We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Dutch courage? I wonder why this has not set any fur flying yet?
The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country’s immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.
The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.
Is it because the French did it first? Possibly. Though it does seem to me that the Dutch prohibition is much broader than the French one. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that France is a more prominent and important country than Holland.
Anyway, whatever the reasons, this news from the Netherlands remains (for the moment at least) on the mere periphery of the radar. The more interesting question, as far as I am concerned, is whether this is (a) an unacceptable state repression of personal liberty and freedom of choice or (b) a necessary and welcome bulwark against the growth of radical Islam in Europe?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m gonna go with ‘a’ as the answer to that. Burqas may be symbolically connected to radical Islam in some peoples eyes, but then again, football shirts are symbolically connected to football hooliganism for other people, but I certainly wouldn’t ban the wearing of them.
There is absolutely nothing that could give greater succour to the minority of Muslims who have been radicalised than the opportunity to say ‘hey look, we always said they oppressed Islam in Europe, and here’s a concrete example’.
I’m hoping the PC crowd demand we withdraw from the EU so as not to be associated with such a reactionary nation. It won’t happen though, too many reputations and paypackets are at stake.
There are only a couple of hundred women in the Netherlands actually wearing a burqa (and maybe some men also, who knows!), so indeed it is partly a symbolical proposal.
But I’ll go with (b) anyhow. Recently there have been some other remarkable developments in the whole integration debate in the Netherlands. For example a ‘committee of equal treatment’ decided that a muslim who denied to shake hands with women, was being discriminated against when he was turned down for the job of account manager (!) because of this. The fact that the guy was being openly sexist didn’t seem to matter to the committee. The guy argued on a TV show that women would get aroused because of the physical contact. Maybe this is a case of what Freud called projection, or maybe he just thinks all Western women are whores, who knows. Minister Verdonk in turn argued that the committee should be relieved of their heavily subsidized task, and plead that such case should only be handled in court from now on. Of course the committee strongly objected to this and will continue their jihad against ‘discrimination’. I always thought the whole point of a job interview was making discriminations, but I guess being religious grants you permission to be an asshole and still get the job anyway.
So (b), because I hope this proposal will piss off some committee members and their likes.
On a side note; this is completely false. Minister Verdonk never called for Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be deported.
They’re treating a symptom because it’s too dangerous to approach the real illness. Meaningless.
I’m going with (a). I was already more than a little uncomfortable with the French banning headscarves in schools — the students being a captive population, obviously, having a good deal to do with it. Banning some kind of clothing on the streets is several orders of magnitude worse than that, I’d say — bordering on the same kind of wrong found in laws requiring burqas to be worn in other countries.
Laws need to be consistent with social attitudes or they fail. I don’t think that people in the West are so generally intolerant that they would want the police to arrest people for their choice of clothing, no matter how ridiculous. Given that fact, a law banning the Burqa would be oppressive and unworkable in a similar way to the drug laws. I vote for A.
Another vote for “a.” While the insertion of Shar’ia into western civil law is unacceptable, it’s not a problem that can be fought by forcing dress codes on adults. We will not solve the problem of Salafist jihad by pretending that Muslim women are incapable of dressing themselves.
The state has no business telling people what to wear and what not to wear. Non-violent and polite social pressure should take care of it.
Luckily, I just don’t see the dutch enforcing this. Good luck fining or jailing anyone who is insufficiently challenged in the body-coverage department. This is some sort of spasm from the legislative body, and there is absolutely no substance behind this; no will to see it through, even through the first arrest for wearing too much black.
As a salvo in the conflict of civilizations this is also meaningless; if certain pieces of religious clothing really are a focal point for subversion, no law is going to change that; especially a law that will not be enforced.
I don’t think that people in the West are so generally intolerant that they would want the police to arrest people for their choice of clothing, no matter how ridiculous.
The police in Western countries frequently arrest people for not wearing clothing. Even though signs are that most of the public don’t think this is useful, it still goes on.
The simplest way to show the dutch state how silly they are being is for everyone to wear a bhurka for a day (once the legislation is passed). Not only would this make a mockery of the legislation it would also demonstrate that people feel themselves to be in the same boat as the moslems. “Look, this legislation affects our freedom as much as it does yours”
No doubt some radical islamicist would see it as mocking their culture, or take it as affirmation that their way is best , proving that there really is no talking to these people.
