I'm not afraid of the Reformed either, both pose no threat, but the Reformed are more active then the Muslims
Printable View
I'm not afraid of the Reformed either, both pose no threat, but the Reformed are more active then the Muslims
To me, a nation is a political project. Nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
I have always thought about it that way since my father gave me the 1882 Sorbonne lecture Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? by Ernest Renan to read. There are English translations available on various websites. In Renans view, a nation was not constituted by a (supposed) common past, but by the commitment to a common future.
In my own view, commitment to a common Dutch future means commitment to a political project based, roughly speaking, on democracy, justice and freedom from want.
Americans will easily understand this principle. They are an immigrant nation united by a Constitution more than by anything else, including any traditions inherited from the countries of origin. Look at the requirements for U.S. citizenship:
Requirements include:All these requirements stress the commitment of the new citizen to the common project, as well as his/her ability to participate in it (language, minimum legal knowledge). You no like, you no welcome.
- A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States
- An ability to read, write and speak English
- Good moral character
- Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution
- Favorable disposition toward the United States
- Oath of Allegiance
I believe we should take a leaf or two from the American book, maybe adapt them but retain the main thrust. Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the Dutch political project excludes religious practices that result in the discrimination of women. Period. You no like, you go pray somewhere else.
EDIT
Dear Sinan, I am sorry I didn't catch your post (above) about your Canadian friend and yourself earlier. My sincere compliments. That is exactly the spirit I mean.
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
That's probably because of our biased media, though :rolleyes:
Apart from Wilders I haven't heard of threats against politicians, or attack on nuclear power plants by muslimsQuote:
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
Surely a nation is constituted by a combination of the two? a common past brings people together, while a commitmnet to a common future binds them together... although i agree with the jist of it (i'v never heard of renan - but it sounds interesting to read)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
In my opinion all religions discriminate. By creating a grouping as such a seperation is created between those of that religion and those who are not, if your going to have a plkitical projest, you can't have any religion at all... :2thumbsup:Quote:
I believe we should take a leaf or two from the American book, maybe adapt them but retain the main thrust. Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the Dutch political project excludes religious practices that result in the discrimination of women. Period. You no like, you go pray somewhere else.
Hirschi Ali.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
And not just nuclear power plants.
That's my cousin actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And thanks.
Well there are hundreds of examples this year alone of "Christians" sending death threats to politicians , the judiciary ,clergy ,entertainers , the police , pressure groups , scientists , college staff , medical staff ........Quote:
More active, in what respect? As of yet, I've never heard of any protestant christians sending large amounts of death threats to our politicians. Or making plans to attack nuclear power plants, or that sort of stuff.
That's probably because of our biased media, though
Then this month there was that other religeous group who following up on their death threats to shopkeepers , bus drivers , restauranteurs , schoolteachers ......this time decided it was the turn of politicians , the police , judiciary and gays .
In every branch together with the holy fruit you also find the religeous nuts .
I guess the point is that immigrants are in their majority poor and therefore uneducated people. And uneducated people have a close connection with religion. And then you have those imams that preach all day about how the west will fall under the sword of allah and that muslims have to fight against the infidels. They preach these things in european land. They can preach these things because they are protected by the constitution of the state they live in and yet they attack it.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Almost signature material. A quote from Luke (journeyman's notes, later revised from first draft) perhaps?
:focus:
I think that the law is fine.
As stated it is against most forms that cover the face, of any religion.
And also there are few that wear these wierd pieces of clothing, so why the uproar againt something that the majority of Muslims don't wear?
~:smoking:
Trying to get this on topic again ...
Banning burka's? Yes!
Why?
They are asymboltool of oppression. Oppression of women and what's worse, it is a kind of oppression that is still going on in the world. Burkas symbolize an aspect of a (wrong) intepretaton of a Holy book like the Quran which allows women to be treated as inferior beings.
In our society, women are considered to be equal i.e. with the same rights as men. They are to be treated with the same amount of respect as men.
Banning the burka is banning a symbol that stands for an attitude that doesn't cope with the standards of our society.
Those yelling that it's a deprivement of our freedoms are wrong. The burka itself deprives women of the freedoms which they have as being part of our communities.
On a side note, one should always remember that there wouldn't be any "freedoms" for anybody without a certain amount of rules and standards to obey.
