I’ve seen more veiled women in America (2) than in Europe. I’ve traveled quite a bit in England, the Netherlands, Germany, and France in recent years and I’ve yet ot see a single Muslim woman wearing a veil, much less a burqa. In an article about the response to the murder of Theo Van Gogh, a New Yorker visited a Muslim school in the Netherlands and found only one student wearing the veil. I think all the recent brouhaha about veils is mainly a distraction issue, since it affects at most a tiny percentage of Muslim women.
I think we need a mutually-accepted definition of burqa here. You seem to be considering it equivalent to a chador, something that covers the head and body like a big hooded robe, but without a built-in veil. The burqa, on the other hand, usually covers the wearer from head to foot, including the face, with a small inset of net or lace over the eyes so that she can see.
Nah, they spell it with an “a”. 
Seriously, the Dutch seem much less “into” the whole Halloween thing; I can’t remember seeing any costumed people around on Halloween, and certainly no trick-or-treaters or anything like that.
What Kimstu says needs repeating: what the Dutch want to ban is the burqua or niquaab, which both cover the person wearing it from head to toe. A burqua does not even show the eyes, while a niqab shows only the eyes through a slit.
Nobody in Dutch government wants to ban the headscarf from the public streets.
It is noteworthy that virtually no women wearing burquas or niquab were seen on the streets in Holland in the last decade. We’re talking a revival here, and my personal opinion is that both garments are mainly worn by young muslem women for shock value, as a sign of rebellion. Much like the punk-rockers mowhawk or the feminists purple dungarees of the eighties. Personally I don’t like it: it comes across as hostile. A girl in a niquab makes me feel like she doesn’t want to be part of this (my, our) Dutch culture. I don’t want it banned, but I do feel a woman should be required to wear something showing her face when her job requires her to deal with the public.
Forgive my quoting myself, but here’s part of what I posted in the concurrent Pit thread linked to by John Mace in post #6:
Let folks wear whatever they want out in public, with a few caveats:
Private (and public) businesses have the right to promulgate dress codes for employees. Fast food places make you wear stupid hats and most corporations won’t let you wear ripped jeans. Ensuring that customers are comfortable by allowing them to see your face is reasonable. Also, businesses and civil offices should be able to refuse service for reasonable reasons. No shirt, no shoes, and be able to see the face. In the West, it’s indeed part of our culture that we intrinsically dislike it when we can’t see a person’s face. (Ski masks, obviously. But I’ve heard the phenomenon talked about in film reviews. For instance, in V for Vendetta, it was remarked that, because we never saw V’s face, his character seemed a bit off-putting and unsettling.)
Heck, it’s a habit of folks I know to take off sunglasses when driving and being stopped at a tollbooth or drive-in, or when pulled over by a police officer.
So are you likening muslims to the KKK (which I don’t think you’re intentionally doing) or just the fact that burquas and Klan hoods obscure the wearer past identification? I’m thinking it’s the latter.
Anywhoot, I fail to see how a burqua directly affects you.
I still say you’ve got the right to wear a mask if you see fit. We should conduct an experiment. Get a mask (not necessarily a ski mask, buf if you want to try that one, then I suggest a few masks for comparison’s sake) and wear it around when you go into public. If wearing a mask (and we’ll compare the results of each mask) means a vital breach in public, then walking around in public would mean you’d have authorities telling you to take the mask off.
In a business, I can see how someone walking in in a mask could be unnerving. We won’t extend the experiment to businesses for safety’s sake.
What about skin color? That sounds reasonable enough for some people. Obviously, if a person is a disturbance businesses could refuse service, but should a person be refused service because of some people’s fears or sentiments?
I think it’s interesting that people talk about America going to war against Islam when European countries keep passing these stupid and intolerant restrictions on the religious expression of Muslims. What a tone-deaf move. These garments cause no offense to anyone, and this law singles out one religion in particular, which makes it even worse.
There are about a million Muslims in the Netherlands, by the way. Here’s betting that the situation in that country won’t improve.
“expression of freedom” ? Are you joking?
Facial expressions are a critical adjunct to verbal communication that humans are endowed with. This reminds me of the recently outlawed practice of binding the feet of little girls in Japan. That never hurt anybody else either.
