From Steve Gilliard, apparently the Dutch are considering banning the burqa, the niqab and other Muslim veils that cover the face.
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – If the Netherlands becomes the first European country to ban the burqa and other Muslim face veils this month, Hope says she’ll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs.
“I’ll wear one of those things they wore during the SARS epidemic if I have to,” said the Dutch-born Muslim, one of about 50 women in the Netherlands who wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.
“I’m very practical,” the 22-year-old added.
Last December, parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure.
The cabinet is awaiting the results of a study into the legality of such a ban under European human rights laws, before making its final decision. The results are expected in the second half of this month.
50 women. 50 women wear face coverings in the entire country, and there’s an effort to ban their clothing.
I’m with Steve on this one: this is the kind of thing that would never fly here, because of the First Amendment. There are anti-mask laws on the books, but those are really targeted at the Klan and bank robbers. Steve is very vocal about the racism in Europe, something that’s not acknowledged by the Europeans — particularly those who see themselves as tolerant but haven’t dealt with their colonial past. He is also an avid fan of Manchester United, and a lot of the examples he gives of overt racism come from football, such as fans shouting racial slurs at black and brown players. You know, the kind of thing that would cause a riot here.
Another layer of the story, as pointed out by some of Steve’s commenters who live in the Netherlands, is that the politician who’s driving this effort, Geert Wilders, described by Reuters as a “populist,” is actually of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Le Pen kind of populist. He also, apparently, hasn’t had the world’s best record on women’s issues, so many Dutch are a bit suspicious when he says stuff like this:
“This is an enormous victory for traditional Dutch decency,” said Geert Wilders, the populist member of parliament who first proposed the burqa ban, after hearing parliament had backed it.
“The burqa is hostile to women, and medieval. For a woman to walk around on the streets completely covered is an insult to everyone who believes in equal rights.”
Wilders also tried to justify the ban by appealing to fear:
Wilders, who lives under heavy guard after death threats for his criticism of radical Islam, argues a ban on the burqa will support moderate Muslims and boost their wider integration, in addition to removing a security risk.
“It is not acceptable for people to completely cover themselves on the street. It threatens public order and security. Plus it is a terrifying sight and only increases the cleft between natives and foreigners,” he wrote in his Web-log.
I sure as hell don’t like the burqa, but I don’t see the point in a ban targeted at women who wear them. Muslims in the Netherlands already feel marginalized; this is only going to give them further grounds for feeling persecuted, and will do even more to increase the cleft between natives and foreigners (as, undoubtedly, will continuing to refer to them as “foreigners” when they’ve lived in the Netherlands for generations). Whereas, human nature being what it is, if you don’t make a big deal of it, and in the meantime fully integrate Muslims into society, the burqas will probably go away on their own.
The much-debated “headscarf ban” in France was designed to address the plight of young Muslim girls who were being forced to take the veil by making any display of any religious article forbidden in the public schools. It applies across the board, for everything from crucifixes to yarmulkes to hijab, so it provides cover for girls who don’t want to wear the veil (but, unfortunately, puts girls who do in a bad position and hasn’t worked as effectively as had been hoped).
But more importantly, the French ban applied only to public schools, not to society at large. The Dutch ban is neither universal nor limited. It’s one thing to pull your daughter out of the public schools when she can wear a veil on her own time, but the effect of banning the burqa and the niqab is likely to be the further oppression of these women. If, as the reasoning goes, the burqa is a symbol of their oppression, what makes Wilders think that the people oppressing them — the men in their lives — will allow them to go out in public with their faces uncovered? More likely, they’ll be kept in purdah instead, not allowed to leave the house.
It’s unquestionably a little freaky to see a woman in a free society wearing a burqa — my subway stop is next to an elementary school, and I quite often see a woman in a burqa dropping her kids off in the morning. I guess that she’s a recent immigrant, as there are many in my neighborhood, but she’s the only one in her group wearing a burqa (the other women I see her with wear salwar kameez, with the occasional hijab). But as distasteful as the whole thing is, I wouldn’t dream of advocating a ban on her wearing a burqa.
Why? Well, one thing Steve missed in his analysis is that this proposed ban is just another way to oppress these women, by turning them into criminals for doing what they probably have little choice to do, given their situation. Several of his commenters, who support the ban, brought up footbinding and female genital mutilation as examples of religious or cultural practices that we do not tolerate even under the idea of multiculturalism. But here’s the thing: with footbinding and FGM, it’s not the girls who are so mutilated who are held accountable for the crime, it’s the people who do the mutilating. The Dutch ban puts the onus on the women themselves to change their oppressive manner of dress and leaves those who presumably are forcing them to wear the burqa unpunished.