Dutch Government Backs Burqa Ban
The BBC reports that the Dutch government supports a plan by Dutch immigration and integration Minister Rita Verdonk to ban the burqa from all public spaces.
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.
The decision comes days ahead of elections which the ruling centre-right coalition is expected to win.
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who is known for her tough policies, said it was important that all people in the Netherlands were able to see and identify each other clearly to promote integration and tolerance.
And I agree with that. And to those who complain…
The main Muslim organisation in the Netherlands, CMO, said the plan was an “over-reaction to a very marginal problem”, the Associated Press reported.
should realize that the burqa is forbidden in certain Muslim countries as well. For instance Turkey, where women cannot even wear a veil in public buildings.
22 Responses to “Dutch Government Backs Burqa Ban”
(link)C Stanley (mail):
I can sort of understand the public safety concern (similar to laws here that prohibit people from wearing a mask in certain public places like banks). But I’d be concerned that the effect of this would be to isolate Muslim women even more. Their religion doesn’t permit them to be in public dressed any other way, and I don’t see that changing: instead, I think that these women would almost be under house arrest under these circumstances. I think that could only make matters worse for women who have to live under these conditions, and it would worsen the tensions between the isolated Muslim culture and the rest of the Dutch citizens, IMO.
Well, as you know, there is debate about in how far their ‘religion’, Islam, forces them to dress like that. The far majority of Muslim women do not dress like that and as I understand it Morocco and Egypt? are not allowing burqas or planning to not allow it any longer either.
I understand that point, but my guess is that if a large number of the particular Muslim women in your country are wearing it, that this would indicate that their particular mosque requires it or that their husbands are requiring it, etc. It is different for a Muslim country’s govt to say no, the religion doesn’t require that and we won’t allow it, but when a Western govt imposes that rule I’m doubtful that the mosques would go along with it or that the husbands wouldn’t seize on it as an opportunity to further repress their wives and daughters.
according to the article 100 women wear it (i doubt that figure to be honest, but okay). So that’s not a problem.
We just want to make sure that it will not spread, among other things that is.
The burqa is a relatively recent variation of the veil and in many opinions, a radical skewing of the original intent. Also, it’s worth noting that in the past, a woman in these cultures who could stay in her home, who didn’t “need” to go out in public, was seen as having a higher station, of being a woman of leisure. Of course, we can argue that the segregation of women is a perversion of this, and we do.
This story tells me that very few people, on any side of the issue, understand the historical perspective and assume that all covering is either to be compelled, or is automatically an abomination.
As tends to happen, western culture is at war with itself. On the one hand, forbidding a certain manner of dress goes against one of our fundamental freedoms, the freedom of expression (and in this case, of religion). On the other hand, this particular manner of dress is representative of a culture that goes against everything we stand for, and we feel that people new to a country have the obligation to ADAPT to the new culture. The burqa is an obvious indication that integration is not taking place, never mind the security issues involved in not being able to see any features on a person (it could just as well be a man under there). No one would question prohibiting a tribal African or Brazilian woman to cover her breasts, or a man to cover his ermmm intimate areas, but all things Muslim get special treatment.
While I see Stanley’s concern about how prohibiting it would isolate the women that wear it even more, sometimes you have to take that risk. In San Francisco there was a battle both with the veil of little girls and with schooling, as many men felt that schooling a girl was useless. The law says that ALL children must go to school. It could be argued that this would encourage extremist parents to hide their daughters and isolate them from society even more, but the option is saying “OK, Muslims girls can be denied an education”. Respecting other cultures is fine, but also fine is demanding a certain level of adaptation. If you want to keep your medieval culture, than stay in your medieval country.
The public safety issue is specifically about covering the face and obscuring identification.
Generally the comunity doesn’t care what they wear on the remaining 95% of their body or do with 99% of their time.
The claims that this was done for “public safety” reasons is just absurd and will be seen as such by all Muslims and not just by the 100 or so women that wear the burka. I think Michael unintentionally states the real reason, “We just want to make sure that it will not spread.” A religious observance? You are going to enact laws to try and stop the observance of religious customs to spread? Again this is just self-defeating stupidity. Lets create more reasons why Muslims should feel less a part of Western society, more estranged from their adoped country, more persecuted. Yes, thats the tickeet, lets outlaw their customs to “make sure it will not spread”.
So if the law passes what happens next if the Muslim women resist? Will we see burka clad women handcuffed and hauled off to jail for wearing what their religion requires them to wear? My my, how ANYONE can think this is a good idea is quite remarkable.
What makes this country work is that what we have in common is more pronounced than what makes us different.
I feel that covering the face in public with the purpose of blocking the ability to be recognized crosses the line.
I still have a problem when someone wears sunglasses when playing poker. Seeing their eyes is a large party of the game.
