They’re still live in a highly patriarchal society where they’re told what to do by their male relatives, and have few options available to them if they defy those relatives. I think they are largely victims of a society that makes it very difficult for a woman to be independent. Sure there are university educated women in the cities who can take care of themselves, but I believe they are the rare exception rather than the rule in that country as a whole.
Hypothetical scenario what if there was a country where it was considered normal for women to never cover their breasts or for men to go completely naked. Suppose it started getting lots of immigrants from North America. In reaction to immigrants covering themselves in defience of local customs a law is passed mandating that all females be topless and all males be completely naked. The government claims it’s for " security grounds" since it’s much harder (thought not impossible) to conceal weapons when naked. How would that be any different from what the Netherlands is considering.
This is precisely what happened in pre-revolution Iran, with many young, secular, often vaguely leftist, college students started wearing such banned garb. Some as a simple show of solidarity with more conservative women among the bazaari class in particular, some as a half-assed cultural statement ( similar to some of the young “cultural Muslims” in France ), all as a very explicit “fuck you” to the Shah. The ultimate success of the religious conservatives in seizing power after the revolution and then mandating a reverse dress code was not a happy bit of irony for many, I’m sure.
As to whether it is mandated - pretty much what Dead Badger said. Nothing textually explicitly requires it. But when talking about a pre-modern society where even the men often went heavily covered due to a hostile environment and where prevailing norms of other religions in the near vicinity weren’t all that different, it is pretty arguable what the original intent was. It’s unsettled theology and will be for the rest of Islam’s existence, I’m pretty sure.
- Tamerlane
No, I’m not saying a government should or should not do anything. I’m saying I don’t consider it to be necessarily religious discrimination if a State chooses to legislate on this issue, and I’m saying that in an American court, a woman has a better chance of winning a lawsuit on this issue if she can show her rights under the “free exercise” clause have been violated.
Fine, but you seem to be implying a standard of scrutiny above and beyond examining what people say they believe. You can’t deny, can you, that hijab is established in the Muslim world as an article of faith for many? And yet the fact that you query it rather implies that you believe there is some other standard we (a government, a court, whatever) might apply that will show hijab to not really be religious. I am trying to argue that applying any such standard will entail us going in and interpreting texts, declaring which are valid and which are not, and crucially, ignoring tradition entirely (or so it seems). Clearly, I think this is a profoundly bad idea. I’m trying to get out of you exactly what standard you think should be applied. Lots of Muslims believe their religion dictates some sort of veil. That’s enough for me; is it not sufficient for you? What standard of proof do you require to show that an act is religious, and how would you apply this uniformly?
You are kind of high strung aren’t you? You call my comment “flaming”? If you were not implying that your comment was relavent to the issue at hand why even bring it up? I have no comment about whether the measure is outageous but how the fuck does pointing out the existence of an anti klan law from 1845 have any relevance?
That’s just it…if a woman considers wearing a particular item of clothing to be expressive of or required by her religious belief, then the government banning it is a violation of religious freedom. It can’t be left to the government to decide what someone’s religious expression should entail.
The anti-klan laws were to prevent terrorism…which is what the Klan practiced. As I recall, they made it illegal to wear a mask for the purpose of intimidation. Anti-burqa laws would make it illegal to wear a mask as an effort to “improve security”. It seems roughly analogous to me. Both raise First Amendment questions.
Talk about a prescient legislative body!
I am aware that many women who wear burqas are oppressed. But if covering the entire body has been part of her culture for her lifetime, then “uncovering” will surely feel awkward and the women may be very shy. You gain comfort over time.
I am old enough to remember the first bikini that I ever saw. Everyone stared at the woman and whispered. I was a child and just assumed that she was a wicked woman. If you were a girl, you didn’t show your navel in public anymore than you would show your nipples. Two pieces swim suits were bad enough! (This was rural Middle Tennessee in the early 1950’s.)
I feel reasonably certain that some women would feel awkward without being totally covered.
Also, you adjust to seeing less and are more careful. I have only about 10% of the normal vision in my right eye so that I don’t see things in three demensions. I can tell that there is color, light and movement – but no details. Yet I have an excellent driving record and I don’t feel deprived at all. I’ve adjusted.
I’ve never thought about security risks when I see women in my neighborhood with their bodies covered. Are we going to ban nuns’ habits too? Priests’ robes? Choir robes? Clown costumes? Baggy pants? Big hats?
John Mace, that may be true-but women should STILL have the choice to wear one. That’s all.
Quite frankly, I think they look like a complete safety hazard, and I would ban them for people driving, or whatever. But at home, or at someone’s house, or whatever? Who cares-wear what you want.
Yes, it can, in a sense. The Courts are a branch of government. If legislation is passed, it will likely be up to the Courts to determine whether the legislation is constitutional. To do that, the Court will first have to decide what sort of scrutiny is appropriate. To decide what sort of scrutiny to apply, the Court will have to determine what rights are implicated. There’s a lotta stuff in the Constitution, and various “tests” that are applied to different situations. You can’t just stroll into Court and say “My religion requires X, respect it”. You’ll have a stronger case if you can show that your religion exists, and that some percentage of practitioners believe that religion requires X.
I haven’t taken a position one way or another on whether burqa’s can, or should be, banned consistent with the US Constitution. It’s been a long time since I studied Con Law, and it’s been a helluva week, so I’m not going to look up the applicable standards tonight. The case can be argued either way.
Not to mention this is Dutch law that we’re talking about, not US law. 
Interestingly, Dutch law is not subject to constitutional review:
Imagine that!!
OTOH, look how interationalist those Nederlanders are!
Assuming that wikipedia articel is correct, that is.
No they don’t. The law in question is Dutch. The last time I checked the US Constitution has absoluty no control over Dutch law.
Then why did you refer me to the Bill of Rights? This thread is not limited to Dutch law. We’re talking about the issue in general, and I’m posting from a US perspective.
I refered you to the Bill of Rights because you implied that maybe anti- masking laws intended to reduce terror by he klan in 1845 could be applied to burqa wearing women today in the US. We were not talking about the issue in general. Maybe you are trying to shift it that way but the OP was about a specific Dutch Law. You started babbeling about anti- masking laws in the US. By the way those laws were aimed at peopled gathering masked to instill terror and wouldnot and could not be applied to the religious practices here.
A more interesting question one that is actually a legitimate question is what about Sikh religious practice of men carrying cerremonial daggers. Can laws aimed at that be constitutional? But that is a question for another thread.
Get over yourself already. You decided to pick a fight with me for reasons that are not entirely clear. I’ve tried to contribute to the thread, and I missed the memo that says all comments must meet with your approval.
Now kindly get the fuck off my back. Thank you.
Wait, how the hell does that even work? Doesn’t that make the constitution worthless? If the constitution says everyone has a right to do X, and someone passes a law that says no one can do X, how do you enforce the constitutional guarantee to X?
The Dutch are so enlightened that they would never even think of doing such a thing…? 
Seems like one of the mods we used to have was Dutch (is he still around?), but I don’t know of any regular Dutch posters here anymore. Arwyn, maybe-- isn’t she Dutch? **Kimstu **lives there… maybe she’ll pop in here over the weekend.
Dude, I didn’t pick a fight with you I just pointed out that you are talking out of your ass, as usual.