“The police in Western countries frequently arrest people for not wearing clothing. ”
That’s a very good analogy.
We indeed don’t tolerate public nudity (except at some beaches or private clubs). I don’t know if this is good or bad, but it is a fact, a very long standing fact, so maybe it makes some sense. You don’t behave in public the same as in private – you must consider the other persons you are set to encounter in a public place.
Banning a burkah, though, seems going far too far toward intolerance. Nobody’s religious or moral feelings are offended by the burkah.
Although, perversely, I am somehow pleased to see this being discussed, in the end it has to be A.
Although, on a point of consistency, it would still be considered “a tad askew” for the bottom of an SM couple to go about in normal public places in a gimp suit (which, being all body and disguising the face, seems in principle pretty much the same thing – just without the usual “its my religion” justification).
Would they be breaking the law? Should there be a law? Or take the other extreme: nudity. In society at large, we still seem to have various clothing conventions that burqas, strictly speaking, seem to break.
I would say a) but then again people should also not be hounded for refusing to deal/employ/serve/be represented etc. by people who wear such things, for such an outfit is a voluntary demand by the wearer to isolate/dislocate themselves.
An even better way of showing how silly it is would be for everyone to wear balaclavas and face masks everywhere. The banks might object to see masked men queueing at the counters, bus drivers would have difficulty checking the photos on bus passes, and there could be some arguments at the passport desk when travelling, but people surely have a right to anonymity, and this is the only way to defeat the pervasive checking of identity in our surveillance society.
It would of course revolutionise dating – no more would ugly people be discriminated against – and you would find it far easier to avoid the embarrassment of bumping into people you know but wish you didn’t while out shopping with the family. Indeed, you could pass your own mother-in-law on the street and neither of you would ever know it.
Celebrities would finally be able to hide from the paparazzi, honest businessmen would be able to hide from bailliffs, and Osama bin Laden himself could safely walk the streets of London and openly buy himself Whitney Houston albums without fear of embarrassing ridicule.
No, I think you could make the silliness point quite satisfactorily without mixing up specifically religious dress into it. Although if everybody did start wearing burkas, it would lose its value as a badge of radical Islamic identity – pubs full of burka-wearing blokes, trying to figure out how to drink their beer without violating their modesty, would be an image to savour.
We indeed don’t tolerate public nudity
“We” ought to. For myself, I’m not intolerant of it, any more than I am of wearing a burka, and much more discomforted by bling, designer-wear and other gang-styles than by either extreme exposure or cover-up.
My point is that the public generally do tolerate it. At least in Europe. But the authorities are frequently much more difficult.
The sorry story of “the naked rambler” is a case in point. The man’s plainly a bit strange – there are surely better things to do clothed or naked than walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats at risk of hypothermia – but not interfering with anyone else. Nonetheless, equipped with a power to do so, authorities have set out to make his peregrinations very difficult at huge expense to the public purse.
This ‘burka ban’ suggestion is just a squalid piece of populism. Bullying cowardice rather than courage. Most idioms in English with “Dutch” in them have a pejorative connotation for historical reasons. Maybe it is time to revive that sense a bit.
The answer determines whether you are a libertarian or just a conservative. So the answer’s A, obviously.
Well I’m with Guy on this. It is p0intless p0pularism. I utterly fail t0 see it d0ing any g00d. I can see it d0ing harm because the islamists will make hay 0n this 0ne as t0 h0w beastly every0ne in Eur0pe is t0 them. G0d kn0ws they can manufacture rage 0ut 0f n0thing anyway s0 if y0u give them a genuine grievance…
And yes, they will use this. I can easily imagine a mass dem0 with hundreds 0f muslims (and perhaps others) in face-covering garb. What do the cops do? Arrest everyone?
M0re practically, what d0es this mean f0r the 200 0r s0 Dutch burkha wearers – will s0me 0f them be c0nfined t0 quarters? More theoretically banning the burkha in public places demonstrates how different Western and Islamic cultural norms are with respect to public spaces. The burkha being garb only worn in public. Even under the Taleban they didn’t sit around the house like that.
Having said I’m against a ban, there is a problem with the burkha (of the classic Kabul fashion week variety), specifically. Unlike the veil which is easily detachable it is not easy to flash your face for ID purposes in a burkha. I suspect some kinda fix isn’t too difficult.
