Dutch cabinet approves partial ban on Islamic veil in public areas

TomandJerry · May 22, 2015

"The Dutch cabinet has approved a proposal for a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils on public transport and in public areas such as schools and hospitals.

After the cabinet backed a bill by the interior minister, Ronald Plasterk, the government said in a statement on Friday: “Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions, government buildings and on public transport.”

The ban would not apply to wearing the burqa or the niqab on the street, only for security reasons or “in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen”, the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told journalists after a cabinet meeting"

Also in France:

"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".

We should follow!

Bevendean Hillbilly · May 22, 2015

I'd go a tad further and have Muslims publicly beheaded for apostasy. Actually, no. No I wouldn't.

I might propose that mosques are built a little more "low rise" than they are currently. I visited Frankfurt recently and the skyline there looks like tehran. As does that of Sheffield and Rochdale. I am not entirely convinced that if, say, the seventh day Adventists asked to stick a big tower on the roof of their Nissan hut they would be so likely to be successful in their application as Mohammedans. It's all about fitting in really.

GreersElbow · May 22, 2015

"Islamic veil"... Do these people bother to research before writing articles. The veil isn't a religious requirement, but a cultural one. They'll only be marginalising an already marginalised group..

Bevendean Hillbilly · May 22, 2015

I don't care if a marginalised group is further marginalised. They're marginalised because they want to be. Not because we've marginalised them. The veil is a symbolic dissociation from society by its very nature. If they chose to shave their heads as a sign of their devotion, fair play, if they wore feather boas or Harris tweed slacks that's cool too...but a black balaclava and a Dracula cape? Nah, that's just sinister.

GT49er · May 22, 2015

Good for Denmark!

Creaky · May 22, 2015

Bevendean Hillbilly said:
I don't care if a marginalised group is further marginalised. They're marginalised because they want to be. Not because we've marginalised them. The veil is a symbolic dissociation from society by its very nature. If they chose to shave their heads as a sign of their devotion, fair play, if they wore feather boas or Harris tweed slacks that's cool too...but a black balaclava and a Dracula cape? Nah, that's just sinister.

Do you object in the same way to the head covering and Dracula cape of nuns? Worn specifically as a mark of separation from the community.

Arguments over the wearing of the niqab in public grounded on security fears are tenuous at best but at least have some basis in extremely isolated cases. Arguing for a ban on what someone wears because you don't like the clothing or it makes you feel uncomfortable is not justifiable in a 'free' society.

GT49er · May 22, 2015

Creaky said:
Do you object in the same way to the head covering and Dracula cape of nuns? Worn specifically as a mark of separation from the community.

Arguments over the wearing of the niqab in public grounded on security fears are tenuous at best but at least have some basis in extremely isolated cases. Arguing for a ban on what someone wears because you don't like the clothing or it makes you feel uncomfortable is not justifiable in a 'free' society.

Nuns don't cover their faces.

And a free society doesn't mean everybody is free to do whatever they like whether or not it offends other people.

SIMMO SAYS · May 22, 2015

Creaky said:
Do you object in the same way to the head covering and Dracula cape of nuns? Worn specifically as a mark of separation from the community.

Arguments over the wearing of the niqab in public grounded on security fears are tenuous at best but at least have some basis in extremely isolated cases. Arguing for a ban on what someone wears because you don't like the clothing or it makes you feel uncomfortable is not justifiable in a 'free' society.

Creaky you never cease to amaze me with your views.

BadFish · May 22, 2015

People should be allowed to wear what they please.

Further marginalising muslims is not going to help in any way at all.

vegster · May 22, 2015

BadFish said:
People should be allowed to wear what they please.

Further marginalising muslims is not going to help in any way at all.

Except Lederhosen.

Creaky · May 22, 2015

GT49er said:
Nuns don't cover their faces.

And a free society doesn't mean everybody is free to do whatever they like whether or not it offends other people.

I was responding to a poster who stated that the "Dracula Cape" was 'sinister'. I acknowledged that an argument could be made regarding the wearing of the niqab.

I fail to see how clothing worn by one group can be offensive whilst almost identical clothing worn by another is acceptable. The only explanation for that must be that they find the group offensive. not the clothing - that is not acceptable in a free society.

SIMMO SAYS · May 22, 2015

BadFish said:
People should be allowed to wear what they please.

Further marginalising muslims is not going to help in any way at all.

So if I'm queueing in the local Asda and two wimmin in tents with just slits to see out of are in front of me ---I just turn a blind eye then.
We live in 2015 not 1515 Bruce

Creaky · May 22, 2015

SIMMO SAYS said:
Creaky you never cease to amaze me with your views.

GT49er · May 22, 2015

BadFish said:
People should be allowed to wear what they please.

Further marginalising muslims is not going to help in any way at all.

Perhaps if they respected and made allowances for other cultures, and exercised tolerance to the extent that we are expected to exercise tolerance, they would be less marginalised?

How's your lot doing with unlimited and barely controlled immigration, by the way?

pastafarian · May 23, 2015

Time to go in the opposite direction
Every man woman and child across the globe should be forced to dress like this

It would be akin to being invisible and you could get up to all sorts of crazy crap.

wellquickwoody · May 23, 2015

GreersElbow said:
"Islamic veil"... Do these people bother to research before writing articles. The veil isn't a religious requirement, but a cultural one. They'll only be marginalising an already marginalised group..

And your objection is.......

wellquickwoody · May 23, 2015

BadFish said:
People should be allowed to wear what they please.

Further marginalising muslims is not going to help in any way at all.

Opinion not valid as NDNT.

BadFish · May 23, 2015

GT49er said:
Perhaps if they respected and made allowances for other cultures, and exercised tolerance to the extent that we are expected to exercise tolerance, they would be less marginalised?

How's your lot doing with unlimited and barely controlled immigration, by the way?

The Muslims i know are respectful and tolerant of other cultures yet are still marginalised by ignorant generalisations.

'My lot' are fine with it. The indigenous population of the country however are struggling hugely with it

Big G · May 23, 2015

Good. Common sense prevails somewhere at last. Seems like a democratically voted government has made a decision and quite frankly that's it. But no we have to debate if they have bent over backwards enough to ensure the 'feelings' of those affected are not offended in any way shape or form. If those that it bothers that much that it offends them they are not able to follow the laws of the land they live in, then I do believe they are free to move to somewhere that fits inwith their beliefs at the time......or is it just the fact they believe everyone else is expected to just tolerate what they want and if you disagree you're a racist!!!!

BadFish · May 23, 2015

Big G said:
Good. Common sense prevails somewhere at last. Seems like a democratically voted government has made a decision and quite frankly that's it. But no we have to debate if they have bent over backwards enough to ensure the 'feelings' of those affected are not offended in any way shape or form. If those that it bothers that much that it offends them they are not able to follow the laws of the land they live in, then I do believe they are free to move to somewhere that fits inwith their beliefs at the time......or is it just the fact they believe everyone else is expected to just tolerate what they want and if you disagree you're a racist!!!!

You are suggesting that we should just accept laws made by governments without discussing them.

If we disagree with government policy we should move somewhere else rather than challenge it and consider alternatives.

I disagree, I enjoy the fact that we are free to disagree and free to discuss government policy. Democracy is a wonderful thing that should not be given away do easily.

As far as I can see you are the only one on this thread who has mentioned racism.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Dutch cabinet approves partial ban on Islamic veil in public areas

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Huge Member

Sanity Clause

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Many More Voting Years

Many More Voting Years

Huge Member

New member

Huge Member

Share this page