Maybe the Dutch should enact laws challenging the ban on pork. Whats wrong with a ham sandwich or pork chops in the Green Zone or at a coffee shop.
This is just show that Europeans have no tolerance and oppress women just as European accuses the Muslim of doing. Banning a woman to wear veil is same as forcing a women to wear veil, both are oppressive to women and violates women’s right. Congratulation Dutch people, you guys are just like Taliban.
This just show Europeans don’t care about Freedom, Democracy, Diversity, Torlance, Women’s Right, Religious’ Right, Minority’ Right, Human Rights. Next, time they preach those things, just laugh at them as jokes.
It kills the Westerners to think that Muslim women actually choose to wear it. Only thing they want to believe is that women are forced to wear it by men.
Look at the countries like Turkey or Tunisia that government banned it and discourage it. But the Muslim women continue to wear it with big numbers. In the BBC news, they said 65% of the all women in Turkey wear veil.
Very, very small percentage of women are forced to wear it by men but nearly all women wear it because they choose to wear it.
We all know why they can’t ban the full Muslim veil or hijab because Nuns wear the same veil for the same reason.
Why is it when nuns wear veil, people consider them holy and pious but when Muslim women wear veil, people consider them ‘submissive and oppressed’?
I think the veil is offensive, but the headscarf is lovely. Attempts to ban the veil are probably OK, if there is an exception for special religious occasions. But attempts to ban the headscarf, like in schools in France, are xenophobic, prejudiced, and oppressive.
MvdG, are there any attempts in Holland to ban the headscarf too?
Nuns don’t wear veils. Nuns aren’t every woman in a given society they are women who most definitely chosen to join a specific organization. Not all nuns even wear a uniform and haven’t for years. The burqa is not required by Islam. That’s a really big lie. Frankly, I think that any Muslims who want to follow what is in reality a cultural, not a religious commandment that thoroughly should probably stay in a country where that is the dominant culture. What Muslims who complain about things like this refuse to understand is that you don’t necessarily have the right to move to a country, request citizenship in that country and then completely refuse to integrate into that society in any way.
This law in the US would get struck down as a First Ammendment violation, as it should. Whatever our feelings on Muslims may be, using the law to dictate aspects of the religion is just plain wrong.
We in the US supposedly believe in the right of freedom of religion and freedom of expression unless those rights directly hard others. I cannot see how that is the case here.
Harm others.
Precisely, Jim. Worrying about Moslem sentiments is pointless. If they don’t like living in a largely secular western society, maybe they should go back to the Islamic country where their cultural values are the norm. If someone wants to live in the Netherlands, or the USA, or anywhere, they should expect to follow the prevailing customs and laws.
Personally, I agree – no veils or total cover should be allowed. If people don’t like it, they they can go somewhere else where their views are the normal standard.
Integrating into western society is what has made western society work. When western society stops insisting tha tthe immigrants assimilate, ity is doomed. Take a look at former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm’s comments on the subject. No, he isn’t PC, but guess what? He’s a _Democrat._ If the Democratic party would run people like Lamm, instead of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, I think they’d win by landslides. I doubt that it will ever happen. Meanwhile, my vote goes to the concept of keeping the Burkas out of Dutch public life.
Once again Michael has convinced me of why I’m proud to be an American. Not even the farthest-right elements of the GOP would propose something this stupid. We actually have freedom of religion in this country, and that means you can grow payoth (sideburns for Hasidic Jews), drive around in a horse-and-buggy and not attend high school (Amish), home school your children (fundamentalists), wear a burqa, or, in some cases, take peyote. I’m not very religious but I will say “Thank God” for religious freedom. The Dutch might want to remember their historical tolerance for religious minorities too.
Elrod,
There have already been cases in the U.S. that limited the burqa. One woman wanted to be able to wear it in her driver’s license photo and was denied the right. I can see other similar circumstances where it would be limited as well though on the street would be unlikely. There is of course one circumstance where burqas would be banned in a heartbeat. If an Al Quada attack used a woman as other terrorist groups have done would have that result.
I believe this is time for those that value progressive and brave thinkers in the public positions to declare that they are Dutch and they stand with Ms. Rita Verdonk.
The attire of worship can be worn in the houses of worship if it is matter of faith.
The gender specific dress code which primarily is dictated through religious instructions is nothing but tools for male domination.
To the young Muslim women that adamantly use their energy opposing ban of Hejab. Please use your power and energy to fight for full human right for the women of your ancestral birth land.
Start a grass root petition to demand all discriminatory laws against women to be abolished in your foremothers land. Grab a page from your sisters’ struggle for equal rights elsewhere in Islamic world.
http://www.we-change.org/spip.php?article149
Amir Normandi
Amir, I completely agree, well said.