Islamic veil ban in Dutch coalition deal (concession for Geert Wilders' support)

[pampango]

Source: BBC

A ban on wearing the full Islamic veil in the Netherlands will be part of the government's programme under a pact to form a coalition, party leaders say.

The Liberals and Christian Democrats have had to make concessions to anti-Islamist Geert Wilders to gain his support for their minority coalition. The deal ends months of deadlock but still needs to be ratified by Christian Democrats in a meeting on Saturday.

The pact includes plans for budget cuts of 18bn euros ($24bn; £15bn) by 2015. It also tightens rules on immigration and boosts the number of police officers.

The deal has angered some CDA MPs who do not want to work with Mr Wilders. ... Mr Wilders is well known for his controversial far-right views. He has campaigned to stop the "Islamisation of the Netherlands" and is due to stand trial next week on hate speech charges for allegedly insulting Islam

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11448088

[displacedvermoter]

1. Kinda sounds like Rahm may have negotiated this deal

as liberals making concessions to right wing nutjobs is right up his alley!

Just kidding, best of luck to Rahm in his new gig as candidate for mayor of Chicago. Good luck to Chicago as well!

[Kurska]

2. Feminism and opposition to religious fundamentalism isn't right wing to me. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Wilders is very right wing

He's called for the Koran to be banned. And for all immigration from majority Muslim countries to be stopped. He's a bigot.

[sam sarrha]

5. on second thought.....why bother

[Kurska]

6. Not much for bans on religious literature, but whether or not the dutch want to accept immigrants

is their own business, not mine. No one ever hung a sign on the Netherlands that said "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". It seems like a good number of dutch want to end or atleast significantly scale back immigration, thats their prerogative as a sovereign nation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But he wants to target Muslim nations in particular

And it will be your business soon, because he wants the US and Britain to do the same, and will campaign in those and other countries:

Geert Wilders to spread his anti-Muslim movement west

Dutch far-right politician forms international alliance to attempt to ban immigration from Islamic countries


An anti-Muslim populist in the Netherlands is forming an international alliance to spread his message across the west in an attempt to ban immigration from Islamic countries, among other goals.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, told the Associated Press that he would launch the movement late this year, initially in five countries: the US, Canada, Britain, France and Germany.

"The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom', is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world," Wilders said at the Dutch parliament.

Among the group's aims will be outlawing immigration from Islamic countries to the west and a ban on Islamic sharia law. Starting as a grassroots movement, he hopes it eventually will produce its own lawmakers or influence other legislators.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/16/geert-wilders-netherlands-far-right

[Kurska]

11. Restricting immigration based on country of origin is perfectly legal under international law.

Atleast as far as I've heard, correct me if I'm wrong. No country has a legal obligation to take in citizens from another (I believe there might be stipulations on what you can do with refugees). I wouldn't think we should find Sharia law any more tolerable then "Christian law" that the right wing wants to impose.

Yes I'm aware Geert Wilders has a problem with the Islamic religion, I have a problem with all religions. At no time have I ever heard him express a belief that the Arabic people, or any other majority Islamic people, are somehow inferior to any other group. As far as I can tell his problem seems exclusively with the religion and the culture he sees as attached to it. I don't share his views, but I'm not exactly up in arms about this.

[LanternWaste]

12. I imagine that for many people

I imagine that for many people, restricting immigration due to a religious belief is nothing to get up in arms about...

[Kurska]

14. I believe his position is to end immigration from Islamic majority COUNTRIES.

If he has advocated a complete ban of Muslims visiting or applying for citizenship in the Netherlands, do inform me of it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. But it is a right wing position

He wants to discriminate against large groups of people, due to their belonging to nationalities with a characteristic he hates (the majority religion). You seem to want to deny that he is right wing.

[Kurska]

15. I think Geert Wilders would classify HIMSELF as right wing.

That said, banning the Islamic veil isn't a right wing position and that seems to be what is being implied in this thread.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

21. You support killing people with whom you disagree?

If so, I'm not sure I care what you think on just about anything.

[displacedvermoter]

4. ???

[Kurska]

8. What is there to understand? The Islamic veil is a object of religious and gender domination over

women. I fully support their ban anywhere. I don't see what is "right wing" about that concept, many nations have bans on wearing masks in public.

[Bragi]

17. I agree with you

I too don't see why the progressive left side of the political divide has to welcome within society a group who is so radically mysogynist that their women have to be veiled, have to be accompanied by male relatives should they choose to leave the house, and have to be shunned or worse should they dishonor the family by failing to abide by patriarchal, medievil codes of conduct imposed on women.

