Dutch Parliament In Favour Of Burqa Ban
The law to partially ban the Burqa has received an overwhelming amount of support, in the lower house of Dutch parliament. In the Netherlands, MP’s have voted (by large amounts) in favour of the ban.
This prohibition means that nobody will be able to wear face covering Islamic veils in selected public places. These places fall under schools, hospitals, government buildings as well as public transport.
However, this rule does not only outlaw “religious” face coverings. The rule also distinctly mentions, that ski masks, and helmets are not to be worn in selected environments either. Don’t celebrate too early though, the rule is to be first approved before Senate.
The ban only applies “in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen” or for security reasons, Prime Minister Mark Rutte told journalists at the time. Rutte also mentioned that “The bill does not have any religious background,” (que the eye roll).
If one is caught opposing the ban, a fine of 405 euros (£343) will be given.
Obviously, a plethora of citizens and MP’s believe that dressing up as a letterbox is entirely appropriate in modern day society.
“It is reprehensible to exclude these women and isolate them because of a subject anxiety among certain citizens,” mentioned MP Tunahan Kuzu.
However, may I mention that Kuzu himself is of Turkish descent, as well as being a Muslim? In addition, Kuzu is a member of the the pro-immigrant DENK, or Think, party, which is made up of migrants in Holland. What a surprise!
Last week several women actually attended the parliamentary debate dressed in burqas. Karima Rahmani, a protester, mentioned “When we go to the town hall we have to identify ourselves, as well as at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport where we have to remove it,”. Because god forbid your backward religious practices interfere with normal western culture…
But is it really that religious? One of the extremes of burqa is the Afghan burqa, which was enforced by the Taliban. This burqa covers the entire body in loose clothing with the face (including eyes) being covered with only a grille for the women to look through.
This “dress sense” was not advised by Quran but of some very extreme factions of Muslims. This theory is proved by pictures of Muslim women before the Taliban gained control of some middle eastern countries. There, now it is cited as the right way for a woman to dress.
The Quran does mention “modesty”, the covering of the face, hair and/or other aspects was an interpretation of the religious script itself.
Historically, Islamic conservatism in the middle east similarly followed a period of civil war. It was all rather settled, conservative and liberal Muslims living side-by-side. Then a civil war (between political or ethnic factions) occurred, where conservative/radical Islam stepped in.
Many women in Hargeisa, Somaliland, in the 1970s-1980s, never wore the hijab. The Guntiino and Dirac was worn (typically short sleeved dresses that reached the ankles, sometimes see-through, as well as garments underneath the see-through ones). As well as a Shalmad (a long scarf loosely draped over the head and thrown over the shoulder, where one could still see the hair and neck.).
Sometimes the women wouldn’t wear the Shalmad at all. However, things began to change after the civil war.
So how is the criticism of a clothing item, which isn’t exactly printed inside the famous story book, a racist action? We’ll keep the jokes for another time, as well as the famous line:
“I wear the Hijab to promote feminism”