If any0ne is curi0s as t0 my un0rth0d0x 0rth0graphy – well it’s the fault 0f PA Ann0yed. When I read his p0st I laughed s0 much I c0ughed c0ke 0n my keyb0ard.
I am definately for (b) on this one. We are in a long term battle for western civilization and it must be fought on all fronts. One major source of the enemy’s morale is their success in making western societies retreat from their democratic ideals and to allow islamist scum to come and demand their crude ideology and warped customs be accepted as superior to ours. It is disturbing to see libertarians acting as Dhimmis in the name of libertarianism.
I say you need to make the soil of our lands infertile to the expansion of islamist beacheads in the west. Islamists are very much driven by visuals and the subjugation of women is one of the most important. So we remove this support structure and we keep attacking anything that supports islamic exceptionalism.
There is no way you will ever get assimilation if you allow the continuance of the very things that keep these folks locked in the dark ages.
A, definitely. The state has no business mandating dress codes. Uain’s comments about “battles for western civilisation” have some truths involved but I think that the idea of banning a form of dress because it offends some people is dumb. It will backfire.
veryretired hit the nail on the head – as usual. The Dutch are attacking a symptom of an underlying problem, which is the appalling treatment of women in radical islamic culture. Banning burkhas won’t really help that very much.
Having said all of which, if a private sector employer stipulates that burkhas or other specifically religious/cultural dress forms should not be worn, then that should be up to the parties concerned in the matter. In some occupations, such as teaching of small children, I think taxpayers who fund schools should be entitled to insist that children can see the faces of their teachers. Ditto with nurses or doctors, when a certain degree of face-to-face interaction is vital in building trust.
My two cents.
Does this mean I can no longer rob Dutch banks with tights on my head?
It obviously “a”. If they were trying for “b”, they would have banned madrassas which are creches for terrorism.
Why does it have to be “a” or “b”? Seems that it can easily be both “a AND b”. A necessary evil is still evil, it’s just less bad than the alternative.
I’m for anything that starts to shift the pendulum away from “brown people can do no wrong” to “Racism is bad, tolerating Wahabist infiltration is worse.” If the symbolic act of banning burkhas gets us back to the place where banks can give away piggy banks, and wahabist freaks calling for beheadings are arrested for inciting riot instead of being “tolerated”, then I’m for it, even if it’s not ideologically pure.
It is ‘A’ that is justified by also being ‘B’.
There is an ancient tradition amongst men of lifting or removing a visor when greeting another. This is to identify and expose yourself and show you do not intend a threat to the other. Failure to reciprocate is both an insult and a threat.
This is echoed by the tradition of tipping/doffing ones hat to others as a gesture of respect.
This has carried over to The US, and the American west in particular, (and possibly other cultures I am not familiar with), where one is expected to remove ones hat when entering under a covered porch or entering a building. This is done for various reasons, including allowing the head to cool and dry the sweat accumulated under your hat, as well as to unshade the eyes so people can see them. This in turn allows them to judge what your intentions are.
Remaining covered has almost always been considered a threat in all cultures, and when allowed, has usually been reserved for royalty or nobles, so that they may have an advantage over their serfs, or, as in the American south, as a way of enforcing terror against an oppressed population, such as the KKK vs. former slaves and their descendants. It has also been used as a way of maintaining control over women, considered as property, both in islam and other cultures and religions, such as christian nuns.
But this brings up why such a restriction on face covering becomes necessary, at least in places such as the US, GB, etc.
We are no longer allowed to respond to such a perceived threat in any meaningful way. We can not refuse service if someone enters our store in such attire, due to anti-discrimination laws, nor can we verbally complain to those wearing a face covering for similar reasons. We will either be accused of being intolerant or, in the case of Britain, and the US in some places, possibly arrested and/or accused of a crime or civil rights violation. ( I may be misunderstanding recent laws, but not by much).
I will cease to care about someones choice to wear a face covering when I can freely refuse service to someone that wears one, or demand they leave my property, or be able to respond to such a perceived threat in the traditional way: By a direct verbal warning, followed by an ounce or so of buckshot if they fail to heed that warning.
But that would require the return of too many rights to individuals for the collectivists to stomach.
So we are stuck in a society where government assault police can wear ninja masks, and a religion that means to enslave us can hide their jihadists’s under masks and veils, but we, the supposed citizens and potential victims, can not.
I am with the Dutch government on this one, at least as their society is concerned. At least until they let their citizens respond themselves.
