Intolerance in Europe - washingtonpost.com
An editorial from today's WaPo which highlights the hypocrisy of Europe's increasing intolerance towards its Muslim minority:
Sometimes the bigots portray their crude attacks on Muslim beliefs and culture as a defense of freedom of speech -- as when a Danish newspaper last year chose to publish gratuitously offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammad. Sometimes they claim to be promoting better communication, as when British parliamentarian Jack Straw recently asked Muslim women to remove their veils when visiting his office. Luckily for the enemies of cynicism and disingenuousness, there is also the Dutch government -- which no longer bothers to disguise its ugly prejudice.
On Nov. 17, just five days before Wednesday's hard-fought general election in the Netherlands, the incumbent center-right government promised that, if reelected, it would introduce legislation to ban the wearing of burqas and other facial coverings in most public places, including courts, schools, trains and even streets. The ruling Christian Democratic Appeal party finished first in the voting, but the makeup of the next government remains unclear. If enacted, the prohibition would affect no more than a few dozen of the country's 1 million Muslims, who make up some 6 percent of the population. But the point is symbolic: A country famous for tolerating prostitution, drug use, euthanasia and public nudity considers Muslim veiling beyond the pale.
You know a society is @$$-backwards when vices become virtues and virtues become vices.
The point being missed is that, though countries can and should be tolerant, they shouldn't tolerate intolerance. The niqab represents intolerance.
Besides, if the women want to wear it they can go and live somewhere else.
The niqab represents intolerance.
Of whom?
Besides, if the women want to wear it they can go and live somewhere else.
Why can't the prostitutes go to Russia and the drug takers to Jamaica?
Shamil - because it is their country.
Shamil - because it is their country.
What the country belongs to prostitutes and drug users?
So those Dutch women who wear niqab? What are you going to do about them?
The intolerance comes from those who hate the niqab, those who are intolerant. The niqab represents not "intolerance," but piousness and modesty. It's amazing more people don't understand that.
But then again, as I said, @$$-backwards.
What the country belongs to prostitutes and drug users?
Inasmuch as they have elected the government, yes it does. The democratically elected government can pass whatever laws it sees fit. Some societies tolerate the niqab - or rather don't tolerate its absence - but don't tolerate women in short skirts. If that's your bag, go and live there. Holland tolerates gays, prostitutes, etc, but won't tolerate women wearing masks in public. If you don't like it, leave.
Mind you, if you think Muslim countries don't have problems with prostitutes and drug users, take a look at Iran. No country/religion/culture is perfect, and let's not pretend otherwise.
SHamil,
I think Old Pimple hit the nail right on the head. The prostitues and drug users dealers- the Dutch land is their country. FOr a woman who wears niqab it isnt her country, though she may have been born there or have citizenship. YOu cant ask people to assimilate into a country that isnt theirs. Why according to Old pimple does that country belong to the former more so than the latter? Because of religion, race, who knows. Old pimple just pulled the mask off.
Accordingly if these niqabis are Dutch, and it is their country, than, like the doper and the prostitute, their habits will become apparent of the country as well, or does that only apply to moral deginerates like drug users and women who sell their bodies for money? What would Jesus do?
If the niqab represents intolerance, what does nudity represent? Why can't the "nudists" go and live somewhere else? Why should veiling be offensive, but people walking around naked not be? I don't get that.
Assalaamu alaikum,
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk: "It is very important that we can see each other and can communicate with each other. Because we are so tolerant we want to respect each other..."
Are the Netherlands the niqabis' country? After all, ultradevout muslims- as these people purport to be- claim that their only loyalty is to the- currently nonexistent- islamic state. That said, if the people of the Netherlands are so timorous that they are scared of a few dozen religious maniacs perhaps they are completely unsuited to the rsponsibilities of democracy.
Thersites,
That isnt the point at all. The law is the law regardless of anyones religious disposition. In America you are an American and are treated like an American regardless of how American you feel. There are laws that purtain to Americans and even if you are a subversive you are under those laws. Are you going to suggest to me that if you dont feel Dutch enough Dutch laws should only cater to your sense of Dutchness? Why should the laws be so emotional and reactionary? Old Pimple knows why she said that the country belongs to the Prostitutes and the Dopers more so than a woman who wears niqab. Is that not also part of the problem? Is there a particular way of being Dutch? In America, there isnt a particular way of being an American. Actually I take that back. you have the 14th amendment and naturaliztion. Thats it. No dress, no religion, no ethnicity. While there may be an American culture, it is fluid and doesnt or rather shouldnt elevate itself above civil soceity.
