The Netherlands, one of the most liberal, progressive countries in the world- where prostitution is legal and drugs, like marijuana, are tolerated- has decided to join France in banning Muslim face veils. As of next year, anything that covers the face, like burqas and niqabs, will be verboten in public. 

There are approximately 1 million Muslims in a country that has a population of 17 million, and they've been pretty much left to their own devices. Because of the Netherlands's lax and permissive attitude towards everything, there are an abundance of mosques, some of which preach radical Islam. I can't imagine they're going to be very happy about the decision. Remember Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was slaughtered like an animal in 2004 by a 26-year-old Dutch Islamist of Moroccan heritage because he was offended by the short film "Submission" that Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali  had produced?   He was shot eight times, his throat slit, and then Mohammed Bouyeri rammed a five page note to Van Gogh's body with a knife.  All because "Submission" dared broach the subject of abuse against women in Islam. 

Written in Dutch, the bloody letter called Hirsi Ali an “infidel fundamentalist” who “terrorizes Islam” and “marches with the soldiers of evil.” With her “hostilities,” she “unleashed a boomerang and it’s just a matter of time before this boomerang will seal your destiny.” In capital letters it said: “AYAAN HIRSI ALI, YOU WILL SMASH YOURSELF ON ISLAM!” The letter ended with a kind of chant: “I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Holland, are going to meet with disaster.”

The face veil isn't the only thing on the chopping block. According to Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen, motorcycle helmets and balaclavas (those ski masks that criminals like to wear) will also be banned in places they shouldn't be worn, like stores, so they're hoping it won't be seen as a religious ban aimed at Muslims. The interior affairs ministry said,

“People should be able to look at each other’s faces and recognize each other when they meet.”

The ban should only affect around 100 to 400 or so women, since the headscarf is more commonly worn than the niqab or burqa.

If someone is caught with their face covered, they could face a fine of up to $510.00, that's if the law is approved. The ban won't affect the use of a face veil in a church or mosque, or on airplanes. Nor will Santa Clauses or Halloween costumes be banned.


unrighteousfury said...

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Incognito said...

You and I have two very different concepts of what freedom is.

Most women wear the burqa and niqab because their husbands tell them to. That, to me, is not freedom.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I humbly suggest that some selective application of face cover (to both genders) may improve the city landscape considerably.

Incognito said...

@Snoopy..... well, some women do over themselves up for that very reason. :-) Posted a long time ago about some Gulf country dude who married (sight unseen) some woman who only wore a burqa during their courtship. Turns out she had a mustache and wore glasses, and he divorced her. True story.

unrighteousfury said...

Oh really? Ok. Let's just say 99% of women wear them because their husbands tell them to, [not because culturally this is custom dating back to biblical times]. What about the 1% that want to wear them of their own free will? Who cares about them right! This is a stupid law if you think about it. If these people are really as extreme as we are led to believe then wouldn't they just forbid their wives from EVER leaving the house again since they can't wear face garb? So even if it is true that all of these people are extremists, wouldn't this law just embolden them to take extreme measures like above stated? Doesn't sound very well thought out to me. Sounds like the woman gets punished either way. Either her freedom to choose what she wears is crushed, or she suffers abuse at the hands of the man, if he is indeed extreme.

Can you explain to me why this is a good law again?

Incognito said...

And there are those husbands who will forbid their wives to EVER leave the house again. As for the 1% who choose to wear them, perhaps they should move back to where it is customary to wear them. When we live in those countries, we are forced to comply with their dress code.

Why is it a good law? because it's incumbent upon immigrants to integrate wherever they happen to land. Do you really believe that an immigrant should move to a country and not make any effort to learn the language or assimilate?

unrighteousfury said...

How does outlawing headgear force assimilation? The law doesn't say they have to learn a language,customs, or anything else anybody reasonable would consider real integration.

So what should the punishment be for the NON VIOLENT crime of wearing the headgear of your choice? Prison? Jail? Steep fines? Criminal record? How is this ridiculous law going to be enforced by the government? Again the women will be the victims, they will be the ones spending time in jail, or getting beaten by their men, or just plain being discriminated against.Seems pretty silly to me.

Incognito said...

Good lord, you clearly miss the point. There have been many crimes committed by people wearing burqas. no-one can ID them. go google it! In fact, they have been banned in some Arab countries in universities because people were cheating by sending in someone else to take exams for them. One country banned nurses from wearing full face veils, because they were sending in subs for themselves. if they can do it in Muslim countries, western countries should be able to do the same thing. Any reasonable person would see that this has more to do with safety issues than infringing upon some stupid, hapless, overly religious woman's freedom. Again, if they were banning scarves, or only banning the burqa, you might have a point, otherwise, you're way off base.

