As President, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration brought in the ban, said that veils oppress women and were "not welcome" in France. In France introduced a controversial ban on women's full-body swimsuits, known as "burkinis". Prime Minister Manuel Valls called the swimsuits "the affirmation of political Islam in the public space".
The burkini ban, imposed by French Riviera mayors, was later lifted in seaside resorts after France's top administrative court overruled the law.
France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2, women wear full veils. Anyone found forcing a woman to cover her face risks a 30, euro fine. Data from showed that 1, fines had been imposed under the law. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban on 2 July after a case was brought by a year-old French woman who argued that the ban violated her freedom of religion and expression.
Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside France - say it is a violation of individual liberties. A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in , and received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.
A law banning the full-face veil came into effect in Belgium in July The law bans any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street.
In December , Belgium's Constitutional Court rejected appeals for the ban to be annulled, ruling that it did not violate human rights. Before the bill was passed, the burka was already banned in several districts under old local laws originally designed to stop people masking their faces completely at carnival time.
In November , Dutch MPs backed a ban on the Islamic full veil in public places such as schools and hospitals, and on public transport. The niqab and the burka full-face veils were included in the ban along with face coverings such as ski-masks and helmets.
In order for the ban to become law, the Dutch Senate must approve the bill. The proposed ban reflected the influence of the anti-Islamist Geert Wilders, whose Freedom party was at that time the third largest in parliament and the minority coalition government's chief ally.
The wearing of headscarves is far more common, however. Several towns in Italy have local bans on face-covering veils. The north-western town of Novara is one of several local authorities to have already brought in rules to deter public use of the Islamic veil. In the Lombardy region of Italy, a burka ban was agreed in December and came into effect in January Governments have discussed extending laws to impose penalties on Muslim face coverings, but these have not yet been enforced nationally.
In local politicians in northern Italy resurrected old public order laws against the wearing of masks, to stop women from wearing the burka. Besides, never mind the fact that banning tends to backfire, why shouldn't other antisocial paraphernalia also be banned? If only ending the invisibility of oppressed women were as simple as lifting the veil.
Improving educational and work opportunities, not banning the burqa, is the better answer. Anastasia de Waal is head of family and education at the thinktank Civitas. I don't love the burqa. I know many women who adopt it like it, and don't feel insulted or restricted; but to me it suggests an unacceptable view of both men and women.
Skip to main news content Skip to news search Skip to news navigation Skip to All 4 navigation. What do Brits think about banning the burqa? But what do Brits think about the idea? Is support for a burqa ban declining? Source: YouGov polls Is it all about the question? Is it all about Boris? There are a few conclusions we could draw here. We should also consider how the questions were ordered. Who supports a burqa ban? Source: YouGov poll, April A more striking difference happens between different age groups.
Source: YouGov poll, April According to this poll, there is a direct correlation between advancing age and increased support for a burqa ban. Absolutely fine. But if you want to wear it in normal daily life, understand that you can expect to be turned away from many public places and also deprived of career opportunities. Women should be free to cover their faces except where identification or effective communication requires faces to be shown. No covering in court, at passport checks, etc.
But we should discourage such covering. In one way this is a difficult issue because how can we differentiate between those women who actively want to cover up from those who are being coerced against their will? I do believe, however, that it is the right of any individual to see the face of any person who is requesting something from them — be it a shop assistant, bank clerk, solicitor or doctor. Human TWO-way discourse where an element of trust is involved requires both parties to recognize who they are dealing with and the unquestionable fingerprint of identity is the face.
I, personally, could not do business with anyone who was not willing to show me their face. Every individual has the right to refuse to conduct any transaction with a person who cannot reveal or prove their identity beyond doubt.
I am alarmed by Baroness Warsi's assertions. Should we as a society shrink from freeing women from an oppressive form of dress that is not required dogmatically in Islam for fear of being branded Islamophobic? Unequivocally not. But, do we end up with a situation where women become prisoners in their own homes? Life is so much simpler when these sorts of issues and whether you are appeasing some mythical being is not a daily encumbrance Love life, not the afterlife The issue of banning face veils provides secularists in the UK with an opportunity to reinforce how we genuinely want to defend personal freedom and separate the state from matters of religion and belief.
Our protractors so often paint secularism as just cover for anti-theism. Let us take this opportunity, oppose suggestions to ban religious garments and show that our principled ideals pervade everything that we say and do. One quick thought while I construct a serious response In a society where ordinary people have fought for human rights such as the freedom to love and equality for all, and where the protection of these hard won rights means public security measures, face concealment is unacceptable in public places, and the maintenance of gender and sexual orientation discrimination - indeed institutionalised hatred - is unacceptable.
