By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
The 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.
There are a lot of Middle Easterners and Indians here in CA. It’s pretty common to see a woman in a hijab, or a Sikh in a turban, rarer for a man in a keffiyeh. Niqabs (the veil that shows only the eyes), abayas (that black loose dress) or the similar chador are much less common. I can only think of a couple of times that I’ve ever seen a woman in a real burqa. So I am curious what the masking rules are for CA, and to what areas they pertain.
We’re kind of lucky in that we see everything in the melting pot.
bettykath:
So banks must provide female security and a private room so that women wearing burqas can be unmasked prior to entry? What about drivers licenses? Because some veiled women object to showing their faces on their drivers licenses. What about if a woman wearing a burqa is pulled over? Must all police departments require male officers to sit there until a female can come and unmask the burqa wearing woman?
Slippery slope . . .
I find getting patted down up close and intimate embarrassing, and yet I have never used that as an excuse to bend the rules just for me.
I suppose, for me, that I don’t care what women wear as long as they don’t expect everyone else to change the rules just for them. If you need to be identifiable when you walk into a bank, then that’s the rule. Same thing for an airplane. I don’t see the problem with strolling about in public in a burqa, if that floats your boat, but I certainly see the security issues in the examples I’ve mentioned.
@ bettykath
If you allow exceptions to the “no face covering” rule for burqas then you are opening the door to have exceptions for everyone else, thereby negating the reason for the rule……which is security and safety of everyone in public spaces.
Shall we allow KKK hoods? Ronald Reagan masks? Bugs Bunny? Ski masks?
V for Vendetta Masks? Where would it end?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pUATCRYdCAs/TtN8yH64G7I/AAAAAAAAE-A/S8jaPt7rroA/s320/V+mask.jpg
the burqa is a sign of savagery and slavery…it also is an archetype for paganism.
I have always been annoyed that I can’t walk naked in public, even just to take the trash out to the curb, without risking being arrested because that behavior “offends” people, but people can walk around wearing a burqa that covers their face and everything else (which offends me — who knows whether it’s a man or a woman, or a thief or a terrorist, under there) and that’s just fine to everyone — no one is offended by that. It’s nice that something is finally being done to at least partially restrict the use of burqas, a product of religious insanity.
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
Security concerns about burqas can be handled by having a female and a private area where the woman’s identity can be determined. I’d consider respecting the burqa a legitimate exception to the no-mask rule.
Very interesting article. I usually tend to err on the side of personal religious freedom. I can see, however, how they would require no ski masks, cartoon or mascot disguises, or burqas into places like banks or airplanes for obvious security reasons. I also think that no one should be able to get out of security searches. The difficulty with the burqa or veiled woman is that their modesty should not prevent them from getting their faces photographed for drivers licenses, or from security pat downs.
Personally, if someone walked into a bank wearing a mask of any of our former presidents, I would assume he was not there to make a deposit.
If I saw a person in a mask or burqa enter my shop or place of business, I would pull my pistol out and tell them to leave or take off the mask. If they refuse, I will assume they are there to do me harm and fire. Just like the cops, I would be in fear for my life and shoot. This is Texas, and I doubt there would be any fuss.
Just came back from a nice long early morning run on the beach. Memorial Day weekend and I left as the mob arrived. In some, many, unfortunately most cases it would be easier on the eye if both women and men wore burkas.
I’m in favor of restricting face coverings. I’d be in favor of prohibiting burqas. I’m in favor of banning any outward signs of the subjugation of women.
Inga – what if the woman does it willingly? Subjugation is in the eye of the beholder.
It is strictly a matter of being able to identify people for security reasons. The bill rightly states “face covering” and doesn’t signal out burquas or any other religious garb that covers the face. This means that cartoon masks, veils, ski masks and anything else that obscures the identity is also prohibited.
If you can’t remove your disguise, then you are not allowed in those places. You can have the religious freedom to wear a mask, or sacrifice small animals to Baal, or smear yourself with bacon grease and dance in the full moon as a witch…….you just can’t do it here or in these public places. Religious freedom or other freedoms are not unlimited in that you cannot impinge on others. Other people have religious freedoms as well, you know.
I personally wouldn’t do business with someone who came into my establishment or in any other context who was disguised. If I can’t see WHO you are, I don’t want to have you around me for ANY reason. Period.
DBQ – many states have anti-masking statutes originally designed to unmask the KKK. They certainly could be extended here.
My credit union has a sign notifying customers that they are required to remove their hats. They have cameras at varying heights and angles. Clearly it is a security measure, to make sure they get unobstructed photos of everyone who comes in. I don’t have a problem with banning head and face coverings in public, so long as it is religion-neutral. I don’t want someone in a bank or on an airplane with me wearing a burqua, a KKK sheet, a mask, or anything else that disguises his or her identity.
I think we should be required to shave our body of all hair and be naked at all times. This, after a barcode is tattooed on our forehead and the chip implanted into our skull.
Darren, At least in the US, the right to privacy is limited. When you are in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. With facial recognition technology improving and becoming more prevalent, I see few Western countries allowing burgas. Vegas casinos use facial recognition extensively to keep out known cheaters. The technology is getting more sophisticated to see through disguises.
I think we are going to see a lot more of these.
I have no problem with this as a security and identification issue. I think France already did this.
It seems to me the issue has already been decided in the US. Many jurisdictions already have anti mask laws – some for generations.
Holmes
Let them walk into traffic. Don’t let them in any public buildings unless their faces are uncovered and they go through a complete scan search and if deemed necessary the TSA works. If you want to run around wearing a sheet, you should expect society to react. Just because in the regressive and lesser evolved societies in the Middle East and other Islamic countries they are allowed to and even forced to wear sheets does not mean that in Western societies they can get away with this nonsense. The Civil concerns of our societies trumps the religious mumbo jumbo. This has been made plain for several generations and continues to evolve as such.
This is simply absurd in that police and public safety take precedence over the nonsense freedom to wear a mask or hiding ones face. We don’t think that robbing banks is a freedom, so this is simply nothing to worry about and the ban should be extended to all public areas. The law does not go far enough.
Burqas cover the face. That is a security threat and quiet frankly a safety hazard. These women don’t have any peripheral sight. As a result, they often travel with female minders who are not dressed in Burqas to make sure they don’t walk into traffic. Governments have a right to enact health and safety laws. The fact that the only women who wear burqas are Muslim doesn’t make the law one based on religious discrimination. There a good and sufficient reasons for doing so that have no relationship to religion at all. Keep in mind of course that many Islamic scholars have opined that Burqas have nothing to do with Islam.