[VermeerLives]

25. Agree

This isn't a "progressive" or "right-wing" issue and we should stop being divisive about it. I would not want to live in a culture where I had to cover myself with sack or face beatings by the "virtue" police. Do you really want to walk into a bank and see someone with a hood over their head? I don't want stand in line at the security gate in an airport and see someone covered head to toe in black, either.

IMO, you can't defend freedom and at the same time allow oppression of this sort in your midst in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity." One side will win in the end; guess which one it will be.

[boppers]

37. Paternalism dictating that a woman should, or shouldn't, wear something....

...it's not exactly Feminist to declare that women should, or shouldn't, wear any specific article of clothing.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Geert Wilders is a bigot. While I hate the fact that the ban will come about with his rationale

(Islam bashing), I have to say I'm glad another country is banning the burqa and niqab.

It's pretty bad though that it has to come about because of Wilders. It would have been better if the country as a whole had been able to have a vote in it's Parliament (like the French) so there was some public forum for discussion of it.

[Bombtrack]

20. what other ideas besides religions does the bashing of make someone a bigot?

and that's what religions are: ideas. Dumb, millennia old ideas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. When you bash the followers of the religion, or even people from their country

as Wilders does. He wants to discriminate based on someone's religion, or the majority religion of the country they come from.

[LanternWaste]

10. How does banning an article of clothing return...

"Mark Rutte said in presenting the pact, titled Freedom and Responsibility. 'We want to give the country back to the working Dutch citizen.'"

It seems to beg the unanswered question, 'how does banning an article of clothing return the Netherlands to the Dutch citizen?'

[pampango]

16. Aljazeera: 'Burqa ban' key to Dutch coalition: pro-business, Christian and anti-immigration parties

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/09/2010930175521991437.html

The new Dutch government could be the second country after France to impose a ban on the full face-covering veil after the formation of a minority coalition government.

The banning of burqua was agreed on Thursday as a price for parliamentary support from the anti-immigration Freedom Party demanded the so-called "burqa ban" and a pledge to halve immigration as the price for joining two center-right parties in government.

"We want to stop the Islamisation " Geert Wilders, the Freedom party leader, told a news conference as he stood alongside the leaders of the pro-business VVD party and the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA).

The move is seen by many as a shift to the right, which has dented the ruling bloc's reputation for tolerance and may increase security risks. Wilders is currently on trial in the Netherlands for inciting hatred against Muslims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's quite a coalition: a pro-business party, Christian Democrats and an anti-immigration party. No progressives in that crowd.

[Bragi]

18. The progressives have abandoned the field to the right on this concern

I take no comfort in the fact that the left is hurting itself in Europe because it has failed miserably to come up with a coherent response to growing public concerns about the kind of accommodations they are being asked to make to welcome and integrate Muslim immigrants into their societies.

It seems that just about everywhere in Europe, people have real concerns about bringing in more immigrants who openly and proudly proclaim their intention of continuing to veil their women, follow sharia law and make zero accommodation overall with the societies they are joining.

And just about everywhere in Europe, the left has failed to address these concerns in any coherent manner.

Sadly, I see the same trend in America right now. Molly Norris, the former Seattle cartoonist now in hiding and undergoing identify change at the FBIs advice because of a fatwa against her, is a case in point.

Just do a google search on her and you will quickly see that no-one on the left or center-left -- from the President on down -- has said a word in support of her, or offered her any concrete support or protection. Meanwhile, seemingly by default, she is quickly becoming a cause celeb among the right-wing blogs and media.

Once again, the left seems in this case unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate concerns people have when they see the life of someone like Molly Norris put in danger simply because she dared to legally exercise her right to free speech in a manner that was deemed to be offensive to some Muslims.

My serious fear is that the left will continue to be incoherent on these issues, and silent in responding to legitimate concerns people have about what radical Islamists are up to.

The failure of the left to address these concerns in a coherent, compassionate and principled way is one of the best assets I see for the right in moving forward on their agenda of unbridled, racist hate.

[leftynyc]

22. +1000

The left has been woefully negligent on this front. Having people here defend the burqua or niqab as a choice is nauseating and I've seen it dozens of times. Sorry it had to come from the right in the this case but I applaud the banning of these misongynistic clothing items. Now I fully expect to be called a bigot to which I answer - bite me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. It's interesting you stand for freedom of speech, but not freedom of dress

While it's true that Norris was exercising her right of free speech, some Muslim women wear a full veil entirely of their own free will. They feel that without it, they are regarded as a sex object. You, however, seem to want to take that freedom away from them, because there are also Islamic men who coerce their wives, daughters etc. into wearing it.

Sadly, the effect of a ban on veils in public may well be (a) to force the women who do wear it freely to take it off, and feel uncomfortable and marginalised (because they've had a freedom taken away from them), and (b) that the bigoted men who demand 'their women' wear a veil will instead demand they never go out in public. Those women will then be even more oppressed.

Really, a ban on veils is not a great step forward. Overall, it may well be a step back - taking away some people's freedom, while hardly liberating anyone at all.

[Bragi]

24. "Entirely of their own free will" ???

How do you know what the real free choice might be for a woman who lives in a mysogynist society that subjugates women?

Some argue we should just take their word for it. Me, not so much. I find that women living in mysogynist cultures who defend women's right to be subjugated by men aren't really reliable witnesses on the topic.

Beyond that this issue is whether people like me, people who espouse liberal democratic values, are obligated to welcome into our society, and to tolerate and accommodate, a group who demands that their women hide themselves in public by wearing medievil bag outfits, if and when their men deem to allow them to go out in public.

While you might feel comfortable living in a community where these mysogynist practices are commonplace, I'm not, and nor are many people I know.

[VermeerLives]

26. Well said!

The real question is this: What happens if a woman/girl decides she does not want to wear the hijab or burqa? Does she have a choice?

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Well, you can listen to interviews with them (in western societies)

You may think they're making it up, of course, but when they seem to be well-educated, articulate women who put forward their case well and discuss it with an interviewer, it seems reasonable to take them at their word and believe them when they say it. After all, I have to take your word for you putting forward your argument, and I can't even do things like judge you by the tone of your voice. But I'm going to assume you are representing yourself truly. Wouldn't you give someone else that courtesy? Aren't you being a bit patronising by assuming they are all brainwashed, while you know what they'd truly feel even though they express their views clearly?

And again, you seem to want to take away these women's freedom, because of the bigotry of men who aren't actually associated with them. There can be a case for preventative restriction of freedoms, but I'm surprised to find it coming from someone who argues for unconditional freedom of speech at the same time.

[Bragi]

29. Oppressed people defending their oppression isn't uncommon

I'm not surprised when victims of oppression defend their oppression. This is what fequently happens in oppressive cultures.

The oppression and subjugation of women in many Islamic families, clans, cultures and countries is clearly and objectively evident.

I do not want to accommodate this oppression. I am and intend to remain intolerant of it. I find this to be perfectly consistent with my left-liberal values.

[LanternWaste]

40. Precisely how will abolition of this article of clothing reduce

Precisely how will abolition of this article of clothing reduce the oppression of women living in an oppressive culture?

[pampango]

30. Well articulated. Thank you. We know that Wilders doesn't oppose burkas because he's a feminist

at heart. One can check his party platform and the leadership of his party to see how committed they are to women's issues in general. Quite the opposite.

He simply knows that this is a way to send a message to Muslims, including the vast majority who don't wear burkas, that they are not welcome, while attracting some support from parts of the left which wouldn't support him if he were just bashing Muslims in general.

I don't know the numbers in the Netherlands, but in France there are about 4 million Muslims. In France's debate over banning the burka, its was generally accepted that less than 1% of Muslim women (approximately 2,000 or 0.05% of the Muslim population) wear the burka.

It makes for a great right-wing wedge issue though. It sends a message to all Muslims, including the 99.95% who have nothing to do with the burka, and paints Islam as a backward religion thus helping with Wilders' anti-immigration policy proposals.

I know the left has marched to protest Wilders' right wing hypocrisy on women's issues and anti-immigration platform. I hope in time his popularity (small but growing) will peak and evaporate like the British National Party and the National Front in France did.

[riderinthestorm]

31. Western cultures have never had "freedom of dress", especially for women

Women can't go around topless in western cultures (even though plenty of cultures around the world have topless women as the standard "dress").

The burqa is a cultural item - not religious, and thus it's fair game for discussion (and rejection) by the society as to whether it will be allowed, just like toplessness for women.

I can take your argument a step further - banning toplessness probably is a step back for women as well since the naked female form is very powerful. Many cultures that embrace toplessness have strong matriarchal power structures because the female form is so obviously life-giving. So when we cover it up, we are actually reinforcing misogyny. Are you FOR a form of dress that empowers women, or FOR a form of dress that actually relegates women to invisibility?

