Dutch Human Rights Violations

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Mar 7, 2006.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    The Dutch apparently believe so strongly in human rights, that a person who chooses to dress as they wish is denied that right. Even if the person chose to wear their clothes as an expressive statement, they would be subject to the penalties of law. Hardly the bastion of freedom that they claim to be.

    Read for yourself
     
  2. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #2
    As much as I don't like to see women demean themselves like this, they should have the right to choose to be able to do it. Very sad :(.

    e
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    There's nothing new here, France has banned all relgious apparel and paraphenalia from schools, certain parts of Germany are struggling over the same issues.

    The burqua is not a required form of dress according to Mohammed. He stressed modesty, not invisibility. It was something added much later on, just like celibacy in the Catholic Church.

    The burqua's origins were extremely practical, it was a way to keep the dust out of a person's eyes and off their clothing. Religious zealots used it to oppress women.

    It, like circumcision, feet binding, corsets and head flattening, has no place in a modern, secular society.

    Free speech in Europe is much more closely tied to responsibility than in the US. The burqua has no practical purpose in rainy and damp Holland, and I question how many women born in Holland truly choose to wear it. Young women seem to be using it as a form of political protest. Siding with those who would oppress all women and annihilate all non-Muslims seems pretty irresponsible in my eyes.
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    Lucky for us we have the ACLU to prevent these things happening in America.

    Too bad so many Americans don't realise how much the ACLU does to protect their religious freedoms or think it is attacking their religious rights.
     
  5. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #5
    I still believe in circumcision and women choose to wear corsets to smooth out bulges and make dresses (esp wedding) fit better.

    When it comes to clothing more than anything else, who are you to tell me that I can't wear my religious garb? Are you telling me that the kippah still serves a practical purpose? Or the priest's collar? Or the nun's habit?

    There are people who choose to wear an article of clothing because they feel it is right. Tell that to those who wear black arm bands, POW/MIA wrist bands, or even the LiveStrong folks....

    Finally, I didn't realize that wearing the burqua was symbolic of siding with anyone. I truly hope women don't get abortions just to show that they side with the pro-choice crowd....and your broad generalization of the motives of the jihad are wrong too, but that's another story for another moment
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    How many of the millions of people who habitually wear trainers are actually athletes? What about people who wear shades on top of their heads? Any practical purpose? Bring on the Style Police!
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    "Secular Eye for the Religious Guy (er..or girl) ?"
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Damn straight!:D
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    musing to myself after thinking of some female friends I know...

    Do these women who wear burkas ever refuse to go out because they are having a "bad eye day" or they have "nothing to wear" or that their burka "makes them look fat"?

    Just curious...
     
  10. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #10
    So, you're all for people wearing Swastika armbands? White cone-shaped hats?
     
  11. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #11
    Circumcision is barbaric and a clear violation of a child's rights. Any religion that practices it based on sacrifice to one's god or in emulation of one's god must be pretty insecure. Corsets have become items for fetishists and should stay that way. It's self flagellation pure and simple.

    Personally, I'd like to see all religious garb banned, it no longer serves a purpose in a secular society. Play dress up in your own home or religious institution but don't foist it on others.

    Red, yellow, pink ribbons all support something, they're not representative of human oppression but human hope. They're also relatively recent not based upon centuries of religious distortion.

    Islam is under a lot of pressure these days. Just like some angry young, educated men brought up in the west are turning to radical Islam to find meaning in their lives, so are some women. To pervert one's religion for political purposes is shameless.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    I don't like it, but I wouldn't jail anybody for looking like a prat.
     
  13. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #13
    Circumcision is one thing, as the person getting circumcised has no choice in the matter. I am very anti-circumcision. It was a stupid practice created to keep men from masturbating. As for wearing a burqa, as I said before, a woman should have the choice to demean herself. If they aren't given a choice about wearing it, then I am against it. As for pointy white hoods, I think people should be allowed to wear these as well, but I think they should be looked down upon as the ignorant good-for-nothing pricks they are. If someone wants to advertise that they are racist, biggoted, and stupid, go right ahead.

    e
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Absolutely.
     
  15. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #15
    Corsets are for fetishists - you may want to talk to some brides before you say that. And be my saying that I believe in circumcision, I should have clarified - I don't believe in it for religious purposes, but I do think that benefits outweight the costs. Sometimes the benefits are surprising.

