| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public," by Alexandra Hudson for Reuters:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe's most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent's toughest laws against concealing the face.
"The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face -- including the burqa -- should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens," the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.
The debate on face veils and whether they stymie Muslim integration has gathered momentum across Europe.
The Netherlands would be the first European state to impose a countrywide ban on Islamic face coverings, though other countries have already outlawed them in specific places.
The move by the center-right government comes just five days before a general election. The campaign has focused so far on issues like the economy rather than immigration because most mainstream parties have hardened their stances in recent years.
Last December Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a proposal by far-right politician Geert Wilders to outlaw face-coverings and asked Verdonk to examine the feasibility of such a ban.
Because veils were worn for religious reasons, she had feared new legislation could come into conflict with religious freedom laws. But she said on Friday this was not the case.
[...]
Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would make the country's 1 million Muslims feel more victimized and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.
"This will just lead to more girls saying 'hey I'm also going to wear a burqa as a protest'," Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community.
Job Cohen, the Labour mayor of Amsterdam, said he opposed burqas in schools and public buildings, and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.
"From the perspective of integration and communication, it is obviously very bad because you can't see each other so the fewer the better," he told foreign journalists.
"But actually hardly anybody wears one ... The fuss is much bigger than the number of people concerned."
Posted by Marisol at November 18, 2006 12:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I think they should also ban the turban also on the grounds of sexual equality
Posted by: shiva![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 18, 2006 12:19 AM
Shiva: I don't think they are banning head-coverings at all. Just face veils, which has good, justifiable security and communication reasons.
Posted by: Lili at November 18, 2006 12:35 AM
The Reuters photo caption is wrong: those are not burqas at all. The burqa is a total covering with a grille for vision, as worn under the taliban. The BBC site has a useful guide to muslim women's coverings.
Posted by: Lili at November 18, 2006 12:38 AM
Amazing that this should take place in Holland, given its sharia leaning tendencies and the fact that they've had a riot or two from the peaceful ones. Now maybe the rest of Europe will follow suit. Wanna wear a veil or whatnot? Go to Egypt.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 18, 2006 1:05 AM
wow some dutch politicians with some testacles. Hope ours grow some quick.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at November 18, 2006 1:19 AM
Expect a riot or two in the near future.
Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 18, 2006 1:44 AM
Posted by: Lili
Shiva: I don't think they are banning head-coverings at all. Just face veils, which has good, justifiable security and communication reasons.
Veils,head-covering,what-ever should been banned as they are being wore by many muslims in the west the same way as nazis wore the swastika
at November 18, 2006 2:13 AM
The burka ban has yet to be aplied. It also depends on the outcome of the coming elections on the 22th of november. If, and this is very possible, there will be a left wing coalition, I don't think this law will be imposed.
Also I would like to make clear that Job Cohen's statement that there aren't many women wearing full face veils and burqa's out here is a lie. You see them everywhere and in some neighbourhoods in the bigger cities you can see one after the other. Anyway, I wish you were right but you are cheering too early.
at November 18, 2006 4:14 AM
Banning face coverings is a much more enforcable and practical way of dealing with this issue.To ban 'head coverings' could include all head wear and may be hard to define in law, for instance how do you distinguish between a muslim woman wearing a viel and a non-muslim woman wearing a head scarf a la 1950's.Banning the former would be obvious discrimination ( whether justified or not) and therefore quite probably unconstitutional,thus it wouldn't last beyond first appeal.On the subject of turbans, many Sikh men wear it to contain their very long hair, which they vow not to cut, it is therfore not just a matter of religion but of practicality.I personally don't find it offensive and woudn't like to see other religious groups suffer for the sake of one.
Posted by: La Frontera at November 18, 2006 4:35 AM
@ shiva
"Veils,head-covering,what-ever should been banned as they are being wore [sic] by many muslims in the west the same way as nazis wore the swastika"
That's exactly right, wearing it basically says: I don't want to belong, since I'm superior to you.
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at November 18, 2006 5:21 AM
I have just returned from a week in Istanbul where I saw fewer women wearing any form of Islamic dress than you see in most British cities. I cannot recall seeing any woman fully veiled at a time when this is becoming more common in Europe, but I was told that Istanbul is not representative of the rest of Turkey.
There was a fuss recently when the wives of Islamic politicians were not invited to an official reception because they would have been wearing headscarves.
The most interesting thing I discovered was that Kemal Ataturk founder of the Turkish Republic instituted the following reforms,
1. No Islamic dress permitted to anyone in government service.
2. The rest day changed to a Sunday from Friday.
3. Sharia law replaced by the Swiss civil code and the Italian criminal code.
4. Turkish translated from Arabic script into a new Latin script.
5. Everyone was required to adopt a surname.
Kemal Ataturk is accepted as one of the great leaders of the 20th century. It is incredible that the changes he considered essential to drag Islam into the 20th century are being reversed in Europe in the 21st century. Usually by political nonentities and low-grade idiot officials in the name of diversity and multiculturalism.
