Belgium Parliament Panel Approves Burqa Ban

BRUSSELS — A parliamentary committee unanimously voted Wednesday to ban the wearing of face-covering veils in public, a major step in the legislative process that could make Belgium the first European country to impose such a religious prohibition.

The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the issue late April.

The Interior Affairs Committee representing all major parties was unanimous Wednesday in backing the bill. The six parliamentarians from the MR french-speaking liberal party said the principle of "recognize to know" trumped other considerations in the issue.

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual," he said, adding he was not targeting the classic headscarf worn by many Muslim women.

The parliamentarians are specifically targeting the body-covering burqa and face-veiling niqab, which are still very rare features in Belgian public life. "We have to act as of today to avoid (its) development," Bacquelaine said.

"Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said.

In Belgium, the proponents of the ban argue that such all-covering garb poses security issues as well as threatens democratic values. Some feared, however, that the bill would not stand a legal challenge.

In France on Tuesday, the Council of State, the nation's highest administrative body, warned that a prohibition on full-body Islamic veils in public risked being found unconstitutional. President Nicolas Sarkozy said last year that such clothing was "not welcome" in France.

Such a ban could also be challenged at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights.

Comments

[AprilShowers0574]

03:39 PM on 04/29/2010

It's embarrassing for Belgium to have even passed this, it doesn't line up with western beliefs/laws or any religious beliefs that are widely practiced in the country. It shows, simply, how utterly racist and backward the country is coming. They think they're doing something great but instead the whole world is laughing at their ignorance and intolerance. It's not looking good for Belgium today, not at all.

[Tyler-Durden]

06:48 PM on 04/07/2010

wow.

i am absolutely shocked at how ignorant the comments in here are.

for some reason i thought Americans and other people in FREE SOCIETIES would all have the same perspective that banning women from wearing what they choose is just as bad as forcing women to wear something against their will.

when will people stop trying to control the choices of others?

there are plenty of seriously horrid abuses in ALL cultures. muslims are "circumcising" girls while christians are sodomizing boys. so targeting one religion is simply DISCRIMINATION.

if we as a modern society want to stop the abuses that women suffer, we must ATTACK THE REAL PROBLEMS. the attitudes of men who believe they are superior rather than equal.

banning someone's clothing is only putting a bandage on a SYMPTOM. it is NOT addressing the CAUSE.

when muslim women CHOOSE to stop wearing burqas, THEN maybe burqas will disappear into obscurity for once and for all. BUT UNTIL THEN, all women should have the right to choose what they wear.

[Babele]

07:40 PM on 04/07/2010

So if I target the Christians for sodomizing boys, that is discrimination?

No, let's try banning all human rights abuses...sodomizing, horse hoods, foot bindings, slavery, circumcision, finger chopping, acid baths.

It is all the same. If we said that Buddha loves foot bindings and that all women should do it, and in some cases be forced to do it, it doesn't make it right.

Torture is torture is torture.

Ban the horse hoods.

[Tyler-Durden]

09:47 AM on 04/08/2010

no, doofus.

we're not saying women should do it, or be forced to do it.
we're saying if women WANT to do it, they should have the CHOICE.

and if ADULTS choose to be sodomized by christians, then they should be allowed that choice too.

children are not of age to make that choice rationally. but i'm not too worried about that because i speculate that most if not all boys in christian schools prefer to NOT be sodomized.

torture is NOT torture when you do it voluntarily.

i'd think THIS: http://bodypiercingpictures.painfulpleasures.com/showgallery.php/cat/605

was torture if it was done to me. but this person CHOSE to do it. should it be banned so their freedom of choice is taken away?

stop being so dammm ignorant.

[Zanubiyah]

11:24 AM on 04/02/2010

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill...."Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said

Then..."It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual," he said, adding he was not targeting the classic headscarf worn by many Muslim women."

The FACT that he specifically mentioned the 'classic headgear of MUSLIM WOMEN is a tell in itself. Since many of the people who support this ban associate it with ideological reasons, It would be appropriate to think that he is appealing to, and getting support from a certian group of people.