I dont know if you should suggest that these women only sees themselves as being loyal to a non existent Islamic state. They live by the Sharia and it goes with them where ever they are. Its called religious belief you know. The Islamic state you refer to is something concrete not abstract like the Sharia.
She will live by the Sharia in Europe or may not live by it in Saudi Arabia.
Old Pimple,
"Holland tolerates gays, prostitutes, etc, but won't tolerate women wearing masks in public. If you don't like it, leave."
Let me illustrate how intolerant and ignorant you really are. I will use your beloved values against you. People have a human right to live where they were born. Now if you were made a citizen you can possibly have that status taken away. Not so for someone who was born in a particular place. These women dont have to go anywhere and they have as much of a right and oppurtunity apparently to influence the society with their strange dress. Similarly, blacks in America didnt like second class citizenship. Could you imagine someone telling them to go back to Africa? I can, someone like you.
Prostitution and drug use is bad and harmful to the person physically, emotionally, and socially. If the niqab is seen as intolerant thus bad for society, things like prostitution and drug use, which is harmful should be judged in the same way and thus not tolerated in Holland.
BAT: you're quite right, of course, to say that laws apply to and protect anyone- and should apply to and protect anyone- regardless of that person's own attitude to the law. More important still, there is the fact that it is generally accepted in Europe that people should have certain rights, and that this applies absolutely. However, it is still a tad hypocritical for someone who wishes to overthrow the system of law of the country they live in and to abolish those rights and to impose their own ideas of propriety on others to beg the protection of the law and claim those rights.
The Netherlands do not actually permit prostitution, nudity and drug-taking freely: all are permitted under police control in certain narrowly specified areas under certain conditions. At the least, as a gesture of equality, one would expect the Dutch government to permit people to wear niqab in the same areas under the same terms. A modest compromise, don't you think?
Thersite,
The laws and those in power shoudlnt care about peoples hypocrasy. It is blind and naive as it should be. We can talk about their hypocrasy till the cows come home but in the face of the countries institutions they are Dutch and subject to Dutch law. Leave their hypocrasy to the blogs and op-eds.
People have a human right to live where they were born. Now if you were made a citizen you can possibly have that status taken away. Not so for someone who was born in a particular place. These women dont have to go anywhere and they have as much of a right and oppurtunity apparently to influence the society with their strange dress. Similarly, blacks in America didnt like second class citizenship. Could you imagine someone telling them to go back to Africa? I can, someone like you.
Nobody is taking their citizenship away, they are simply enforcing a law. If such women -assuming their husbands allow them to speak - don't like the law, as with any law they can - freely - leave and live somewhere else. But they cannot stay in Holland and wear masks.
The analogy with blacks is utterly spurious, since, Michael Jackson aside, skin colour is something you can't help.
Oh, and another thing - the original article says people object to "veiling". Well, what people object to is covering the face - there is a huge difference between dressing modestly, eg headscarf, loose clothes and covering the face.
As for the modesty thing - if the idea is not to draw attention to yourself, then niqab wearers fail miserably.
What do you care what others wear pRickler? The only thing you'd look half decent in is a strait jacket locked away in a padded cell.
"The laws and those in power shoudlnt care about peoples hypocrasy." Certainly. People have rights whether they would allow others to have rights or not. However, the rest of us can be amused by people's hypocrisy.
Old Pimple,
Stop unimpressing me ok.
"...don't like the law, as with any law they can - freely - leave and live somewhere else. But they cannot stay in Holland and wear masks."
In America, Jim Crow and segregation was the law and blacks and many others didnt like it. A person like you would have suggested that they should go and live some place else. Similarly if there are restrictions to religious minorities in Muslim countries, and there are, you wouldnt suggest that they go live someplace else. In fact you would use it as an example of intolerant muslims. Well intolerant Dutch this time around.
"The analogy with blacks is utterly spurious, since, Michael Jackson aside, skin colour is something you can't help."
Read the above. So typical of you to miss the forest for the trees or the trees for the forest. I never understood that saying.
Simply because something is law doesnt mean that it is a good law. Blacks were defiant of these laws all the time because they were unjust. Now with the exception of a few cases these laws are vindictive and a smokescreen.
If people choose to behave in a way that is offensive to the majority, as represented by a democratically elected government, they fall foul of the law. They can either face the consequences - fines, imprisonment, or they can obey the law, or they can leave.
The key words are "choose" and "behave". Having a black skin is not a choice or a form of behaviour. Wearing a face veil is.
A women covering her face in public represents the oppopsite of modesty. Instead her dress marks her as a kind of sandwhich board, an advertisement promoting theocratic enslavement as feminist self-realisation, her whole public identity reduced to a mere slit.
And Old Piclker is quite correct. How can a women claim to be modest when her dress is meant to draw attention to herself?