BTW No. 5 is important because there is no legal requirement to keep the same surname in Britain. This allows "minorities" free run of the welfare system, one of the alleged London bombers was getting 6 different allowances using 5 different names!
at November 18, 2006 6:15 AM
Posted by: Fred
I have just returned from a week in Istanbul where I saw fewer women wearing any form of Islamic dress than you see in most British cities. I cannot recall seeing any woman fully veiled at a time when this is becoming more common in Europe, but I was told that Istanbul is not representative of the rest of Turkey.
During the last 12,yrs,I dont think I have seen more than twenty veiled women here in East Java,Indonesia,in fact I have seen more burnt out churches.
Posted by: shiva at November 18, 2006 7:57 AM
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing, but it does have a kind of muscular and confident defense of non-weaselly tolerance that impresses me.
The Dutch seem to be saying,
"You wanna be Dutch? Many, many, many things are permissable, probably more than in any other country, but this one thing is not - hiding your face from your fellow Dutch citizens in public. Look your fellow citizens in the eye or stay inside, or try a society that likes its women covered up."
They are establishing a RESPONSIBILITY as a minimal requirement for enjoying the considerable goodies of modern Dutch society.
Interesting.
Posted by: Snippet at November 18, 2006 8:24 AM
The wearing of the burqas is a symbol of global jihadism. Should have been banned long ago in a non-Islamic nation~!
Will Saudi Arabia allow women to wear skirts in the streets~?
Posted by: FreedomSeeker33 at November 18, 2006 8:50 AM
They keep saying 'hardly anyone wears them' or else 'only a few hundred in the whole country'. From people who've been there lately this is patent b.s.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 18, 2006 9:38 AM
Just ban islamics. It would take care of a WHOLE lot of problems.
Posted by: freewoman at November 18, 2006 10:34 AM
"But actually hardly anybody wears one ... The fuss is much bigger than the number of people concerned." Job Cohen labour mayor of Amstersdam.
This comment focuses precisely on the "root of the problem". The liberal tendency to take the easy way out. Immediate pleasure, etc.
He sees it as a numbers of people and how many dutch citizens don't like it. The actual problem (fuss) is much bigger!. It is the power of Islam to lord itself over a majority population when its actual numbers are quite small. He has expressed it but can't see or relate his actual focus on the problem. This is very typical liberalism. Just do the immediate and all will be well.
at November 18, 2006 12:06 PM
It will be interesting to follow this story.
Posted by: Josephine at November 18, 2006 12:08 PM
"Kemal Ataturk is accepted as one of the great leaders of the 20th century."
fred don't be misled by some muslim propaganda
Ataturk was a fascist genocidal that taught to hitler and mussolini, he instilled in turkish brains that turks were a superior race.
Posted by: StillFedUp at November 18, 2006 1:42 PM
The lesson of Ataturk vis-à-vis Islam is that only an iron-fisted dictatorship can suppress Islam in a populace in which it has historically taken root -- and even then, Islam is never fully suppressed (e.g., the prevalence of honor killings in Turkey and among Turkish Muslims in Germany). A similar lesson is taught by the example of Tunisia and Saddam's Iraq.
Posted by: remote_control at November 18, 2006 3:40 PM
Veils,head-covering,what-ever should been banned as they are being wore by many muslims in the west the same way as nazis wore the swastika
Posted by: shiva
I agree with this 100%, having seen moslems wearing their little headcaps and more recently those body scrubs they wear.
They're very in-your-face about what they wear and how they conduct themselves and I for the life of me don't understand why our media and our politicos just simply "don't get it".
This moslem influence has caused a drastic deterioration in our everyday way of life. Who can argue with that?
We all could list the ways.
Can anyone tell me one benefit we Westerners have had from allowing these people into our countries? Feeding clothing and housing them to boot?
Is it purely rhetorical if I ask: Are we nuts?!
Posted by: germaninamerica at November 18, 2006 9:10 PM
Makes sense. Back in the 1920's, ssome towns in Texas outlawed face masks in the streets as a response to the rise of the Klan. Then again, Pelayo, in Spain aren't there penitents who go about in tall, pointed masks during Holy Week?
Posted by: Kepha at November 18, 2006 10:39 PM
Look folks, the point is this, that the Islamists are like the camel who stuck his nose under the tent. Today it's invading our space with their ugly alien outfits. Next there will be laws protecting their decisions to wear that crap. Then we'll see what they are doing in, I think, Somalia, where about a month ago or so, non-muslim women were told that they had one week to start wearing headscarves in public or they would get their throats slit.
We know that this is not an expression of their religious freedom. That's all horse hooey. It is an expression of their political aspirations and if we don't want to go the way of eastern Africa we need to just say "no" now.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 18, 2006 11:38 PM
Women were involved in the theater bombing. Men has snuck around as women to hide in a crowd or move from safe house to safe house. The face much be seen, in order to identify a human being. If I wore a ski mask I would be arrested instantly. There are no human rights until there are womens rights. All people must be equal. Women must be able to get a job and drive a car and they must be able to communicate with other people. This is a very real security concern. Brainwashed women believeing and standing up for their right to be less than a man less than an equal human who has the right to education, medicial treatment and the right to not be sold or traded or forced against their will to marry. It is sad and heart breaking as a women to see this.
