The Dutch government will announce over the next few weeks whether it will make it a crime to wear traditional Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes.
The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa outside the home, and some in the government have thrown their weight behind it....
"We don't want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society."...
Mr Wilders' name was included on a list of "infidels, who deserved to be slaughtered", which was found pinned to the body of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.
Van Gogh was murdered two years ago for making the film about women and Islam called "Submission". It starts with a shot of a woman's face covered by a burqa. Slowly the camera shows that, from the neck downwards, she's naked but for a thin veil.
Mr Wilders has explicitly linked his wish for a burqa ban with terrorism.
"We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam," says Mr Wilders.
"That's also a reason why everybody should be identifiable when they walk on the street or go to a pub or go into a restaurant or whatsoever."
January 16, 2006
"It's a medieval symbol, a symbol against women."
Says Dutch VP Geert Wilders explaining the criminalization of traditional Islamic dress:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
I agree with it, in light of the terrorist murders there and of promises and threats of more to come. Its mighty easy to conceal a weapon in a burqa, and the radicals there have already said of Hirsan Ali, "a woman will kill her."
If they want a Muslim society, there are any number still available in this world.
IMO for the Dutch and for us, multiracial is good; multicultural is bad.
Right or wrong, his message and stand is pretty clear....Muslims Must Assimilate or Go Home!
patca: Out of curiousity, why do you say "multiracial is good"?
What's good about it?
The Dutch aren't good enough, racially, as they are? They need some arab and african blood mixed in to be "good"?
Does that go for Africa and arabia too? Do the people in, say, Burkina Faso need more white people to move there and interbreed with them before they are "good"?
How about if we say that the ethnic Dutch are good as they are, and the ethnic africans and arabs are good as they are, and stop insisting that the world won't be right until there are no distinct races left? If you truly do favor diversity in the world, you should not be in favor of blending all races into one amorphous brown average.
Ah, yes. The nations of Europe so often held up as the gold standard for civil liberties, to which the U.S. supposedly can't compare.
Anyone think such a ban would pass the laugh test in any court in the U.S.?
(I'm not saying the ban would be wrong -- the Dutch are in a really tough spot right now -- just that this is a clear example of where the U.S. really is on the tradeoff between liberty and security, compared to "enlightened" Europe.)
"If you truly do favor diversity in the world, you should not be in favor of blending all races into one amorphous brown average."
Oh, for heaven's sakes, I mean that in this world with massive immigrant populations, I have no objections to many races living together with the caveat that in the US, our culture would prevail: for example, our belief in the equality of women would trump another culture's view that women are not equal.
And, posters, how do you know "they" feel persecuted? This is what the self-appointed mouthpieces say. My lefty Dutch friend, a novelist, was quite surprised when she asked her Muslim friends after Pim Fortuyn was killed what they thought of him. "Of course we would have voted for him!" they shot back at her, "we know what the radicals can do."
I agree with the idea that it is bad to have laws telling people that they cannot wear certain religious dress. However, the difference between the Dutch issue and the Omish and memmonites is that the Omish and mennonite men also dress traditionally. In Islam the Burqa is designed specifically to put down women. In that matter I don't have a problem banning it.... especially if it is the legislature banning it and not the Courts.
Also, the muslims in the Netherlands have an out... they can move back to their homelands.
"....Anyone think such a ban would pass the laugh test in any court in the U.S....."
Actually, I think a ban could pass COnstitutional muster. Could you prove to the court that the state had a compelling interest to ban Burqas. I think if you showed that Burqa's were designed to limit the freedoms of women, upholding a ban would be easy for the court.
Maybe I am too used to the United States, but I sure wouldn't want this sort of thing here, and, of course, it most likely wouldn't fly, except in certain security situations (thanks to our 1st Amdt.)
I will admit that the Dutch, as well as most of Europe, are caught between a rock and a hard place here. They have a birth rate below the replacement rate, and have work that needs to be done, yet don't have the native born people to do it.
But my view is that they should either accept the immigrants for whom they are, or they shouldn't allow them in.
For the most part, no one is making these girls wear those silly outfits. They are doing it on their own to show pride or solidarity with their religion and culture.
For me, I see little difference here between a burqa, chadar, etc. for some Moslem women and a yarmulke or Star of Davvid for Jews or a cross for Christians.