Andres is right, and if you don't agree, talk to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or watch one of her films
You raise some interesting points, Andres. However, banning burkas to free women from oppression seems to me to be curing the symptoms rather than dealing with the disease itself. The end result of such solutions is that people feel like they've done something when they really haven't done anything substantive at all; so they wash their hands of the issue and ignore the continued underlying causes of the symptoms they think they cured.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
True. Banning the burka won't solve the problem of the oppression of women within a certain part (an that's a larger part then we like to admit, I'm afraid) of the Muslim community living nowadays in our western societies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
It would be however a strong signal stating that oppressing women is not allowed and not conform with our standards (yes, we have alot of freedoms in our society, but the right to oppress your wife is not one of them).
Off course, it will not be thé solution. Solving the problem as a whole, will be a more complicated matter which will involve a well thought integration policy.
There are no simple solutions for all the problems that come with migration and integration.
So the ban of the burka will certainly not be the solution, but it can be seen as (an important) part of the solution.
It won't cure the disease, but taking away the nasty and harmfull symptoms of the disease will be at least a partial relief for the women involved. They will feel supported by the society where they live in and by it's government.
:thumbsdown:I like your approach because it shows concern with the most likely victims of Muslim oppression in Dutch society. We have let female migrants down in a terrible way.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
And it is not just the women we have let down, but also quite a few Muslim men who want to abandon the faith and lead their own llives, free from religous and social pressures from their so-called brethren, often subsidised leaders of the neighbourhood Allah-watch.
There are more than a few refugees from Muslim countries who escaped violence and oppression and who want to have nothing to do anymore with the whole Allah thingy. Instead of supporting these people and waging a much-needed campaign amongst Dutch Muslims clerics and school teachers warning them leave 'renegade Muslims' alone, we subsidise 'Islamic culture' in Amsterdam with another 400.000 euro.
The subsidy goes toward the erection of a 'House of Dialogue with Islam', ran by a foundation called Marhaba (Ar. for ''Welcome'). According to the Amsterdam mayor, the House is supposed to be a secular instutute, yet it should give 'a central role to Islam' in order to make Muslims feel 'more at home in The Netherlands'.
Marhaba's stated mission is to 'liberate Amsterdam Muslims from Islam's traditional, submissive, passive and docile attitude toward Western modernity' and establish a 'European Muslim identity'.
Never mind that this is interference of the state in matters of religious doctrine. Never mind that this is another step in the creeping re-islamisation of the one million migrants from Muslim countries, many of whom are not practicing Muslms at all and couldn't care less for all the nonsense propagated in their name by so-called Muslim leaders.
Echhh... :thumbsdown:
So, you're in favor of the law because it's some sort of forced secularization?
Banning burqa's by the state would be oppression for the woman who want to wear them.
I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.
Interesting point actually there. I think I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
Although religion can be even harder to scrape off than government, and you can't vote to get rid of it. Particularly not when it's "the word of god" and isn't open to reinterpretation (despite already presumably having been interpreted once... so why not again).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
Do you truly believe women are wearing burka's voluntarily?
Even if the women in the Netherlands wear them out of their free will, you cannot deny that they are not worn out of free will by women in e.g. Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Imho it is a symbol of oppression. Oppression of women.
Just as Muhammed cartoons provoke the Muslim community, just as the strechting of the right arm while shouting "Sieg Heil" provokes the Jews (and everybody else with some common sense), the burka provokes our standard of equality of the sexes and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.
Sure. And banning nudity is oppression of the people who want to be naked? :dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
Look, personally I don't think the garment should be banned, although as a symbol of oppression and forced social isolation I find it about as offensive as yellow stars for Jews. All regimes and movements in the world that enforce it have horrible human rights records, particularly where women are concerned. Those who want to keep their eyes wide shut about this issue can go ahead at their own peril. They will only be convinced (if ever) by facts and personal experiences anyway, not by posts in an Internet forum. The garment as such will have to wear off, figuratively and literally. I don't want Dutch police to arrest Muslim women and drag them off into vans on account of a dress. The downside of that would outweigh the benefits.
The proposed law, however, bans only the facial covering for security reasons and that is fine by me. Muslim women can retain the rest of the rag if they want. For all I care they can call it the burk. Or the urka.
:coffeenews:
But civilization or modernity aren't ours, AndresTheCunning, and never have been. The garment is disrespectful of womens' rights and dignity anywhere in the world. There is probably more (hidden) opposition to it in, say, Afghanistan, than in all of Europe. And for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
Thanks for correcting me :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I accept the fact that I cannot fathom every aspect of every culture other than my own. Yes, I d believe people wear them voluntarily as well. Especially in a countrly like the Netherlands where social services are good and there are enough shelters (makes it easier for woman not to wear the clothing).Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
This thread is not about woman in Afghanistan, it's about Dutch woman.Quote:
Even if the women in the Netherlands wear them out of their free will, you cannot deny that they are not worn out of free will by women in e.g. Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Imho it is a symbol of oppression. Oppression of women.