Facial covering is more like an “expression of male dominated religious tyranny” over women. It should not be allowed in a society that subscribes to full equal rights for women.
Good for the Dutch !
You mean like smoking bans? good luck with that argument.
The whole think is totally riduculous, and completely indefensible… Say what you want about the c**p the government gets away with in the states, but this really shows what a good idea the first amendment is.
I’m sure there are plenty of jack-asses that would try this kind of thing here, but even the most extreme republican-appointed judge would through it out of court as blanant infringement of the 1st amendment.
Not sure how to answer that. The muslims who wear the full covering head gear tend to represent the most repressive and violent aspects of the religion. In the case of the Dutch it wasn’t the KKK who went nuts over a cartoon. Both groups profess to represent a higher order and are proud to commit atrocities toward that end. You tell me who’s more insulted over the comparison.
Anywhoot, I fail to see how a burqua directly affects you.
In a business, I can see how someone walking in in a mask could be unnerving. We won’t extend the experiment to businesses for safety’s sake.
[/QUOTE]
I guess we’ll just have to differ on opinion over this. I think wearing a mask in public is something that should be illegal for safety reasons.
Religious expression. I don’t like it, I think it’s barbaric, but if that’s your religion, then have at it.
And yes, I do think there should be lines. We can’t have people saying that their religion includes raping babies and having that under protection.
The face is a good facilitator in daily communication. You’re right. But communication can happen without facial expressions.
Burquas and foot binding aren’t the same. I’ll happily say they’re both chauvinistic and that foot binding is definitely barbaric (I think that the burquas are as well, but that’s another argument). It’s an outward sign of domination. The offense with it is because it can be seen.
Is the main argument for the legislature that it’s not treating everyone in society equal? Then again, the government isn’t the one putting forth these decisions to subjugate women.
As sick as it is, the people have this right. I wonder what the results would be if they put it to popular vote.
What a comparison! One practices painfully breaks the feet of little girls, crippling them and possibly causing health problems, the other… has adult women choosing to wear a sheet. This would be a great argument for banning “female circumcision,” but nobody here would argue in favor of that.
I agree completely. But burqas aren’t unique in that regard, so how can we start banning those expressions of tyranny and quit with the obvious ones? What about the headcoverings that Orthodox Jewish women are required to wear, for example? I’d be happy to see sexist religious practices die off, but once you let the government start banning religious garments, you’re bringing the government into religion in a way that I’m not comfortable with.
Agreed. The line has to be drawn somewhere and this looks like a good place for a preliminary line.
In Dearborn I see women in burquas frequently. So often I don’t even notice it anymore.The only objection I ever had was when they wanted to wear them when they took drivers license pictures. I wonder if they are warm. I see them worn in the park during picnics.
Fancy restaurants have the sentiment that, when you go to their establishment, you should dress to fit the occasion. Can a fancy restaurant refuse service to someone in a tee-shirt and blue jeans? Of course. Even if there’s really no fear of disturbances or irrationality, the establishment has the right to set rules of conduct in its place of business. If you don’t like it, you can go elsewhere. If nowhere can accommodate your attire wishes, start your own business.
Race and skin color are different. Folks can change their attire. They can’t change race or skin color. Can the restaurant refuse service to someone because of their skin color (except in exceedingly rare circumstances*)? Absolutely not. And they should be ashamed to act that way.
*I’m referring to the Supreme Court Case Moose Lodge No 107 v Irvis (1792) and similar circumstances.
A quick addendum. The government is held to a higher standard of treating folks equally than are private businesses. For instance, I don’t know if I would be okay with public libraries, for instance, banning the niqab. Private businesses have much more latitude.
However, the government has absolutely no business regulating what folks wear while walking along the street in public, except to make sure that folks don’t go around nude. Wear whatever you want, I say.
One more thing. There’s a huge difference between these two circumstances:
-“I’m refusing service to everyone wearing a total face covering (masks, skimasks, burqas, etc) because I believe it’s important to be able to see the face of someone you’re conversing with.”
-“I’m refusing service to everyone wearing a burqa because I don’t like the Islam.”
One is legit. The other is not.
(I should stop remembering to say things immediately after I post.)
Yeah, how could that be possible 