This morning, as I flipped to the world news section of the Daily Yomiuri, I was stunned to read an article about the Dutch cabinet's consideration to ban the burka in all public places, a measure that has already made it past parliament. One respondent noted in the article that she would resort to wearing a surgical mask if the ban goes into effect, illustrating the fact that she wears the religious garments on her own volition, not paternal intimidation, as argued by Dutch politicians.
Of course, the Netherlands would not be the first to enforce discriminatory legislation against Muslims- France banned wearing the hijab (and all outwardly symbols of religious affiliation), and Turkey implemented similar legislation years prior. What urks me about the case in the Netherlands is the unseemly timing (interestingly, at the time the initial caricatures of Prophet Muhammad-peace be unto him- were published last fall, parliament was passing the said legislation), and the Dutch reputation for tolerance. In a country where shooting heroin and soliciting sex is legal, one would assume their level of tolerance would outweigh their European counterparts. Not so, apparently.
From a libertarian viewpoint, Geert Wilders' (Dutch MP and sponsor of the ban) comment about the burka being a 'medieval symbol against women' misses the mark. Who is he to impose his views on a religious group of people for which he is not part of? The only thing medieval about this situation is his attempt to impede personal freedoms of those who wish to abide by what they believe is divine law. Honestly, which is more demeaning, legal prostitution or entirely covering one's body? Is making one's body an object less offensive than refusing to do so? The hypocrisy of this case is repulsing. From an apocalyptic view, which I'm not endorsing, it would be easy to suggest to some that the rise of a modern Sodom is taking place in Western Europe.
In recent times, it has been more acceptable in the west to don clothing without regard to shame. In some cities, prostitutes have actually complained that of having difficulty being noticed among the scanty fashions being displayed on the street. Indeed, I once witnessed a group of women who were stopped by police and questioned- come to find out, they were headed to the club, not the corner. Historically, it was the Christian Byzantine women who donned the veil. Take any depiction of the Virgin Mary (God be pleased with her) and you essentially see a woman in hijab. Apparently, the majority of Christian women find her example unimportant, or perhaps she, too, was oppressed. All of that aside, to single out a religious minority by passing discriminatory legislation is abhorrent in the 'free' world.
If Wilders is able to get approval on the ban, it will only further escalate east-west tensions. News reports are notorious for grouping Muslims together as immigrants, as though the two were synonymous. Islam does not recognize class or ethnic divisions. Legislation targeting a Muslim minority is directed at nationals as well and says to the rest of the world, "Muslims are unwelcome." Unless women forcibly have to wear traditional Muslim clothing, the state has zero jurisdictions to intervene, insofar as it refers to itself as a free nation. Islamically, and reiterated by the words of Martin Luther King, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"; to target one is to target all. Far be it from me to determine the laws of a country to which I am not a citizen; that said, however, a country that restricts people from openly practicing their faith should not use the word freedom in their vocabulary.
Of course, the Netherlands would not be the first to enforce discriminatory legislation against Muslims- France banned wearing the hijab (and all outwardly symbols of religious affiliation), and Turkey implemented similar legislation years prior. What urks me about the case in the Netherlands is the unseemly timing (interestingly, at the time the initial caricatures of Prophet Muhammad-peace be unto him- were published last fall, parliament was passing the said legislation), and the Dutch reputation for tolerance. In a country where shooting heroin and soliciting sex is legal, one would assume their level of tolerance would outweigh their European counterparts. Not so, apparently.
From a libertarian viewpoint, Geert Wilders' (Dutch MP and sponsor of the ban) comment about the burka being a 'medieval symbol against women' misses the mark. Who is he to impose his views on a religious group of people for which he is not part of? The only thing medieval about this situation is his attempt to impede personal freedoms of those who wish to abide by what they believe is divine law. Honestly, which is more demeaning, legal prostitution or entirely covering one's body? Is making one's body an object less offensive than refusing to do so? The hypocrisy of this case is repulsing. From an apocalyptic view, which I'm not endorsing, it would be easy to suggest to some that the rise of a modern Sodom is taking place in Western Europe.
In recent times, it has been more acceptable in the west to don clothing without regard to shame. In some cities, prostitutes have actually complained that of having difficulty being noticed among the scanty fashions being displayed on the street. Indeed, I once witnessed a group of women who were stopped by police and questioned- come to find out, they were headed to the club, not the corner. Historically, it was the Christian Byzantine women who donned the veil. Take any depiction of the Virgin Mary (God be pleased with her) and you essentially see a woman in hijab. Apparently, the majority of Christian women find her example unimportant, or perhaps she, too, was oppressed. All of that aside, to single out a religious minority by passing discriminatory legislation is abhorrent in the 'free' world.
If Wilders is able to get approval on the ban, it will only further escalate east-west tensions. News reports are notorious for grouping Muslims together as immigrants, as though the two were synonymous. Islam does not recognize class or ethnic divisions. Legislation targeting a Muslim minority is directed at nationals as well and says to the rest of the world, "Muslims are unwelcome." Unless women forcibly have to wear traditional Muslim clothing, the state has zero jurisdictions to intervene, insofar as it refers to itself as a free nation. Islamically, and reiterated by the words of Martin Luther King, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"; to target one is to target all. Far be it from me to determine the laws of a country to which I am not a citizen; that said, however, a country that restricts people from openly practicing their faith should not use the word freedom in their vocabulary.