There's a whole different cultural background you'll have to take into account here.
Why is it offensive ? A swastika can be offensive since it stands for pure hatred towards a group of people and reminds people of the holocaust...how does a burqa have that effect ?Quote:
and is to be considered disrespectful towards the basics of our modern western societies.
I wonder how they'd react if I told them I have a burqa fetish?
I just love governments who tell people how to dress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It’s kind of like the Scottish kilt.
You mean underneath?... :stunned:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Many would argue that push-up bras and high heels are also symbols/tools of the oppression of women. Should we ban them too? (I fervently hope the answer is "no")Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
I'm shocked!!!... What happened to that Adrian II who almost fought tongue to tongue against Redleg when the issue of Freedom of Press arose in Europe. The Adrian II who won't change his sharp arguements against abridging or previous censorship even when a part of Europe was of fire?
...The Constitution of the Netherlands says:
Art. 6 (Religion and Belief)
(1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
(2) Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.
The freedom to express is separated on another article. Here it talks about "manifesting" religion as a different thing.
As Aenlic has correctly pointed out that a religious custom is not in the correspondent religious holy book is not an arguement against said use or custom. So we can safely place burquas as an use or custom from Islam.
So it's actually to manifest religion, to use a burqua, even if it's not what you wanted to manifest.
On the second point, and as wise constitution, it establishes the reserve or exception of this right of the people, when the safety of said people is at stakes. So what has to be established is if there's a concrete sensible and inmidiate danger of "disorders" to the public in this days in an specific territory: the Netherlands. Adrian II says that there's a sensible danger ("battered womans"), now is this danger concrete and inmediate, or is it more spread and mediat, more abstract. This kind of reserves are only made for when there's a danger with those three characteristics in space and time, wich can affect a concrete society as a whole because it endangers stability.
Now... How does using burquas today does that? I don't know, perhaps some dutch can tell me...
EDIT
Excuse me for being clichè Adrian, but you do realize that that's one of the principles of mussolinian fascism, don't you? You're aware of what that implies. Subordinating an espontaneous community of individuals, natural of course, to politics, to the State?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'll quote a fragment of a discourse from Mussolini wich is after the years 1929-30 in Italy: "It's not the Nation who has created the state, like in the old naturalist conception that served as a base for the publicists studies of the XIX century's States. It's the nation who's created by the State, wich gives the people, aware of his own moral unity, one will and, by consequence, one efective existence." Love and integration through unity. At all cost, as an statal purpose. I know that you're not saying this at all cost. But do you hold the same principle?
“I'd rather see oppression by religion than oppression from the government.” The Inquisition torturer are better than the Gestapo’s and KGB?:whip:
quite simple mia muca, elections :beam: Dirt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Torturing dutch soldiersshameless hoaxes, independent statechannels, it's beautifull!
If this sends a message to muslims that they cannot expect to be accepted by society if they do not accept social norms, then I support it.
Also, hopefully it might prevent them from concealing terrorists identities.
I heard there are some Islamic terrorists hiding under your bed. (confirm/deny)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
edit Mithrandir: no insults allowed.
Kind of handy if the radicals are easy to identify, couldn't care less, whatever will be will be. As long as they don't expect any love/$$$ if they can't get a job because they like walking around in their tents. Give trouble and be dealt with, and don't come begging here for food when you are hungry, eat your cloth instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
No, you're confused. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The proposed law has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has to do with a religious requirement (covering the face) that is incompatible with public security and with public order in the wider sense. There have been many examples of religious requirements and minority practices in Dutch society being repressed in the interest of public order as well as security, from unhygienic slaughering practices and all-day 'miracle' processions right down to the use of certain Chinese fireworks.
N.B. In the latter case, Dutchmen are really missing out on some fun. If you have ever seen a real Chinese fireworks you wil know what I mean! They are massive, utterly disorderly, incredibly noisy, and thoroughly 'un-Dutch'...
I love it! ~D
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'. This responsibility is stipulated in additional laws and rulings with regard to public order and safety. The proposed law would be one of those.
As for Mussolini... Alright, I will not be offended. I will point out to you that I mentioned Ernest Renan and United States naturalization law as some of my sources of inspiration. Mussolini may have borrowed the concept and given it his own twist, but that does not make it inherently fascist. Mussolini also drank coffee. Does that make coffee the fascist beverage par excellence? I think not.
It is Mussolini's ideal of the state as an ethnically homogenous nation animated by 'one will and one leader' that is essentially fascist.