The answer must legally be no. The crux of this is nothing to do with people's rights to wear what they like, or a person's right to look into the face of someone they are conversing with or even the issue of identification for formal purposes. It comes down to sexual equality. A male may decide to initiate and further a relationship with any female on the basis of seeing her face and her facial responses to his chatting up. It is unacceptable for a father to prevent his daughters' ability to ever develop a romantic relationship of her own choosing and initiation.
Having your head completely covered except for an eye slit is not likely to help in the building of any kind of intimate relationship. This about the right of a woman of any age to choose who she wants to develop a relationship with. The face veil is a physical impediment forced onto females by males.
This is therefore an infringement of basic human rights. That some veiled women may welcome such restriction is irrelevant. The effect on others white, male in my case needs to be considered in all this as well as the woman wearing the veil. Covering the face is not culturally acceptable in our society. We should not shirk from putting in place whatever restrictions seem appropriate to limit the freedom of those who insist on covering their faces to engage in public activities.
Antisocial behaviour is best dealt with by social exclusion. Counter charges against us based on the over-used principle of human rights would be derisible. On the other hand, an outright ban on face covering would be un-British. I am completely opposed to the burka and veil etc. It depresses me to see it in the street e. The idea that this empowers women is laughable. When on a beach in Turkey in sweltering August weather I saw a man in trunks sipping cold drinks on a lounger while his Burka clad wife in sodden clothing entertained the kids in the sea.
If they want to follwo their religious ideas so completely although the veil is not required in the Koran anyway they should move to a suitable country to live that life. This should be a very clear-cut issue. It simply cannot be the business of the state to tell people how to dress. Anyone, religious or otherwise, should be free to dress however they choose - but certainly with no special consideration where it would otherwise be deemed inappropriate; if a motorbike helmet might be expected to be removed for security purposes, a face-veil should be treated no differently.
If the concern is that women are being forced to wear a veil by indoctrination, then it seems to me that this isn't an argument against the veil itself, but perhaps a better argument against the religious indoctrination of children in the first place. I have a strong objection to people hiding their faces with crash helmets, balaclavas, Klan hoods, veils. Not a religious prejudice, but a desire for everyone to be open.
It just doesn't seem much to ask, that people show their faces. I can't see how anyone can claim the right to hide. The revolting evil that poses as a 'faith' is merely brain washing reinforced with terror. There is no joy or humour in their miserable existences. Who says bodies have to be covered up? I don't see the San bushmen or Australian aborigines behaving like arabs. Difficult one this. My instinct is not to have a formal ban which might well be counter-productive.
Apart from the security threat of not being able to identify someone, numerous scientific studies have proven that non verbal communication is more powerful than verbal communication. If we are to avoid friction and resentment, good communication between all members of our society is vital. The Burqa prevents this by removing the main non verbal element — visual, facial expressions etc. I think it is better to encourage these misguided women to accept that if they choose to live in a western society for the benefits it provides, face veils are neither appropriate, nor required by Islam.
Baroness Warsi and fellow apologists argue that many women opt for the full face veil out of choice, but their case is not based on evidence because there is none. No one has dared to carry out a poll of these women. It appears therefore to be a preference for a vocal few. If it were a real choice, we would see hordes of Muslim women demanding the right to cover their faces.
What we see instead, is an oppressed and silenced group who long for the day when they are compulsorily freed from this oppressive cultural meme by law. I deplore the fact that women are forced or conditioned to wear face veils, but I am against a total ban.
A total ban will either force already oppressed women to stay at home, or provide ammunition for those who oppose our liberal ideals. Certain times and places should incur a ban e. I would personally feel quite uncomfortable if the law interfered with ones choice of clothing. Practical reasons - such as going through airport security - I can understand. Bans for cultural reasons are something else entirely.
The problem is, once society has a taste for banning things that threaten the cultural status quo it becomes very hard to stop. Clothing laws will also do little to stop the detrimental effect of religious hegemony on society. Today it is women in veils; in the past it was hoodies, punks and teddy boys. Tomorrow - who knows? I wonder if those European Muslim women who choose to cover themselves feel any sympathy for their contemporaries living under theocratic regimes?
Whenever I see a woman with her head and face covered, I immediately think of those abuses. The lack of input into the debate would seem to reflect the "hiddeness" of many British Muslim women's opinions. Why not have the N. It offends me that some British women are forced or chose to be second class citizens.
The genders should enjoy equal status I do believe that is the law. Unfortunately the view of the secularist who takes offence at the overt disparity displayed by some communities.
It would seem that secularists are also second class citizens. Let Islamist trouble makers have their burqas. Institute alternative - preferably expensive and intimidating - methods of checking identity that bypass the burqa. Biometric data for example, such as finger prints, iris patterns and blood grouping. Identity checks of biometric data for public service and travel purposes shall be carried out in public - not in private - to emphasize the burqa wearer's claim to be different and to reassure other members of the public.