Women with veiled faces aren't modest, they're slutish with arrogance.
Has anyone read the following by any chance?
More important still, there is the fact that it is generally accepted in Europe that people should have certain rights, and that this applies absolutely. However, it is still a tad hypocritical for someone who wishes to overthrow the system of law of the country they live in and to abolish those rights and to impose their own ideas of propriety on others to beg the protection of the law and claim those rights.>/b>
What is this uncle on about! Is it difficult to figure out the only country overthrowing the system of the country they don't even live in the world, imposing their own ideas of propriety, not excluding language, culture, morality, clothing, etc ....
john palubiski,
You have attributed your own impressions of the niqab onto these women. Yes the veil does bring attention to these women in a society that has never had it as a traditional. I understand that completely.
However is she still slutish if she is wearing it in a country that has it as its tradition? Probably not. Your reaction to them is in relation to a society that isnt Islamic.
These womens' dresses arent meant to draw attention to them. It does but that is only because people arent used to it. Its their reaction and not these womens intentions. ITs all about intentions is Islam. They do it for love of ISlam, its prophet, his wives and so on. Has nothing to do with you people. Yes the world doesnt revolve around white narciscistic Westerners. Surprise!
Your reaction to them is in relation to a society that isnt Islamic.
These womens' dresses arent meant to draw attention to them. It does but that is only because people arent used to it.
Our society isn't Islamic. Get used to it. If you want an Islamic society, go and live in one.
Perhaps we should "get used to" polygamy, stonings, floggings, etc. No. You get used to Western ways if you want to live in the West. God knows, Musims want to live here. Why, if it's so bad and they want to change it to something that they're escaping their countries to get away from?
No. You get used to Western ways if you want to live in the West. God knows, Musims want to live here.
No body seems clear what "Western ways" are though.
Old Pimple,
"Our society isn't Islamic. Get used to it. If you want an Islamic society, go and live in one."
That wasnt what I was arguing. In case you are unable to deal with my arguments please dont create new ones for me.
"Perhaps we should "get used to" polygamy, stonings, floggings, etc. No."
Or perhaps you should get used to the idea of legalized prostitution and drug use. These havent always been apart of Dutch society. Societies change. In this case it has changed for the worse.
"You get used to Western ways if you want to live in the West."
What does it mean to get used to it? Accept that it is a reality- sure. Accept that it is correct and morally sound- not always.
" Why, if it's so bad and they want to change it to something that they're escaping their countries to get away from?"
Well if they are escaping Turkey or Tunisia than the wearing of the viel is entirely appropriate. My guess is that many of these people are looking for work, and oppurtunity. How many women are running away from the niqab? Most come from countries where it isnt worn by the majority of the women. Then alot of these women do it after having lived in Europe for a while. Their daughters may pick up the practice. You are very ignorant of Muslim peoples. They are motivated by alot of different things.
Ok that is enough out of you. I am getting bored.
What are you trying to say here, Anonymous: "What is this uncle on about! Is it difficult to figure out the only country overthrowing the system of the country they don't even live in the world, imposing their own ideas of propriety, not excluding language, culture, morality, clothing, etc .... "
What are you trying to say here Anonymous: "What is this uncle on about! Is it difficult to figure out the only country overthrowing the system of the country they don't even live in the world, imposing their own ideas of propriety, not excluding language, culture, morality, clothing, etc .... "?
Your concern and your grammar seem to have got inextricably and incomprehensibly mixed together.
"Or perhaps you should get used to the idea of legalized prostitution and drug use. These havent always been apart of Dutch society. Societies change. In this case it has changed for the worse. "
In what way has Dutch society changed for the worse since the innovations- if innovations they are- of legalised prostitution and tolerated drug consumption have been intriduced? Both are tolerated for the same reason, that a social evil can be better controlled by permitting its legal practise and restricting it by law than if it is entirely outside the law. In fact, for most of European history both prostitution and drug consumption have been legal in most European countries, except when the contires have been run by idealists and bigots of one sort or other.
" My guess is that many of these people are looking for work, and oppurtunity."
It is also the right of the people expected to provide work, opportunity or shelter to decide the terms on which they will provide it. Dressing in silly clothes is a right. If dressing in silly clothes expresses opinions that a society does not think appropriate or that are even hostile to that society, then that society has the right to reject woiuld-be immigrants even if it must put up with those of its citizens that do so.
Immigrants should adapt to the host country. Period. Or leave.
Ginny, I actually remember reading an essay on a nudist website (I think the site's dead now) which blamed Islamic terrorism on Islamic modesty!