How increadibly unjust and democratic.
What a pathetic law.
What more can one say. We trumpet this great thing called feedom of ecpression and such forth, yet it's just alot of farting really isn't it?
How is this meant to improve the country?
hmm that sound potentially dangerous to me.Quote:
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'.
There is something to say for the security argument, in Belgium for example there have been robbery's by men wearing burka's, it's not good to have your face covered in public. It's not going to improve anything because it doesn't change anything, those that believe that this will help wear pink burka's themselves. They don't like us, and they don't have to, I prefer it that way.
One could provide some sound arguments instead of a series of adjectives. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
This thread is going downhill again.
No personal attacks allowed. Play the ball, not the man.
Banning a piece of cloth that is meant to cover a woman's face will not solve any problems. All that it is going to do exactly what it is supposed to do initially. I agree totally that for terms of identification, the women should show their faces just to make sure their is a positive match.
I fail to understand why some people cannot believe that a woman would wear a burka(burqa?) out of her own will. In Russian Orthodox Christianity, it is expected for women to cover everything just short of her entire face. Centuries earlier, it was expected that they cover their entire face. Women do not seem mind and in most cases go with what is expected. However, to be fair, I should say that some of those women limit those practices to days of worship and days of observance. I do not believe they think much of it.
The Russian Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of modern feminism, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
And now that Russian women have the choice (free from cultural or religious dogmas) just how many of them choose to cover up like a nun? Especially under the age of sixty?
If a religion compels men as well as women to dress to cover everything but their eyes, you may have a point. Until we find one that does, we can assume the purpose is to control women.
Religion is not always too flexible, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
My point is that I would not mind that state law make the wearing of the Burka optional, not ban it altogether. Sixty is going a bit far. The women who are religious tend to wear the "modesty set" after marriage. I think that you are trying to prove that it is not as extreme or not extreme at all. The origins of these expectations are clear, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I still do not believe that the Burka should be banned altogether. If you see that the symbolism of sexist oppression is present, the meaning should be removed, not the loose symbol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
There we agree. Nonetheless, symbols are very important, especially if they have the power to make the oppressed faceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
However, the original topic - as I understand AdrianII's interpretation of the law, is concerned with security issues.
If I have to remove my motorcycle helmet before going into a bank (in order that the CCTV can identify me should I be there for nefarious purpose) I can't see why the same requirement shouldn't be applied to burka wearers.
In the street, subject to the unlikely condition that they wear the burka of free will, women can wear almost what they want. There's plenty of teenagers hide their faces under hoodies and muppet hats these days.
I agree with the above, no exceptions for the sake of religion.
So no exception in the sense that they should be allowed to keep their face covered in certain situations, but also no exception in that people are forbidden to wear certain clothing (as long as it's not plainly offensive).
I also think businesses should have the right to refuse employees who wear burqa's.
Shocking ain't it ~:).
Well, I don't believe all women in the Netherlands wear them voluntarily. There are social services and shelters so it's easy to run away from your oppressing husband? Running away implicates also running away from your family, friends, the community you live in. It's not as easy as it might sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I now it's not about women in Afghanistan. I mentionned women in Afghanistan, to make my point clear that the burka has become a symbol of oppression. Afghanistan is the beste example of a country where women are oppressed and forced to wear a burka.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
I hate to repeat myself, so I'll just quote myself :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
To make my answer clear: the burka reminds people of the oppression and cruelties committed against women under the Taliban regime. It stands for disrespect of women, the denial of their equal status, considering them as inferior beings. One cannot deny that what the burka stands for (at least in my humble opinion), is very offensive, like Nazi-symbols (damn, despite the precautions I ended up repeating myself). So it has similar effects as the swastika.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself
Just my humble opinion.
Yes...that too:beam: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
That's objectable.Quote:
The proposed law has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
That's even more objectable. But not knowing the law of the Netherlands it's pretty hard for me to guess what would be legal in there. However, I repeat, that kind of reserves are established like an exception for when exercising determined right could mean a serious and concrete danger for the general public (this may include certain groups like "muslims")Quote:
It has to do with a religious requirement (covering the face) that is incompatible with public security and with public order in the wider sense.
I've much to learn about Europe I guess...:book:Quote:
There have been many examples of religious requirements and minority practices in Dutch society being repressed in the interest of public order as well as security, from unhygienic slaughering practices and all-day 'miracle' processions right down to the use of certain Chinese fireworks.
Yes. And the reserve for manifestation of religion is made directly on the Constitution. However you said that this had nothing to do with freedom of expression. So is the proposed law "one of those" or no?Quote:
Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'. This responsibility is stipulated in additional laws and rulings with regard to public order and safety. The proposed law would be one of those.
