AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Dutch governent bans burqa

75 16722
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

This article states that dutch government banned face veil.
I think this really sucks and is hypocritical.
What are ur thoughts?

  • 75 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

If no one was protecting the KKK's rights, than who would be looking out for all of the others?


on 1 side you protect racism by allowing the kkk.
on the other side you are saying that racism is bad and that it shouldn't be around.

i feel a contradiction.

No, because that's public indecency. Covering your face with a veil is the exact opposite...

and you fail the see that it is actualy the same.

That ignorant comment that you just posted would be like saying wearing a kippah is not important in Judaism, or that crossing oneself could be left out in Christianity.


--.--' realy? this ignorand?
don't you see the millions of muslim woman who do not wear burqas?

do you think that out of 850.000 muslim only 150 are woman and need to wear a burqa?
are you realy that blind?

i don't see any reason to furter comment on this BS.
the only reason you go against it is because you dislike me for hating the usa.
well have fun because i don't see the sense of talking whit you about this. from nicho i know he can be resoned whit. from you i know you simply can't.

Case close then,

+1
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

i hope you see now that we are not as close minded as you thought.
we don't prohibit it for nothing. all this time we havn't done anything about it even tho it was against the law. we had thrown it like most people do on the freedom of religion stack.
but now we came to a point where we felt we had to do something about it. because more and more of those people became isolated because they are unable to make a connection whit society.


I would prohibit only solely for the legal and safety reasons, based on the law that prohibits any clothing that covers the face and the small number of women. I'm not supporting the ban based on the reason that people should do their complete utmost to integrate into society.

Either way, I know when to stick to my guns, and when to change my views in face of sufficient reason.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I can't find any Netherlands based evidence since I didn't try too hard, but I do know that France's most prominent Imam supports the ban in France.

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

on 1 side you protect racism by allowing the kkk.


I hate racism in every form, and think that people who are racists are blinded by hate. But I do enjoy my free speech rights, so I am wiling to tolerate the KKK for my own, and 300 million other Americans' safety.

and you fail the see that it is actualy the same.


Well then please enlighten me as to how this is the same? Obviously you know so much more about this than I do.

--.--' realy? this ignorand?
don't you see the millions of muslim woman who do not wear burqas?


Ok, so those who wear them are the minority. Does this mean that their freedom of religion isn't any more important than the majority? It's this kind of thinking that could start another Holocaust.

i don't see any reason to furter comment on this BS.
the only reason you go against it is because you dislike me for hating the usa.


No, the reason I go against it is because you are advocating for the limiting of free speech and the limiting of the ability to practice one's religion to the fullest extent. Am I saying that honor killings should be allowed? No, because that is murder, and is against every secular law. But who is honestly harmed by people wearing burqas? Are you physically harmed? Are your parents harmed? If it doesn't hurt you in any way, than why the need to regulate it?

from nicho i know he can be resoned whit. from you i know you simply can't.


No, I can be reasoned with. However when you start talking nonsense how just because this group is a minority it doesn't affect much, and that because a group is racist it should be outlawed, I tend to not agree. I will not agree with someone who suggests that because a group hates blacks or Jews, they should be outlawed, and I will not agree with someone who thinks that one group's religious freedom isn't as important as the rest.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Ok, so those who wear them are the minority. Does this mean that their freedom of religion isn't any more important than the majority? It's this kind of thinking that could start another Holocaust.


Uh-huh. You should realise by now, as I did, that the reason the government banned the Burqa is NOT for discriminatory reasons, but because they banned face covering clothing of EVERY kind, and the burqa happens to be one of them.

I'm also rather surprised that you could take such a huge jump and suggest a Holocaust. Slippery slope.

I go against it is because you are advocating for the limiting of free speech


Since when did Party say he wants speech to be limited? In your rabid bid to debate, please do not overstate and exaggerate issues.

Am I saying that honor killings should be allowed? No, because that is murder, and is against every secular law.


Did we even mention honour killings? I'm going to say no. So what's the point of you bringing this up?

But who is honestly harmed by people wearing burqas? Are you physically harmed? Are your parents harmed? If it doesn't hurt you in any way, than why the need to regulate it?


Secular law banning anyone from wearing face covering clothing ring a bell?
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

Since when did Party say he wants speech to be limited? In your rabid bid to debate, please do not overstate and exaggerate issues.


When he suggests as he did earlier that because the KKK is racist, it should be outlawed, he implies that their message needs to be banned. That is against free speech.

