Belgium considers banning the veil
The Belgian lower house of parliament on Thursday approved a bill to ban wearing the full Islamic face veil in public, a move that could make Belgium the first European country to make the practice a criminal offence.The draft law, cast as a security measure by proponents, was overwhelmingly backed by 136 lawmakers. Just two abstained.
The bill, which would ban all clothing that covers or partially covers the face, could become law in the coming months as the upper house, or Senate, is not expected to block it.
However, the collapse of Belgium's coalition government last week and the prospect of an imminent election could cause a delay because parliament would have to be dissolved.
France is considering similar legislation. Amnesty International sees clearly that these efforts are repressive, violating the right to follow the teachings of one's faith in a way that poses no threat to the wider society. The bill's supporters, who, alas, are liberals, argue that this is a security measure because people can "hide" behind the veil. Please. Where's the legislation banning the wearing of Groucho Marx glasses or Richard Nixon masks?
Tom Heneghan explores the possibility that the ban may spread.
Actually, Florida has a law on the books -- long predating 9/11 -- that outlaws wearing face coverings in public. It's a general prohibition that goes back to a good reason: the need to thwart public demonstrations and acts of terrorism on the part of the Ku Klux Klan by stripping them of their anonymity. Since the law can't target just one group, that prohibition would cover those Richard Nixon masks and those niqabs (face veils) too, for the same security rationale. Two questions:
(1) Does Islam absolutely require women to cover their faces? (Judging by the female Muslim students I see dressed traditionally -- long sleeves, long pant legs or skirts, head and hair covered, but face unveiled -- on the university campus where I work, the answer is definitely "No.")
(2) Has Amnesty International ever taken a stand against the Saudi Arabian government's ban on the display of symbols of religions other than Islam there? A Christian can't wear a cross around his/her neck there without running into big trouble with local law enforcement, even though there's no identity concealment or risk security involved.
Gregory Orloff
Posted by Gregory![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 3, 2010 11:45 AM
I find it hard to believe that fear of the unknown Other ever proceeds from what is good within us.
But of course I could be wrong ...
Jan Adams
Posted by janinsanfran![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 3, 2010 12:57 PM
Gregory, you can't really answer your first question with a "no." Like Christianity, what is required by the faith and what is culturally determined are so intertwined that no generalizations are possible except that where government enforces homogeneity.
Given the heterogeneity of practice perfectly reasonable for some Muslim women to challenge the Florida on religious grounds, and others not.
The Belgian bill reminds me of the Swedish referendum in November that banned minarets. And the UK examples where nurses cannot wear crosses on the job.
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 3, 2010 2:08 PM
I think I could back an all-purpose ban on face-masks (that cover eyes, unlike surgical masks) for ADULTS, in public.
[Masquerade balls and Halloween parties being conducted in private, I don't see a problem. It would also be analogous to public nudity bans.]
Children are entirely different. Not having all the rights of adults, they should not bear all the responsibilities, either (Trick or treating is thus saved!)
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 3, 2010 5:01 PM
John, although there was a 2009 poll in Sweden where 1 in 4 favored a ban on more minarets in that country ( http://www.thelocal.se/23636/20091203/ ), the referendum was in Switzerland. (The Swedish foreign minister criticised the Swiss referendum:
http://www.thelocal.se/23562/20091130/ .)
- Jay Vos
Posted by dutchfox![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 3, 2010 9:19 PM