I do note though that this country is not without some controversy here. Note the furor on Alabama drivers' licenses. But I suspect that is more likely to survive scrutiny as the standard is presumably being applied to all neutrally, regardless of religion, and the state has a compelling interest in being able to identify drivers.
Sloanasaurus
I disagree that it would be slam dunk. The right to religious freedom in this country is grounded in the First Amendment. In order to infringe that, and this I think would fall under religious freedom, a regulation, etc. would have to pass strict scrutiny. I don't see some vague concept about female equality, esp. since apparently many of these women and girls do this voluntarily, passing this test.
On the other hand, I do see requiring that they be removed for driver's license pictures would qualify, under the theory of public safety. And note here the impact. Removing headdress is a one time thing, and isn't required if the person decides not to get a license after all. Also, it is presumably enforced regardless of religion. All factors tending towards minimal impact and passing strict scrutiny.
You are suggesting however a situation where the restriction would apply pretty much whenever someone was out of the house. Not minimal impact at all. And clearly not tied to public safety or the like, since it would apply regardless of danger to the public.
Let me add that in many cases, religious dress remains long after the reason for it disappears. The Amish appear stuck in the early 19th century in their dress and living. Yet, we don't begrudge that of them. It is now part of the way that they distinguish themselves from the rest of us, whereas when they started dressing like that, much of it was typical of the time. They just didn't change, and the rest of us did. And now that difference is a religious statement.
Many of these Muslim women and girls don't look at their dress as being a constraint, but rather as an expression of their religion and ethnicity. By their dress, they are saying: We are devout Moslem women and girls, and not sinful western ones. Many do this in pride and solidarity.
Does that mean legislation would need to encompass the mu mu, sundress, caftan, maternity apparel, poncho, granny dress or anything loose fitting capable of concealing weapons or explosives?
Recently finished reading "Massacre in Munich". To the degree Black September was successful, many times it recruited Europeans and others, sometimes unwittingly othertimes not, to infiltrate.
The 1972 Lod Airport revenge massacre was carried out by the Japanese Red Army in the name of Black September
I don't like the idea of legislating what people can wear, especially when it's a religious matter.
But I have to admit, if we were getting large numbers of Muslims immigrants here in the U.S., I would NOT like to see our culture becoming one where a large number of women wear burqas. Muslim women might wear them volunarily, or even proudly, but that doesn't change the fact that the "backstory" is one of repression and inequality...sometimes worse!
Michael,
the point is that in these countries, many Muslims don't *want* to integrate... Un-assimilated extremists killed Van Gogh because of his movie. What does the welfare state has to do with it?
"Do you all realize that you're condoning a law that effectively makes being a muslim illegal?"
Lots- in fact the great majority, I think, of Muslims choose not to wear burkhas. The burkha isn't a pillar of Islam. And you could take that argument way further. You could argue that giving Muslim women the protections of Western courts as opposed to Sharia laws "effectively makes being a Muslim illegal."
Hell, you could argue that jailing Theo Van Gogh's murderer makes being a Muslim illegal since he was practicing jihad, for that matter.
michael,
You make some good points.
But--I am assuming that the point of this law is to tell Muslims: "If you refuse to assimilate, you need to leave. We will no longer tolerate enemies of a free society in our midst." If it does get extremists to leave, then the law would, in fact, be effective in solving a lot of the problems you list.
* I am also not so sure that women shedding their burqas wouldn't cause some positive changes on the Muslim populations of these countries! But that could be naive...
Michael:
Said Muslims ...don't asimilate due to institutional and structural problems".
That is a crock, They don't assimilate because they dont' want to. Many look down on the ways of the Europeans and Americans. Let's at least be honest about that.
A couple of folks mentioned a requirement in the US to remove burqas for drivers license photos. I wonder too about the legality of wearing them while actually driving. I know that you cannot wear full-face motorcycle helmets while driving cars because it severely limits a driver's sight. I'm not sure if burqa's would face the same problem.
Michael: sure I do, but there's a difference between a free society and a blindly tolerant one. The Dutch law is one step toward saying "We're not going to just tolerate your b.s. anymore."
As to whether or not there's anything to gain from banning burqas... who knows.
You say "NO!"
All I'm saying is "Maybe."
'A couple of folks mentioned a requirement in the US to remove burqas for drivers license photos. I wonder too about the legality of wearing them while actually driving.'
