Tarry for the Nonce

March 7, 2006

No Niqab

Filed under: Religion — lmwalker @ 3:56 pm

The Netherlands may force women to uncover themselves:

Last December, [the Netherlands] parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure . . .

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.

In 2004, France controversially banned overt religious symbols such as Muslim headscarves, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps from schools, arguing they were contrary to its separation of church and state.

In the same year, the Belgian town of Maaseik banned burqas, by adapting existing laws which require people to be readily identifiable in public.

It is outrageous for a government to start dictating any apparel choices, but it is particularly repugnant in this case, since it is not only a point of modesty for these Muslim women, but a voluntary choice.



  1. Wow, European governments ban the wearing of Muslim clothing and the criticism of Islam? At least they are consistently stupid.

    Comment by Toly — March 7, 2006 @ 9:00 pm

  2. Actually, the facial coverings and other garb are not always voluntary, as in Islamic nations under the control of fundamentalists. It is interesting that what was once mandatory to be worn in Afghanistan is mandatory NOT to be worn in certain Western nations.

    It is not genuine modesty that mandates potato sacks and bags over the bodies and faces of young women. Rather, it is a false religion where the sexist men can treat their women as their personal property, denying them the basic freedoms that we would say are inalienable and come from the Creator. The extremists, who show us the true face of Islam, if not that of their women, seek the same kind of total dominion over the world that they now possess over their females.

    I do not want to imply total concurrence with laws about attire as practiced in France. Priests have been forbidden to enter hospitals while wearing clericals and the white collar. Religious sisters cannot wear habits in the schools. Since identification is not an issue, the point here is that the athiesm of the state will allow no compromise in its institutions; no word or image can point toward religion or the belief in a deity.

    Note that these laws permit a great deal of leeway regarding one’s lack of modest clothing. A loosely attached loincloth and a string with two buttons for a bra is legal under French law, but put more clothing on and you might be in trouble.

    I read in news oddities that there was one European township that required women to get permits in order to wear mini-skirts; the mayor or some other officials would examine the legs of women, only passing those pretty girls with shapely legs. Others would have to wear long skirts or pants. I guess they fined women who showed ugly knees and ankles?

    The trouble with the clothing worn by certain Islamic women, also includes the threat that wanted male terrorists can dress as women and travel where they want, with impunity. The clothing is also baggy enough to disguise bombs and guns.

    It is much harder for men to disguise themselves in the clothing of Western women, and the halter tops and panties just make that machine gun or explosive device too irritating against the skin… as well as bloody obvious.

    Comment by Theo — March 8, 2006 @ 11:52 am

  3. Actually, the facial coverings and other garb are not always voluntary, as in Islamic nations under the control of fundamentalists.

    I recognize that, but that’s not really a problem in the Netherlands. If it were, then it would be a case of domestic abuse to be investigated by the proper authorities, not a social taboo.

    Comment by laura — March 8, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: