Belgian City Bans Hijab

[wilberhum]

city personnel are workers..how can you ban a city worker from comming to work..that is what you are effectively doing when you tell a religious person they can not show up wearing a headscarf..as far as whats next and me acting like this law covers things it doesnt...if the city personel can not wear headscarfs..how long before they are banned from city schools and gathering?????the goverment has no businness sticking there noses into this situation.

Good questions, you should ask the city government.

 

[wilberhum]

as far as Iran is concerned..I think they are wrong too..arresting women for not dressing islamically...the parent sof those girls in many instances were outraged.they felt like there was nothing wrong with the way there daughters were dressed....but you can not point to the situation in iran to justify this...two wrongs do not make a right..

Lets see, how many times did I say I thought the law was wrong?
Let me go have a look.
<<some time passes>>
Twice. Further evidence you don't read.

I was only pointing out that dress laws are not limited to a Belgian city.

That must have been too deep a thought. :muddlehea

The true irony is that most people only want to address the side that offends them and could care less about the other side.

 

[sevgi]

amid the personal feuds in progress within this thread, id like to have a little rant...

regardless of the fact that either of the articles do not illuminate the justification for the ban, it has been stated that immigrant muslim women could better integrate into the culture of their new land.

for starters, im sick of this 'idea' of national identity. what identity are we talking abt? which borders? what cultures? these countries need to realise that they have developed enough for people to want to live in their country. they are good enough, globalised enough and ideal enough for people to get up and say " i want to leave my own country...and start a new life here"...they need to see that their nations are becoming increasingly multiCULTURAL...i'd like to pose the notion that perhaps their ideologies and laws begin to reflect this. u have physically embraced these people and benefit from their input, whatever they may do for a living, but u refuse to establish a grounds for free-living in terms of the actual culture....

in this case i'd like to argue that belgian culture is anything but distinct. western culture is anything mainstream....what are u trying to protect? whose culture are u trying to integrate the immigrants into? why cant they see that these people have taken that big step by simply moving away from their own homes...they are ready to embrace what the western culture has to offer...coz it is better than their own. they just wanna dress diffrently.

what will happen to the migrant muslim men? most hijabi women wear western clothes anyway..they just wear an extra peice of cloth on their head. i dnt understand how this can be a threat to the culture of a country.women who are undetermined to embrace the dress sense and culture of their new country wont leave their home anyway..they wont go out seeking work in the 'big western world'. the ones out there looking for work in public offices etc are the ones ready to adapt and adopt...with respect to their own virtues and rights.

untill their are stupidly taken away.

 

[sevgi]

The true irony is that most people only want to address the side that offends them and could care less about the other side.

thats true wilber...but i think there are instances where ppl adress the side which they see as being logical...offended or not...i dnt know abt the bloke above, bt i think that looking at the side which offends you is anal...unless u are refuting or ranting...

 

[Keltoi]

amid the personal feuds in progress within this thread, id like to have a little rant...

regardless of the fact that either of the articles do not illuminate the justification for the ban, it has been stated that immigrant muslim women could better integrate into the culture of their new land.

for starters, im sick of this 'idea' of national identity. what identity are we talking abt? which borders? what cultures? these countries need to realise that they have developed enough for people to want to live in their country. they are good enough, globalised enough and ideal enough for people to get up and say " i want to leave my own country...and start a new life here"...they need to see that their nations are becoming increasingly multiCULTURAL...i'd like to pose the notion that perhaps their ideologies and laws begin to reflect this. u have physically embraced these people and benefit from their input, whatever they may do for a living, but u refuse to establish a grounds for free-living in terms of the actual culture....

in this case i'd like to argue that belgian culture is anything but distinct. western culture is anything mainstream....what are u trying to protect? whose culture are u trying to integrate the immigrants into? why cant they see that these people have taken that big step by simply moving away from their own homes...they are ready to embrace what the western culture has to offer...coz it is better than their own. they just wanna dress diffrently.

what will happen to the migrant muslim men? most hijabi women wear western clothes anyway..they just wear an extra peice of cloth on their head. i dnt understand how this can be a threat to the culture of a country.women who are undetermined to embrace the dress sense and culture of their new country wont leave their home anyway..they wont go out seeking work in the 'big western world'. the ones out there looking for work in public offices etc are the ones ready to adapt and adopt...with respect to their own virtues and rights.

untill their are stupidly taken away.

Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.

 

[sevgi]

Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.[/QUOTE]

lol...

i did state that the west had a culture..."anything mainstream"...

so then wat do u think secularism is abt...?

 

[wilberhum]

sumeyye,
Excellent points. But!
(There are always buts)
IMHO these things occur because multi-culturalism does not work without integration and assimilation.

Often immigrants will not integrate. I think far too frequently it is based on the concept that the culture of there new home is inferior to there old.

Until we accept “Others” as different but equal we will continue to have these problems.

It is obvious to me that most of these problems are targeted towards Muslims.
Far or not, things like the Teddy Bear sh** in Sudan, 9/11, and 7/7 make many Westerners fearful of Islam and anything related to it.

Hopefully some day we will all get along, but I doubt it.

 

[wilberhum]

thats true wilber...but i think there are instances where ppl adress the side which they see as being logical...offended or not...i dnt know abt the bloke above, bt i think that looking at the side which offends you is anal...unless u are refuting or ranting...

Now if you look back, I never supported the law. In fact, multiple times, I said I didn't.

So which side offends me? Both. I find is just as offensive that one is forced to ware one as I am when one if forced not to. In fact I have said so before.

My major attack is against making false statements or distorting what the law says to fit another agenda.

 

[sevgi]

sumeyye,
Excellent points. But!
(There are always buts)
IMHO these things occur because multi-culturalism does not work without integration and assimilation.

Often immigrants will not integrate. I think far too frequently it is based on the concept that the culture of there new home is inferior to there old.

Until we accept “Others” as different but equal we will continue to have these problems.

It is obvious to me that most of these problems are targeted towards Muslims.
Far or not, things like the Teddy Bear sh** in Sudan, 9/11, and 7/7 make many Westerners fearful of Islam and anything related to it.

Hopefully some day we will all get along, but I doubt it.

thanks...

i think what i was trying to say is that the immigrants who dnt want to assimilate are the ones who stay at home anyway..they arent the ones out there trying to get into the public sphere where the hijab has been banned...

it just isnt fair...and it upsets me. i love my country. u know that. and regradless of the fact that i am not an immigrant, if the hijab ban is implemented here, i am obliged to comply.

the issue isnt only with immigrants. there are many natives who accept islam...and many natives with differing ethnicities...whom are very much 'western'...

i dno...

 

[Keltoi]

Well, I'm not sure this is the same issue as the one in question, but I think it would be a mistake to assume the "West" doesn't have a cultural identity. They very much do. The French are almost as xenophobic as the Japanese, but there are many more people trying to get into France than Japan. Part of Western culture these days is secularism, love it or hate it. Part of adapting to life in the West is coming to terms with secularism.

That being said, I don't think this Belgian law has anything to do with protecting a culture, but more to do with secularism.[/QUOTE]

lol...

i did state that the west had a culture..."anything mainstream"...

so then wat do u think secularism is abt...?

Anything mainstream? What does that even mean? I assume you live in the West, otherwise you wouldn't even be using the word "mainstream" in the context that you are. Or is there some larger culture out there that the West latches on to in order to join the "mainstream"?

As for what secularism "is about", it is about curbing all forms of religious faith from the public arena.

 

[sevgi]

Now if you look back, I never supported the law. In fact, multiple times, I said I didn't.

So which side offends me? Both. I find is just as offensive that one is forced to ware one as I am when one if forced not to. In fact I have said so before.