Interesting point. In my experience doing business in the United Arab Emirates, the fabric of the burqua that a woman secures over the lower half of her face when in the presence of a man, while not 'see through' is usually made of silk and and somewhat 'see through' from the wearer's perspective. Regardless it would still impede good peripheral vision IMO.
With regard to the Dutch ban, it is discriminatory. Are they going to forbid Indian woman from wearing a sari?
Wilder's statement about not wanting women to be ashamed is just as sexist and restrictive as he perceives an Islamic woman's decision to wear traditional dress. Wilder assumes the women have no say in the matter. Any of the women I've spoken with, wear traditional dress (to varying degrees) by choice and at home frequently wear western clothes.
The UAE however, is more sophisticated than the Islamic countries with a huge population of fundamentalists.
"Wilder assumes the women have no say in the matter. Any of the women I've spoken with, wear traditional dress (to varying degrees) by choice"
I am somewhat skeptical of this... I mean, I certainly trust your experience in the UAE, but why then were so many women in Afghanistan happy to shed their burqas when the Taliban were kicked out?
September 2004 article-
Italian woman ticketed for wearing a burqa
'but why then were so many women in Afghanistan happy to shed their burqas when the Taliban were kicked out?'
Clearly in strict fundamentalist countries the situation can be very different. I remember seeing film of women in Afganistan being beaten in the street because some part of their clothing was 'wrong'.
What I don't like about Wilder's statement is that he assumes a lot about traditional women. That they have no say in the matter. This is probably true for some but anyone who thinks they know best for someone else gets my hackles up.
'In Syria it has come out that under the burqa young wives often wear Victoria's Secret lingerie, and/or corsets and suchlike.'
and Brunomagli shoes. Consequently, the seeming contradiction has the effect of making these women look very sexy and mysterious.
Update on Italy- only pertains to covering the face:
Italy Senate approves terror laws
"Lawmakers on Thursday and Friday added some new amendments to the package approved by the Cabinet, including one increasing the penalties to up to two years in prison and a €2,000 fine for anyone who purposely hides their features by covering their faces in public -- whether they're wearing burqa or a helmet. The previous law called for a maximum of one year in prison and €1,000 in jail."
Wearing a head scarf is not even close to wearing a burqa. head scarfs are perfectly acceptable. Wearing a Burqa, however, in the United States is the same as wearing a Halloween costume. It would be completely ridiculous.
Perhaps people should be free to wear Halloween costumes where ever they go. However, it doesn't mean that it is illegal to ridicule them - that is free speech too. I would encorage our society to make fun of people who wear burqas... just as I would make fun of some idiot wearing a jawa costume while he or she was a the local food mart. Further employers can ban the women from wearing burqas at work. Wearing a burqa is not professional attire (not even for a coffee shop). It would be impossible to get a job with a burqa. How about riding a bus... people with Burqa's should be banned from buses, too much of a security risk. could you imagine someone wearing a burqa serving you your breakfast at Perkins.....how disgusting.
Here is a link to Georgia's mask law, found, oddly enough, on an anime convention site.
http://wani.bbsnavi.net/wc/www.awa-con.com/index.php?id=40
I live in an area with a relatively large number of Muslims (in metro Atlanta) and while it's not rare to see women in traditional muslim dress, it is rare to see women with their faces covered.
That being said though, I've never heard of a Muslim being arrested undre the mask law.
If you emigrate to another country it should be with the understanding that you are going to utterly and completely assimilate into that country, becoming in every way indistinguishable from natives of that country. If you aren't willing to do that, you have no business coming to that country. Stay in your own and live in the ways of your ancestors. But if you go to another people's country to live, you have an obligation to become a part of that people - even I would suggest, to the point of adopting their religion as well as their manner of dress, language, holidays, customs, and so on.
If the people of a country do not insist on this from immigrants, then when a faster-reproducing set of immigrants comes into the country they will quite simply take over the country in a number of generations. If muslims become the majority in a western country they can quite legally take control of the government, and quite legally vote to change the laws and constituion of the country to anything they please. They could very plausibly make sharia the law of the land, for example. That is a perfect illustration that democracy in itself is not a solution. Democracy is only appropriate in a nation of a homogenous people that are on the same wavelength, sharing the same culture and values and customs. Otherwise democracy becomes a tool for fertile invaders to use to overwhelm a native population.