Other articles still online which attack modesty or strict sexual morality in a similar vein are Jamie Glazov's "The Sexual Rage behind Islamic Terror", Body Pleasure and the Origin of Violence and Genocide related to forbidding of nakedness?.
Except that they're not immigrants but citizens, pRickler. Why dont you and thersites leave, assuming anybody would want losers like you two.
Whichever country you came from, Dr Mabuse, obviously didn't teach you to read very well. Does your host country have no adult literacy schemes you could use?
I was referring specifically to BaT's claim that:
" My guess is that many of these people are looking for work, and oppurtunity."
when i said:
"It is also the right of the people expected to provide work, opportunity or shelter to decide the terms on which they will provide it. "
I made it clear that "it must put up with those of its citizens that do" dress up in silly clothes. Of course, there is still the question of whether religio-political bigots who became citizens under false pretences should be permitted to claim the rights of citizens when they have no intention of fulfilling the duties of citizens. I can see that you would support that policy, but, then, you would, wouldn't you?
Your reaction to them is in relation to a society that isnt Islamic.
Yes Britian ISN'T an islamic country and never will be, so the sooner these women adapt to the culture of their host country, the sooner integration will occur.
If some members of the muslim community are unable to conform to British norms, if they've no will or ability or are too ignorant to incpororate themselves into the mainstream, then perhaps they should go and live someplace else.
That way many conflicts can be avoided.
Thersites, trying to get something of value out of your post is like trying to squeeze orange juice out of an apple. Don't waste time and space rehashing your oft refuted racist nonsense. Trying to judge people by the way they dress and claim to understand their "intentions" eh? I suppose I should have some sympathy for your handicap. You are obviously paralyzed from the neck up. Literacy indeed. Palubiski, you're another idiot who thinks that British Muslims have to conform to some football hooligans idea of citizenry. Its none of your business what others choose to wear. If you don't like move to some country providing sanctuary of hitlerian rejects and losers of the bnp. You don't want integration, you want subjugation. Not happening nazis.
Come, come, Dr Mabuse. Where have I made a racist remark? Where have you- or anyone- shown that what I say is nonsense? Indeed, your own particular method of argument- squirting vulgar and untrue abuse everywhere- is evidence that you cannot actually argue reasonably at all.
People say they dress in a particular way because they are devout muslims. Devout muslims are expected not only to dress in particular ways but to have particular beliefs and behave in particular ways- among other things, when they can, devout muslims think it is their "business what others choose to wear"- and that they have the right to enforce their prejudices on others. Therefore a country is entitled to be dubious about letting people like that in and- if they do let them in for humanitarian reasons- about giving them citizenship. Religio-political bigots who are already citizens we have to put up with. That's no reason to accept more though.
Playing dumb now thersites? English is your second language, isn't it? You don't have a first. You are a bore, and a very dull one at that. I see you're still purposely operating on the fallacy that those who observe their faith, dress differently are foreigners or not "British." They're not guilty of bigotry, you are. Your opinion is nothing but the extrapolation of an obsessive compulsive idiot with a divisive and racist agenda.
There are two theories about language, Dr Mabuse: one is that people developed language and then learned to think, the other is that language grew out of the need to think and express thoughts more effectively. You are excellent evidence for the truth of the first- you have learned to use langauge but not to think. You have been taught language and your profit on in is, you know how to curse. You aren't even very good at that, because your curses are driven by your own agenda [for what is islam but an agenda?- today Mecca, tomorrow the worldwide ummah!] rather than any connexion with the real arguments against your agenda.
It depends on how, precisely, people "dress differently" and what comes about when they "observe their faith" as to whether they should be considered desirable citizens. If- as I've pointed out several times- they already are citizens, there isn't much to do but laugh at them and leave them to their own abominable devices. If they wish to become citizens then the people of the country they wish to become citizens of have the right to consider whether they would improve that country's condition.
Given the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of some muslims it is very reasonable for others to wonder whether they would be welcome fellow-citizens. Those same beliefs, attitudes and behaviour, however, also make it dubious whether such people can sincerely become citizens of a nonmuslim country, for as members of the world-wide brotherhood of muslims- and members in belief and act rather than vague rhetoric- they are inevitably divided from other citizens by their loyalties..
Yawn, do you speak any language that non-gibbering idiots can understand? Reading your post is less interesting than watching paint dry. Not interested in the football hooligans idea of citizenry either. The bottom line is that you're an insecure racist loser obsessed with womans clothing, its sad but true. Get a life, pervert.
And there it is: the unreasoning paranoia that lies under Dr Mabuse's every word, leaving him incapable of responding to any challenge to his beliefs except by lies and abuse.
Lies and abuse, thershites? Those two terms describe your every post. Is there anything I need to know about you other than your a grungy social outcast?
Get a life.