Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

I'd like to present a proposed idea for solving an emerging social problem for Western Democracies.

Domestic Political News ~ Burka ban inspires integration minister ~ 14 October 2005
Quote: A possible Dutch ban on Muslim women's head-to-toe garment has caught the interest of Denmark's integration minister


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Integration Minister Rikke Hvilshøj is keeping her eye on developments in the Netherlands, where a government proposal to ban burkas, is being seriously considered.

The Dutch integration minister, Rita Verdonk, recently proposed a ban on wearing a Muslim women's head -to-toe garment in public places such as shops, cinemas, buses and train stations, airports, and on public transportation. Verdonk has proposed the ban in the interest of public safety.

The ban would be the first in the EU, and Hvilshøj feels that such a ban in Denmark would benefit integration here.

'When we're talking about integration, Denmark and the Netherlands face the same challenges,' said Hvilshøj. 'To start with, I will have a look at how they plan on doing it to see if we can learn something here in Denmark. It will require a lot of thought to implement such a ban. It's not something we can do as a spontaneous reaction.'

Government support party, the Danish People's Party, was quick to support the idea, saying that it would 'definitely' support such a proposal in Denmark.

Should a debate come up, the People's Party, Denmark's third most popular political party, has said that it would also again push for a ban on religious headwear in public places. This time, however, the party would ban only Muslim headwear, such has scarves and burkas.

Henriette Kjær, integration issues spokesman for governing coalition partner the Conservatives, questioned whether such a ban was legal, however.

The jackboots of our time by George Galloway
Progressives should rally to the side of Muslims facing a pre-pogrom barrage.
Quote: Imagine if a minister in the US dared to instruct the Amish how to live their lives, railed against their unwillingness to act, think, live, dress like the majority around them?

Can you imagine a demand to the Orthodox Jewish residents of Stamford Hill that they must end their "separateness", cut their locks, get out of their "ghettos". Or that Sikhs should abandon their turbans?

Inconceivable, of course, and yet that is exactly what is being demanded of Britain's two million Muslims by Straw.


~@~

Quote: A burqa is an all-enveloping outer garment worn by most women in Afghanistan, and some in Pakistan, and northern India. It is worn over the usual daily clothing (often a long dress or a salwar kameez) and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household.
The full or Afghan burqa covers the wearer's entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille. Pakistani and Indian burkas may expose the face or eyes. It is usually sewn from light materials, and requires many yards/meters of material. Blue is a favourite colour for burqas. The cap from which the material hangs may be decorated with embroidery.

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic scripture, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions, or hadith, require a woman to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqas


The Netherlands government is the first to to plan a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing, popularly described as the 'burqa ban', although it does not only apply to the Afghan-type burqa. Immigration and Integration minister Rita Verdonk announced the legislation in November 2006, against opposition from Dutch Muslims.
Domestic Political News ~ Burka ban inspires integration minister ~ 14 October 2005

Since this appears to be a growing problem in Western societies, a solution should be found and voted on by the majority since the West is predominantly Democracies.

I believe I have the proper solution to this question regarding the banning of the Burqa in public.

I propose to all Western Societies that they should develop and place on a ballot a referendum allowing choice,
allowing burqa (full-face veil) in a liberal society only on the condition that separate lines for men and women are also implemented.
The idea of the "burqa-hijab-niquab" is of isolating women from men when the women are in public.
Under the concepts behind a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, if she were requested of her identification by a Male police officer or store clerk.
The process would have to be halted until a woman could be brought to facilitate the person to be identified and not break the tenets of this Islamic tradition.
If LIBERAL Societies are given the option of allowing the integration of Muslim women who wear these Burqa's to live among them unfettered they must be given the choice and the best choice is asking them if in doing so, they would be willing to restructure their society to forming two lines, one for men and one for women.
A woman wearing a Burqa to the airport can not expect the line she enters to automatically have a woman to take care of her needs.
Leaving it up to the voting public is the best way of insuring the transformation of society goes well.

[LostSoul3412]

So long as they choose to wear them, then I see no problem.