Frankly I think immigration from the third world is a terrible bargain for the west and a brain drain on the third world. The solution to third world problems is NOT for the third world to pack up and move en masse to the West. The solution is for disgruntled, ambitious third worlders to make changes in their own countries, using the West as a model if they like, and fix their own problems at home.
I think the muslims complaining about the Dutch have a lot of nerve. If they don't like the culture of the Dutch they have no business being there. Their aggressive insistence on not being required to assimilate is a foretaste of what they have in mind for the native Dutch as they become a larger demographic force. The Dutch would do well to take strong action now to insist on complete and immediate assimilation or else deportation. Otherwise their grandchildren will be the emigrants looking for someplace to live.
Michael-
"Again there is a distinction ... murder is not condoned as a religious practice because it harms someone else's rights."
This ignores reality. Think about the context a little. The entire reason this law is being imposed is because so many Muslims believe murder IS condoned as a religious practice. That's WHY this law is being enacted, so that Muslims will assimilate and no longer condone such murders. Keep in mind that van Gogh was killed, basically, for a free speech violation.
"Even if this is true, does it actually serve to integrate the community?" I'd say yes. "Does the law address any of the problems with militant islamo-fascism being fomented within Western countries?" I don't know. "Or does it throw more fuel on the fire?" Doesn't matter, I think. There comes a point where the fire kills- you can risk making it hotter because it is already deadly as is. Anything is better than going along to get along because long term that is suicide.
Anyway, it comes down to whether you think the vast majority of Muslims, women included, would rather assimilate or not given a relatively free choice. I think this law is motivated by the belief that the burqa is not just a symbol or repression, but a tool of it.
"Well, no that wouldn't be a logical extension of the argument since the "burqa law" forbids voluntary behavior and the "court protections" allows voluntary behavior (the women wouldn't be forced to utilize western legal traditions, although such would be at their disposal)."
1st, you have no way of knowing how voluntary use of the burqa is. Nobody does. 2nd, a woman who is regularly beaten is not given a choice about whether or not her husband is prosecuted as a wife beater.
"Do you all realize that you're condoning a law that effectively makes being a muslim illegal?"
Well, no, I don't. If you can show me where in the Quran, Sunna, or the five madhhabs (four Sunni, one Shiite) the burqa is required, and maybe I will. But you see, you can't.
Why can't you? Because even the most strict of the standard schools of Islamic law allow the face and hands to be uncovered. The burqa is not required by any of the madhhabs.
The chador and the abaya are the most strict forms of required dress; they are required by the law in Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively; and they both leave the face and hands uncovered. The face-covering Afghani burqa and south Arabian niqab are local cultural dress requirements, not mandated by any school of Islam.
The French effort to outlaw headscarves actually threatened the dress rules of schools of Islamic religious law; this Dutch effort doesn't.
Now, I tend to believe anybody should be allowed to wear pretty much wahtever they want, regardless of whether it's religious dress, so I would tend to oppose this Dutch law. But not because of any false belief that it would make being a Muslim illegal.
'Stay in your own and live in the ways of your ancestors. But if you go to another people's country to live, you have an obligation to become a part of that people - even I would suggest, to the point of adopting their religion as well as their manner of dress, language, holidays, customs, and so on.'
God, how boring. Not much chance of that, thankfully, otherwise all US citizens would be Puritans. No Jews, no Sikh's, no Buddhists, etc. Besides, who gets to decide what is the 'norm' that everyone else should be adopting? Diversity creates tolerance and makes for an interesting cultural experience as over time everyone embraces aspects of other cultures whether you're aware of it or not.
I actually agree with Mark on this point. The sky is falling! I am tired of the victimized muslims living in Western countries.
In regards to this quote...
"...there is no solution, unless you are willing to forcibly expel these people. And this solution is just not politically feasible...."
This reminds me of Chesterton responding to the old cliche, you cant turn back the hands of time... Chesterton said..."sure you can, just take your fingers open the door on the clock and push the hands back..."
I think that Europeans will eventually solve this problem. We should not forget that Europe does not have a history of being a "tolerant" place, especially continental Europe. If threatened with extinction I imagine that Europe will come up with some intolerant answers about the muslim problem. Europe will not go quietly.
