I definitely think it's a step forward, but find it way too radical in its implementation. There hasn't been enough emphasis on what kind of support will be provided to the victims of this ban.

The outright 'ban' doesn't keep in mind cultural conditioning from childhood and thus, as many have pointed out - seems directed towards victimising a certain population. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8442622/French-burka-ban-police-arrest-two-veiled-women.html

Will I be fined if I hide my features behind a santa claus/halloween/donald duck costume? Going by the reasoning of the lawmakers who put this law in place, I should. No?

This is a multi-level political issue.

On the left hand, some claim it supports women's rights and is a step against subjugation of women to certain religious practices.

On another, this is also a way for the right to quash what they regard as an increasingly apparent "symbol of Islamic culture."

On yet another level, it is legislation directed at controlling what women wear and therefore appears discriminatory on that basis alone due to unequal treatment.

Here's a debate from Sky News

In France a women is able to walk in Bikini in the street, but it is forbidden for a women to wear the full veil

I don't understand the logic, if both womens are free to wear what they want

Great..... I personally think those burkas look very out of place on the street!!!!

Jehova's witnesses should also be forbiden from knocking on people's doors as well, they have no right to come into a private property, and shove their beliefs down the throats of those living there!!! 

Religion is a very personal conviction and should be kept at that level!!!

If these women want to wear a veil around their house because it connects them with their beliefs and so, they should go for it; but outside in society they should refrain from doing it..... we live in a fast paced world where people need to connect, be identified and interact with one another!!!! 

Keep your religion whatever it might be, to yourself!

And in Iran a woman can walk around covered from head to toe, but would be stoned to death if she walks around in a bikini. (same logic)

Religion is something private, and should be kept at that level.... simple!

The question is exactly wether they wear it because they want to.

I think most people would agree that ideally, everyone would be free to wear what they want (be it a burqa or a bikini) while being protected from being forced by someone else to wear something they don't want (again, be it a burqa or a bikini).

The problem is that it may be impossible to enforce the second right without infringing on the first.

@Andy I admire how you make something so complex as religion out to be a simple matter!

Iran stones to death women in bikinis? Really? This is the first I've heard of this! As far as I know, the death penalty in Iran is applicable only for 8 crimes: armed robbery, treason, murder, drug trafficking, rape, pedophilia, sodomy, kidnapping and terrorism.

Please edify.

I just think people should be FORCED to understand that religion is something personal, and should be kept behind doors..... not be mixed with politics and much less should interfere with the social order!

 I did an internship in an office that dealth with women rights in Iran and I resigned because it was making me a hateful bitter person...

I recall cases of women stoned  to death by their neighbors in towns outside of Teheran because of simple rumors.... she was not a virgin, or she was in love with such and such, or she went to a discoteque and was dancing western music etc. etc. 

by law the death penalty is applied to 8 crimes like you state.... but people are so brainwashed that take religious beliefs and justice, mix it up and take matters in their own hands with the justice system mostly looking the other way.

Like the video that went around the net shcoking the world of that poor 15 year old girl stoned to death by her own cousins and neighbors simply because it was rumored that she had fallen inlove with a man who practised another type of Islam.

That is disgusting, gross, and satanic (if Satan does exist, I do not know)

That is why I think the state should FORCE every one in it, to understand that religion is something personal and must not interfere with the social order.... 

Just to clarify.... I did an internship with an office that dealth with women's right In Iran... but it was NOT in Iran... it happened here in Europe.

(Thought I'd mention that)

Look, I see your point of view, but anything can be twisted and abused.

Democracy can be misused, freedom of speech can be abused, something that was originally a source of order, peace and stability can become the source of violence, hatred and oppression. And so it is with religion as well. That's what human beings seem to do when you give them anything! That doesn't mean you ban it from society! Are you also advocating then, that Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear the skull cap, Christians the cross, people shouldn't be allowed to have religious tattoos on their bodies, Hindu women shouldn't be allowed the bindiya etc, etc. Once you go down this road the list is endless and it becomes a very slippery slope.

Your experiences are unfortunate and I agree with your sentiments about how sick people can get. But I don't think the answer is simply to ban religion from society. It has also brought peace to people and fed our need for spirituality. It has also brought law and order to societies (you may disagree with those values) but it has been a cohesive and positive force as well as a negative one.

It's interesting to contrast this debate with the recent development of "Slutwalks." 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13320785

"The aim, say organisers, is to highlight a culture in which the victim rather than rapist or abuser is blamed....

"Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti had been giving a talk on health and safety to a group of students at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto when he made the now infamous remarks.

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," he reportedly told them. "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this - however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

He has since apologised for his remarks and has been disciplined by the Toronto police, but remains on duty."

There's also the point of identity & identity theft - issues that perhaps our ancestors weren't that bothered about protecting, since a lot of them lived in places where everyone knew everyone else.

