BELGIAN PARLIAMENT VOTES TO BAN BURKA
Belgian lawmakers pass burka ban, from BBC
Belgium’s lower house of parliament has voted for a law that would ban women from wearing the full Islamic face veil in public.
The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street. No-one voted against it.
The law now goes to the Senate, which is also expected to approve it. It would then become law by June or July.
The ban would be the first move of its kind in Europe.
Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.
The BBC’s Dominic Hughes in Brussels says MPs backed the legislation on the grounds of security, to allow police to identify people.
Other MPs said that the full face veil was a symbol of the oppression of women, our correspondent says.
The ban would be imposed in all buildings or grounds that are “meant for public use or to provide services”, including streets, parks and sports grounds.
Exceptions could be made for certain festivals.
Those who break the law could face a fine of 15-25 euros (£13-£27) or a seven-day jail sentence.
The Muslim Executive of Britain has criticised the move, saying it would lead to women who do wear the full veil to be trapped in their homes.
Belgium’s government had collapsed (again) last I heard.
Nice to know they’ve still got time to oppress women!
Comment by Left Outside — 29 April, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Are you sure the burka doesn’t oppress woman?
Or you from the Lindsay German upside down school of femminism that thinks it a fashion accessory.
Or are women a jewel that needs to be covered up to be seen only by her male owner?
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
#2 is for #1
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
No. I believe they are just implementiing legislation that means that a minority of 30 women have to wear more moderate forms of headress. They are not oppressing women in general.
Comment by Anjeel Mohammed — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Islam will execute you secular Socialist Dogs!
Comment by ALQ — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Oh here we go, the Google news alerts have got the Islamophobes in full swing already.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
Shouldn’t the Muslim Council of Britain be saying instead that women who do wear the veil are trapped in general full stop!
I also remember a statement as few years ago that only about 50 women in the UK wear the veil. And i thought to myself when i used to live in Luton that’s strange that they all must live here.
However left liberals try to dress it up and tie themselves in knots over the subject the veil is oppresive to women, de-humanising to the woman and de-humanizes society.
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
#4 Anjeel ….. why would a woman have to wear more moderate forms of headress. Are saying severe ones are better? How about not having to wear no form of headress?
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Hating the opressive veil does not make one an Islamaphobe and i find that trying to pedal this clap trap is very similar to those that try to pedal the claptrap that anyone who critisises the numerous crimes of the Israeli government are anti semitic.
I dislike religions which are irrational and clearly breed irrational thinking and cultures. Which ever religion they ultimately oppress humans and inparticular women.
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
From today’s Guardian……..
“A marriage guidance counsellor’s bid to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals has led to a serious clash between the Christian lobby and the judiciary.
In a powerful dismissal of the application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said legislation to protect views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified. He said it was an irrational idea “but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary”.”
Do any liberal lefties want to attack the judge for his sensible decision and accuse him of christianaphobia ?
Comment by doh! — 29 April, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
#10
I think that Gary McFarlane’s case raises different issues, not least in his incnsistency.
He was prepared to give relationship counselling to same gender couples, but not sex counselling, but he was prepared to give sex counselling to unmarried straight couples.
So he seemed to be making it up as he went along; and his was an individual interpretation of his faith, rather than being a shared tradition from a community.
in the circumstances, I think Lord Justice Laws made a correct decision.
Comment by Andy Newman — 30 April, 2010 @ 12:04 am
#10: You are utterly confused. Refusing to give a service on the grounds of sexuality is clearly discriminatory. The state bossing people of only a particular religion around with respect to what they choose to wear is also clearly discriminatory.
If they also banned face covering motorbike helmets, balaclavas and scarves it would not be discrimnatory, but it would still be wrong and repressive as the state has no business dictating our dress.
All women are oppressed to some extent by traditional family and other social structures. Some Muslim women and some other women face particularly harsh forms of oppression. Many recent migrants come from societies that have not yet gone through all the profound socio-economic change and struggles against oppression that we in advanced capitalist countries have been lucky to experience. My partner has just recently began work at an inner city women’s hospital and the extent of genital mutilation, among Muslims and other migrant community members, is heartbreaking.
There should be a full range of services and job opportunities to allow all women to begin to free themselves from oppression. However even basic services need to be culturally apppropriate. While my partner was on a home visit for the rural health service where she used to work, the worker with her loudly asked the Somalian women client detailed reproductive health questions in the presence of her husband. Both members of the couple were deeply embarrassed and no useful information was forthcoming. My partner had to organise training for the health service on how best to integrate the growing African community into local services.
There’s no evidence at all that bossing women around on the basis of dress will help them access services, jobs or education or leave abusive partners or parents or do anything useful for them. There is evidence however that such measures are convenient scapegoating wedge politics that handily for bourgeois politicians stoke the prejudices of Islamophobic dickheads.
Comment by Nick Fredman — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:13 am
#12 I am not confused at all. Refusing to give a service because of someones sexuality is discriminatory and the veil which women have to wear (i am now waiting for a volley of posts stating i know lots who wear it through choice, yawn) is sexual discrimination.