You might be right. But the concept of Mussolini is original of fascism. The totalitarian States and regimes that existed before fascist Italy, when ubicated under the nationality flag, tried to conserve the nation (custum, uses, traditions, etc) more than create a nation. However I say that you might be right because perhaps Mussolini drank a very dark coffee, while you propose coffee with milk or a capuccino.Quote:
As for Mussolini... Alright, I will not be offended. I will point out to you that I mentioned Ernest Renan and United States naturalization law as some of my sources of inspiration. Mussolini may have borrowed the concept and given it his own twist, but that does not make it inherently fascist. Mussolini also drank coffee. Does that make coffee the fascist beverage par excellence? I think not.
That and the principle (and aphorism): "All inside the State, nothing outside the State".Quote:
It is Mussolini's ideal of the state as an ethnically homogenous nation animated by 'one will and one leader' that is essentially fascist.
WOW !Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I was gonna tell you guys... sometimes there's a lot to be found under all that cloth.
OTOH that image should be banned because it makes fun of a religious garment. Imagine you did that with a Jewish skull cap or something. ROFL that would not pass into law, I assure you
NICE PIC ! HOT ! HOT !...linkage ? is that an online mag ?
Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
:coffeenews:
I really can't see what is causing all the fuss here.
One the first hand, we have people who usualy keep claiming Europe will turn into Eurabia in the next decade whining because Netherlands ban Burquas (see the irony here), and on the other hand, we have "liberals" who whine because they think banning Burqua is a serious offense to freedom.
So hum, well, like
- If a few people start wearing burquas now, I'm pretty sure that half the muslim women would wear it in 10 years. That way, sure we could call Europe "Eurabia". Ever heard of the veil ? In the 70's no one used to wear veil in France (bar first generation migrants). Now, most muslim women have a veil, either because they've been brainwashed to death, or because their family force them to.
- Forcing a woman to wear a burqua is just the simplest way to limit her freedom. Remember those nice guys called Talibans ? Before crying against that "fascist" law, just think a bit and try to understand what is the very meaning of such garments...
Furthermore, if you want people to treat you as a dutch/french, you have to at least try to live as a dutch/french. I don't want french muslim to eat frogs or anything like that, but crap like burquas is just too much. Being a citizen of a liberal democratic nation implies rights and duties. Living actually in that nation and not as some kind of alien is one of these duties.
What the heck, if my religion forced me to walk in the street naked or whiping myself to blood, people would consider it undecent. What's the difference ?
I don't think it even matters if the want to wear it or not. Even if they don't, it shouldn't be allowed. Not because I have anything against Islam or other cultures, far from it as I'm actually interested in other cultures/religions/.... Now you have to ask the question, why do they want to wear it. Because they don't know any better, because they find it normal and because they think their religion says so. Someone who heard all his life that if he doesn't wear something, will face eternal damnation, and believes this will wear it. However their religion doesn't say anything about burkas. You know you could compare it with cutting a lil' boys penis of. Not just the skin but the whole thing. Put it in an enviroment where it's done with every child. The child will find it normal, give them some tales about it from youth and it will be glad he got rid of it. But now if I'd tell you those tales and I'd suggest to chop it of for you. I don't think you'd say yes, now would you?
However about a woman not showing her hair is something different. I'm not sure if it's in the Koran, but I'm quite sure it's in a hadieth. Also this is something we find in Christianity (remember nuns?) and also with the Jews, Shassidic (? how the hell is tha word in English?) Women shave their hair after marriage. They do wear a wig however. Most religion has something with hair. Remember monks with a bold spot? Or the Buddhist monks? Or perhaps those Hindoïsts who have long ponytails so that Shiva can save them. Well I don't know about you but I don't mind this.
However A burka isn't the same thing. A burka is the invention of wacko men to keep women from emancipation. An invention for them to keep the power and to abuse them. Women who wear such prisons don't even dare to do anything whatever happens. In Afghanistan a lot of people find it normal to shoot/hurt/... women from the family if the have "brought shame" over the famoly. Surely you don't want to make it legal to throw Acid on woman's face if she was a "disgrace" of the family. You may say that's a completly different thing. Well that may be true, but it is also true that the burka is one of the tools to make sure it remains this way. It's a prison, it's a tool for repression.
Damn it. It's nothing that comes form a god, or a prophet. IF it does come from something religious it'd be a demon.
Burkas ban them for the women's sake, not because it's unpracticle, or for safety reasons, no for the women's sake.