[californian conservative]

Even though integration is a laudable goal, personal freedoms come first and foremost. If they don't want to integrate, they don't have to. But others should not be inconvenienced because of the veils either.

*editted for clarity.

[mathurin]

im sorry, but this is confusing, are you suggesting that we link abolition of the burka to the creation of a seperatation of gender
if so then he is either totally unaware of western ideals of equality, or is creating a strawman

i suspect the strawman

therefore i shall ignore the useless strawman, everyone gives up something when they change societies, however we cannot allow the new group to force their change on our society, for example, a picture of a woman in a burka on a drivers license, now what use is that, anybody can don a burka and claim to be her


to be honest the only decision i have made on this yet is about the interesting biases shown by some, for instance, if a kid wears a shirt that says "its ok to be gay" to school and is sent home, liberals run to his defense, however, if, the next day, 5 kids wear shirts that say "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" they will be universally condemned by the same people who were angry at the "oppression" of the homosexual
meanwhile the school is just trying to prevent problems and stay neutral


we meddle in traditional customs as we choose, it is not as one sided as the sources suggest, nobody has cried foul since female circumcision was declared illegal, even though it is a custom for many, including muslims

if a moslem business makes a subsidiary in america, do we exempt them from our gender and racialequality laws because of tradition or religion, no

it is a tricky question, i dont have enough knowledge of the region or the problem to answer properly, i merely submit that the problem is not as simple as it is presented by richard, it may very well be that such drastic action is neccesary to prevent a larger problem in the future

[Babylon_Horuv]

Laws prohibiting face covering intended to disguise the identy or intimidate are on the books in many places in the US. They effectively ban burkhas already. As far as the Netherlands are concerned, they do not have a constiutional protection of religious freedom and the Muslims have shown that they are willing to cover all sorts of things, inc,uding bombs, with burkhas. I can see this as a justified law.

[Demonic Spoon]

Woops, accidentally voted YES. Change 1 YES to a NO.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

mathurin wrote: im sorry, but this is confusing, are you suggesting that we link abolition of the burka to the creation of a separation of gender
if so then he is either totally unaware of western ideals of equality, or is creating a strawman

i suspect the strawman

therefore i shall ignore the useless strawman, everyone gives up something when they change societies, however we cannot allow the new group to force their change on our society, for example, a picture of a woman in a burka on a drivers license, now what use is that, anybody can don a burka and claim to be her


to be honest the only decision i have made on this yet is about the interesting biases shown by some, for instance, if a kid wears a shirt that says "its ok to be gay" to school and is sent home, liberals run to his defense, however, if, the next day, 5 kids wear shirts that say "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" they will be universally condemned by the same people who were angry at the "oppression" of the homosexual
meanwhile the school is just trying to prevent problems and stay neutral


we meddle in traditional customs as we choose, it is not as one sided as the sources suggest, nobody has cried foul since female circumcision was declared illegal, even though it is a custom for many, including muslims

if a moslem business makes a subsidiary in america, do we exempt them from our gender and racialequality laws because of tradition or religion, no

it is a tricky question, i dont have enough knowledge of the region or the problem to answer properly, i merely submit that the problem is not as simple as it is presented by richard, it may very well be that such drastic action is neccesary to prevent a larger problem in the future

Quote: for instance, if a kid wears a shirt that says "its ok to be gay" to school and is sent home, liberals run to his defense, however, if, the next day, 5 kids wear shirts that say "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" they will be universally condemned by the same people who were angry at the "oppression" of the homosexual

"i suspect the strawman" argument is being played in the above quote.

Quote: sorry, but this is confusing, are you suggesting that we link abolition of the burka to the creation of a separation of gender
Perhaps I did not it as clear as it could be?
I proposed a coupling of acceptance of the Burqa in Western Society with a mandated segregation of the sexes in places where one must identify themselves, such as a bank, a police officer, gaining entry to an airport system, etc...
If the majority of voters decide they are willing to tolerate the wearing of the burqa in public, they also should be willing to accommodate the legal neccessity of the separation of the sexes.