    How d you define religious garb? And you would mandate the wearing of secular clothing only? I think you do a couple things there - one, you legislate regarding the freedom of religion; two, you deny the freedom of speech. That approaches the socialist/facist meeting point.

    You say that human hope is portrayed by the ribbons and oppression by religious clothing? What does the yellow ribbon mean to the Iraqi woman who lost a child? Support for the men who killed her baby. What does the collar mean to the minister - a constant reminder of the promise that he made to take care of his flock. What does the kippah mean to the jew? I don't know, but something tells me that it provides hope and meaning for this life and the strength to move forward in times of trouble.

    You see, for many people (see WWII&jews, Roman Empire&christians, etc), at a time when mass secularization was being imposed and people were being heavily discriminated/killed for who they were or their beliefs, it was that hope that gave them strength.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the Islamic comment, but here is my interpretation. Please correct my mistakes. "Westerners who wear the burqua are turning to radical Islam because it gives them meaning. The only people that choose to wear the burqua are doing so to show support for radical Islam." Even after the attacks in Varanasi, I am still offended (I'm not Hindu, but my mother is). To say that the woman who wears the burqua because it helps her feel closer to God is automatically a radical is horrid. Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were talking about how teenagers who dressed black were being accosted by shopowners and cops simply for how they dressed and that was noting more than racial profiling, and that it was bad?
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Exactly. I don't have to like your outfit, but I don't have a right not to be offended by it. You want to wear a swastika on your arm? Be my guest, just don't expect me to treat you like a regular person when you interact with me.
     
  17. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #17
    yeah like the burqa / head scarf has anything to do with religion ...

    i guess the girl from school who weren't allowed to leave the house for longer then 7 pm (when she was 17/18), visit other girls from school and didn't have to go sports edu because the parents demanded it, was just expressing her believe :rolleyes:

    seriously i know enough muslims on my own /have friends of our family in turkey to know how ridiculous the whole thing is

    this is coming out of the same corner as honor murder cases which have nothing to do with islam
     
  18. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #18
    Like the turban or having seperate cookware for preparing meat and dairy has anything to do with religion....When commanded to remain modest, different people interpret it differently. We aren't muslim, but my wife won't wear anything that comes above her knees. For some, that is extreme - but to her is is a symbol of her choice to be modest in her dress. Each person has a way to comply with what they believe are the commandments of God.

    More disturbing is the equation of honor killings wearing a burqua. I'm sure that most people are cool with nuns and priests and whomever dressing how they do - it really doesn't affect anybody. If someone wants to be offeneded, they choose to be offended. Same with the burqua. The woman who wears it chooses to wear it. How much choice did the dead woman have in her honor killing? Oy....

    That does make me wonder though - how do the Dutch think that they are going to come out of this unscathed? The EU Human Rights Court is goign to go crazy with this. If they uphold it the ban as a national security threat, the Dutch become one of the most xenophobic societies since the Nazis. If they uphold it as a general ban on all garb, they quash the freedom of religion and speech. If they give it the boot, the Dutch just come off as racist....Honestly, with things like this and the French headscarf fiasco, I'm surprised that the Europeans have gotten off so lightly with the terrorists who "want to attack us." When wil people begin to notice that the jihad is focused defensively - pull back the military, social, and "we must impose our western values" presence and respect the faith of Muslims living in the west, and things will calm down...
     
  19. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    yeah like 11-13 year old girls decide what to wear ...
    what about arranged marriages ? (often with some uneducated guy from a small village from the homecountry)
    or girls getting beaten up because they talked to a stranger and were seen by aneighbour/cousin/brother etc. ?
    or why the majority of muslim immigrants (and even 2nd generation) who can't order 1/2 kg of meat in supermarket after more than 30 years are in fact more than 80% women

    and on the other side you side you see their brothers/cousins not really that religious if you catch my drift

    actually no the EU human rights court already had some decisions in the past
    which actually confirmed that the school/federal service head scarf ban in turkey is _legit_ (a turkish medicin student was refsued to attend the university with it and sued)
    the headscarf got even rated as "symbol of an extremistic movement"
    and the decision got confirmed by the turkish supreme court as well

    so to say that it will cause a huge upcry is perhaps a little fast


    that aside the majority of the male and female muslims here are not any different from the on muslims

    edit: i jsut read that the burka is already banned in antwerpen (belgium) as well and that since 2004 because it interferes with a "Vermummungsverbot"
    german word ... don't know if there is an english word at all "not being allowed to disguise yourself at demonstrations etc." it includes stuff like a ski mask/balaclava/sturmhaube (choose your prefered word ;) )
    which is of course always a question of "Ermessensspielraum" (anybody can translate that ?)
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    The study is filled with holes and no medical journal is willing to print it. The study started at the time of circumcision. Given that it takes about 4-6 weeks before men can engage in sex the intact guys had a head start. The study also allowed men to choose whether to be cut or not. It's possible that these men were naturally more careful about their sexual practices. There was no mention of whether or not the men involved used condoms. There was also a failure to test men for HIV as a follow up. So some of the cut guys could well have been positive.

