The court deciding to ban face veils has nothing to do with 'making people uncomfortable' or small-mindedness. That would indeed be an insufficient base for any law. Indeed, as you already indicated, lots of dressing styles make people feel uncomfortable, yet those dressing styles are not forbidden. But there are some boundaries. I cannot go out naked, for instance. Not because it makes people uncomfortable, but because there are laws ruling about decency in public. Even if there were a religion that would demand me to go out naked, the same would still apply - because, you know, freedom of religion NEVER allows to place that religion above the law. And, at least where I live, similar laws forbid anyone - men or women, from whatever religion, and for whatever reasons - to cover their faces with masks, veils or whatever. That law has nothing to do with Muslim women covering their faces - in fact that law existed already in times when there were hardly any Muslim women in Europe or Northern-America. In fact, 30-40 years ago face veils were very uncommon, if not outright forbidden, in most Muslim countries as well. The law is simply a matter of public safety and public behaviour - it requires everyone to be recognizable when in public. It's all too easy for a criminal to hide behind a mask or a veil. And it makes it too difficult to communicate with your neighbors - which is the very base of any community.
RE: Can there be freedom in restriction?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Can there be freedom in restriction?
Thank you for thought provoking comment. You made some valid points I agree with, especially that the face veil is a new concept in the West and that some countries in the east have banned it. However, if we focus on the West (and not on those who copy them) there is absolutely no evidence that women wearing the face veil has increased crime, made the public feel unsafe or encouraged criminals to use it. In fact, take a look at some photos of the EDL (English Defence League) and how they cover their faces when protesting. The fact that they cover their faces is not considered a danger to the public. Some members of the EDL choose to cover their faces because they don't have what it takes to stand up for what they believe in (in their case, bigotry) and hide behind their masks. However, some women choose to wear the face veil because it's a symbol of their values and identity, and part of their spiritual journey they do not want to compromise. I believe that's both brave and commendable; especially in a world that's constantly trying to impose its changing values on people. If Western countries want to ban the face veil, by all means, they should. But they should not pretend to be advocates for human rights whilst stopping a minority from having their rights. And who knows, maybe next year this time, there will be a discussion to ban the head scarf because someone whose hair can't be seen could pose a threat to national security. I think it's ridiculous for any government to spend time on discussing issues to do with a woman's wardrobe (that's the job of Vogue) when there are so many more pressing issues such as unemployment, gender inequality, drugs, human trafficking, rape, murder, pedophilia, corruption etc
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Firstly, as far as I read this post doesn't talk about criminals hiding behind masks or veils, it's about a law which cuts freedom of religion, while this countries claim, that there is freedom of religion; this is completlely hipocracy. If this countries would state, that there existes a restriction in freedom of religion nobody could argue about a ban.
Secondly, it's ridicoules to compare a veil with being naked. But for the sake of the discussion, even if it would be a halfway good comperisson, your statement is only partly true; there are resorts and places where people can be naked, even if the laws of those countries prohibited nudity in public; whereas the same countries didn't create the same resorts for women with veil.
Thirdly, the laws which prohibits women to cover their faces didn't exist 30-40 years ago, as you mentioned; according to BBC news even in the country you are from this law is very new. A law banning the full-face veil came into effect in Belgium in July 2011 (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095)
Forthly, as far as I understood, nobody talked about so-called muslim countries, where no rights for whomsoever exists anyways; the post was talking about western version of switched freedom.
Fifthly, faceveils were uncommon 30-40 years ago in Europe, but they are part of the European and Christian tradition. In Albania many christian women still wear a white veil; Coptic christians also wear veils, like the ladyin this picture.
_-_TIMEA.jpg)
Even in the United States a veil is nothing uncommon. As you easily can see, even the first lady was wearing a face veil.
Sixthly, there are still many exceptions to the face covering law; e.g. women are allowed to wear a veil during wedings, during furnerals, during carneval etc. Police, special commandos, military still is allowed to wear masks, even after this law.
Seventhly, there is no logic in making a law of prohibiting the veil to prevent crime; even if there were people with veil who commited crimes, it would be a small minority. You can't make laws according to minority, sometimes, maybe happening events. So this law is not preventing crime, but it is a discrimination.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit