Discovering some vestigal backbone
Bookworm on Nov 17 2006 at 11:12 pm | Filed under: Europe, Islam, Multiculturalism
I’ve known about it all day, and almost didn’t blog about it, since news gets stale so quickly. Nevertheless, it seemed almost morally wrong not to applaud the Dutch for their recent moment of spine: they’ve banned the burqa.
The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe’s most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent’s toughest laws against concealing the face.
“The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face — including the burqa — should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens,” the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.
The debate on face veils and whether they stymie Muslim integration has gathered momentum across Europe.
The Netherlands would be the first European state to impose a countrywide ban on Islamic face coverings, though other countries have already outlawed them in specific places.
The move by the center-right government comes just five days before a general election. The campaign has focused so far on issues like the economy rather than immigration because most mainstream parties have hardened their stances in recent years.
Last December Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a proposal by far-right politician Geert Wilders to outlaw face-coverings and asked Verdonk to examine the feasibility of such a ban.
Because veils were worn for religious reasons, she had feared new legislation could come into conflict with religious freedom laws. But she said on Friday this was not the case.
And for those who decry this move as a blow against religious freedom, let me say a few things. First, the burqa isn’t necessarily a religious statement, but is more a cultural and political statement (as I’ve blogged about before). Second, in today’s world, where Muslim men are hiding their violent acts behind women’s burqas, the Dutch are right to view this as a safety matter. Third, where Muslim men are using unveiled women as an excuse for rape and other sexual assaults, having a law that removes burqas entirely from the female population should have an interesting effect on the dynamic behind that misogynistic excuse for rape.
Fourth, where religious practices impinge on public safety, all governments have deemed it permissible to act. A minor example is the prohibition against voodoo animal sacrifices in America. More major examples are kids in Christian Science communities who find themselves given medical care whether their parents like it or not. And I think there are few who regret today the British decision in 1829 to outlaw sati (aka suttee) the practice amongst some East Indians of coercing widows to burn themselves alive on their husband’s funeral pyres.
As Dennis Prager has said, we have to distinguish between religious morality and doctrine on the one hand, and ritual and tradition on the other. In a pluralistic society, the former has to be handled with significantly greater respect than the latter. So, again, huzzah! to the Dutch, who showed unforeseen bravery in tackling a distasteful, misogynistic and dangerous tradition that has the potential to undermine Western freedoms.
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
6 Responses to “Discovering some vestigal backbone”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is good news, but how many women will it actually affect? From what I have observed, most “veiled” women have their hair covered, but not their faces, even if they are wearing the long, loose robe.
That is debatable, Heather, sure. But I’m more worried about enforcement. If the police look the other way, it don’t matter what laws are on the books.
There may yet be hope for Europe. I had all but given up on it, but maybe a gleam of hope if they actually enforce this law? There was an editorial about Wilders in today’s WSJ. Wilders has to live under intense police protection and work in a near dungeon because the ROP has threatened murder for being denounced as violent.
I am waiting for Holland to redeem itself for what it did to the courageous Ayan Hirsi Ali.
re: “Second, in today’s world, where Muslim men are hiding their violent acts behind women’s burqas,”
It’s a safety measure for more reasons than this.
I’ve been extremely suspicious of the current fad of women going to full veiling in public, and it does seem to be an “in your face” fad among many young women. Some of the women are genuine traditionalists, but most of them are following a fashion trend. Just a few weeks ago, The Big Pharoah had a post griping about this trend taking hold in Egypt in recent years, and increasing in recent months.
However, and I’m sure the Dutch intelligence people thought of this a long time before I did, a veiled “woman” can also hide a disguised terrorist.
I’ve been wondering if it had been made “trendy” among Muslim women to wear full veiling of whatever type by terrorist organizations in order to pull off a Trojan Horse kind of stunt. For instance, did this trend spread via al Jazeera, or some such?
It’s about time someone in Europe besides the Danes grew some balls!
There was some other thing going on in Denmark if I recall. Something about a 50 Kph speed limit.
I am on the side of Western Culture in the Civilization Wars.
I think that this law is a mistake. It is addressing a symptom instead of a cause. From “Watchmen”: It is “wiping flecks of spittle from a rabid dog’s mouth”. It doesn’t cure the rabies.
Instead of trying to suppress a cultural trait, WC countries should just enforce their rules. The pluralisms and freedoms of WC should be ruthlessly imposed upon all members of the society. A strong WC can say: “if you don’t want your wives and daughters to have freedom of movement, action, speech and dress then go live in another country. If you want to advocate for violence then you will be punished for incitement just like anyone else. If you send funds to terror groups then we will punish you like anyone else. If you riot in the streets because of an insult to your religion you will get ignored.”
But we should not care if they want to wear a sack on their head.
The Dutch have openly considered allowing Muslims to impose Sharia law for “domestic” matters. But then they go ahead and enact this ridiculous law. This isn’t courage, backbone or balls. It is desperation.