And nobody, but nobody buys the "magic hijab/burqa/niqab" theory anymore - that it prevents one from being sexualized or preyed upon... in many studies, virtually all rapists cannot even remember what their victim was wearing. Clothing or the lack thereof had no impact on who they chose to rape - it was all about power and a victim they thought they could easily prey upon and control. In fact, as a rape crisis advocate, I would argue that the burqa and niqab are exactly the wrong kind of garment to keep a woman safe - the amount of cloth prevents the ability to kick and run effectively, the headcovering obscures their peripheral vision (and even their direct vision), that much cloth makes it much easier for the predator to pin down and hold their victim....

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Someone doesn't have to be raped to be sexualised

Really, your last paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not about rape.

Yes, being topless is very restricted for women in western cultures. But how does that justify inventing more laws to stop women wearing more coverings? If banning toplessness is a step back, that doesn't make banning a face veil a step forward.

What I am 'FOR' is allowing people to dress as they wish. Most women in western cultures, of course, voluntarily cover more of their skin than the minimum that 'decency' demands; they wear longer skirts, trousers rather than shorts, long sleeves rather than bare arms and so on when they feel like it. Perhaps for warmth, perhaps because they like the style. It's up to them. But when they choose to wear more than the minimum, they are not "reinforcing misogyny". It's just personal liberty.

I'm amazed when you say "the burqa is a cultural item - not religious, and thus it's fair game for discussion (and rejection) by the society as to whether it will be allowed". Are you saying that religion gives a special pass, but culture and personal choice don't? That sounds rather theocratic to me. Religion is no more important than culture; and the fundamental principle of a liberal society is that if something doesn't harm others, we should allow people to do it. Walking in the street wearing a face veil does no harm.

[riderinthestorm]

33. You claimed that banning the burqa was somehow impinging on "freedom of dress"

It implied that it was some kind of civil right. Or that freedom of dress has been some kind of western cultural paragon. Neither are true. We can and do restrict what women can wear in the public square that's the justification for examining the burqa in that context. The burqa is under scrutiny and discussion just as any other cultural import gets the same shake. Some things we embrace (tortillas) and some things we reject (FGM). We have rejected toplessness. The west is, I believe, in the process of rejecting the burqa.

And yes, religious items DO get a special pass in western cultures. That's enshrined in the US constitution (not elsewhere of course like France where secularity IS enshrined in their constitution). The burqa however is not religious and doesn't fall under those kinds of special exemptions.

I remind you that YOU brought up the point that (some) women who wear them believe that it reduces their chances of being seen as a sex object. Being a victim of sexual assault or being seen as a sex object isn't really about "sex". It's about much more complicated factors than clothing or the lack thereof.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Uh, no, your constitution says you *shouldn't* make religious laws

So religion does not get a special pass.

Banning the burqa IS impinging on freedom of dress, by definition.

Yes, civil rights are for people to be able to do what they want if it doesn't harm other people. That includes how they dress. Now, there are 'established morals', and many countries will say that doing something against those established morals will cause trouble, and will thus justify their laws which restrict rights. For instance, in the UK, being naked in public (except in the few places where an understanding has been reached that's it's acceptable, like the few nudist beaches) will normally be charged as behaviour likely to 'cause a breach of the peace' - and that may get a conviction, but not always. And a law in a Swiss canton banned nude hiking has failed in at least one case. The standard is "does this do harm?". And western courts have sometimes decided that nudity does not. Western culture does not need a law that makes wearing a piece of cloth illegal. It would be an illiberal, and right wing, move.

Seeing a piece of cloth is not shocking to anyone. You may suspect that someone has been coerced into wearing it, and that may shock you, but you can have all kinds of suspicions about what people think and do, and our laws don't allow that to trump their own declared intentions.

One can be seen as a sex object without being a victim of sexual assault. This is not about assault or rape. It's about some women's wish to control how much of them is seen. They feel an uncovered face would make some men see them as sexual objects. That may be silly, but as liberals, we don't outlaw silliness that doesn't harm anyone. If we did, then there's a lot of arguments on DU that would be outlawed.

You may feel that 'being seen as a sex object isn't really about "sex"', but clearly many people feel it is (because they use the word 'sex' as the adjectival noun), and you don't get to dictate how others are allowed to feel.

[Bragi]

36. It's not about "wearing a piece of cloth"

If someone goes in to rob a bank, they may wear a mask. If they do, the issue isn't "wearing a piece of cloth", it's that they did so to facilitate robbing a bank.

Similarly, if women living in an oppressive culture are ordered by men to cover themselves and hide their identities whenever they are allowed to go outside the home, then for me, there is a lot more involved here than just "wearing a piece of cloth."

