Or, rather, what are the reasonable limits?
I tend to be suspicious of any erosion of religious or (more specifically, since the burqa is not specifically mandated by Islam, and is hardly universal among majority-Islamic countries) cultural freedoms. While I understand the security (which I've written of before) concerns here, and the social ones as well, it's also a very slippery slope toward what outward expressions of religious faith or cultural heritage will be "allowed" and which ones won't.
That it is being cheered by some of the more obnoxious nationalist elements in the Netherlands doesn't speak well of it either. #ddtb
Reshared post from +John E. Bredehoft
It's not a good idea to have both traditional Muslims AND bikers mad at you.
Embedded Link
Dutch government Going ahead with Burqa Ban
People wearing burqas, balaclavas or all-in-one motorbike helmets in public in the Netherlands will soon face fines. On Friday, government ministers voted to outlaw all clothing which covers the face….
Net result will be that certain Muslim women will simply be confined to their homes.
I think banning face coverings in certain situations is reasonable. There are certain situations where a person must be identified by their faces — like driver’s licenses and at traffic stops or other police situations. Canada’s insistence on being able to see the faces of new citizens as it welcomes them into community. Children should be able to see their teachers’ faces. I also suspect the burka in particular shouldn’t be allowed for driving, because it restricts peripheral vision.
But it seems to me like the ultimate conundrum is, how do you maintain a free society when an ever-more-significant segment of that society wants to do away with individual freedoms? How do you protect free speech when speakers are intimidated or even killed? How do you protect the civil rights of women and children when religious groups agitate for their own civil courts, which can hand down rulings that would be totally rejected by mainstream civil courts? In short, how do you keep a free society free?
The real message the burka/niquab ban sends is, “there’s a limit to how much we’re going to let you treat your women like shit.” It’s just perhaps a heavy-handed and misguided way of making the statement, and ignores the substantial issues.
@Karen – Certainly for security / identification purposes, I agree. Though as was pointed out, that may also make a convenient excuse to not let the wife/daughter drive a car (“You cannot get a drivers license and expose yourself!”).
I am less sanguine (as in it’s a “should” rather than a “must”) about the immigration thing, or teachers. And I’ll accept the ban on driving when all other headgear (and hair, and eyewear) that can obscure vision are also explicitly banned.
I agree that those who threaten the freedom of a tolerant society through violence and oppression cannot be, themselves, tolerated. On the other hand, our intolerance of them must be minimal — e.g., the American Nazis aren’t free to beat up on Jews, but they’re allowed (holding one’s nose) to march through Skokie.
I find the burka an awful thing to force women to wear, and would defend any woman’s right not to. If she *chooses* to do so for religious reasons — even reasons inculcated by a family or culture whose treatment of women in this case I strongly disagree with — I would hesitate before telling her she couldn’t.
(I do disagree with allowing religious civil courts that trump secular civil law, for the reasons you mention.)
Probably quite true.
It’s a tough balancing act, and since I am not Dutch I’m not sure how much I can comment on it. Acceptance of a burqa is obviously influenced by the community in which one lives, and different standards exist in various locations – Amsterdam, Riyadh, Dearborn Michigan, Lynchburg Virginia…