The great thing about relativism is that you can justify anything and still be just as progressive and enlightend as you were the second before. The examples are endless. As we all know, Europe is full of relativism.
chum wrote (in response to my opinion that people should stay in their own culture and change that if they don't like it):
"God, how boring. Not much chance of that, thankfully, otherwise all US citizens would be Puritans. No Jews, no Sikh's, no Buddhists, etc. Besides, who gets to decide what is the 'norm' that everyone else should be adopting? Diversity creates tolerance and makes for an interesting cultural experience as over time everyone embraces aspects of other cultures whether you're aware of it or not."
You don't have to be bored - go visit other cultures, watch travel documentaries, read up on them, personally adopt aspects of their cultures in your own life if you want. But don't import foreign peoples in any significant numbers or they will take over your own culture. It's like saying you'd be bored if you had to eat only chocolate ice cream all the time - of course you would! But that doesn't mean you should stir all the chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, fudge pecan, boysenberry, peach, etc etc etc all together into one undifferentiated mush. If you don't keep the flavors separate there won't be separate flavors to enjoy.
And there would not necessarily have been "only puritans" in the US at this point. The puritans likely would have chosen to evolve in different directions by now - but not because they were overwhelmed by a massive influx of people of alien cultures that simply made more babies (irresponsibly many in some cases) and took the country away from them.
You ask, "who gets to decide what the 'norm' is" -- the people of each nation, each culture get to decide what their norms are. Wahabbis decide what their norms are; the Dutch decide what their norms are. If the Wahabbis don't like the Dutch norms, they have no business being there.
You say "diversity creates tolerance". I'm sorry but this is exactly wrong if by "diversity" you mean having more than one distinct ethnic/cultural group in a nation. The strife in the world is almost entirely caused by having "diversity" in the nations - the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, the Shiite/Sunni/Kurds in Iraq, the muslims in Europe, the Mexicans and blacks in the US, etc, etc, etc -- look at anyplace in the world where there is war and strife and you will likely find that the cause is "diversity" in a nation. If you want peace, each ethnic/cultural group should have its own nation with borders respected by its neighbors and the right to choose its own way of life and own destiny. It is people who insist, contrary to all evidence, that "diversity" as you define it is good who are unwittingly sustaining this strife.
Michael: "Look, I agree that something must be done. I'm simply pointing out that making it illegal to dress a certain way doesn't address that. How about a strictly enforced law against inciting violence?"
But that won't work if the violence-inciters are content to blow themselves up along with their victims. This may not be the right answer to the problem, but at least they're trying to find a way to stop violence before it happens.
'You don't have to be bored - go visit other cultures, watch travel documentaries, read up on them, personally adopt aspects of their cultures in your own life if you want. But don't import foreign peoples in any significant numbers or they will take over your own culture.'
Well thankfully your forefathers weren't as xenophobic as you otherwise you'd never have been born.
'The strife in the world is almost entirely caused by having "diversity" in the nations - the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, the Shiite/Sunni/Kurds in Iraq,'
Cultural diversity isn't by any stretch, the same as historical tribal and clan conflict within a nation. In fact, this issue is exactly why many people immigrate to a new country.
Your fear of immigrants is strange given your own ancestors came from somewhere else and likely didn't fully assimilate until the next generation.
'each culture get to decide what their norms are. Wahabbis decide what their norms are; the Dutch decide what their norms are. If the Wahabbis don't like the Dutch norms, they have no business being there.'
Except this doesn't exist in the real world.
'The strife in the world is almost entirely caused by having "diversity" in the nations - the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, the Shiite/Sunni/Kurds in Iraq, the muslims in Europe, the Mexicans and blacks in the US,'It is people who insist, contrary to all evidence, that "diversity" as you define it is good who are unwittingly sustaining this strife.'
Clearly you have a problem with people of color. Bit tricky about blacks in the US though. That forced immigration sucked for them.
chum said:
"Your fear of immigrants is strange given your own ancestors came from somewhere else and likely didn't fully assimilate until the next generation."
My ancestors were a conquering people who took this land away from the natives. They were stronger than the natives and were not shy at all about saying that their way of life was superior or about imposing it on the natives. They were self-confident, industrious, fertile, and ingenious, and the result was the greatest nation in the history of the world with the greatest culture ever. What would be tragic would be to surrender that nation and that culture to a wave of third-world people who bring nothing but an ability to reproduce with abandon and a religion that commands them to use any available means to subjugate the rest of the world.
