Burqa Ban - Yes or No (religious clothing, jewlery, etc.) (moral, testimony)

[Bishka]

Should burqa's be banned? If so, shouldn't Christian crosses, Pagan symbols, etc be banned as well?



Dutch MPs to decide on burqa ban

By Mark Mardell
Europe editor, BBC News, Brussels




The Dutch Parliament has already voted in favour of a proposed ban

The Dutch government will announce over the next few weeks whether it will make it a crime to wear traditional Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes.

The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa outside the home, and some in the government have thrown their weight behind it.

There are only about 50 women in all of the Netherlands who do cover up entirely - but soon they could be breaking the law.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is the man who first suggested the idea of a ban.

"It's a medieval symbol, a symbol against women," he says.

"We don't want women to be ashamed to show who they are. Even if you have decided yourself to do that, you should not do it in Holland, because we want you to be integrated, assimilated into Dutch society. If people cannot see who you are, or see one inch of your body or your face, I believe this is not the way to integrate into our society."

'Identifiable'

I interviewed Mr Wilders inside parliament after several security checks. Two tough bodyguards stood close by throughout. This country, once the epitome of easy-going liberalism, is edgier, less tolerant these days.

Theo Van Gogh was a well-known critic of fundamentalist Islam

Mr Wilders' name was included on a list of "infidels, who deserved to be slaughtered", which was found pinned to the body of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

Van Gogh was murdered two years ago for making the film about women and Islam called "Submission". It starts with a shot of a woman's face covered by a burqa. Slowly the camera shows that, from the neck downwards, she's naked but for a thin veil.

Mr Wilders has explicitly linked his wish for a burqa ban with terrorism.

"We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam," says Mr Wilders.

"That's also a reason why everybody should be identifiable when they walk on the street or go to a pub or go into a restaurant or whatsoever."

'Freedom of choice'

Famala Aslam is a Muslim lawyer who has represented women who have stopped wearing the burqa while training as child-care assistants. She would not cover her face herself, but does wear a traditional dress and headscarf from eastern Turkey.

She showed me how that can be adapted.

Banning or isolating a certain group of the population is just asking for problems

Famala Aslam, Muslim lawyer

"Other women are stricter; and they hide the face - you can only see the eyes," she says. "And other women choose to wear the niqab, and they veil the face totally."

I asked her what she would say to people who would say: "If you want to fit into the West, live here, wear a business suit; wear jeans - don't wear what you're wearing. Don't wear a niqab."

Ms Aslam says she believes that the freedom of choice and the freedom of religion is something that people need to fight for.

In the city of Maaseik, in Belgium - which lies a few hundred yards from the Dutch border - a ban on wearing the niqab is already in place. Mayor Jan Creemers said he brought it forward because old people were afraid and children cried when women started appearing in long black robes with their faces covered.

Belgium ban

Women can now be fined 150 euros (£102) if they are found to be wearing the niqab.

"There were six ladies who wore the niqab. I think two or three weeks after the council passed this law, five have dropped it," says Mr Creemers. "One lady is still wearing it but the last step in the procedure will be that she must go to jail."

The husband of the woman who defies the ban is being held in connection with the Madrid bombings. But the police here are not too happy with the ban. They say it has made relations with the Moroccan community worse and gives young people a reason to resent society.

Ms Aslam says if the ban becomes law in the Netherlands, some women will adopt the veil as a political statement. "A lot of women are not fully feeling like Muslims," she says. "But because of the public opinion, they are feeling like: 'I have to be a Muslim'. And banning or isolating a certain group of the population is just asking for problems." The Dutch government will soon decide whether to ban the burqa. Perhaps it will not become illegal in this marketplace or in the street. But they are likely to ban it in public places like stations, airports and cinemas - something many Muslims will regard as provocation in a Europe increasingly uncertain of its own identity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4616664.stm

[Jaymes]

That's terrible. As if women can't choose to wear it on their own... it's as much a "medieval symbol against women" as long, modest dresses.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Should burqa's be banned? If so, shouldn't Christian crosses, Pagan symbols, etc be banned as well?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban the burqa and the niqab, or any form of dress that conceals the wearer's identity. To ban the khimar is another thing, and more along the lines of banning crosses and pagan symbols.

[Fluffy]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban the burqa and the niqab, or any form of dress that conceals the wearer's identity. To ban the khimar is another thing, and more along the lines of banning crosses and pagan symbols.

