O/T, but I think it’s worth mentioning that Lucille Broadbent, wife of Ed Broadbent. has died of cancer at the age of 71.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4568

Best to you, Ed and family.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume this legislation is aimed at keeping muslims out of the country. In most West European/North American countries, face covering is something that is commonly feared, and has been for hundreds of years. Face covering has useually been used by those not wanting to be identified as they carry out their anti-social acts.

I’d be more inclined to beleive the law was anti-muslim if the ban were on hajibs instead of veils.

Should I be able to practice my religion if it scares (but doesn’t harm) the majority of people around me?

Oh man, did you have to mention Nuns? I used to live in a small arctic community where the Grey Nuns ran an institution for the severely mentally handicapped — it didn’t matter where I was, as soon as any sort of naughty word left my lips a Nun would be there, not saying anything, just giving me one of those Nun looks, you know the one, the ‘you shouldn’t have said that, I’m not gonna say anything, you know you shouldn’t have said that, so I don’t have to say anything’ looks - spooky is not an adequate word to describe that sort of thing.

“This ban will not address the root problems of the veil in Holland.”

That’s true. Prejudice and paranoia are indeed hard to extirpate, you’re so right.

But the Dutch have always been a trading nation. Like everyone else, they have a touch of xenophobia, amplified in this trying times by right wing fearmongering. They’ll adjust.

Hmmmm… but do they want to wear them? Or is it societal coersion?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3314193,00.html

The above article is probably more the truth about the symbol of the oppressive burqa.

Did you read the article, or just the headline? He notes the irony in the first few paragraphs, but also notes that proponents of the burqa on the Muslim side are often male-dominated. You provided one Muslim feminist who likes the burqa. Note that the writer I linked said that the hijab is less offensive to Muslims; it is the burqa that keeps it’s women likes dogs on leashes five feet behind the men.

If some feminist in Ottawa wants to believe her subjugation is liberating, that’s also her freedom of choice. Maybe she isn’t forcibly beaten into compliance like 99% of her Muslim counterparts in countries where freedom of speech and dress are not respected.

Your feel-good beliefs that Muslim women enjoy the Burqa betrays your own ignorance on the matter, balbulican. I dare not waste precious seconds finding source material to refute your claim that the burqa is a liberating form of traditional dress. It would be easy. I am about to write an article on Popular Doctrine regarding suicidal Afghan women , however, and can pre-forward you the link of what real Muslim women are forced to deal with:

A lesson for balbulican

Your liberalism is an odd mixture balbulican. You believe in cultural segregation, the subjugation of women through the burqa, and that aboriginals gladly handed their land over to the British.

No wonder we have so many right-wingers in this country. With liberals like you, who needs a Mr.Harper. Your misguided notions and feel-good misogyny is all the propaganda the right needs.

I’ll be polite, too.

balbulican, I have exactly the same sentiments about you. I consider you either too warped by simplistic multicultural indoctrinations, or that you just really believe that an oppressive symbol of women can actually be a liberating tool of feminism. That you believe the ban on burqas is a racist and controlled measure by the right to put Muslims in their place. Or that Vancouver’s out-of-control Asian population is a figment of my own imagination.

But aside from your many logical discrepancies, I find many of your other arguments agreeable. I also enjoy some of the other articles, which is why I’ve stuck around. You know, on Small Dead Animals, I got so sick of the name calling and insinuations, that I deleted the book-mark. If you really wanna get rid of me, you can continue along that avenue. It’ll probably work. And that’s why I decline your invitation to go to the Sentinel. If I don’t agree with this statement in absolution:

Imagine, me, part of a letter-writing campaign of the Islamofascists! Na doesn’t realize what he/she’s doing here. The situation is far more complicated than the leftist grey matter can grasp.

then I’m not going to be welcome. For you see, ironically, in order for someone to share their opinions on the blogosphere, you have to preemptively ensure you make them understand that if their ideology differs from yours, that their “grey matter” cannot grasp the simplest of your arguments and concerns.

Hm, sounds a little bit like your “polite” reply to me:

“Go back, read again, and try to understand. If you still don’t get it, well, you’re either too young or too stupid.”

Yes, your insinuations that I am too unintelligent to debate with you has been a well noted concern. I would try to live up to your expectations but… I fear they are already too low to warrant further communication. Thus, I leave you with this thought. You think I’m a racist, a bigot, a moron? Au contraire, my friend:

From SmallDeadAnimals:

China arguably has more human rights than Canada.