Is it not self-evident that (a) we do not want to live under muslim rule, and (b) that is exactly what will happen if we allow muslims into our countries to reproduce, spread their culture, and overwhelm us demographically?
"Clearly you have a problem with people of color. Bit tricky about blacks in the US though. That forced immigration sucked for them."
Ah, the ol' "call em a racist" ploy, designed to cut off discussion.
Yes, the "forced immigration" for the blacks was bad for them. I'm not sure how this is an argument in your favor, though. The country is still struggling, still segregated, and still in conflict 140 years after slavery ended. So I don't think the black experience is exactly an argument for "diversity".
"Cultural diversity isn't by any stretch, the same as historical tribal and clan conflict within a nation."
Nonsense. You're playing word games to avoid acknowledging the truth that "diversity" within a nation leads to friction, violence, and civil war.
There is a natural, normal human desire to have a home for one's family and a nation for one's people. A place where your people's customs, traditions, and culture can be nurtured and protected from unwanted intrusion. You can't have that if there is a large group of people with a culture quite unlike your own in the same nation because the two (or more) groups will naturally fight for control.
I bet that you would have no problem with any other people but white Westerners insisting on having a homeland for themselves free from unwanted outside influence. If it were a tribe of Amazon bushmen, or Tibetans, or Kurds, or Pygmies, or any other group, you'd feel their desire to maintain their culture and people free of Western influence would be understandable and noble. But you don't extend the same feeling to your own culture or people.
It's not a matter of xenophobia, or fear, or hate, or problems with "people of color" (god I hate that phrase! it is so racist). Wanting my people to have their own nation is as natural as wanting my family to have their own home. Because I want that for my family doesn't mean I hate or fear other families. But if you force me to allow others to intrude in my home, to intrude on my family, THEN you will have hate, and fear, and violence.
brylin- I started to like that Steyn piece until he compared 9/11 to the Aids pandemic and radical Islam to the "the gay agenda" (dum dum DUM!). Brave words from a former theatre critic.
Michael, of course the Quran deals with the requirements of hijab and jilbab. As do the Sunna and the madhhabs, in far more detail. The madhhabs go so far as to detail what exactly must be covered, and what does not. And the face is never included, in any of the five schools.
Face-covering is not established in the Quran, it is not established in the Sunna (haddiths of the Prophet and the Companions of the Prophet), and it is not extablished in the madhhabs. The requirements of hijab and jilbab do not, in any of the schools of Islamic law, require covering of the face, and assertions that they do is an assertion made from ignorance of Islam.
Headscarves are specifically required in the madhhabs, and so the French ban constitutes a restriction on religious practice, even if they aren't mentioned in the Quran. A ban on face-covering is an entirely different matter.
It's like the difference between a Prohibition that bans even Communion wine to Catholics in Mass, and a Prohibition that bans beer even on St. Patrick's Day; one rule infringes on the actual religion, the other infringes on just a cultural practice folk-associated with religion.
This sort of culteral clash has been going on since we started settling down as a species. Much of our history is that of massive migrations - we are just watching one happen in front of us in Europe right now.
Part of the clash has always been to see which culture ends up triumphing. China was invariably triumphant over its conquerers because of its population and its advanced culture. But many others have succumbed over the millenia.
I am reading a book right now on the intersection of language and history. It is interesting that the one Semitic language that has flourished is Arabic, because of essentally one man (Mohammed). Of the rest, only Hebrew really survives, and that is the real anomoly, as it was really rarely spoken outside of religion for better than 2,000 years. All the rest of them are pretty much dead. Aramaic, the primary language of the first millenium BC in the Middle East is spoken almost entirely today by Biblical scholors and Rabbis. Phoenician disapeared almost immediately after the Punic wars. And so on.
I can trace my father's side of the family down from Scandinavia down into Normandy, then across to England, to MA, down to VA, then KY, TN, MO, OK, and finally, CO. During that time they went from speaking a Nordic dialect to French, Middle English, and finally, to modern English. And they went from pagan, through Roman Catholic, to Protestant.
So, no surprise that many of the Moslems in Holland don't want to assimilate, and the Dutch want them to. It is a struggle to see which culture (and religion and language) is ultimately going to triumph. The Dutch have incumbancy and, currently, numbers on their side. The incoming Moslems have vigor and a much higher birth rate on theirs.