Quote: i merely submit that the problem is not as simple as it is presented by richard, it may very well be that such drastic action is necessary to prevent a larger problem in the future
The very real problem is here now and my solution is an effort to head it off due to a larger problem in the future.

The wearing of the burqa is a safety as well as a security issue.
In order to not compel a muslim woman to violate the tenets of this tradition
(as it is merely a tradition, not a mandate from the Quran) then the separate lines would become a necessity.

I readily admit the proposal is set up as a catch 22.
Maybe that's why you considered it a strawman ?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Woops, accidentally voted YES. Change 1 YES to a NO.

Could you explain WHY you wish to vote NO ?
After all, that goes directly to the heart of my proposal.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

LostSoul3412 wrote: So long as they choose to wear them, then I see no problem.
Yet, that does not tackle societies problem of providing security and safety for it's citizens.
I have absolutely NO problem with a woman wearing a Hijab which is basically a burqa minus the face veil.

It is the covering of one's face in public that causes the trouble with law enforcement, publicly identifying oneself as an ID card cannot be valid when one refuses to show their face so as to compare the ID is of the person in front of the officer, store clerk, airline co., bank, etc...

My offer of separate lines is an accommodation for the wearing of the burqa as that would provide a female to reveal her face to another female of identification purposes.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

californian conservative wrote: Even though integration is a laudable goal, personal freedoms come first and foremost. If they don't want to integrate, they don't have to. But others should not be inconvenienced because of the veils either.

*editted for clarity.

Quote: But others should not be inconvenienced because of the veils either.

Hence, the catch 22 of my proposal.
Allowing a vote, and complying with the will of the majority is the best method of putting this problem to rest in Western societies.

If the majority of voters decided to allow the full face covering burqa in public, they would also be voting in agreement to the segregation of the sexes for the purpose of proper identification.

[PricklySponge]

What somone wears, or does not wear, does not affect me.

[mathurin]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: mathurin wrote: im sorry, but this is confusing, are you suggesting that we link abolition of the burka to the creation of a separation of gender
if so then he is either totally unaware of western ideals of equality, or is creating a strawman

i suspect the strawman

therefore i shall ignore the useless strawman, everyone gives up something when they change societies, however we cannot allow the new group to force their change on our society, for example, a picture of a woman in a burka on a drivers license, now what use is that, anybody can don a burka and claim to be her


to be honest the only decision i have made on this yet is about the interesting biases shown by some, for instance, if a kid wears a shirt that says "its ok to be gay" to school and is sent home, liberals run to his defense, however, if, the next day, 5 kids wear shirts that say "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" they will be universally condemned by the same people who were angry at the "oppression" of the homosexual
meanwhile the school is just trying to prevent problems and stay neutral


we meddle in traditional customs as we choose, it is not as one sided as the sources suggest, nobody has cried foul since female circumcision was declared illegal, even though it is a custom for many, including muslims

if a moslem business makes a subsidiary in america, do we exempt them from our gender and racialequality laws because of tradition or religion, no

it is a tricky question, i dont have enough knowledge of the region or the problem to answer properly, i merely submit that the problem is not as simple as it is presented by richard, it may very well be that such drastic action is neccesary to prevent a larger problem in the future

Quote: for instance, if a kid wears a shirt that says "its ok to be gay" to school and is sent home, liberals run to his defense, however, if, the next day, 5 kids wear shirts that say "its adam and eve, not adam and steve" they will be universally condemned by the same people who were angry at the "oppression" of the homosexual

"i suspect the strawman" argument is being played in the above quote.
actually a very similar situation occurred in an oklahoma school, basically a kid wore a pro-gay Tshirt to school, was asked to remove it, didnt and was punished/sent home, people went rather nuts over it, the aclu dropped in and junk
not long after it became a big deal, several other students wore anti-gay Tshirts to school, they were also ordered to remove them or leave, not a tear was shed over them
i am extremely fuzzy on the details, i only know because i live in kansas and it was all over the local news, which i barely pay attention to since nothing much happens in kansas
if i remember i will post a link tommorrow




Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
Quote: sorry, but this is confusing, are you suggesting that we link abolition of the burka to the creation of a separation of gender
Perhaps I did not it as clear as it could be?
I proposed a coupling of acceptance of the Burqa in Western Society with a mandated segregation of the sexes in places where one must identify themselves, such as a bank, a police officer, gaining entry to an airport system, etc...
If the majority of voters decide they are willing to tolerate the wearing of the burqa in public, they also should be willing to accommodate the legal neccessity of the separation of the sexes.

im still not sure what your point is, are you for or against the wearing of burkas

tolerating something is not the same as forcing everyone to do it



Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
Quote: i merely submit that the problem is not as simple as it is presented by richard, it may very well be that such drastic action is necessary to prevent a larger problem in the future
The very real problem is here now and my solution is an effort to head it off due to a larger problem in the future.

The wearing of the burqa is a safety as well as a security issue.
In order to not compel a muslim woman to violate the tenets of this tradition
(as it is merely a tradition, not a mandate from the Quran) then the separate lines would become a necessity.

I readily admit the proposal is set up as a catch 22.
Maybe that's why you considered it a strawman ?
ahh, so you are against the burka, nevermind

yeah, i really dont know which way to go on the actual issue, its a tough one, i dont see anyone actually being hurt by the wearing or non-wearing of it, so its difficult to justify regulation


i thought you were against banning the burka

[californian conservative]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: californian conservative wrote: Even though integration is a laudable goal, personal freedoms come first and foremost. If they don't want to integrate, they don't have to. But others should not be inconvenienced because of the veils either.

*editted for clarity.

Quote: But others should not be inconvenienced because of the veils either.

Hence, the catch 22 of my proposal.
Allowing a vote, and complying with the will of the majority is the best method of putting this problem to rest in Western societies.

If the majority of voters decided to allow the full face covering burqa in public, they would also be voting in agreement to the segregation of the sexes for the purpose of proper identification.

That is why they would have to remove it to take driver's license pictures or when a cop pulls them over etc. But for normal, everyday use it would be fine for me.

[bigstick61]

I would hope it wouldn't be something which could be voted on. Just another example of the majority n a democracy tyrannizing the minority. However, if I lived in a democracy where I could vote on that, I would vote no. The people and the government do not have the legitimate power to violate a person's natural rights.

[emerald]

i have two neighbours who previously used to wear the niqab, which is a little different to the burqa it's more saudi style, and the women themselves had chosen to wear this traditional dress, and beleived it to be a big part of their religious beliefs and their identity. they were also aware that for certain things, such as passport photos etc that they had to remove it, and obviously when travelling on a plane they needed to be id'd and so on, they didnt have a problem with all the legal regulations. after july 7th both had many problems when out in public, and were verbally as well as physically attacked for it. it was at that point they decided to remove it. and are upset by it, because they had been wearing it for years, and they felt for their own safety living here they had to make a choice.

i beleive they made the right choice, i dont particularly like the idea of the face covering, but the same as it is my choice not to dress this way they should have the right to cover their face if they choose to. i mean how many muslims women in the west really wear a burqa? or cover their faces? it's pretty unknown in a lot of the arab countries, as well as the Asian ones. saudi being the odd one out ofcourse, and Afghansitan previously.

[slitedeviance]

Definately against the idea...

There seem to be several issues people raise when it comes to the pushing a ban on the Burqha or other traditonal dress...

Identification: I've never come across anyone refusing to remove their veil for license photos etc and this would obviously need to be complied with as per the law of the state. Also, if it is to be argued that it is harder to ID people with face coverings I'd be interested to know what percentage of crime was comitted by women wearing these, as well as plans for the ban of Sunglasses, Hats, Scarves and anything else that may hinder an identification of a suspect if a ban was to be argued for.

Seperation: Yeah it's a sign of seperation. So is a turban, so is an iPod, so is wearing the shirt of a specific team. Seperating yourself from certain elements of society is completely endemic, and we are all guilty of this. The effect this has is negligible in the case of the veil, I mean, how much does it really affect someone whether someone wants to walk round with a veil? As much as someone wearing a Man Utd top in Birmingham?