My major attack is against making false statements or distorting what the law says to fit another agenda.

i agree...

and i was taking on a general stance..not speaking abt this thread or ur take on the issue...

 

[sevgi]

Anything mainstream? What does that even mean? I assume you live in the West, otherwise you wouldn't even be using the word "mainstream" in the context that you are. Or is there some larger culture out there that the West latches on to in order to join the "mainstream"?

As for what secularism "is about", it is about curbing all forms of religious faith from the public arena.

im really not terming myself well at all today. i appologise...

anything mainstream is the culture being generated through globalisation, westernisation and 'Americanisation' of the world.

as for my second point...what i meant was 'what is the purpose for secularism if it isnt for maintaining and protecting culture? (i mean its initial purpose)...

 

[KAding]

city personnel are workers..how can you ban a city worker from comming to work..that is what you are effectively doing when you tell a religious person they can not show up wearing a headscarf..

It's only an issue for those that interact with the public directly though, so essentially those municipal civil servants behind the counters. And those that insist on wearing religious symbols will apparently be offered positions where they aren't coming in direct contact with the public. At least, thats what the article says that wilberhum posted.

as far as whats next and me acting like this law covers things it doesnt...if the city personel can not wear headscarfs..how long before they are banned from city schools and gathering?????

Regarding schools I would agree. The next logical step would be to also insist teachers do not wear religious symbols. I'm not sure what you mean with 'gathering'?

the goverment has no businness sticking there noses into this situation.

I think the city has every right to determine dress codes for its civil servants. Not to say I agree with this dress code though.

 

[KAding]

as far as Iran is concerned..I think they are wrong too..arresting women for not dressing islamically...the parent sof those girls in many instances were outraged.they felt like there was nothing wrong with the way there daughters were dressed....but you can not point to the situation in iran to justify this...two wrongs do not make a right..

These two cases are completely incomparable though. One applies to all women in public while the latter only applies to a tiny segment of the population that works for the municipal government and in certain positions. No one is forced to work for the municipal government.

It is not allowed to hang a cross on the wall in a municipal building and neither is it allowed to visibly wear one as a civil servant while in direct contact with the public. Similar dress codes have been in place in courtrooms for many many years now, to avoid any suggestions of bias on behalf of the civil servants.

 

[wilberhum]

The think that bothers me about this kind of reporting is that reason for the new laws are not given. Truly a case of under reporting.

Why did the city pass the law?
Maybe one day they set back and said “Lets PO some people”. Or “How about creating some laws that show bias?”.

Maybe, but I don’t think so. Surly there was a problem and they were trying to solve it.

Does anyone know?
(The paranoid and those suffering from a persecution complex need not answer.)

 

[KAding]

It is also important to realize that this law is not just about religious symbols. All ideological (political, but even philosophical) symbols are banned as well. So that would include, say, a hammer and sickle, labor unions icons, the shield of your favorite football club or ribbons of many kinds.

 

[Bittersteel]

How many Muslim women are really religious in the west/Europe?UK aside I haven't seen Muslim women abroad being so religious.

 

[aamirsaab]

Isn't Belgian supposed to be secular?
Oh wait, I forgot secular now means banning of religion.
Silly me.

 

[KAding]

How many Muslim women are really religious in the west/Europe?UK aside I haven't seen Muslim women abroad being so religious.

Well, the figures I saw is that about 24% of the Muslim women in Belgium think that women should wear a headscarf when in public. Of course, this doesn't mean that they necessarily do. 37% of the men think that Muslim women should wear a headscarf. 60% never go to a mosque. Most pray at least once a day.

 

[Bittersteel]

Isn't Belgian supposed to be secular?
Oh wait, I forgot secular now means banning of religion.
Silly me.

you are mixing liberalism with secularism.Just like the Indians do.
secularism is separation of faith and state.Liberal means people are usually allowed to do whatever they want;they are granted a lot of freedoms.