Dutch government says it plans to ban burqa

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Of course! Let's ban the insidious Jewish skull-cap and Christian cross if we're going to lower our standards of freedom to that of France.

Have you listened at all? I called for the banning of ALL religious symbols in government buildings (schools, courts, etc...). The only thing I have called for there to be a ban on in public places not owned by the government is the burka.

I've already gone into the reason why the burka is evil and should be banned.

[DinoDoc]

I'd prefer not to give up my freedom to satisfy your paternalistic racist desires, Oerdin.

I called for the banning of ALL religious symbols in government buildings (schools, courts, etc...). The only thing I have called for there to be a ban on in public places not owned by the government is the burka.

You called for much more than that by suggesting the statist course blazed by France as a model to be emulated. The ban was for much more than just a ban on headscarves.

[Dinner]

DD, you are an idiot.

I called for banning the burka because it oppressed women and is a symbol of male subjectation of women plus it violates several laws which require people to show their faces in places like banks. Of course, DD says it is racist.

You ********!

[DinoDoc]

Nothing more annoying than a racist liberal. At least the old school racists didn't bother cloaking their disdain for people different than them in anything other than a white sheet.

[Dinner]

DD's plan: "I can't counter his argument so I will make **** up and call him names"


DinoDoc, why do you hate women so much? Why do you want them beaten and murdered? That's basically the crap you're throwing at me.

Nothing worse then a lying sack of dog**** conservative like DinoDoc.

[Dinner]

I still contend that Burkas should be banned because they oppress women and that all religious symbols should not be allowed in government buildings as part of the seporation of church and state.

DinoDoc has perfected the swiftboat smear. Congradulations! You're now a complete asshat.

[SlowwHand]

My, my. We seem to have a disagreement of epic proportions.

Sure as **** glad I'm not involved in this one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
DD's plan: "I can't counter his argument so I will make **** up and call him names"

You have no arguement other than the fact you dislike something and feel the government should have the power to ban it. I'm sorry if I don't buy into such Statist thinking. I don't even agree with the Eurocoms that Nazi symbols should be banned.

[Dinner]

No disagreement. That would imply DinoDoc actually presented any sort of argument instead of simply just name calling. As is usual DinoDoc is just a waste of forum space.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You have no arguement other than the fact you dislike something and feel the government should have the power to ban it. I'm sorry if I don't buy into such Statist thinking.

Changing arguments are we? What happened to it was racism? ********!

It shouldn't be banned because I don't like it. It should be banned because it is part of the active and ongoing oppression of women. Many women really will get beaten or killed by their male relatives for not wearing it so they are trapped in it and can't take it off for fear of their life. Banning the burka will free them from that oppression and stop the men from making at least this aspect of womens' lives hell.

[Dinner]

Bollocks. I'm out of here to take a walk.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I still contend that Burkas should be banned because they oppress women and that all religious symbols should not be allowed in government buildings as part of the seporation of church and state.

why not? Should national flags be banned in a church as well? Or perhaps there should be no churches, because they are standing on territory of the state?
The French understanding of separation of church and state is somewhat strange

Burkas themself do not opress women. They opress them if they don't want to wear it, but they are forced to it by their family or society. As long women not wearing them are not treated like *****es, they are no harm.

[SlowwHand]

I think that's the point Oerdin is trying to make, that women are forced to wear it.

If that's correct, Then Oerdin has made his point.
If incorrect, DinoDoc does.

I don't think any of us can say with any certainty what's correct.
I wouldn't take a Westerner's word for it; nor would I take Imran's, as a Mideastern male.

[Heresson]

Some are, some are not. And it's hard to say what's the case

[Pekka]

There's a fundamental problem with the 'oppressed' view. I think it's correct that many are forced to wear it, thus are oppressed.

However, there are many forms or oppression on all kinds of groups and women too. What some would argue is that being a house wife is equally oppressive. Women not having a possibility to have a career, because they are determined to be at home.

So I don't think that argument flies alone. Or Japanese women, it's the level of oppression that needs to be determined, as in when it is so high we can say it's a no go and as a society ban such activities. We are talking about a major religion here and a long tradition.

Or what about some women dressing sexy and losing weight and getting depressed, because the society puts a pressure on them, so should we an fashion magazines, events etc too? They are oppressive too in many ways.

I think the argument that religious things should be banned, that I see as a valid argument, but with taht argument I personally have to disagree. I think it's such a strong move and while I strongly support separating the state and churches, I also support freedom of religion. It is also a freedom, and I support the freedom of that.