Implications: I've heard lots of "Its a symbol of women being subservient" etc. My answer to this is ask the woman. If she is wearing it through choice then I can hardly see it would be because she see's herself as second class. The historical and cultural reasoning behind the veil are vastly misunderstood in Europe at the moment, and probably the US.

[perdidochas]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: I'd like to present a proposed idea for solving an emerging social problem for Western Democracies.
I believe I have the proper solution to this question regarding the banning of the Burqa in public.

I propose to all Western Societies that they should develop and place on a ballot a referendum allowing choice,
allowing burqa (full-face veil) in a liberal society only on the condition that separate lines for men and women are also implemented.
The idea of the "burqa-hijab-niquab" is of isolating women from men when the women are in public.
Under the concepts behind a Muslim woman wearing a burqa, if she were requested of her identification by a Male police officer or store clerk.
The process would have to be halted until a woman could be brought to facilitate the person to be identified and not break the tenets of this Islamic tradition.
If LIBERAL Societies are given the option of allowing the integration of Muslim women who wear these Burqa's to live among them unfettered they must be given the choice and the best choice is asking them if in doing so, they would be willing to restructure their society to forming two lines, one for men and one for women.
A woman wearing a Burqa to the airport can not expect the line she enters to automatically have a woman to take care of her needs.
Leaving it up to the voting public is the best way of insuring the transformation of society goes well.

This is scary. I actually agree with you about something. In an argument on a different discussion board, I came up with a similar solution (re: the FL driver's license photo example). In terms of ID photo, I can see allowing a veiled Muslim woman to have her photo taken in a room without men, by a woman photographer, and then, in the case she needs to show ID, be able to do so to a woman (again, if part of a traffic stop by a male officer, she would need to wait until they could get a woman officer to clear it up).

[perdidochas]

slitedeviance wrote: Definately against the idea...

There seem to be several issues people raise when it comes to the pushing a ban on the Burqha or other traditonal dress...

Identification: I've never come across anyone refusing to remove their veil for license photos etc and this would obviously need to be complied with as per the law of the state. Also, if it is to be argued that it is harder to ID people with face coverings I'd be interested to know what percentage of crime was comitted by women wearing these, as well as plans for the ban of Sunglasses, Hats, Scarves and anything else that may hinder an identification of a suspect if a ban was to be argued for.

There was a case in Florida, where an American Muslim convert sued the state in order to get her driver's license photo taken in a Niquab (like a burkha, but a slit for the eyes). They initially allowed her to do so, but rescinded this when she got her driver's license renewed after 9/11/01.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultaana_Freeman

[Richard Owl Mirror]

perdidochas wrote: slitedeviance wrote: Definately against the idea...

There seem to be several issues people raise when it comes to the pushing a ban on the Burqha or other traditonal dress...

Identification: I've never come across anyone refusing to remove their veil for license photos etc and this would obviously need to be complied with as per the law of the state. Also, if it is to be argued that it is harder to ID people with face coverings I'd be interested to know what percentage of crime was comitted by women wearing these, as well as plans for the ban of Sunglasses, Hats, Scarves and anything else that may hinder an identification of a suspect if a ban was to be argued for.

There was a case in Florida, where an American Muslim convert sued the state in order to get her driver's license photo taken in a Niquab (like a burkha, but a slit for the eyes). They initially allowed her to do so, but rescinded this when she got her driver's license renewed after 9/11/01.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultaana_Freeman



I simply cannot imagine any police officer accepting this as proper identification.
Same thing goes with this situation in our society.

[John Galt]

They can wear the burqa but need to take if off if an authority demands it. Whether it be the clerk selling alcohol or the airport security officer, this is how we do things here and we're not going to bend over backward to their ways of putting down women. It's too bad. If you don't like it, really, leave. Otherwise you're not going to get any booze or cigarettes or you're not going to be allowed on the plane. You're going to be arrested if you don't take it off when they pull you over and you're going to be in jail where they strip you down completely naked and through stuff on you to delouse you. So take off the damn burqa.