Here's a recent Australian issue that highlights this aspect. And how do they plan to solve it? Fingerprinting!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8591572/Australia-considers-fingerprinting-women-in-burkas.html

Communist and socialist regimes did ban religion...and we all know how well that went.

I never had to wear the burqa but I know of several women who voluntarily took it up. I don't think its the 'correct' interpretation of the religion but I can live with women who want to cover up. I grew up in Pakistan where we did dress pretty modestly on the whole, and have to admit it never bothered me...I never thought it had any impact on my ideas, my thoughts my freedom of expression, my right to drive, go to places, work, socialise etc.

You can go to Pakistan and wear a mini skirt...there is no law banning it. You might get stared at by a crowd and feel terribly uncomfortable but you could still wear it.

You can also live in Saudi Arabia as a Christian and live as 'normal' a life as any other expat living there. Non-muslims and muslims alike are discriminated against in that fine country.

And on a lighter note, a friend of mine who is a comedian in Karachi made this spoof:

sorry, seem to be having trouble uploading the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LzOU6ETxI8

That was funny...The conversation with the 3 women was also interesting. I was a bit chilled when the one woman talked about her creator knowing what's best for her.... through whose interpretation?

I was raised Catholic and I remember the days when women were required to wear something on their heads when attending mass. I remember that once we forgot our scarves and my mother attached a kleenex to our hair with a bobby pin...

That makes sense. Because some parts of the world act extreme towards us, we need to balance it out in our home countries with equivalent & opposite extremism, even if we've already advanced to another inclusive dimension of liberty & equality in some ways.

"The identity of Europe is not the identity of the middle east or the identity of north africa..."

That's like me proclaiming that the identity of my country doesn't include the Taj Mahal or worse, cricket. The identity of Europe today includes the identity of those of Middle Eastern and North African origin who today, live in Europe. Some of them were even born here.

Let's leave aside for a moment everything religion has that you hate. What does religion not have that it should be outlawed? Does it not have philosophy, civilization, community, compassion, celebration of life, art, music, emotion, science, literature, language or does it not have hope?

Outlawing all that religion includes - because some idiots interpret it incorrectly and believe that life, law & justice today should be a reflection of what it used to be a few centuries ago.

Well, that's right wing against right wing, with complete disregard to everyone in between, who usually make up the majority.

From wikipedia...Hijab by country...

The people of the United States have a firm 1st Amendment protection of freedom of speech from government interference that explicitly includes clothing items, as described by Supreme Court cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines. As such, a ban on Islamic clothing is considered presumptively invalid by U.S. socio-political commentators such as Mona Charen ofNational Review. Journalist Howard LaFranchi of the Christian Science Monitor has referred to "the traditional American respect for different cultural communities and religions under the broad umbrella of universal freedoms" as forbidding the banning of Islamic dress. In his prominent June 2009 speech to the Muslim World in Cairo, President Barack Obama called on the West "to avoid dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear", and he elaborated that such rules involve "hostility" towards Muslims in "the pretense of liberalism".

A 2010 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that the vast majority of Americans – two out of three of those polled – oppose banning Islamic clothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

There is no law banning the mini skirt in Pakistan and there is also no woman there whou would dream of wearing it in the first place.

I have friends that are practising Christians and lived in Saudi Arabia for a while.  They could not lead a "normal" life since wearing the cross is forbidden and Cristians places of worshipping are non-existent.

Actually, there are places you can wear mini skirts but they are hangouts of the elite...so not public spaces. Places like the prominent Sind Club for instance...anything goes here! I have been to parties there and seen no difference between them and the parties I went to in the U.S!

However, I do feel uncomfortable when we mistake this for 'progress'...the elite is so alienated from the rest of the masses, who are poor and increasingly disaffected. While the elite party and obssess about the latest Armani jeans or Gucci sunglasses, the underprivileged struggle to eke out a living. There is widespread discontentment, unemployment, lack of hope and a large population of energetic, intelligent, unfocused men. Fodder for extremist groups to prey on. And this is what the extremist ideology focuses on...it builds up the hatred and the resentment of the unfairness of their lot and chanels it into 'jihad'....when you have nothing to lose its easy to become a recruit.

The law said :

"No one shall, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face." Public space means public roads, public transport, shops and shopping centers, schools, post offices, hospitals, courts, government ...

In particular, prohibited the wearing of hoods, the full veil (burqa, niqab ...), masks or any other accessory or garment making it impossible to identify the person. “

In 2009, 367 womens in France has been identified wearing the full veil. The French population is estimated around 65 026 885 inhabitants, which mean this law concerned only 0% of the population…

It seems like a lot of hullabuloo for very little if you look at it this way, doesn't it?

Spoken like a true politician. 

367 / 65 026 885 = 5.64381948 × 10-6

which is slightly more than zero. Since it's made of real people, it is definitely not 0%. If it's not such a big number, why BAN them?

Since when did banning become the solution for integration?