My gut reply is ‘b’. Rather than banning the burqa, they should set things up in such a way that young muslim women won’t feel awkward not wearing it.
Many of those who wear burqas do so only after severe brainwashing in the religious schools or mosques, or out of a social fear of not being accepted by their peers and community. Shut these places down, remove that fear, and the number of burqa wearers should decrease.
TWG
If we were at peace, then a. is the obvious answer, but since we are at war and the Islamists are using the burka to establish control over their ‘space’ then it has to be b.
Look at the way gangs and terrorists use graffiti and murals to proclaim and establish control over an area, the burka is just gang graffiti applied to a human being.
The burqa is obviously bad. Where it is not oppressive it is arrogant. The situation ought to be
– you want to wear it in the street? OK, if you must.
– you want to wear it in my shopping centre? Sorry, against company policy. OR Welcome inside. Depends on the company.
– you want to wear it in an airport? Ha ha, most amusing madam. This nice gentleman will now escort you to the exit.
I very much agree with this part of what TomWright wrote: “We are no longer allowed to respond to such a perceived threat in any meaningful way. We can not refuse service if someone enters our store in such attire, due to anti-discrimination laws, nor can we verbally complain to those wearing a face covering for similar reasons. We will either be accused of being intolerant or, in the case of Britain, and the US in some places, possibly arrested and/or accused of a crime or civil rights violation. ( I may be misunderstanding recent laws, but not by much). I will cease to care about someones choice to wear a face covering when I can freely refuse service to someone that wears one, or demand they leave my property, or be able to respond to such a perceived threat in the traditional way: By a direct verbal warning, followed by an ounce or so of buckshot if they fail to heed that warning.”
However I draw the opposite conclusion from his. If we admit the government’s right to control people’s clothes we strengthen the very forces that have stopped us using the voluntary, individual social pressures that are the best defence against creeping surrender. Where coercive institutions are strong a fanatical minority is well placed to capture them and turn them to its own purposes.
BadLiberal,
I didn’t even need to get to the issue of “ideological purity” on this one. I simply don’t think it’s a workable law. Even if it was I don’t think it would do any good. I suspect it would do harm. I refer you to my earlier post.
tomWright,
That was interesting. In Islam the covering of women is a defensive measure. Apparently at the time of the prophet in Arabia women alone in the streets were highly likely to be raped or enslaved (so no change there then!) By maintaining the tradition of covering into the West, into the C21st we see that muslims are still obsessed with the idea that all non-mehram men are at-a-drop-of-a-hat-potential-rapists. The burkha is therefore at least as offensive to men as it is to women.
Still I don’t believe banning the burkha is right (for reasons I outlined above). I think the correct course of action is for people to treat it with the distain and mockery it deserves.
BadLiberal (and a few others) are on to something with their mention of race and religion. If I, a white Englishman, were to don a frock coat and a stiff collar and publicly denounce as whores women who showed their ankles in public I would be widely derided and mocked. When some sheik wearing even more outlandish garb makes even more ridiculous statements it’s clearly an expression of deeply held religious beliefs and just their culture innit. And we have to embrace all cultures don’t we?
Like the Victorians (though over different issues) we have managed to create a public discourse which is ravaged with hypocrisy. This must be the reason RESPECT continues to provide Galloway with something to do. How else but in a climate of stellar hypocrisy can a coalition of lefties (who are obviously going to be all in favour of “gay rights” share a platform with Islamicists who believe the only right a homosexual has is the right to a decent stoning.
I bet someone will bring suits to the EU Supreme Court which will find the law against some sort of human rights. Brussels will pass a proclamation that the Dutch have to scrape their law, and their women cover their heads when they go out in public.
About the only good thing about this proposed law is that it is a first step in the direction of responding as a society to the Muslim culture war. But it is the wrong step, a kneejerk step, because they don’t know what to do and dare not yet address the real problem.
I think some hope that if they can get something symbolic through on a topic that doesn’t matter, they can use the momentum to start to address more substantive issues. I think others are so immersed in political correctness that they cannot see or understand the problem, and are betraying their principles in an attempt at populism because people are starting to scream at them there is a problem with the Muslims. Banning things is the first and only response to a problem they know.
