Dutch cabinet approves partial ban on Islamic veil in public areas

[Boiler 43,436]

Schools, hospitals and public transport would be covered by ban, but Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte insists prohibition is not religiously motivated

The Dutch cabinet has approved a proposal for a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils on public transport and in public areas such as schools and hospitals.

After the cabinet backed a bill by the interior minister, Ronald Plasterk, the government said in a statement on Friday: “Face-covering clothing will in future not be accepted in education and healthcare institutions, government buildings and on public transport.”

The ban would not apply to wearing the burqa or the niqab on the street, only for security reasons or “in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen”, the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told journalists after a cabinet meeting.

He said: “The bill does not have any religious background.” The proposal will be sent to a panel of legal advisers for assessment.

The government said it had “tried to find a balance between people’s freedom to wear the clothes they want and the importance of mutual and recognisable communication”. It said the cabinet “sees no reason for a general ban that would apply to all public places”.

A previous bill that proposed banning face-covering veils on the street will be withdrawn. It dated from Rutte’s previous government, which was supported by the anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders.

It was agreed that a new bill would be drawn up by the coalition partners of Rutte’s VVD party and the PvdA party when they formed a coalition in 2012.

Those flouting the ban, if it is enforced, could be fined up to €405 (£288).

NOS, the state broadcaster, said that between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands wore the burqa, most of them only occasionally.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/netherlands-islamic-veil-niqab-ban-proposal-dutch-cabinet

Edited May 23, 2015 by Boiler

[Expat1 971]

He's right. The bill does not have any religious background. The Niqab is also not allowed in Mecca during Hajj.

So what's the issue?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If only a few hundred people wear one, doesn't it seem a bit of a waste of time to write a law about it?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Single Dutch or double Dutch, take your pick.

In many cases paper bags should be required if the face is determined to be offensive.

[lostinblue 1,989]

If only a few hundred people wear one, doesn't it seem a bit of a waste of time to write a law about it?

Citing the low number of concealed carry permit applications the District has received, D.C. Police Chief

Cathy L. Lanier on Tuesday downplayed the effects of a federal court ruling that strikes down the city’s requirement gun owners demonstrate a “good reason” in order to receive the permits.

Since October, when regulations for the issuance of concealed carry permits took effect, through May 9, the Metropolitan Police Department received 107 applications and denied 42. It has granted 26 concealed carry permits.

“It’s not a huge impact for us. We haven’t had a huge number of applicants,” Chief Lanier said during an interview Tuesday on NewsTalk with Bruce Depuyt. “Our residents have been pretty clear this is not something that they wanted. A very small number of D.C. residents have applied for concealed carry.”

SEE ALSO: Federal judge halts D.C.’s ‘good reason’ concealed carry requirement

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on Monday granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by three gun owners that seeks to overturn the city’s recently adopted concealed carry law on the grounds that the regulations are too strict and deprive gun owners of Second Amendment rights.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/dc-concealed-carry-dc-police-chief-downplays-rulin/#ixzz3ayAeWyXG

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I argue the same thing about concealed carry permits in Washington DC. regulations are too strict and deprive gun owners of Second Amendment rights.

If only a few hundred people want to conceal carry it is a bit of a waste of time to write a law about it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Citing the low number of concealed carry permit applications the District has received, D.C. Police Chief

Cathy L. Lanier on Tuesday downplayed the effects of a federal court ruling that strikes down the citys requirement gun owners demonstrate a good reason in order to receive the permits.

Since October, when regulations for the issuance of concealed carry permits took effect, through May 9, the Metropolitan Police Department received 107 applications and denied 42. It has granted 26 concealed carry permits.

Its not a huge impact for us. We havent had a huge number of applicants, Chief Lanier said during an interview Tuesday on NewsTalk with Bruce Depuyt. Our residents have been pretty clear this is not something that they wanted. A very small number of D.C. residents have applied for concealed carry.

SEE ALSO: Federal judge halts D.C.s good reason concealed carry requirement

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. on Monday granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by three gun owners that seeks to overturn the citys recently adopted concealed carry law on the grounds that the regulations are too strict and deprive gun owners of Second Amendment rights.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/dc-concealed-carry-dc-police-chief-downplays-rulin/#ixzz3ayAeWyXG

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I argue the same thing about concealed carry permits in Washington DC. regulations are too strict and deprive gun owners of Second Amendment rights.

If only a few hundred people want to conceal carry it is a bit of a waste of time to write a law about it

You have guns on the brain.

[lostinblue 1,989]

You have guns on the brain.

Here I agree with you and you are still a bit snarky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because it is perfectly reasonable to compare a piece of clothing with a firearm. At least in losts bunker it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't take much. Every subject turns to guns via the most spurious of tangents.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Venkman