Sloanasaurus said..."I actually agree with Mark on this point. The sky is falling!"
Check "Mark" 's blog... I don't think he's the "Mark" we know. Not by a long shot! LOL
er... scratch that. I don't want to encourage people to go there.
(It's about saving White culture or something like that)
Michael,
"1st, you have no way of knowing how voluntary use of the burqa is."
Neither do you. Nor the lawmakers. So why assume it isn't?"
I assumed nothing. YOU assumed it was voluntary when you wrote it was voluntary.
"Nobody does.
Presumably the burqa-wearers know."
Presumably each individual wearer knows about their individual choice. The point is nobody can speak for them as a group. Again, this refutes the idea that we can know whether or not wearing them is voluntary.
"Ummm ... OK? So what if they made it illegal for women to wear high heels? I mean, there so uncomfortable and women who walk around in them all day complain about how much they hurt their feet. The only reason that women wear such obviously cruel shoes is because their husbands/boyfriends make them."
Interesting, but ludicrous. You know as well as I do that Western women are not being forced to wear high heels. The same is not so with burkas.
"How about a strictly enforced law against inciting violence? That seems to me like it would much more effective and actually get to the root of the problem."
Good point. Again, I think this is about making female Muslims allies.
Cheers!
'What would be tragic would be to surrender that nation and that culture to a wave of third-world people who bring nothing but an ability to reproduce with abandon and a religion that commands them to use any available means to subjugate the rest of the world.'
I amagine this is how the native people who were subjected to your people's 'superior' culture feel. You expect respect for your culture but have none for others.
'.. and the result was the greatest nation in the history of the world with the greatest culture ever.'
Riiight, that would be the US?
People from other countries feel the same about their country. Unfortunately, it's this attitude that gives the US a bad name in the rest of the world. You have a right to your opinion but realise that others react when you act on this perspective from a foreign policy perspective.
'Ah, the ol' "call em a racist" ploy, designed to cut off discussion.'
Brought into the discussion first by you.
'Nonsense. You're playing word games to avoid acknowledging the truth that "diversity" within a nation leads to friction, violence, and civil war.'
No I simply don't agree yith your opinion. I realise you have a hard time handling the opinion of others, but that's your problem.
'There is a natural, normal human desire to have a home for one's family and a nation for one's people. A place where your people's customs, traditions, and culture can be nurtured and protected from unwanted intrusion.'
For you maybe but not everyone is as insular as you.
'If it were a tribe of Amazon bushmen, or Tibetans, or Kurds, or Pygmies, or any other group, you'd feel their desire to maintain their culture and people free of Western influence would be understandable and noble. But you don't extend the same feeling to your own culture or people.'
Hate to burst your bubble but your understanding of me is as limited as your respect for others.
'But if you force me to allow others to intrude in my home, to intrude on my family, THEN you will have hate, and fear, and violence.'
Yes, carrying on the old family tradition....except that by your own admission your ancestors did exactly what you're afraid will be done to you. It certainly explains your fear.
I'm against banning the burka or the chador. Full-stop.
The same way I am against a total ban on cigarette smoking.
It's interesting, because I absolutely HATE the burka and everything it represents, fully agreeing that it's a medieval symbol of the most misogynistic kind.
(And I loathe smoking, and smokers -- yucky smelly things)
But you can't do this, and be thought an open society in the Western tradition, like Holland has prided itself for hundreds of years.
Sorry.
P.S.: And I have reservations against Multi-Culturalism, too, but as you can read, I had no problems with the Sikh RCMP officer who kept his distinctive headress on.
Cheers,
Victoria
Steven said:
'Headscarves are specifically required in the madhhabs, and so the French ban constitutes a restriction on religious practice,'
At least in this situation it was applied to all religious symbols and clothing, yarmulkes, crosses,saffron robes, etc, and didn't single out a single race or religion.
harkon...said:
'"How about a strictly enforced law against inciting violence? '
It's likely this law exists already, though.
Are there any incidents of suicide bombing in Holland? Women or men? Just curious.
Chum,
Michael suggested that law, not me. I think you're probably right about it already existing. Like I said, I think this law is really about giving Muslim women enough freedom to start trying to get themselves more freedom- priming the pump I guess you could say.
Post a Comment