Why not just place them under the same restrictions as motorcycle helmets?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Why not just place them under the same restrictions as motorcycle helmets?

In the U.S., I think if you entered a bank or a subway or attempted to board an airplane wearing a motorcycle helmet with a visor down, concealing your face, you would certainly attract negative attention, and that attention would be justified. Also, the motorcycle helmet has in certain situations a legitimate function other than concealment of the wearer, which the burqa and the niqab do not.

I also think that a woman who wears a burqa is likely to be an Islamic extremist, or to be in subjection to men who are, and that Western democracies have a legitimate interest in (1) discouraging Islamic extremism and (2) preventing Islamic extremists from wearing such concealing garments in public, especially in view of the fact that both men and women act as suicide bombers.

If the restriction on the burqa is too oppressive, does it follow that a white racist Christian has the right to wear a Klansman's robes and hood, completely concealing his identity, at every time and in every place?

[Fluffy]

In the U.S., I think if you entered a bank or a subway or attempted to board an airplane wearing a motorcycle helmet with a visor down, concealing your face, you would certainly attract negative attention, and that attention would be justified. Also, the motorcycle helmet has in certain situations a legitimate function other than concealment of the wearer, which the burqa and the niqab do not.

It is illegal, in the UK at least, to enter a bank or police station whilst wearing a helmet, visor up or down. Why don't we just place the same limitations on burqas?

And yes I do believe that a Klansman should have the right to wear his robes but under the same restrictions as helmets. As far as I am aware, he is already under the same restrictions anyway.

Besides, what is the point of banning these things all the time if a person can just slip on a helmet instead?

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I also think that a woman who wears a burqa is likely to be an Islamic extremist, or to be in subjection to men who are. . .

You're wrong.

[Omer]

I agree with you about it Midnight Blue. The Burqa is more a traditional dressing than to be something told in the Quran. It is an obstacle in identifying the person, and its not the same
thing as the headcover (hijab). I think we should also note that people hardly know what that is in Turkey for ex., let alone wear it.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Why not just place them under the same restrictions as motorcycle helmets?

Good point; to which you can now add the 'hoodie'. I voted "Depends on the situation(post) " because I can see both sides of the coin, and I am not actually sure which way I should think about this.

"When in Rome..."; there are many countries one visits (holidays etc) where we, as tourists are expected to repect local traditions. I am perfectly happy with that.

When it comes to how we should treat foreigners in our own 'Western Civilized Countries', so far, we have been seen to bend over backwards to accomodate everyone who visits us. Now I am not saying that that is wrong, but when it comes down to the fact that an Islamic Mullah or cleric (sorry if I use the wrong word) has been living in the UK since 1997, inciting violence by calling our culture 'degenerate', I find myself getting a bit tired of "Doing unto others as you would like them to do unto you"....although, that is by basic moral view on this sort of subject.

This goes far deeper than this present thread allows, and I can't therefore go into what I mean more thoroughly, but I guess posters will read between my lines; if not, I guess I could start a thread on that subject.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

It is illegal, in the UK at least, to enter a bank or police station whilst wearing a helmet, visor up or down. Why don't we just place the same limitations on burqas?

And yes I do believe that a Klansman should have the right to wear his robes but under the same restrictions as helmets. As far as I am aware, he is already under the same restrictions anyway.

Besides, what is the point of banning these things all the time if a person can just slip on a helmet instead?

Excellent questions to ponder. Many years ago, here in Georgia, USA, the legislature passed a 'Mask Law' which made it a crime to go out in public with your face covered. Exceptions were made for sporing events and seasonal celebrations, IIRC, but the purpose of the law was to give police a weapon against the Klansmen.

A couple of years ago, a woman in Florida would not remove her burqa for a driver's license picture and ultimately lost the case, in part, because of testimony demonstrating that even in Islamic countries, women were required to show their faces for license photos.

I'm not an expert on Dutch law, but my guess is that if it requires all people to be "...identifiable when they walk on the street...", then it would be legal. The law in Georgia and other mainly southern states was upheld because the courts found that the goal of public safety required law enforcement to be able to identify people and that public safety trumped privacy concerns once people went out in public.

All that rambling, and I didn't tell how I voted. I voted that it depends on the situation, afterall, the Klansmen's argument was that they were exercising their religious beliefs when they wore their hoods.