    Circumcision status does not confer immunity to HIV. The US has three times the incidence of HIV infection when compared to Europe. Since the majority of sexually practicing males in the US are cut while the majority in Europe are intact, I think this shows that circumcision at the very least is very questionable in the fight against AIDs and may in fact lead to higher infection rates.


    As far as the burqua is concerned, as takao said, Turkey has fought long and hard to become a secular state. Why should Turks be allowed to do in The Netherlands when it is frowned upon if not banned at home? He also rightly points out that the burqua in teh EU is much more likely to be a form of oppression than relgious expression. For those that would choose to wear it, fine, for those that are forced to wear it, have they no rights to be free from oppression? The problem lies in that the government would be drawn into a fight over who was forced to wear it and who was not. Better to ban and save a few innocent lives than accept it and allow the continued persecution of women in the name of god.
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    LEO says it's administrative discretion or area of discretion or something like that.
     
  22. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #22
    Which touches upon my original concern. All those issues you present are situations where a third party is telling someone how to interact with the public. A person of the age of majority choosing to wear a scarf/burqua is choosing for themselves. For the state to make to criminally punish the wearer is no different than the husband criminally punishing his wife for going out without it.
    The EU having authoirty over Turkey? Not if Cyprus or Austria have anything to say about it....I would love to read more about the Turkish med student. Of course, according to the EU, Turkey doesn't respect human rights - so I shouldn't be surprised that they would do that in their effort to remain secular. The Dutch, on the other hand, are all about human rights....

    Babelfish translated Ermessensspielraum as "scope for discretion." I haven't seen the law, but I would imagine that it is within the discretion of the government to respect the burqua if a group of Muslim women chose to wear it while marching down the street. That makes sense - you don't want people disguising themselves in committing mass riots and acts of violence. However, those who validly wear it have all the right to do so.

    That's fine - I just happened on the article the other day. But circumcision is still outside the scope of the Dutch effort and demands its own debate.

    Why should the Turks be allowed to restrict somethign that Holland has allowed? It all has to do with real estate - location, location, location. Turkey is on the edge of secular Europe and religous Asia. If there is a need to impose limits on freedoms for the obvious security and development of a country, then the idea should be considered (but not necessarily adopted). Does a restriction in Turkey need to be? I don't govern the country, I cannot say yes. But unless there is a compelling reason to restrict freedoms, the answer should always be no. Remember, this has nothing to do with the oppression of women, but national security. Do I see a compelling reason for Muslim women not to be allowed to wear the burqua? No.

    But, Europe demanding human rights be respected by non-Europeans while cutting off the rights if her own has been a trademark. Just think - if I (who thinks the Holocaust was tragic, but not even the greatest tragedy of the 20th century) was to say that the Holocaust didn't happen (or was overblown), I could go to jail. So much for the freedom of speech and/or expression. So, maybe they should go ahead and ban the burqua - what use is the freedom to worship if you can't speak?
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    The British government has a special response team in Pakistan to rescue British women and too often girls who have been essentially kidnapped by their parents shipped to Pakistan and forced into marriage.

    There was a big case in Berlin last year where a young woman was shot and killed by one of her brothers for refusing to follow Muslim tradition. The case has gained a lot of attention because two of her other brothers were also brought to trial for conspiring to kill her. The parents had been in the country for 30 years and neither could speak any German whatsoever. It's thought that the father suggested killing the daughter was the only solution.

    As long as the oppression of women is the sole purpose of the burqua, it should be banned.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    And if it's not the sole purpose? If the wearer prefers not to be ogled, or simply wishes to advertise her faith, what then?
     
  25. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #25
    well as long as they are not "in" the authority i guess is quite powerful ;)
    (after all in this case the EU human rights court and turkish court agreed)

    as an austrian wanting turkey to join (within a decade not like in 2 years) i'm in the minority ... i wonder how much of it is because of the history (8 wars with combined 74 years)
     

Share This Page