Dutch ban on burqas in public places takes effect

All the problems in the world to address, and these brainiacs go after 200-400 women wearing burkas. Yeah, I am sure they are an existential threat...

Fortunately, the people that are supposed to enforce it aren't willing to waste their time.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/01/dutch-burqa-ban-takes-effect-but-police-unlikely-to-enforce-it/

BB - it isn't racist.

It could be an attack on religious freedom, but most people don't practice their religion in public buildings and this doesn't impact what they do at home or in buildings owned by any religious group.

When you move to a new country, there are local customs which need to be respected. Hiding one's face is disconcerting in many European cultures.

When I visit Islamic countries, I know to dress in a modest way, because that is their culture. When I visit temples, I know to wear long pants and a nice shirt. It is a sign of respect for their culture.

Shouldn't people visiting/moving into other cultures show similar respect for local customs?

Thankfully, the road to integration is being set by these forward looking European countries.

It added that it was important in such public places to be recognized and seen, which besides the burqa, also bans a face-covering helmet or hood. A person could be fined 150 euros ($165).

Looks like cosplayers in the Netherlands will need to be very careful now. So are those people dressing up as mascots for events. All can now only be done in privates.

Is it OK, then for Japanese tourists to wear face masks?

Is it OK, then for Japanese tourists to wear face masks?

Maybe; the wording of the article would imply that’s a possibility, but doesn’t give enough details of the law to determine one way or the other.

Actually, this ban also covers integral helmets and balaclava masks in offices, hospitals and schools. Sounds quite fair to me.

This is not the subject of legislation, surely. If the law states that faces must be uncovered, then Japanese tourists wearing face masks must be illegal. As would anyone with allergies or a cold who wants to wear one. If the law states that burqas are illegal, this is surely racist and religious persecution.

Can't we even decide what to wear these days?

@BertieWooster

Is it OK, then for Japanese tourists to wear face masks?

Nice one, Bertie.

For those who see this as racist or an attack on religious freedom, perhaps it is worth pointing out that some Muslim-majority countries have banned this garment. For some Muslims it is seen as extremist and a security risk.

The Dutch law does not ban the wearing of a burqa on the street, unlike France's ban which took effect in 2010. Belgium, Denmark and Austria have similar laws.

In most Muslim countries you can’t be on the street converting people can be a serious crime. There country, there laws, there are a lot of laws where you live as a foreigner that you may not like in your host country, but when in Rome....

Better late than never I guess. Every other non-Islamic country in the world needs to follow suit.

Looks like it's not easy to enforce anyway:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/01/dutch-police-signal-unwillingness-enforce-new-burqa-ban

A blatant and racist attack on religious freedom and the right of women to dress as they please.

It's not racist, but it does limit the freedom to dress as one wishes, which is not something I favour. As for "religious freedom": religions are made up by people and the "rules" of those religions should never supersede national laws. Otherwise, anyone could say anything they did was part of their religion, resulting in chaos.

In most Muslim countries you can’t be on the street converting people can be a serious crime.

Yes, but thankfully the Netherlands is not governed by theocrats or leaders with theocratic tendencies - it is a functionally secular country. Thinking in terms of ‘Islamic countries do worse’ isn’t the way to approach this. If you take the likes of Saudi Arabia as a model, bigots could argue for throwing gays in jail because the Saudis do worse by executing them.

Not a useful nor civilized metric.

This is NOT an absolute ban anywhere in Denmark. The ban is in very specific locations only.

BTW, men in Islamic countries often hold hands as a sign of friendship. There are many photos of this. They also kiss on the cheek.

The body and the clothing covering it is a private matter

Not when you are impossible to identify because you are covered from head to toe in public spaces.

Then it ceases to become a purely private matter.

Bush,

I'm sure mother Russia will welcome with open arms all these poor Muslims whisk rights are being trampled on by the evil Europeans. Meh...

Absolutely a meaningful move. It has nothing to do with religion as some wants to define it as. It has to do with the safety and security of a country's citizens.

In some areas of the US, sunglasses and hats are prohibited in banks and allows security cameras and security personnel to identify individuals. That is for the safety and security of the bank and their customers. And ALL are required to remove them, regardless of religion.

When the world is no longer "safe" and "secure", only because there are racial tensions and terror activities, this is one way to assure "identifying" any suspicious persons and perpetrators. And their society has some major problems. So why not?

Not when you are impossible to identify because you are covered from head to toe in public spaces. 

Then it ceases to become a purely private matter.

Oh, I definitely agree on that point.

The problem is and remains what to whan a radical political ideology and system of law that is incompatible with Western culture and law is allowed because it calls itself a "religion".

Unless we redefine our concept of "religious freedom", we will continue to lose.

Unless we redefine our concept of "religious freedom", we will continue to lose.

Can you give us a definition to work from?

What law says that women must expose themselves in public?

The laws in the following 14 nations that have banned the burqa, includiding Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium, Tajikistan, Latvia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, the Netherlands, Morocco and Sri Lanka.

In Japan I’ve seen many Muslim women but none ever wearing a burqa.

Very encouraging to hear let's hope it stays that way.

Very encouraging to hear let's hope it stays that way.

I think the majority of Muslim residents or tourists in Japan are of SE Asian origin where the burqa is less prevalent. In Tokyo, you’ll pretty often see women wearing the headscarf.

In Tokyo, you’ll pretty often see women wearing the headscarf.

That's true and even that will diminish seeing as the global trend, religious regimes notwithstanding, tends to make wearing a headscarf much more a personal choice rather than an obligation.

@Zichi

Many argue the headscarf isn’t a requirement according to the scripture either.

It certainly predates Islam.

@Zichi

The Quran is self-contradictory. Some Muslims quote the verse which stipulates there is no compunction in religion which they take to mean wearing the headscarf is not obligatory.

I’ve always found it strange that the creator of the universe isn’t very good at making things clear. I do a better job writing reports and I’m a semi-educated, semi-literate mortal.

*compunction - compulsion

Getting late...

The Quran is self-contradictory

The Quran like any other religious book leaves a lot of room for interpretation which can be used by contemporary leaders at their own discretion and benefit.

The Quran like any other religious book leaves a lot of room for interpretation which can be used by contemporary leaders at their own discretion and benefit.

True. They all seem to be men telling women what to do too. Funny that. I get the feeling the burqa wasn’t the brainchild of a woman.

I think in France even the headscarf is banned in all public buildings?

Yes but if I am not mistaken only when actually holding a public office as is the case in some other countries as well.

This does not only apply to the headscarf by the way but all religious symbols in order to ensure neutrality and promote secularisation.

Absolutely a meaningful move. It has nothing to do with religion as some wants to define it as. It has to do with the safety and security of a country's citizens.

Yet for centuries nuns were unimpeded, yet in the last few years countries all across Europe have implemented rule similar rules banning headscarves. It clearly has a lot to do with religion.

point is the burqa isn't mention in the Quran while the headscarf is. Banning the burqa is not going against the Quran. They can wear a headscarf.

Covering of hair was a pretty common thing among women in Europe until recently, and in Judaism. Across parts of Southern Europe you will still see elderly women with covered hair. And look at paintings from there middle ages up to the 18th century - women were still covering their hair. For example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_with_a_Water_Jug

It was a quasi-religious practice. Fortunately nearly died out in Europe, along with religion altogether (something I pray for, figuratively)

No one should be telling women what they can and can't wear.

No masks in hospitals? Nasty...

women's bodies are beautiful and a product of God and nature and do not need to be hidden as there is nothing wrong or evil or shameful about them.

Women have the right to dress as they feel. Covered or not.

It's got nothing to do with any deities.