Dutch Cabinet Backs Partial Burqa Ban

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

170px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01The Dutch Cabinet voted to draft a bill to enforce a ban on wearing the Islamic burqa in various government buildings and institution. Citing what were described as security concerns, the government in a statement declared “Face-covering clothing will in [the] future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions, government buildings and on public transport.”

Prime Minister Mark Rutte stated to journalists: “The bill does not have any religious background.”

The government’s statement further stated that it “tried to find a balance between people’s freedom to wear the clothes they want and the importance of mutual and recognizable communication.” It will however send the draft bill to the Council of State, the highest constitutional court, for review. Thereafter, Parliament will debate the bill and mull drafting statutory law.

A previous bill calling for a complete ban of the burqa in public places was set aside.

Those held in violation could be fined up to €405.

Likely an influencing factor, France legislated a burqa ban in 2010 which was ultimately upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. The court rejected claims the law breached religious freedom. Switzerland and Belgium passed similar statutes.

Dutch state broadcasting company NOS claimed that only one hundred to five hundred women in The Netherlands wore burqas with most only occasionally.

It would be curious to see how such a ban will be enforced. Security matters aside what would serve as a legitimate government function of requiring faces to be shown in government buildings or other institutions?

Yet the debate tends to focus on religious freedom. An interesting constitutional challenge, if such an issue comes to the forefront in the United States, would be an aggrieved person claiming a right to privacy. Those choosing to wear a burqa often cite modesty as a significant factor. To some it might seem disingenuous to under penalty of arrest require in people to wear undergarments in public for the purpose of legislated modesty and then deny modesty to those who wish to cover other body parts.

Nevertheless with the European example, it is hard to accept that such laws are drafted out of anything other than worry of Islam in those nations.

By Darren Smith

Source: MSN

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

96 thoughts on “Dutch Cabinet Backs Partial Burqa Ban”

  1. Mr schulte,

    You’re right about one thing. Slave labor was actually strengthened by the invention of the pistol and bull whip, that should get more credit in our wealth development (we aren’t that developed in many other areas comparatively.)

    Otherwise, it seems that your emotions for the founders has again warped your view as to the genuine history of our country.

    If Richard hofstadtar is crap, then why isn’t jonathan turley? Because he agrees with your broad world perspective? Because he has a blog you can comment on?

    They are both noted (formerly) academics and public intellectuals.

    1. TJustice – Howard Zinn is the poster boy for Progressive crap history.

  2. Privacy statements are today’s contract of adhesion for obtaining services through the internet.

  3. Paul Schulte:

    Your suggestion that Richard Hofstadter was one of “those crap progressive historians” is ridiculous. And, by the way, indentured servitude could, and did, extend beyond seven years at times. It was, after all, a contractual relationship. Indeed, these may well have been the earliest examples of contracts of adhesion.

    1. Mike A – indentured servants were not supposed to serve more than seven years. There are thousands of contracts still available. And Mike, crap Progressive historians are crap Progressive historians.

  4. Mr. Schulte,

    many indentured servants were actually tricked into coming to the new world. man this stuff is basic. It doesn’t make your country any worst, it just is. Facts < emotions in intellectual pursuits.

    1. TJustice – do you have anecdotal evidence of people being tricked into indentured slavery?

  5. Mr. Schulte

    Because you appear to adore the way our government was built (slave labor mostly) does not mean you have to consider all founding fathers as saints. Slaves and indentured servants were not free by law.

    The history of indentured servants has clearly not been in your library unless it’s in the form of propaganda (which this blog cites to often).

    1. TJustice – you have to read some real historians, not those crap progressive historians. This built on slavery idea is just silly and factually wrong.

    1. I have heard of Richard Hofstadter, but what does he have to do with indentured servants. You still don’t know what an indentured servant is, do you? You do realize that you can only be indentured for seven years?

  6. Mr schulte

    You may need to take lessons from your students and look it up yourself.

    Most historians agree, most indetured servants did not get their freedom.

    You could be my indentured servant and we’ll see then your opinion of this america dream??