Please can we choose not to pick this battle. It is a distraction from the real issues associated with fundamental religious belief. We will only entrench opposing views. It is a personal choice but should not be allowed at the expense of the safety of non-believers. The wearers will experience prejudice and miss out on life experiences, in Europe this is their choice. Don't ban it. Secularism stands for reason and rationality.
Laws and regulations about the niqab must be reasonable and rational. A woman should have the right to cover herself up when out and about, provided there are no security concerns. However, in face-to-face interactions, wearing a burqua is discourteous, because it creates an unequal relationship, when the unveiled person cannot read facial cues.
There is also the offensive implication that all men are sexual predators. Just as British people must learn to respect the culture of others by not wearing skimpy clothing in Arab countries, Islamic women should respect cultural expectations that we have a right to see the face of someone we interact with in person. In my opinion there has to be a right for women to wear what they want whether religious or not but this should not mean 'burqa wearers' are exempt from showing their face in places where everyone has to show their face.
Anyway in legal terms it does not even necessarily have anything to with the burqa but just with clothing that covers the face. Motorcyclists have to take their helmets off at petrol stations, people going abroad have to show their face's to passport control, why should anyone be exempt from this on religious grounds?
If a child or adult decided they wanted to go to school or work with a balaclava on they would not be allowed, others around them would feel uneasy and would not know who it is under the clothing. If there was a ruling for followers of say a newer religion such as Mormonism or Scientology decided balaclava wearing was a must, do you think it would be allowed? At the end of the day followers of Islam deserve no greater respect than these 'newer' religions or of people of no religion.
People should be allowed to dress in whatever way they like, and so a complete ban on face coverings is not compatible with the values of a liberal society. If, however, it's a genuine matter of security — airport security, a courtroom, a bank, etc — people should not be expected to allow it, nor feel obliged to do so.
No one would think that a security guard in a bank was being overzealous to ask someone in a motorcycle helmet or balaclava to take it off or else leave, for example, and a religious garment should be treated no differently, regardless of whether or not it's a 'requirement' of a particular religion — which these aren't. The burqa is demeaning not only to women but also to Muslim men, in suggesting they are unable to control their sexual appetites in the presence of normally-clothed women.
The burqa must be banned in order to preserve our society from the influence of Islam and its associated medieval culture. It is already illegal to wear no clothes at all, wearing the burqa is equally antisocial perhaps more antisocial and should be made illegal. The English way of life involves social contact in the street, seeing peoples faces and smiling at each other as we pass. I want to keep this way of life. Three questions arise from the French Ban not of the Burqa but of covering the face in public :.
Where do I stand in this regard wearing a full face helmet while riding a motorcycle or a ski-mask while skiing? If the above is allowed, what about a woman wearing a Burqa under a helmet or ski-mask?
When will people understand that misconceived laws are of no help in advancing the type of society I'm pretty sure most of us want to live in? I believe there should be laws that prohibit the covering of the face, but these laws should be entirely to do with issues like health and safety, crime prevention and what might be called 'occupational appropriacy'. To target Islamic veils specifically would be wrong in principle and might create a nasty backlash.
Women who choose to wear a veil in public should be free to do so. Men who tyrannise women by forcing them to wear veils should expect criticism and social ostracism, but not legal sanctions.
Wearing the veil is regrettable. It cuts the wearer off from normal human interactions through which communication, understanding and friendship can grow. But our commitment to the freedom of the individual to do as they wish, as long as it harms nobody else, means we cannot support legislation to bar certain types of clothing. However, there are circumstances where freedom may be circumscribed owing to the need for the individual to undertake particular roles in employment or to satisfy reasonable security requirements for identification and openness.
These limitations are best defined by employers, agencies and trading organisations in their particular circumstances. The courts must be careful to ensure the veil is not recognised as a religious requirement which could make it unchallengeable and that the rights of others to withhold jobs, services, passage and participation from veil wearers are protected. When wearing the veil is forced upon women by relatives or communities the means of combating that must be through education and campaigning and clear support for Muslim women fighting for their rights.
Banning the veil because of husbands forcing their wives to wear it is absurd - deal with the marital inequality and the only veils left will be those worn voluntarily.
I, a man, intend to protest any bans on the veil by wearing one. Anyone else? No, the burkha should not be specifically banned because people should be free to dress as they wish. BUT places such as airports, banks etc where identification is necessary should insist that ALL face-coverings are removed prior to entry, including any face veils.
Other places eg schools, airplanes etc should also be alllowed to request that faces are fully visible for the ease or comfort of other people there. In addition, UK Law should make it clear that burkhas are not to be seen as a religious necessity and will not be given special treatment.
They're merely a dress choice. As far as I'm concerned, if a person doesn't want me to see them, I won't - in fact I'll act as if they are not there. If that offends their or anyone else's idea of human rights, tough.
0コメント