Personally, I'm not comfortable living amidst people who insist on displaying extreme mysogynist values, and am not anxious to welcome them as neighbors.

It's why I would support a ban on this kind of public display of submission and oppression.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. And what if they're not ordered to cover themselves?

That's what you continue to ignore. That it can be their own choice, which you would deny them, ironically, in the name of banning oppression.

[riderinthestorm]

39. But we, you, the Swiss and most western cultures dont have "freedom of dress"

especially for women. How about until and unless we universally embrace nudity for women (a manner of "dressing" that actually DOES have religious AND cultural roots plus has the added bonus of actually empowering women), I stand behind my opposition to the misogynistic burqa and niqab which has no religious roots at all.

This isn't about morals, it's about controlling women. I believe opposition to anything that controls women, demeans them, disappears them or in any other wise places control over women in the hands of others is wrong and that my position is far more liberal than yours. Furthermore I believe the burqa and niqab are designed to separate women from fully functioning in society and that's wrong. The "rules" that accompany wearing this type of garment are also misogynistic (can't go out unescorted for example).

And our "religious freedoms" don't extend to garb that isn't religious, which the burqa and niqab are not religious so bringing it into the conversation is irrelevant.

Lastly, I absolutely do NOT have the right to dictate to others how they "feel" but I have the right to point out to them (and you) that their beliefs are wrong, and furthermore that they are demonstrably dangerous - especially in light of their grossly mistaken theories on the protective powers of the magic burqa/niqab floated within Islam, that are used as some kind of sick justification to keep these women shrouded and invisible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. So what about the women who do go out unaccompanied, wearing a full veil?

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8836272.stm

Holobone is a British MP who has introduced a private members' bill to ban the full veil in the UK (which won't succeed, because the Tory government has said it's too illiberal for them). The women he talks to in the clip are unaccompanied, and explain their decision to wear the veil. You want to tell them what they're allowed to do, in the name of 'empowering' them. You want to control them. It's very authoritarian of you.

[Bragi]

42. I remain intolerant of public displays of mysogyny

I also remain unsurprised that some oppressed women would be prepared to defend their own oppression, and can do so passionately and intelligently. However, I don't accept their claims.

[riderinthestorm]

43. We already "control" what women can and cannot wear.

What part of that phrase do you not understand? It already happens. That's just what our culture and society does and you can call it authoritarian or you can acknowledge that it's part of the social contract we all construct on what will be allowed in our public square. So if we're going to be okay with that - and clearly "we" are since nobody appears to be all batshit over allowing women to go topless to testify in court - then it appears perfectly logical to me that any other cultural garb is also fair game for evaluation and rejection. Like the burqa and niqab.

Especially since they are misogynistic - designed to erase women from society instead of empower them.

I also have no doubt that there are individuals who don't conform to the "rules". But they are very rare and not at all indicative of that culture at all.

[pampango]

34. Liberal opposition parties condemn conservative concessions to Wilders' party.

"Anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders has emerged triumphant in Dutch coalition talks, with the new government to introduce a bill on banning the Muslim face veil and to try to halve the number of "non-Western" immigrants in the country." - I wonder if American and other Western Muslims can still immigrate?" :) They still welcome immigrants, just not the "non-Western" kind.

"Opposition leaders are angry at the concessions made to Mr Wilders.

"This is unmistakeably a Wilders' cabinet," said Femke Halsema, the leader of the Green party. "It is about repression and reducing ethnic minorities."

The head of the Liberal opposition party D66, Alexander Pechtold, described the "discriminatory measures" affecting immigrants as "bullying." The agreement will lead to economic stagnation, he said. "The bill is being passed on to the next generation.""

France and Belgium are much further down the path to banning the full Islamic veil than the Netherlands. Only a tiny minority of Muslims in either of the three countries actually wear burqas. - "tiny minority" as in less than 0.1%

The VVD's Mark Rutte, who is likely to become prime minister next week, said his government wants "to give the country back to the working Dutch citizen." - Sounds like he has taken lessons from our teabaggers. "I want my country back."

http://euobserver.com/?aid=30942

[mr_liberal]

44. Wilders is right

in showing concern about Islamisation. The more Islamists and fundamentalist Muslims there are in a country the more likely laws in a Democratic country will be affected by their beliefs.

And I hope he wins his case against the "hate speech" charges. There should be no such thing as "hate speech" in the law; thats an infringement of free speech.

He goes overboard when he calls for banning the burka and the koran though.