    Oh and mr schulte, madison jefferson an the like are dead, you can disagree with them or realize their shortcomings. After all, I thought we were in a free country and not a totalitarian state.

    Finally, it’s fitting that you are a teacher… It’s no wonder education is the best institution for ignorance – you exhibit this on the daily here.

  7. Mr. Schulte,

    Under the law (our founding fathers worked so hard to create, man don’t you read JT?!) indentured servants were not free.

    Under your theory, indentured servants are fugitives and lawless. That’s not freedom, and goes against the stability of the system.

    It’s like saying Edward Snowden is free. What a joke.

    1. TJustice – would you just look up indentured servants so we can end this?

  8. Mr schulte

    Most indentured servants did not get their freedom. Thus, they didn’t enjoy the fruits of the American Dream that is apparently grounded in freedom.

  9. Who said white man? If you think a white German is anything like a white Irishman and you lump together all the whites, you’re vastly delusional and off-topic. This is about the indecency of shrouding, which eventually leads to a culture of never seeing each other in human form, and that’s unnatural. End of debate.

  10. Mr schulte

    No need to take a everything so personal, I was referring to the founding fathers (or gods as it’s known here). Not you.

    And with your view you secretly limit what is a contracts under law. Also contracts are not infallible.

    Finally, what type of freedom??? If they didn’t own property they had no say…

    1. TJustice – many indentured servants ran away from their contracts to get the free land that was available. Some waited until their contract was up. Whichever, their freedom was the end of their contract.

  11. Mr schulte

    I admire your love of country and white man. However, we do not live in a resovior of freedom or some paradise. Simply because a wealthy, educated white man says so does not mean I believe it. I choose reason. Reaaon tells me that in fact we live in something more symbolic of a tyrannical oligarchy than a constitutional republic.

    1. TJustice – I am educated. You got that part right. Are you saying that I am wrong about indentured servants? And if I am not, what the hell does that have to do with the rest of your rant. 😉

  12. Forgot who I am

    The American thesis for who?? You are telling me freedom was the thesis for indentured servants or slaves in 1792?

    1. TJustice – indentured servants usually were paying off a debt or learning a trade. In either case, they had a contractual obligation. At the end of the contract was freedom.

  13. randyjet – that TSA post was great. I’ve also wondered why pilots were prohibited from carrying nail clippers since they FLEW THE BLOODY PLANE.

  14. Wadewilliams – actually, there are already masking laws in many states that prohibit walking into a bank with a ski mask or any other kind of clothing obstructing the face.

    I only care if it’s a security issue (like at a bank or airport) or showing the face on a drivers license, passport, or other ID. Other than that, I don’t care what people wear. And I’ve also said that many different types of veils are common in CA, although the burka is rare.

  15. TJ, please disabuse me of my erroneous conclusions.

    The American thesis is freedom of the individual. The Founders acknowledged that personal or “moveable” property and Freedom of Thought were natural and existed before government was established, secured Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, etc., assumed general understanding that business shall enjoy the “free exercise thereof” clause of the 1st amendment, proved by the empirical evidence of business practices in 1789, and YOU believe you can RESCIND the sub-Freedom of Discrimination?

    Discrimination, “fair housing,” affirmative action, quotas, “racism” law, etc. are all criminally unconstitutional and as egregious as Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus, the denial of right of secession (i.e. Scotland) the confiscation of private property, the 16th and 18th amendments, ad infinitum.

    The Highest of Crimes and Misdemeanors are those of dereliction, negligence and omission by the Supreme Court, which was which is the primary “check and balance” against “overreaching” executive and legislative branches, bringing America to “constitutional tipping points.” The Supreme Court has presided over the gradual and persistent voiding and nullification of the founding documents.

    I imagine that King George III had delusions of ending American “discrimination” against his monarchy.

    I imagine you discriminated when you chose your wife. Do you envision non-discrimination state mandated marriages?

    You may not like freedom, free enterprise, private property, freedom of the individual, etc. under the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, but you must adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom under those founding documents.

    The first step of freedom is discrimination.

Comments are closed.