It seems that according to the sponser of the bill...there is no other reason to ban this dress other than 'cultural reasons'...or 'ideological reasons' since he...himself is using 'the right to see another' as the basis of his arguement.

Isnt 'banning" or restricting or denying a woman's choice also 'not compatable with an open liberal tolarant society' as well?

Making this statement is an 'ideological posistion' rather than a matter of substance.

Someone's 'opinion' of what liberal, tolarant, and open society should not be used to make laws...especially laws that restrict or prohibit something.

Can anyone name ANYTHING that was banned, or restricted by law, that wasn't harmful to another or an individual that progressed any society?

[Babele]

12:09 PM on 04/02/2010

It is their culture, not yours, so tough beans. They decide what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

I applaud Belgium for this decision.

[Zanubiyah]

03:53 PM on 04/02/2010

Babele....

So you also agree that Christians shouldn't have the right to have churches and worship freely in Saudi Arabia, or have Bibles in China. Since it is 'thier culture'...you also agree that they should be executed, or imprisioned according to thier laws. You also agree that non Muslim women should have to abide by the laws of dress that they see is 'appropriate'...rather than let you choose what you want.

After all... you said..."It is thier culture...not yours, so tough beans. They decide what is appropriate and what isnt"

The difference between you and I is...I dont ever applaud a decision to strike, limit, or restrict the right to free expression.

but...as you say, what goes for the goose, goes also for the gander.

[Tyler-Durden]

06:50 PM on 04/07/2010

tough beans?

you applaud oppression by a government? awesome.

[Usama]

06:02 PM on 04/01/2010

It seems to me that all of you folks trying to tell Muslims how to live need to clean up your own yards first before telling how to trim their lawn.

And then you need to go next door to Mexico, your nearest and closest subservient neighbor and help them out. They have a war that includes beheading 100s of people a year - serial rapists and murderers preying on Mexican women in drug infested regions near to America.

Clean up Mexico and show the Muslim world how it done.
Otherwise, America and Mexico have far serious violations of women's rights- such as security. America has the 9th highest rate of rape in the world and the largest number of rapes in the world.

European nations almost all legalize prostitution- and their governments are representative republics. Not a single Muslim country is truly a representative of Islam or the Muslim people.

[Babele]

06:58 PM on 04/01/2010

Clean up our own yards? Our yards are fine. It is you that is the problem.

We have no more obligation to help out Mexico than we do to help out the poor women of Saudi Arabia who are victims of slavery.

Our rapes are reported to the police most of the time. In muslim countries they are hidden because the woman (disposable item) is blamed.

If Europe legalizes prostitution, big deal. It is their custom, their tradition. Accept it.

There is no reason for any modern country to enforce muslim rule - EVER.

[Tyler-Durden]

06:35 PM on 04/07/2010

your comments are leading me to the conclusion that you're just an a-hole.

you think you're right, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and cry when you hear an opposing view.

an actual muslim woman just told you you're wrong, and you argued with her. that's a pretty thick skull you got there.

[FreedomOnionSoup]

09:19 PM on 04/01/2010

If you want to go by statistics then you're right, your countries have very little. This is because women NEVER report being raped. If they do, at best they will become outcasts from their communities/families and at worst they will be victims of an honor killing.

In dubai a woman was recently raped and was then arrested for having premarital sex. This sends an incredibly clear message to anyone who wants to harm women: "come to the middle east, it's an open buffet!"

In an alexandria hospital there is a 7-year-old girl with a growth in vag inal cavity. It cannot be removed because its risks rupturing the hymen. A little girl might very well die from toxicity because if her hymen is broken no one will want her.

That is your morality. A blind, all encompasing morality that teaches women that their vir ginity and childbearing capabilities are her only worth.

[Tyler-Durden]

06:40 PM on 04/07/2010

the abuses that you describe here definitely should be stopped.

banning someone's clothes in Belgium isn't how it's done.

and you have some gall attacking someone's "morality" when right here in the US, women are taught that they're nothing more than sex objects.

WHAT A HYPOCRITE.

[Amryxx]

03:30 PM on 04/01/2010

My impression on some of the people here who are in favour of the ban is this: they have good intentions. I do not think that they are anti-Islam; rather, they are for womens' rights (wait.. is that grammatically correct?)

However, the flaw in their arguments is that they are making too many assumptions - "oh, all these women are forced". "The burkha is very uncomfortable". "It's a claustrophobic experience". "No person in their right minds would want to do this"

My advice is, why not try talking to these women first? Walk a mile in their shoes. All of us, at one point or the other, endured uncomfortable things because we know the reward is worth it. Rather than just assume that we know better and based our opinions on pre-existing prejudices, how about getting to know those on the "other side" first?

[Babele]

04:14 PM on 04/01/2010

The other side:

Case on point: muslim girls allowed to fry in fire because there faces weren't covered:

"One of the most horrific cases of mutaween dress code enforcement occurred in 2002 in a girls’ school in Mecca that had caught fire. The mutwaween prevented the screaming little girls from fleeing the burning building, because their faces weren’t covered. The school doors were locked from the outside and the religious police beat some of the girls and firefighters, ensuring that the girls were not saved. Fourteen girls died that day from severe burns and smoke asphyxiation. The enforcement of their extreme religious Sharia laws was more important to the male religious police than the lives of 14 girls.
It was better for them to burn to death than to indecently violate Sharia law and show their faces to men".

Better for women to die than show their sinful faces....yes, we want that kind of democracy.

[FreedomOnionSoup]

04:20 PM on 04/01/2010

What "reward" does one get wearing a burqa?

The reward of never having a job, or a social life, or or any connections outside of family? Never being able to speak? Being stuck in intense heat while men get to walk around in jeans with their shirts unbuttoned?

[Babele]

07:03 PM on 04/01/2010

A dream day - slipping on shorts, flip flops, buying a coffee and magazine at borders, going to the park (alone - shudder!) to watch the eagle's nests, having my nails polished, hair tinted, driving in my car with the music blasting and windows down. And no male ever to tell me what to do, or how to do it! THAT is America!

And, if there were a male trying to enforce his rules on me, I have several choices: a quick knee to the groin, 9/11, criminal court, civil court, or just plain smack him on the head with a cast iron frying pan. I love my country.

[AprilShowers0574]

03:48 PM on 04/29/2010

You two talk a lot but have nothing to say.

[Babele]

03:19 PM on 04/01/2010

Confessions of women forced to wear burqas:

Oppressive
Suffocating
Hot
Dark
Depressing
Alien
A blank
Itchy
Feeling faint
Feeling weak
Hungry
Clumsy
Slow
Fearful
Difficult to be heard
Difficult to hear
Disabling
Marginalized
Objectified
Smelly

[Amryxx]

03:21 PM on 04/01/2010

Source of these?

Also, the same can be said about virtually anything - high heels, piercings, tight pants, etc. What is your point please?

[Babele]

04:12 PM on 04/01/2010

And you also must be muslim since the research on this is vast and easy to find. There is only one reason why you would not investigate the torture of muslim women.

[IDIOTA]

02:37 PM on 04/01/2010

There seems to be a consensus here among non-Muslims that Muslim women are being abused by Islam. I knew a few Muslim women in college, and they were not shrinking violets. They were smart and opinionated, and they believed in Islam and its customs. They did not feel or act oppressed.

I am not saying that oppression does not exist. I know plenty of Christian women whom I feel are oppressed, but they don't feel that way.

If a woman does not want to wear burkah, then I would hope that the state would help her assert her rights as a citizen. But I am against national dress codes.

[Babele]

02:41 PM on 04/01/2010

What was it like speaking to them without seeing their faces? Did they have difficulty breathing? Many pull at the neck area to allow more circulation inside of the facial covering. Do you think that was uncomfortable for them?

