Belgium moves to become first European country to ban the burka

[Peikko 1,575]

Ahh MC, you are correct in detail but clearly you avoid the obvious reality.

This law may not name "burka" but is there anyone who denies thats exactly what it was written for?

To say people are free to wear a Burka at home is silly as the intent (as I know it) is for public use not at home.

Seems we had similar laws passed years ago which amounted to the same thing but they were aimed at the Klan, no one doubted who this law spoke too... though I doubt the word "Klan" was mentioned in them.

To you and I it is meaningless but if extreme modesty were a part of a persons faith, we can be sure it would be very meaningful to them.

I think in fairness immigrating people should have been warned that THEY are welcome to come but some of their customs of dress are not.

HAd someone immigrated to BG say ten years ago and had established their life, now they must either abandon their life in that country and leave or compromise some meaningful part of their faith.

Private is not necessarily 'at home'.

Public places are meant to be safe for all to use and face coverings can compromise safety and security. I am sure I would not want to be a bank teller in a bank where people were free to wander in completely disguised as a matter of course - that would be silly. As with all things, these measures have to be reasonable and appropriate. I would not want people to wear ski masks and balaclavas in public unless they were on ski slopes or other appropriate setting - fortunately for the most part people do not do such things because they have no reason to do so beyond provocation.

Banning any clothing that precludes ready recognition of any individual makes sense. If some religious group chooses to interpret that as some kind of threat to their religion, I would simply suggest they should examine the true purpose of such clothing, because complete covering has nothing to do with modesty. Every religion has placed a value on modesty (rightly or wrongly) and every religion has been able to come up with modest clothing that does not preclude individuals from being recognizable.

Of course personally, I don't see how covering a woman up helps society to maintain a secure environment for a woman, which I am sure is one of the driving forces behind such garb. Such an idea promotes the notion that men should not be held accountable for their ####### and what it might 'lead them' to do. How utterly ridiculous! Men are perfectly capable of keeping their pants on, even in the presence of an attractive woman, and placing the onus on them to continue to do so is far preferable to this ridiculous notion that women 'ask for sexual molestation' when they don't dress modestly. Women are of course responsible to being perfectly clear when sexual advances are welcome and when they are not - but behaviour and of course a mutual contract through dialogue is the indicator of willingness, not how one dresses.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Danno 1,228]

Private is not necessarily 'at home'.

Public places are meant to be safe for all to use and face coverings can compromise safety and security. I am sure I would not want to be a bank teller in a bank where people were free to wander in completely disguised as a matter of course - that would be silly. As with all things, these measures have to be reasonable and appropriate. I would not want people to wear ski masks and balaclavas in public unless they were on ski slopes or other appropriate setting - fortunately for the most part people do not do such things because they have no reason to do so beyond provocation.

Banning any clothing that precludes ready recognition of any individual makes sense. If some religious group chooses to interpret that as some kind of threat to their religion, I would simply suggest they should examine the true purpose of such clothing, because complete covering has nothing to do with modesty. Every religion has placed a value on modesty (rightly or wrongly) and every religion has been able to come up with modest clothing that does not preclude individuals from being recognizable.

Of course personally, I don't see how covering a woman up helps society to maintain a secure environment for a woman, which I am sure is one of the driving forces behind such garb. Such an idea promotes the notion that men should not be held accountable for their ####### and what it might 'lead them' to do. How utterly ridiculous! Men are perfectly capable of keeping their pants on, even in the presence of an attractive woman, and placing the onus on them to continue to do so is far preferable to this ridiculous notion that women 'ask for sexual molestation' when they don't dress modestly. Women are of course responsible to being perfectly clear when sexual advances are welcome and when they are not - but behaviour and of course a mutual contract through dialogue is the indicator of willingness, not how one dresses.

I think we can agree, ones desire to wear concealing religiously inspired clothing styles do not override true security concerns such as at airports DMV or banks as you pointed out.

BUt outlawing these clothes in other situations are going beyond security needs and wading into the area of forcing people to dress like others for the simple reason that you don't agree with their lifestyle.

I am not aware of any instances where Burka Clad people have concealed their face while committing crimes so why write laws over non-issues?

As I have said before, when countries open their doors to cultures and people who are markedly different than them, they should either drop the "we love diversity #######" and give them clear warning of -assimilate or else-

or they should let these folks live as their traditions and habits demand, without making up laws to solve problems that don't exist.

If a woman in a Burka is more than you can handle change immigration laws or "get over it".

[_Simpson_ 250]

Its a dam shame that these woman wear a burka, something needs to be done to help these poor brainwashed woman. I just dont know if this is the way to go about it.

[Darnell 8,478]

Is it a choice they make or are we making that choice for them by excluding them because of their religion?

It's not religion, in it's purest form.

You know there's NO universal fatwa stating the burhka must be worn, right?

If you don't know that, well, look around ya - there are millions of Muslim women who do not wear it, and still consider themselves to be not only religious, but devout Muslims, as well.

The 'wearing of the burkha', mostly, can be viewed as 'local option' -

with the 'local option' falling into one or more categories:

1. there's a local fatwa from an imam at a local mosque, stating it must be worn.

2. the lady married a man who follows a particular iman, regardless of location, and since she must abide by the husband's interpretation of Islam, must wear the burkha because that iman (which, again, her husband follows) says to wear it.

3. she's part of a particular sect that requires it

4. She lives in a country that has made the wearing of the burkha a national law.

Sure, religion is involved, but it's NOT UNIVERSAL, not by any means. I'd never deign to say they were excluded because of their religion. I'd make a point, instead, that the woman wearing the burkha made a conscious choice so to do.

IMO, if Belgium wanted a non-political solution - they'd figure out a way to bribe the imans in Belgium to reverse a local fatwa. It'd cost less, in the long run, you betcha.

Oh - and to be clear - it's NOT A LAW, in Belgium, YET. Them fellas are still talking about it.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Darnell