And who is saying jail time? It clearly states there would be a fine.

unrighteousfury said...

and what happens if you don't pay a fine? Yup jail! So essentially your point is that if muslim countries [where there is pretty much no freedom] can pass these draconian freedom reducing laws then so should western countries?

Try to understand that these kind of laws set precedents. While you may agree with how they are used now, they may point it out as a precedent later for something you don't like. If universities are really worried about cheats they are private organizations that can refuse to allow an exam to be taken by somebody in facial gear. Why does the government need to act again? The language of the law isn't implying that is the reason either.

Incognito said...

well, why the heck not.

and not passing those kinds of bills also set precedents, some of which we might regret in the future.

Again, the reason for enacting these bills is for prevention of crime.

But, let me ask you this. There African tribes where nudity is the norm. do you think they should be able to walk around naked in our Western countries, because it's their 'right'?

unrighteousfury said...

Our constitution does not guarantee the right to walk naked in public.

Now you might counter and say "Well asshole, it does not say you have the right to wear the headgear of your choice either".

Well you are right to an extent. The theory though is that the constitution is essentially providing the "Great compromise". Essentially you can do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, or infringe on their personal rights.

I do not think nudity laws are federal, but state imposed laws. Therefore the state is legislating what the people consider to be moral. The federal government is silent on the issue.

Show me one bill a government has ever created that has stopped or even hindered crime? I bet you can't. They never do.

Also I will finish by saying NO! If Africans came to a western country and wanted to walk around naked it is not their right.

Comparing a naked tribal walking down a suburban street, with somebody wearing religious garments, is silly isn't it. You can correlate possibly, the moral indecency of one but not the other.

This law will do nothing but incite Muslims, and do it to no good purpose. Or perhaps you can point out to me where it will be effective so far it is already having an adverse affect.

Keep your fascism to yourself, and stop trying to get the government to impose your world view.

Incognito said...

yes, I would have, minus the a-hol term.

Naked tribesmen don't view their nudity as immoral. That's a man-made moral judgement. Not that I don't find it offensive in public, but many don't.

My fascism? Talk about fascism. Islam in its current incarnation is a totalitarian, political/religious ideology that wants control of every man's life, including non-Muslims. Non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority lands are charged a tax (jizya) if they don't convert/revert. Revert, yes, because they believe everyone is Muslim at heart. Look it up. You, my woefully ill-informed pandering liberal friend, have no clue. You are what is called Dhimmi, usually relegated to liberals, but you are more closely aligned to them than conservatives. Now is the time to stop political Islam, not when it's too late. I have no problem with any religion until they start trying to force their beliefs on me. Pandering and appeasment get you no-where, but since you are a Ron Paul supporter, you come by that honestly. It doesn't work!! Neville Chamberlain proved that, back in the day.

unrighteousfury said...

I'm the Liberal? You throw the constitution out the window in many of your arguments if you do not agree with what it has to say.

You refuse to vote for the only consistent conservative instead opting to vote in THE FUCKING LIBERALS! Like Romney who's biggest campaign contributor is the same as Obama's.

I on the other hand am a tea party member, and a gun toting conservative to boot.

The difference between us is that I don't run and hide under my bed when somebody mentions the word Muslim.

Yes many Muslim countries are fascist.
So are many European and Asian countries.

OOOO political Islam is coming to get you, run and hide. There's one over there! MY GOD THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!

These Islamic fascist's use the government of their countries to enforce their beliefs.This is no different then what you are for.
You say the government should regulate drugs,
Preemptively be allowed to attack sovereign nations, and regulate religions they think might pose a threat. You have many article's pointing these things out. That is also fascism, and unconstitutional. You are a republican in name only.

Also I noticed you couldn't point out where the law will be effective. Guess it will very drug lawish huh? Even when it doesn't work though I am sure you will want another one, which also won't work.

Incognito said...

So naive. Ah well. Thank God Paul won't be our president.

unrighteousfury said...

So naive?

So hows this law you support working out? Are things changing for the better, or has it made no difference at all?

Oh wait I know!

You can read here all about how it has incited people and had exactly the opposite effect it was supposed to. Now women who weren't wearing them before are to support religious freedom. WAY TO GO NETHERLANDS!

Of course I knew this would happen and pointed it out. Guess I am naive though.

Women go to beaches in the nude in the Netherlands but this is what they decided to be worried about. Inept government with foolish supporters such as yourself that still can't present an adequate case for this stupid law.

Is it working?

Incognito said...

Is it working? What kind of question is that.

And I knew they would balk at the law. I said as much. These people are masters at overreaction, and usually it's violent.

It wasn't supposed to elicit any effect. They wanted full face veils banned. Period. No-one was naive enough to think that it wouldn't elicit major negative reaction, but it's a law they chose to enact. Their prerogative to do so. If people don't like it, tough.

And the reasons are absolutely valid.