[IDIOTA]

02:53 PM on 04/01/2010

I forgot to add that they were fully covered except for their faces. My point is that not all Muslim women feel oppressed by their religion, that many embrace it fully and yet are able to function in the world.

[IDIOTA]

02:57 PM on 04/01/2010

I did think that they were uncomfortable, but they were free to do as they wished as far as I was concerned. And I did think that they were odd, but once I spoke to them, I learned that my impressions did not matter. Honestly, these were among the most feisty women I had met up to that point. Perhaps it was because they always got heat for their "habits."

[Amryxx]

02:42 PM on 04/01/2010

"If a woman does not want to wear burkah, then I would hope that the state would help her assert her rights as a citizen"

Precisely. If a woman is FORCED to wear a burkha, I say the State should help her assert her independence - that is her right. But if a woman wants, out of her own free will, to wear a burkha - who are we to judge?

[Babele]

02:50 PM on 04/01/2010

Exactly, and if a woman wants to wear shorts and a tee shirt in the capital of Riyadh who are they to judge? It should not be about somebodies culture, or traditions, it should be about what someone wants to do.

[IDIOTA]

02:28 PM on 04/01/2010

What happens when the burkah appears on the catwalk?

[Amryxx]

02:41 PM on 04/01/2010

It already does, I think. I remember reading an article about how Western hauteur couture (I hope I got the spelling right) are selling ridiculously expensive burkhas and abayas to rich Saudi socialites.

[Babele]

02:42 PM on 04/01/2010

Doubtful anyone wants to dress like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

[Amryxx]

02:48 PM on 04/01/2010

I wouldn't. And I would be very amused if my sister starts dressing like that.

But again, who are we to judge? Plenty of people do stupid / weird stuff, and within reasonable limits (not harming anyone, etc.), people should be allowed to. I personally think thongs are ridiculous (it's basically a piece of floss between the bum! Isn't that majorly uncomfortable?), but hey, it's their body. What do I care?

[IDIOTA]

02:27 PM on 04/01/2010

I am not devout, but I am not troubled by the devotion of others as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights as a citizen. The citizens of Belgium will decide what to do, but I hope that they see that banning the burkah does not solve the problem of terrorism. That type of thinking reminds me of Senator Cockburn's health care amendment banning pedophiles from getting Viagra; it is politically expedient, not a serious attempt to stop pedophilia.

Banning the burkah just alienates citizens and creates an derided class.

[evagorman]

02:30 PM on 04/01/2010

it's not banning the burqa. They are trying to ban the FULL FACIAL covering.

[digdeeper]

02:35 PM on 04/01/2010

The wearing of the burkah in public presents difficulties besides any religious controversy.
Not long ago in Britain a man was able to wear a burkah in order to avoid arrest by the police.
In Banks it is difficult for tellers to know who they are really talking to and this applies to many other public walks of life. In this day and age it is essential to at least see someone's face.

[Amryxx]

02:39 PM on 04/01/2010

I will reiterate: I fully agree that in SOME situations, you must uncover your face and allow people to identify yourself. In banks, or in certain government offices (courts, etc.). However, in public areas, I say if you want to drape that giant tent over yourself, that's your business.

"In this day and age it is essential to at least see someone's face."

No it's not. Why?

[IDIOTA]

02:07 PM on 04/01/2010

I do not fear the burkah.

[Amryxx]

02:17 PM on 04/01/2010

You should not be afraid of clothing. Unless if it's a white bedsheet, floating and going "whooooo"

[IDIOTA]

02:21 PM on 04/01/2010

So I should fear someone wearing bedclothes? Hilarious!

[hollybork]

12:46 PM on 04/01/2010

It is perfectly okay to prohibit the wearing of the burkah in Belgium. We could not do that in the US because of the First Amendment. But Belgium has juridiction in Belgium, can judge what is safe, can balance the need for appropriate limits upon dress that could be used to disguise terrorists, hide bombs or chemical weapons. Belgium is within its rights to preclude behavior and dressing that may aid terrorism. It may keep Belgium safer, and in the best interests of the country as a whole, and so kuddos to Holland.