The problem is the radical ideology that the burka is a symptom of. What they should be doing is tracing the families and friends of these burka wearers and targeting them for diversity training and education efforts. They should be educating people in general about what it means – they should be educating them about what Islam says, and how the different schools differ, and what else those schools that insist on the veil also believe. People should know how women in the Muslim countries were rarely veiled a century ago, and how the modern trend was originated with the Muslim Brotherhood as a way for women to show their support for their menfolk’s radicalism.
People should be allowed to wear swastika armbands, but everybody around them should be aware of exactly what it means when they do.
Of the many things about Islam that should bother Westerners, the dress-code is surely one of the least; unless it is forced on people. (And while it is tempting to argue for a ban to give support and ammunition for victims being pressured into it, it is fundamentally not addressing the real problem.) We don’t care how people dress themselves, or how they pray, or that they fast for a month, or give to charity (so long as it isn’t one of those front organisations for jihad). We don’t care about their lemming-like determination to all visit Mecca on hajj, despite the clear physical impossibility of them doing so. And we should make that clear.
What we care about is their attitudes to non-Muslims, especially to ex-Muslims. We care about their imposition of their own brand of morality on others, and the punishments Sharia permits. We care about them setting up ghettoes within our countries where our sovereignty does not extend, and our laws and values are rejected. We care about sexual violence, and unequal rights, and women either living in fear or throwing themselves into radicalism to escape it. We care about the continual lying about what Islam is, and what it teaches, and its bloody and intolerant history.
The ‘veil wars’ are a tragic case of missing the point. The problem is Western ignorance and the failure of Muslims to integrate – worse, the tendency of young Muslims to regress. The problem is the wave of anti-Western politics that the Islamists ride in recruiting and motivating their young mujahids. They are utterly failing to address the real problem – I think because they fear that it will lead to a real clash of civilisations which will disturb their comfortable lives and beliefs – and so they tinker round the edges and try to ban little things and apply a little pressure.
So no, it isn’t (b). It isn’t necessary, and it isn’t an effective bulwark. It is dithering politicians dipping in a toe, trying to screw up their courage to jump into the cold water. Whether it is (a) depends on your views – it is certainly a repression of liberty, but is it an unacceptable one? There are many things society doesn’t tolerate people wearing, even without state repression. If it was for anything but a religion, people would laugh and point at grown adults walking round dressed as ninjas and daleks. But if you think religious beliefs have a special privilege to be respected, then it might be (a).
A Burqa is a special piece of clothing in several ways. Some of them have been mentioned before. An additional one is: it is supposed to prevent sexually irresponsible women to drive sexually irresponsible men sex mad and bring havoc upon society. This is the idea. I percieve it therefore as insulting for the woman who wears the burqa and for me as a man. I don’t think people have a right to wear clothing with insulting meaning and NOT see people reacting on this. One elegant way of reacting is making a law which restricts the insulting activity in order to prevent individual conflicts.
This has by the way little to do with religion, as burqa is not something required by the Q’ran. A great majority of muslim women in the world don’t wear any burqa. I don’t see why prohibiting burqa in this case could be interpreted as anti-islamic. So I’m for “the Dutch are right to do it if they want”. Even if as a bullwark against radical islam it might be slightly insufficient, of course.
Difficult call for me. My knee jerk reaction is to go for ‘A’ but on reflection I’ll plump for “a B please Bob” for the same reason as I frown upon slavery.
On a technical note, since several people have cited the claimed non-obligatory nature of the full veil, this only applies in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, which while followed by about 45% of Muslims worldwide is only one of the four main Sunni schools, not to mention Shia Islam. (Source: Umdat al Salik by Achmad ibn Naqib al Misri; section m2.3.)
It is based largely on 24:31 and 33:59 of the Qur’aan:
“And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or [long list of other relatives omitted]”
“O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the beliving women, that they draw their veils close to them; so that it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is all-forgiving, all-compassionate.”
[trans. Arberry]
A bit ambiguous, I’m sure you’ll agree, but according to old al-Misri nearly all scholars are agreed on what it means. I think the practice got dropped for the same reasons things like the Caliph waging an offensive war against the lands of the unbeliever got dropped (which is obligatory in all four schools), the followers of the other schools adopting the Hanafite ruling. Islam changed – the radicals are trying to change it back.
I’ll go for A+B/2
Let ’em wear the Burqa all they want – except where it is dangerous or obstructive to security. Don’t want to drive without a burqa? Don’t drive. Want to fly with a burqa? Be prepared to shuck that thing for ID. Want to go clubbing in your burqa? Let the bouncers feel you up for a bomb belt. I don’t see why there is a problem…as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s security or safety.