Our Canadian “human” “rights” “courts” restrict rights more than they protect them. Our taxes are higher, our incarceration rate is higher, our libel laws make a mockery of free speech, we are more politically correct than they are. In China you can say “f*ck Islam” and “f*ck gay marriage” and not worry about getting suspended from your university teaching job.

Let’s see the lessons being learned at SDA:

1. China has better human rights than Canada
2. Canadian courts restrict rights more than China
3. Our taxes are higher
4. Our incarceration rate is higher (what bunk)
5. He’s upset he’s not allowed to be openly bigoted about Muslims and fags.

Yeah… I’m the enemy balbulican. Remember that!

As you’ve just illustrated yet again, Adrian, you don’t have a clue what I think: honestly, you just don’t get it. You can amuse the Bunker and its audience by repeatedly demonstrating that incomprehension to your heart’s content: it’s funny, it doesn’t offend me, and your “arguments” (ahem) don’t seem to have hit much of a responsive chord with anyone. Everyone’s welcome here, and you can stay or go as you please. But here’s a hint: if you don’t want to be criticized for racism, the best way is not to be a racist.

“I think a fair argument can be made in this case that the banning of the Burka and veils for Muslim woman might be a form of empowerment for them; a recognition of their rights not to be subjucated to a male dominated religion and thereby an endorsement of the rights of women in Dutch society.”

Forbidding a woman to wear clothing of her choice is “empowering”? No.

Tree, answer this with a straight face. Do you believe:

a) this initiative is being undertaken to liberate Muslim women; or,
b) this initiative is being undertaken to discourage immigration by Muslims?

“Should I be able to practice my religion if it scares (but doesn’t harm) the majority of people around me?”

Yes. As long as you cause no harm, you are (and should be) free to do so.

“I want the right to wear a ski mask when I go to the bank.”

You do. As long as you don’t then subsequently rob that bank, you are free to wear whatever you want.

The road to hell, Adrian, is paved with good intentions. In Saudi Arabia (and now, again, parts of Afghanistan), where Muslim women have no rights and are in fact coerced into wearing a burkha, you are probably correct in your assertions. But unless you can show coersion is taking place in Holland, then banning the burkha and stopping women who choose to wear it is not freedom or liberty. That you cannot believe or conceive of a woman choosing to wear one is irrelevant. From that perspective, it should not be banned. Fight the coercion, not the choice.

From my understanding, in all of Holland only a handful of women voluntarily wear the burkha anyway. So with that in mind, I think Balb is correct - this is a frontal attack on Islam, designed to discourage Muslims from immigrating.

“Maybe it would be better if there were more countries who recognized that and gave these woman at least a legal basis to challenge their oppressors.”

How would you propose that?

Think of it this way, how do the men or other women coerce these women into wearing the burkha against their will in Holland? Through threat of violence? Threat of abandonment?

Holland, and indeed the west, already have laws that can help - he same ones that help battered women. If anything, this calls for a social or educational campaign, not one with the force of law. Outreach by NGOs perhaps.

Now just out of curiosity, I wonder what the proposed penalty for wearing a burhka is? I can imagine that helping free a woman from a burkha by jailing her or fining her makes no sense. Would it force her to then become a prisoner in her home, so as not to be seen in public without one?

Indeed, this is a situation where the law may have the exact opposite effect as Adrian thinks….

So the appropriate remedy in law is one that makes most likely the achievement of that desired, ideal state.

Well, Mike, I understand that you seem to think it’s consentual. What I am arguing is no woman, or let’s say few, would consent. Some wear it because they can and they’re doing it for political expression or amusement or simply because they can. Many do it because their fathers or husbands will ensure they do.

The burqa is also offensive to the Dutch. I don’t want to go into the reasons why and wherefore. The point is that the Dutch have bent over backwards and forwards to respect a culture they don’t really “have to” respect. This is a small and tiny measure of that reciprocal respect. If it makes the Dutch feel that tiny bit more comfortable, in the interests of peace, they should adhere to the law. Believe me, taking balbulican’s hardline stance only leads to hardliners on the other side. By making concessions, the extremists will have less to complain about on both sides.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion. I don’t live in Holland and it doesn’t affect me, and I’m not a woman. Suffice it to say that perhaps it’s time to look at how nicely these host countries have played ball with the immigrants up until now. You don’t want them to start playing hardball do you? This leads down a very dark road…