The rest of Europe should follow the Belgian ban on burqas
Yes
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Here is more information about the legislation: http://www.huffingtonpost. Basically, the argument supporting the ban of head-veils like the Burqa, while described as not specifically targeting Muslims, is an attempt to prevent women from being forced to cover themselves due to societal pressure (the article had comments which looked like a press release designed to avoid sounding like they were targeting Muslims explicitly, but this law apparently does). In other words this isn't about "freedom to wear what you want" but instead "freedom from being imposed upon by social values which prevent you from wearing what you want." Here is an example of how insane countries like Saudi Arabia can be over dress code: Side: yes
In the public globe there is a fundamental need for identification. This is not a new concept and has always been essential to the social contract. Our faces are the primary means of identification and covering them for any purpose in public dealings is considered a breach in the social contract. The reasons for this go beyond the obvious security and terrorism concerns and extend into basic issues of personal liability. In public, people must be accountable for who they are. Consider a person who wished to apply for a driver’s license without registering a name or address. Would this be acceptable? Would there be any cultural or religious tradition that would make the lack of disclosure reasonable? On both counts, it’s obvious that such a proposal is unreasonable and no justification would allow for an exception. Side: Yes
|
1
point
The official argument of the liberals in Belgium was 'safety', but other arguments were that it should promote the emancipation of muslim women. Forced emancipation will not work however: those women won't throw of their burqas collectively but will stay at home instead. Women should be convinced by education and arguments that they have the right and freedom of chocie, not by prohibitions. Side: No
1
point
Further, the ban on burqas by the government violates the principle of separation of church and state - one of the most important political principles securing the secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise. So do bans on Female Genital Mutilation, but some laws are necessary to force religions out of the dark ages and into modern civilisation. Burqas have become a symbol of female oppression in the countries where they are mandatory. Women who resist wearing them are beaten, or punished by the legal system. A famous case was where in Saudi Arabia a school was burning and the women inside were not permitted to leave the building by the religious police because they were not wearing burqas. Basically the problem is that while we should be free to wear what we want, or believe what we want, religions like Islam are importing values which are antiquated into our civil societies. Women aren't permitted the mindset or power in these families to think like you do, independently, and will be coerced into conformity. When you argue for religious tolerance and freedom of choice, you are effectively supporting misogyny. Side: yes
1
point
Shouldn't they have the right to wear whatever the hell they want? It is part of their religion - and many women prefer wearing the burqa. How would you feel if you were ostracised or beaten by your family for not wearing a garment which completely covers all your features? Side: yes
1
point
I'm not familiar with the wisdom behind the ban. On the surface it seems a bad idea. One should be able to wear whatever they like... or not wear anything. Actually now that I think of it I'm against the clothing rules in general in every country I know of. The only thing I can imagine is if there is a large fundamentalist Muslim population who beats their wives for not wearing burqas or something. I guess a law saying they were not aloud to may help. Otherwise, pretty senseless. Side: No
1
point
|