But don’t come to me complaining that I’m disrespecting your silly religion because I object to looking at baggy black crows all day. If you want to wear that thing, then cowboy up. It ain’t all about Allah.
Its interesting to note some cultural differences. Such an anti-burqua law would be unthinkable in the US, as was the no hajib/kippa/cross rule in France. Part of it is our very different approach to secularism, which to us means that government is even-handed toward religious faith, while in Europe it seems to mean equal hostility toward all expressions of faith.
So, What happens to people who show up looking for a job in a full burqua? Nobody takes them seriously, and they probably won’t get the job, so they are stuck at home where they can wear what they please. I can’t imagine this Dutch rule, if it is anything other than an election stunt, will actually convince anybody not to be a jihadi.
I am very much a ‘B’, but not in a procscriptive legislative way.
Any law should rather than ‘ban the Burqua’ allow people the legal right not to serve people dressed in this fashion. This would allow the freedom to dress in this fashion but would also allow for anyone to ask for the Burqua to be removed or not to conclude the business that they are transacting. A bit like the sign above the pub door which states ‘The Landlord reserves the Right not to admit’, although I do not really see this as a problem in many pubs :-).
later
Gengee
Gengee,
What you are describing is ‘A’. The objection to ‘B’ is precisely its proscriptive, legislative nature.
Count me in for A. I commend that the Euros are starting to do something about the Muslim Elephant in the Room, but they still haven’t quite figured out what that Elephant actually looks like.
It’s a sloppy, wrongheaded attempt to fix a genuine problem with a ridiculous law.
Natalie,
You’re correct, I failed to elaborate. I think a ban on Burquas, and in fact, anything that covers the face while transacting business that involves the handling of currency, possibly all business conducted face to face (so to speak), is not a bad idea.
The Law proposed is proscriptive, I would merely replace it with one that served the same function, but did not coerce the people who wish to wear a Burqua to express their religion, or even a Gimp Mask to express their submission, so I chose ‘B’ as I think it will require legislation. To stop the cries of ‘Those Evil Westerners are Abusing My right to Dress in a Way that my completely Sane Mullah Dictated was the Will of Allah as promulgated through his Prophet Mohammed and interpreted by the very sane Mullah I just mentioned’ we need to have robust property laws, laws that set out the rights,of the owners, to admit whoever they wish and therefore the right to do business with whoever they wish and to associate with whoever they wish on their own property.
I have seen several posts and comments on this Blog about Property Rights and I believe this particular post comes, to my mind, back to that theme.
‘B’ because we need a law to act as a Bulwark, and it is currently the only one on the table for discussion. ‘A’ is also good but can be achieved by altering ‘B’.
My bank has a sign on the door it says something like, Crash Helmets are not allowed to be worn inside the building. A sign saying ‘No Face Covering (insert appropriate word I am thinking Garment for some reason) Apparel ? Allowed Inside’ should not be taken as an offence. This allows everyone to be free to choose what to wear and treats everyone equally.
For those who cry this is oppressive, bollocks, the choices you make will dictate the choices you can make, if you choose to wear a face covering Garment/Apparel whatever, then you limit your choice of where you can go.
Some enterprising chap/chapess will open up a shop that specifically allows and even encourages you to come in, it will be a nice shop full of Halal things and nothing that is Haram so their will be no temptation, so it won’t be Tesco’s but you will be upholding your religion.
Enough rambling.
Later
Gengee
“In Islam the covering of women is a defensive measure. ”
NickM-
It is also defensive for Christians and Jews living in Dhimmitude. A Christian girl can be raped by muslim “youths”. It is all very legal you know. In Pakistan, there was a trend of muslim “youths” throwing acid in the faces of non-veiled women, a few years back.
Again, I think (b) is a start as pointed out by posts above. I believe we need to disassemble their crude culture little by little at first. Since we live in a litiginous society with multitudes of corrupt lawyers who will accept islamist cash to destroy our freedoms, we need to start small and form the legal philosophy to push further. Many of you have rightly pointed out the safety issues, but this needs to be established by legal precedents. I think we have a lot more to fear from Sharia than from some twit collectivist because twit collectivists can be turned out of power in a few decades vs. 1400 yrs of Islamist cultural decay.
James C:I commend that the Euros are starting to do something about the Muslim Elephant in the Room, but they still haven’t quite figured out what that Elephant actually looks like.
