LetsGetHigh 52,683 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 A huge step back for the Netherlands. It's their religion, and they should have the full right to practice it. Anyone who thinks this is good is evil inside and needs to deal with their self hatred. Banning someone's practice of their faith and belief and thinking this is good is EVIL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream 541 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Please watch until the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 hours ago, arctikstorm said: The security argument is crap, and it's only based in fearmongering. Do you think that a person who wants to commit a crime is honestly concerned if they are showing their face just to please the law? NO. If a person wants to commit a crime without being identified, they will still wear a mask!! This is the transgender bathroom argument all over again...if a man wants to attack a woman in the bathroom, it's not a stick figure wearing a skirt on the door that is going to stop him! Again, you miss the entire point. The burqa makes one look less suspicious than a balaclava or a mask. At least for the latter two, the public is able to notice and take appropriate action, whereas for the burqa we are told by people like you to accept it as normal. The law is tackling the opportunity presented, they are trying to mitigate the risk. I mean, if a person wants to commit a crime no law can stop them; and similarly if a man wants to assault a woman no law can stop him! And then we come to the ultimate question why do we have any law at all because a person can just go against it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 hours ago, CowSiss said: My question is if this is banning the hijab as well because hijab=/=burqa. If they're banning any face covering on the basis that it is a threat security and they ban the hijab, the Dutch parliament truly has no merit or knowledge on this issue. A hijab doesn't cover the face and doesn't pose a potential security threat that a burqa could potentially cause, as much as I hate to admit that because the burqa should be classified as a freedom of expression and religion. However, even though I may be clouded by my veil of American exceptionalism, they should not ban the hijab at all under the pretense that a hijab could be classified as a potential security threat. You can see someone's face clearly with a hijab, but whatever... ban what you must to help you sleep at night while you're infringing upon another's rights... Every prohibition is an infringement upon another's right to do the same. LOL. Muslim women can wear their burqa or hijab at home, they don't have to and shouldn't be allowed to wear it everywhere. It is not ABSOLUTE freedom of expression or religion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 hours ago, arctikstorm said: Oh, you're totally right. They should do the same about lgbt people. Be whoever you want to be, just not in bigger public enviroments. Erm, being LGBT is something within your psyche, whereas a burqa is clearly on the outside of the body. No one is having homosexual activities or showing off their new private parts in the public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeleteMyAccount 11,881 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Would this be considered if ISIS and radicalization wasn't such a hot topic? Wouldn't it be common sense to ban people from covering their identities? Why now, if it's not about Muslims? Has it suddenly become a problem with people using ski masks and burqas for robbery/criminal activity? That's my question. But I do understand why that might be a security risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 11 hours ago, Cocaine Heart said: The same people here will call themselves feminists but want to tell women what to wear. Hiding behind the 'security' excuse to justify Islamaphobia is tragic. I think they're telling women what not to wear as oppose to what to wear. Hiding behind your huge ego is even more tragic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melech 9,900 Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said: Would this be considered if ISIS and radicalization wasn't such a hot topic? Wouldn't it be common sense to ban people from covering their identities? Why now, if it's not about Muslims? Has it suddenly become a problem with people using ski masks and burqas for robbery/criminal activity? That's my question. But I do understand why that might be a security risk. What makes you believe its about muslims? Most Muslims don't even wear a burqa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 13 hours ago, Melech said: This is good. Burqa shouldn't be in public places due to identity reasons Nonsense. This law would be struck down in my country for infringing on their right to freedom of expression. Also the title implies all public spaces, when it is only banned from certain government-owned areas. Yet still, I find it disturbing. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Dayum said: I think they're telling women what not to wear as oppose to what to wear. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 9 hours ago, Nicole said: Disgusting. Some people may "get it" but it doesn't make it okay. how can these women do something as simple as taking their child to school, watching a school play or see their children get awards if they're not allowed in the school because of a religious headpiece they choose to wear? If identification was truely an issue for things like licenses or actually identifying the person - there are ways to actually go about that issue without humiliating them or introducing a law that disproportionately affects them and their freedom. They are allowed if they remove their headpiece. You speak of other ways to go about but do not specify them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Goosey said: Lol what? Why are we talking about swimwear in a time long past instead of prohibiting burqas in public places? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 5 hours ago, vivre sa vie said: Their (Dutch govmnt) intention is islamophobic and not feminist that's why I'm against that! Name calling is not going to help, dear... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melech 9,900 Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 31 minutes ago, LetsGetHigh said: A huge step back for the Netherlands. It's their religion, and they should have the full right to practice it. Anyone who thinks this is good is evil inside and needs to deal with their self hatred. Banning someone's practice of their faith and belief and thinking this is good is EVIL. Did you even read the article? Also other face covering things are not allowed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayum 240 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 7 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said: Hide contents It is rational to be fearful of a powerful ideology that has potential to do harm, but it is irrational to take prejudicial action or hold stereotypical thoughts or beliefs towards all or even most people who follow the religion There is no other way to confine the extent of the application of such law. Sitting down and doing nothing is also an easier way out of this ie leaving the status quo as is. Surely there will be some collateral damage, the law can never be perfect and the beauty of it is that it reflects society's value. If you have one infected pig in a sty where are you going to draw the line for those who have not shown any symptoms? Waiting for all to be infected is surely a waste of time if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.