Netherlands to ban Burqa in public spaces

[Dayum 240]

34 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. 

I think it's very dangerous to give full right to practise any religion (eg it cannot be right to stone someone to death for adultery if your religion requires you to do so). It has to be limited in some circumstances.

 

And shame on you calling people evil with opinions contrary to yours.

[Goosey 3,017]

5 minutes ago, Melech said:

Did you even read the article? Also other face covering things are not allowed. 

Even worse!

Can't target the burqa without being called xenophobic and Islamophobic, so they take away rights from everyone instead! That makes it better (/s) 

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, Dayum said:

It has to be limited in some circumstances.

A harmless face veil isn't one of them. By the way the burqa is not a religious article of clothing, so it doesn't apply anyhow. This is simply xenophobic.

[Edonis 28,974]

32 minutes ago, Dayum said:

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.

Are you implying that Muslim women shouldn't wear hijab in public either? You know hijab is different from burqa or niqab right? 

OT: As a Muslim I have pros and cons about this. Burqa and Niqab are cultural accessories more than religious accessories as they were originally worn to protect against sun/sand in the harsh deserts, hence why those articles of clothing were almost exclusively found in the more arid parts of the Middle East (Saudi arabia, Yemen, etc.) As time went on and governments grew more strict and conservative, laws that oppressed women were put into place and that included the enforcement of burqa/niqab. Majority of Muslim women outside of those countries view burqa as oppressive and have a negative connotation with those who wear it. 

However, the only issue I find is that some weirdo who is actually islamaphobic could take that law and use it to discriminate against women who wear hijab, which is in no way a security threat at all.

For those wondering about the history, Hijab is the symbolic partition between the prophet Muhammad and his wives when men would enter his house. This concept was later carried from religious practices (women covering their hair to pray was found in ALL Abrahamic religions at some point) and carried onto daily social life as seen by sizable populations as well. However hijab is under intense debate in the more modernized Muslim world as it was often seen as a symbolic message in the Quran, not a literal interpretation of wearing one at all times. Hence you see some Muslim women that come from more conservative families wearing hijab and some women who don't. Regardless, the actual wearing of a hijab does not pose a threat either way as it looks no different than a nun's habit (most are actually smaller, etc.) furthermore, hijab is not just limited to head scarves as many who do partake in it see it as other articles of clothing (turbans, wraps, some women loosely wear a scarf, others wear one more tightly). It's all up to how a person interprets their religion. (Now, many will say women are forced to wear it in their family systems, etc. That is a completely different story all together and is more dependent on family structure, education, and sadly political backgrounds). 

So my only concern is if enforcement would prevent the discrimination of hijab wearers. That would legit be religious discrimination and only perpetuate the stereotype that all Muslims are evil, violent, or terrorists. 

[Dayum 240]

10 minutes ago, Goosey said:

A harmless face veil isn't one of them. By the way the burqa is not a religious article of clothing, so it doesn't apply anyhow. This is simply xenophobic.

A face veil that hides significantly a person's identity is one of them. If it is not a religious article, then the more we should be able to deny them the right to conceal their faces everywhere.

[Edonis 28,974]

16 minutes ago, Dayum said:

I think it's very dangerous to give full right to practise any religion (eg it cannot be right to stone someone to death for adultery if your religion requires you to do so). It has to be limited in some circumstances.

 

And shame on you calling people evil with opinions contrary to yours.

Burqa isn't religious wear though. 

[Dayum 240]

14 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Even worse!

Can't target the burqa without being called xenophobic and Islamophobic, so they take away rights from everyone instead! That makes it better (/s) 

I agree. This is clearly a veil to mask their "xenophobia/Islamophobia."

[Dayum 240]

6 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Are you implying that Muslim women shouldn't wear hijab in public either? You know hijab is different from burqa or niqab right? 

 

However, the only issue I find is that some weirdo who is actually islamaphobic could take that law and use it to discriminate against women who wear hijab, which is in no way a security threat at all.

 

So my only concern is if enforcement would prevent the discrimination of hijab wearers. That would legit be religious discrimination and only perpetuate the stereotype that all Muslims are evil, violent, or terrorists. 

If there is no legitimate reasons for prohibiting hijab, then of course everyone is free to wear it. I was referring to whatever they were prohibiting, the burqa I think.

[Goosey 3,017]

6 minutes ago, Dayum said:

A face veil that hides significantly a person's identity is one of them. If it is not a religious article, then the more we should be able to deny them the right to conceal their faces everywhere.

There is no reason you need to see their face. What problems has the burqa caused in the Netherlands? Let's see: made some xenophobes uncomfortable. That's it.

[LetsGetHigh 52,683]

24 minutes ago, Dayum said:

I think it's very dangerous to give full right to practise any religion (eg it cannot be right to stone someone to death for adultery if your religion requires you to do so). It has to be limited in some circumstances.

 

And shame on you calling people evil with opinions contrary to yours.

Shame on you for comparing death by stoning to having the right to wear hijabs and burqas. Islamophobia is dripping from your post, even if it was unintended. 

[Edonis 28,974]

Just now, Dayum said:

If there is no legitimate reasons for prohibiting hijab, then of course everyone is free to wear it. I was referring to whatever they were prohibiting, the burqa I think.

Okay then please educate yourself on the discussion at hand rather than possibly offending groups of people by throwing around unrelated words and grouping them in together 

[Edonis 28,974]

25 minutes ago, Dayum said:

I think it's very dangerous to give full right to practise any religion (eg it cannot be right to stone someone to death for adultery if your religion requires you to do so). It has to be limited in some circumstances.

 

And shame on you calling people evil with opinions contrary to yours.

I'm actually speechless because you actually think Muslims routinely participate in stonings. So you think with the amount of aduktery in the world, every Muslim person is out stoning each other on the street?  Or are you basing your views solely on what you see in the more religiously extreme countries/cities where that practice would under normal circumstances be condemned in the more modernized nations? Hm. 

[Dayum 240]

Just now, Goosey said:

There is no reason you need to see their face. What problems has the burqa caused in the Netherlands? Let's see: made some xenophobes uncomfortable. That's it.

The reason is security risk like many of the other posts had said. They are able to escape without a trace if their face is wholly covered. Again name calling. Whoever is uncomfortable with this is a xenophobe right? And so what problems has catcalling caused in the whole world? Let's see: made some women uncomfortable. That's it.

[Dayum 240]

5 minutes ago, Edonis said:

Okay then please educate yourself on the discussion at hand rather than possibly offending groups of people by throwing around unrelated words and grouping them in together 

You're being a bit too sensitive by a trivial grouping of almost similar headpieces.

[Dayum 240]

4 minutes ago, Edonis said:

I'm actually speechless because you actually think Muslims routinely participate in stonings. So you think with the amount of aduktery in the world, every Muslim person is out stoning each other on the street?  Or are you basing your views solely on what you see in the more religiously extreme countries/cities where that practice would under normal circumstances be condemned in the more modernized nations? Hm. 

I just gave an example. I don't know how you reach the conclusion that I believe every Muslim stones the other who commits adultery. What I am saying is that if a religion tells you to do something, surely you cannot just blindly follow what it says. It's that simple.