Of course they can’t – its wearing a burqa.
b) -You trying wearing a balaclava on the tube and see what happens.
Streets, trains, buses, schools, and the law courts all ought to be private, and as private companies or collectives, these private institutions have the right to set their own rules for admittance/service.
– Josh
Uain,
I wasn’t speaking up for the burkha. I know about the rapes and the acid and I know about dhimmis.
It’s in the Koran ain’t it? You can have any woman “your right hand can hold” isn’t it?
The problem isn’t the burkha. The burkha/hijab/niqab is simply the (admittedly) half-arsed semi-solution Islam has to the problem of women having to leave the house on occasions (didn’t think that one through did ya Mo?)
The problem is the quite abysmal view Mohammed (and therefore Islam) has to relationships between males and females and the idea that all males, all the time, want to shag every vagina within range.
This is not “radical” Islam, this is Islam through and through. Even some “moderate” muslims have the most bizarre approach to friendships between the sexes.
Example: Hussain, an Iraqi muslim. My wife shared a flat with him at University of Westminster. He threw a party one time and bought her a basque. Being totally inappropriate, she was annoyed. She also wasn’t too pleased by his incredibly clumsy attempts to chat her up After completing her MA we both moved to Manchester. While shopping we bumped into Hussain (million to one chance and all that) and there was a general atmosphere of bonhomie (because nothing happened and I guess, overall, I felt sorry for the guy) and he shakes my hand but refuses to shake my wife’s hand because it’s ramadan. As you can probably guess Hussain is not short of a few quid. He used prostitutes in London but he wasn’t prepared to make a friendly gesture to a former flat-mate who had tried to be his friend.
I still feel sorry for him. Throughout my life I’ve had female friends. Islam is a culture in which that is impossible because any intercourse between males and females is seen as sexual intercourse – or at least a precursor to that.
And herein lies our problem. We tend to equate Islamic sexual mores with the more puritanical forms of Christianity and they are very different.
I’m a pretty free-wheeling agnostic. I don’t go for Christian sexual morality at all, but I understand it and I don’t see it as being corrosive to society as the Islamic version. If I may generalise, I see Christian sexual mores as being very much about resisting temptation and Islamic mores as avoiding temptation. I also see Christian mores as applying (more or less) equally to both sexes whereas Islamic ones tend to be rather more skewed. Taken to extremes the end result is that any woman not in a burkha is asking to be raped and the rapist is not culpable because he was clearly tempted by a few cm of exposed flesh.
This is the appalling truth the West has to face about Islam. All uncovered women are viewed as fair game and all men as potential rapists.
The burkha is a symptom. It is not the disease. Don’t ban the burkha, think about and act upon what muslim men think about “uncovered meat” first.
But then what do you expect from a religion founded by a man who had 23 wives (not all concurrent) and fucked a nine year old girl?
Great post NickM!
If one is unfortunate enough to catch the flu this winter, wouldn’t one be likely to take something to address the symptoms? If muslim men are terrified/ enraged by women not wrapped in grave clothes, why not torment them by outlawing the wearing of said swaddle in public?
This has the culturally healing effect of making the society less hospitable to further immigration of these sorts. I think of this as a decongestant for the flu, which reduces swelling and aids the body healing by making mucous membranes less hospitable for the infection. Short of deporting all muslims, I think if you treat the symptoms, this will reduce infection by new arrivals, and allow the healing (assimilation) powers of our culture to work. Also, it seems emminently libertarian since they are still free to do what they want in their own home.
In conclusion, I would say that the normal assortment of cranks and kooks in a society are like all the viruses, bacteria and fungi that our bodies resist every day. But sometimes, one bug is so virulent that our immune system can be overwhelmed for a time. And some are so virulent that if symptoms are not treated by strong medicine, we could get seriously ill or die, much like western society.
Nick M wrote (referring to the Burqa):
If the proposed ban went ahead one way of both opposing the ban and achieving the above would be for a huge crowd of people to march down the streets in burkas that have the Danish cartoons of Mohammed printed on them…
James,
I think a “wet burqa competition” will make the point better IMHO. Even this is not needed really – if you go to Singapore or Malaysia they manage to wear stunning, shimmering, fitted to the millimetre, Nyonya-/Sarong-Kebayas. Anyone travelling on Singapore Airlines will know what can be done with that particular conservative, traditional dress.