On the other hand, note Huffppo's article today about Saudis condemning a Lebanese man to death by beheading. He was not a Saudi citizen. He was not in Saudi when he commited his so called crime of "witchcraft." The "witchcraft" is not defined in Saudi Law. The defendant came to Mecca on Haj and they arrested, tried and convicted him. This was their idea of justice. He was a psychic, participating in Lebanon in a fortune telling TV special broadcast into Arabia. Unlike Belgium, the Saudi's are looking after public safety, but don't confine themselves to their own boundaries. They impose their own flawed justice on foreign citizens. No kudos to Saudi Arabia!

[FreedomOnionSoup]

12:48 PM on 04/01/2010

The world would be a much better place if saudi arabia was wiped off the face of the earth.

[Oleg1]

01:13 PM on 04/01/2010

Ah, another freedom and onion loving, tolerant American liberal..... ROFL>>>>>

[Babele]

01:05 PM on 04/01/2010

Actually, with the patriot act, we could prohibit this in the U.S. - and we should. It can also be viewed as a security issue, as well as a woman's rights issue.

[Rambutt]

12:44 PM on 04/01/2010

Can they do a panties ban too? Just bought a new digital camera, would like to photograph nature.

[Babele]

12:09 PM on 04/01/2010

Case on point: muslim girls allowed to fry in fire because there faces weren't covered:

"One of the most horrific cases of mutaween dress code enforcement occurred in 2002 in a girls’ school in Mecca that had caught fire. The mutwaween prevented the screaming little girls from fleeing the burning building, because their faces weren’t covered. The school doors were locked from the outside and the religious police beat some of the girls and firefighters, ensuring that the girls were not saved. Fourteen girls died that day from severe burns and smoke asphyxiation. The enforcement of their extreme religious Sharia laws was more important to the male religious police than the lives of 14 girls.
It was better for them to burn to death than to indecently violate Sharia law and show their faces to men".

Better for women to die than show their sinful faces....yes, we want that kind of democracy.

[Babele]

12:03 PM on 04/01/2010

Washington D.C. - Muslim men ask police to arrest women for praying in the all male prayer room.

Sorry, it is not our custom and tradition to separate men and women in religious centers, nor is it illegal.

Now, women pray in the same room as men.

Our culture. Our tradition. Deal with it. Don't bring your silly little 'laws' to our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejtqZxPvUxY&feature=player_embedded

[Amryxx]

01:31 PM on 04/01/2010

Thank you for the completely unrelated news. Do you want to post stock prices of Dow Chemical next?

[Babele]

02:01 PM on 04/01/2010

You are very welcome. However, this post is about the subjugation of women. The news I posted above is about how muslim women conquered the subjugation of muslim women.

If you click on "business" above you will find the stock prices that you are looking for.

[Mother77]

11:12 AM on 04/01/2010

I find it offensive to see women under these mini tents dragging along the dirty streets. I believe that they are using modesty and being discreet as excuses. Their men dominate and these women allow for excuses to live under these rules. Subjugation of an entire gender is scary when it is your own. It is equivalent to slavery. If they started shackling, would women wear chains if they were in gold?

[Amryxx]

01:32 PM on 04/01/2010

"would women wear chains if they were in gold?"

If they let me keep the gold chains, sure. I would, and I'm not even a woman.

[hollybork]

11:33 AM on 04/02/2010

Exactly right. It is a not very subtle form of women's enslavement.. These men are into demeaning control over their wives. There is a deep sickness in the relationship between the sexes. And the level of disrespect given to women in some middle eastern countries, the level of utter disregard of women's rights, sufferings and true spiritual beauty is absolutely infuriating.

[Babele]

07:44 PM on 04/07/2010

Exactly. Ban the horse hoods.