1. Its still discrimination and backward.
2. They are based on oppresive religions and the irrational and backwards ideas they produce.
3. Yes i’m almost (not quite as that would be irrational) phobic to them.
The rest of your worthy post reminds me of what i said in a previous post, however liberal lefties try to dress it up and tie themselves in knots over the subject…..
Comment by doh! — 30 April, 2010 @ 9:15 am
#12. “If they also banned face covering motorbike helmets, balaclavas and scarves it would not be discriminatory, but it would still be wrong and repressive as the state has no business dictating our dress.”
Actually they do ban all face-covering. As cited above, “The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street. The words used on the Belgium public radio (la premiere) and the French one (France-Inter) this morning were that this forbade “dans les lieux accessibles au public, le visage masque” - masked face
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/beligum-moves-today-to-ban-the-burka-voile-integral/
On some of the French left’s views on such bans (including the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste’s criticism of these laws but strong opposition to the Burka as an oppression – strangely not mentioned by their co-thinkers in Socialist Resistance) see:
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/category/islamism/
Many secular leftists and feminists the full-face veil is not just a ’symbol’ of oppression but an oppression in itself.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 30 April, 2010 @ 9:25 am
>>> The Muslim Executive of Britain has criticised the move, saying it would lead to women who do wear the full veil to be trapped in their homes. >>>
Trapped in their homes by whom? What a chilling statement!
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 30 April, 2010 @ 9:53 am
#14: “Actually they do ban all face-covering.”
Fine, we can only be sure then that those supporting this law are authoritarian advocates of a nanny state promoting a measure utterly useless for its stated purpose (the “security” arguments being just as stupid as the “feminist” ones), rather than also necessarily open bigots.
Comment by Nick Fredman — 30 April, 2010 @ 10:14 am
A despicable piece of legislation.
Comment by Marko — 30 April, 2010 @ 11:42 am
It is a security issue. Multiple examples of men dressing up in full veil and committing crimes. It just cannot be allowed.
Comment by Caspar — 30 April, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
#18 better ban balaclavas then moron.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 30 April, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
And womens stockings and face masks!!
What length’s these bigots will go to!
Comment by Marko — 30 April, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
It’s only a matter of time before they go after hoodies,
and morons who leave anonymous bigoted comments via the internet.
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
Now, where have a I heard both security and feminism invoked before, in order to justify attacks on Muslims?
This is the feminism of the Pentagon, liberating the womenfolk of the Arab and Muslim world by blowing them up, their families and friends.
I remember Jack Straw saying he felt intimidated by constituents who came to see him Islamic headdress. Just as well he has his Special Branch detail, then. Of course, no word on how the women might feel, having to supplicate to a man partly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of their co-religionists.
Are hoods going to be banned too, on security grounds, and how about caps? How many crimes have been committed by all those wearing anything that might disguise their apearance? Surely all such clothing, makeup, headwear, facial hair, dark clothes in the evening are going to be banned too? No? There must be some mistake. Otherwise, well, it just looks as if its aimed against one community in particular.
Comment by ahmed — 30 April, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
So caspar,
better drop that line of argument and just pretend you are concerned about female oppression. That’s what all the intelligent bigots do.
Comment by SteveH — 30 April, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Prosthetic face masks should be banned.
Comment by eamonn wright — 30 April, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
What if it’s raining or its hot and sunny -
- won’t Belgians be breaking the law if they put hats and stuff on their bonces to keep out the weather?
The weather can be a bit oppressive sometimes.
By the way, just look at the way this woman is being oppressed.
There is hardly an image where she isn’t wearing something round her head and neck, and there’s plenty of images where even her body-line can’t be made out, not even her ankles can be seen -
The Virgin of the Annunciation
Biblical Art on the WWW
If Belgium museums own any examples of such oppression of women those above, they should be banned from public display, taken down immediately and burned at the stake.
ps
Jack Straw apologises for 2006 ‘veil’ comments
Islamophobia Watch
27 Apr 2010
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Well, that’s traditional Christian wedding ceremonies in Belgium in trouble.
The bride will be getting an on-the-spot fine for wearing a veil, I presume.
That’ll teach her for being oppressed.
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Tell you what im the same i will walk into the bank tomorrow with a baliclava ovet my head am a male will i be served.
Comment by howard — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
#27
No.
Tomorrow’s Saturday.
Banks are closed on a Saturday.
Don’t try on Monday either - it’s May Day Bank Holiday.
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
So Howard, we are only concerned about crimes against banks are we? Hardly a view in vogue at the moment!
Comment by SteveH — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
#27
Howard, try Tuesday.
You can write from your remand cell in prison, and tell us all how you got on.
At least, that will be one less bigoted internet moron to worry about.
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Aye joe,that was a line used on talk back radio where i am.Male and english and that was his line bigoted logic.Makes you wonder eh.
Comment by howard — 30 April, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
#31
you seem a bit obsessed with being male - a sex change might do you some good
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
My twin is a lesbian does that qualify joe.
Comment by howard — 30 April, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
#33
qualify for what?
Comment by joe kane — 30 April, 2010 @ 5:33 pm