Did we even mention honour killings? I'm going to say no. So what's the point of you bringing this up?


My point is that I am saying that while religious freedom is important, secular law in some cases trumps.
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,675 posts
Jester

Keep it friendly, boys and girls.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

When he suggests as he did earlier that because the KKK is racist, it should be outlawed, he implies that their message needs to be banned. That is against free speech.


The KKK incites hatred and violence
that is why i think they should not be allowed.

whit your logic the taliban can form a party in the usa aswell.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

In most of the factions of Islam burqa is mandatory.
Just bcoz very less people want to wear burqa does not give you right to ban it, that is discrimination plain and simple.
If you say this is mandatory so that they can be mixed in dutch culture, then you are wrong, cuz no matter what you do such things take time.
Furthermore, by applying this ban u are agitating even those muslims who don't wear burqa cuz they will see it as an attack on their religion(exactly what it is)

zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

The KKK incites hatred and violence
that is why i think they should not be allowed.


No, I fully agree with that first line, however that second line-if enacted upon-would dangerously limit the freedoms of others simply because you don't agree.

Just bcoz very less people want to wear burqa does not give you right to ban it, that is discrimination plain and simple.


Well, there was this "no covering the face" law, but I would contend that is illegal, as it serves no practical purpose.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

Secular law banning anyone from wearing face covering clothing ring a bell?

law can be changed ryte?
U should take example from sweden
about tolerance.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

however that second line-if enacted upon-would dangerously limit the freedoms of others simply because you don't agree.


not agreeing whit some1 is different then incitement to hatred and violence.

Well, there was this "no covering the face" law, but I would contend that is illegal, as it serves no practical purpose.


i guess you missed the reason that it is needed for social security and for the police to know who they are talking to?
or the reason that it effects social peace?
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,627 posts
Peasant

not agreeing whit some1 is different then incitement to hatred and violence.


They have the right to burn all the **** crosses they want. It is there right to free speech, and while having a violent message is frowned upon, it is certainly not illegal!

i guess you missed the reason that it is needed for social security and for the police to know who they are talking to?


If a policeman stops you, than you simply lift the veil. Simple as that. There is no need to outright ban it. What you are saying is like saying that windows should be banned on cars, because they don't allow police officers to clearly talk to someone during a traffic stop.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

law can be changed ryte?
U should take example from sweden
about tolerance.


i don't see what you wanna say whit this.

however what i saw there was about 1 in the 4,5 people.
where the topic we talk about now is 1 in the 110.000 people

and i find it prety funny you say we have to take a lesson of tolerance from sweden tho.
the netherlands tolerates about everything.
what is the only place whit legal marijuana?
what is the place where gays are not instandly beaten up because they are gay?
what is the 1st place where gays could marry?
we toleraded burqas for decades while it actualy already was forbidden.
3 year ago we told all people that wanted to live here and where waiting to be allowed to live here. that they no longer had to wait and ALL simply were allowed to come.

the netherlands might be 1 of the most tolerated countrys in the world. we don't need to take a lesson about it.


If a policeman stops you, than you simply lift the veil. Simple as that.


it's as easy as that. if they wanted to to that.
reality however has learned us that they do not want to do that.
and they do also not want their face on the official ID card.
while it is a law to have that and to have the ID whit you at all times.
also is it not only about speaking whit them. they also need to see faces in case they are seeking for some1.
if that some1 is a tent, then the police is unable to do it's job fully functional.


anyway i'm done whit this BS. i explained it all good enoufg the 1st 3 pages. and if you don't agree whit it then so be. i can't help it then. i have beter things to do then doing this useless debate of wich i already have explained why the government has done this.
i and 99% of the dutch agree 100% whit this law.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

it's as easy as that. if they wanted to to that.
reality however has learned us that they do not want to do that.
and they do also not want their face on the official ID card.
while it is a law to have that and to have the ID whit you at all times.
also is it not only about speaking whit them. they also need to see faces in case they are seeking for some1.
if that some1 is a tent, then the police is unable to do it's job fully functional.

anyway i'm done whit this BS. i explained it all good enoufg the 1st 3 pages. and if you don't agree whit it then so be. i can't help it then. i have beter things to do then doing this useless debate of wich i already have explained why the government has done this.
i and 99% of the dutch agree 100% whit this law.

so we can call netherland an intolerant country?
Showing 31-45 of 75