Posted by: Silly at November 19, 2006 1:06 AM
The proposed law is against any form of head covering that conceals the face, not limited to, but definitely including BURKHAHS. I think the intent of the proposed law is pretty evident, but the wording is intended to make it look as if it is not singling the muslims out - and it is not - however, only muslim women choose to cover their entire face this way.
I will be interested to see if the law goes through, and if it does, how long it will hold. Surely it will be challenged.
Somewhat OT, but not really: 4 days ago, I saw a very pregnant muslim woman with the Burkhah on, trying to get out of the same bus I was on in Bonn, Germany. She was having trouble getting the baby-carriage out of the bus, as her Burkhah was restricting her view (she couldn't see the curb)and her baby belly made it hard for her to keep her balance. I asked if she needed help and she proceeded to swear at me in turkish. She even spit at me. So, as far as I am concerned, all of those peace-loving, burkhah wearing muslim women can fall on their asses, I will never try to help them again.
Yes, the dutch tend to be liberal, but watch out when they are pissed off..
Posted by: bonncaruso at November 19, 2006 9:56 AM
Positive development. But I wonder, is it too little, too late?
Posted by: US_infidel at November 20, 2006 1:08 PM
"This will just lead to more girls saying 'hey I'm also going to wear a burqa as a protest'," Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community
What peculiar logic. Don't make something objectionable illegal, because more people will just do it in protest. Why was the same argument not made when people decided to criminalize theft, rape, assault, and murder?
If the law does indeed lead to more pitifully brainwashed girls wearing a burqa in protest, well, then, they will just have to face the consequences, pun intended.
BTW, think what this Green Left lady is really talking about is the niqab, not the burqa. Both conceal faces, but the burqa, which covers the whole body down to the ground, is particular only to Afghanistan, and hasn't been adopted widely as a fashion statement by neofascist muslimas, probably because it's hard to kill people when you're weighed down by all that fabric.
Posted by: angloirishslav at November 21, 2006 11:19 PM
Shiva wrote: "Veils,head-covering,what-ever should been banned as they are being wore by many muslims in the west the same way as nazis wore the swastika."
Nice grammar, Shiva.
What exactly do you mean, they are being worn in the same way as the Nazis wore the Swastikas? You see any kind of religious headcovering (cap, scraf, whatever)and immediately associate it with Islamist terrorism. You can justifiably blame the terrorists for that, but it still isn't a reasonable response. And Muslims are far from the only religious group to wear some kind of headcovering. Sikh men wear turbans, Orthodox Jewish men wear yarmulkas, and ultra-Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish men wear hats all the time too. Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women are supposed to wear head covering as well, scarves, berets, or hair nets, although a lot of them wear wigs instead. Are you going to tell all these people to doff their headcoverings because they make you uncomfortable? BTW, a generation ago, women had to cover their heads in all the Catholic churches my parents went into. A few generations ago, NO self-respecting woman ever went out without a hat. Granted, there wasn't exactly a religious reason behind it, but neither is there always for a member of a religious group who covers his or her head; they may just be doing it because it makes them comfortable. I used to wear a scarf around my head in the winter when I lived in Saskatchewan, because it protected my head and ears from the vicious cold and I found it more comfortable than a hat. Surprise, I got called a "Muslim" a few times too. (Also once, a "Russian.") When I was younger and more naive I also wore a kaffyia (the black-and-white checkered scarf) which has become identified with Palestinians, although this one was made in some other Middle Eastern country. I just liked the look of it, and it was warm. I wasn't wearing it to identify with any political cause. Many Jewish and Israeli people wear them too. Certain ethnic looks, patterns, and symbols sometimes become identified with some things they never had anything directly to do with. Often this is unintentional. I don't think the PLO ever consciously decided to adopt the kaffiya as their symbol, it's just waht a lot of them wore and covered their faces with because that was what they had. Other times of course it's more deliberate, such as the Nazis' adoption of the Swastika, which is an ancient Indian symbol, and which you still see everywhere in India with no associations with Naziism whatsoever.
My point - and I do have one - is that when you start going after things people wear, you're opening a huge Pandora's box. Banning face covering, at least in public places (let them cover up at home or in the mosque if they so wish) for security reasons, and that alone, makes perfect sense to me. Banning anything else is fascism by any other name.
Posted by: angloirishslav at November 21, 2006 11:47 PM
If the Netherlands has any troops posted in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ban on head veils is the perfect excuse for jihadistis to kidnap these troops and threaten to kill them if the Netherlands does not lift the ban. This tactic was used by jihadists against the French a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Christian at November 22, 2006 11:40 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)