Netherlands law proposed to ban wearing burkas in public?

[Incongruous]

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?

Mind you, article 6 of the Constitution declares that freedom of expression is subject to a person's 'responsibility under the law'.

hmm that sound potentially dangerous to me.

[Fragony]

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.

[Adrian II]

How increadibly unjust and democratic.
What a pathetic law.
What more can one say.

One could provide some sound arguments instead of a series of adjectives.

[Mithrandir]

This thread is going downhill again.

No personal attacks allowed. Play the ball, not the man.

[CrossLOPER]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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?

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.

[CrossLOPER]

The Russian Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of modern feminism, is it?

Religion is not always too flexible, no.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[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.

There we agree. Nonetheless, symbols are very important, especially if they have the power to make the oppressed faceless.

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.