I'd love to see people like these banned from hospitals and everywhere else. They used to scare the life outta me when I was a kid. Once upon a time, everyone was wearing these masks afraid of some pork flu. I'm glad there's a law banning them and those dressed in Disney & superhero costumes. And I wonder why the burqa ladies feel targetted about such a law of which, Pere Noel should be afraid.

Sorry, that was:

367 / 65 026 885 = 5.64381948 × 10 to the power of 6. Ugh, formatting issues!

Aargh. 367 / 65 026 885 = 5.64381948 × 10 to the power of minus 6.

Can't blame anyone now. I'm unfit for mathematics. I've tried to tell my professors since I was little.

Unfortunately in France and some others European countries Islam became an election tool. I think this law is just a stigmatization of Islam, it was far from being a priority.

I am against the burqua, however I don’t care a women wear a veil or a bikini as much she respect the law of the republic.

Last month I went to Paris I saw a skinhead with a neo-nazi tattoo; I was very shocked and I still don't understand why he is able to show it in public… besides I am pretty sure he was more dangerous than a women wearing a veil…

And the motto of the French Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" !!!

Seriously french people are very paradoxale

Belabouring the point here but:

France has 5 million Muslims and less than 2000 of them wear the full veil.

Arun do the math now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/france-begins-burqa-niqab-ban

Islam is a convenient political tool on both sides of the debate! In Muslim countries politicians rave and rant about how it is under threat and under siege from the West and we must do everything in our power to protect it. In Western countries politicians use it to curry favour with the right-wingers

Interestingly the language is always the same on both sides: remember George W. Bush's rhetoric (if they aren't with us, they're against us, etc, etc, axis of evil, etc.). I know that the mullahs refer to the west as 'satanical'. 

2000 include all muslim womens who wear the simple veil and the full veill (burqua and Niquab).

No 2000 who wear the face veil...

The club I was talking about was not for westerners at all: it was for elite, rich Pakistanis.

My only experience of Saudi Arabia is what my husband (who lived there for 5 years) has told me: the people on Pakistani and Indian and Bangladeshi passports earn less than their western counterparts...my point was that Saudi Arabia manages to discriminate against Muslims as well.

And what do you mean by a completely normal life and get equal treatment? Equal to whom? Normal for whom?

And to answer your question: I have lived in poverty-stricken, oppressive Pakistan for 18 years. Lived under military dictatorship, lived through the Afghan-Soviet-American war and seen people live in unimaginable pain. Then, I have also lived in liberal western countries for 13 years.

"Equality works both ways" : what a great maxim to live by. Lets hope it can be applied to all economic, political, sociological ideologies.

(sorry this post was meant to go on this thread not the Obama-Bush one, although I guess it works on both)

Yes, you have made it very clear that you don't like the liberals. So, just out of curiousity, do you like fascists? I mean, when you say that 'equality works both ways' are you rooting to emulate the fascist and intolerant tendencies of some regimes in eastern countries? Therefore, if they have fascist laws in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, western countries should follow suit? Just because its a tit for a tat? or what? curious, you see.

One of the questions I am asking myself is how tolerant should you be with the intolerants and is that not in the end impacting the tolerant in that their world becomes a more dangerous place for them? The veil for sure is associated to an extreme side of Islam that I would not like implemented here. With regards to the norm, it is certainly not the norm to walk in a bikini, nor with a niqab in the streets in our western society. Should we ask people to conform to the norm so that the freedom of all in the end is preserved (but in itself it is somehow a contradiction) i.e. there are now some streets in London where it dangerous for a woman to walk without a head covering I have read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4375910.stm

http://www.humannaturemag.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:inside-paris-suburban-ghettos&catid=37:globe&Itemid=596

I believe the decision to ban the veil is just a tough stance against "Islamisation"...I can't call it Islam, because I don't recognise it as my religion.

The real problem is one of identity: Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccon immigrants (ghosts of the French Empire) were brought to France as cheap labour (exactly what Britain did in her own colonies). Except they housed them far away from mainstream society in apartment blocks which have now become little than ghettos. Unemployment at 40% is a hotbed for unrest! These people are reacting to a history of discrimination and mistreatment....and guess who's promising them jobs and education? The extreme religious right. Its a pattern that is replicated all over the world in poor countries. I've seen it happening firsthand in Pakistan.

Give people jobs, education, hospitals, parks, opportunities and I bet the radical side will start to die down. The radicals only have a stranglehold on people because the moderates have ignored them.

If only Sarkozy (and many others like him in the world) would address the real problems, not just the symptoms.

I will add to "Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccon immigrants (ghosts of the French Empire) were brought to France as cheap labour" most of them were from the country side where the religion is more extrem and beeing illetrate was common.

Yes they did come from the countryside because the educate elite of these former colonies would never have dreamt of taking these menial jobs.

I'm not sure what all the objections are to women covering their hair with scarves though. Traditionally, in all religions women have always covered their hair. Orthodox Jewish women still do. Take a look at rennaissance paintings of the Virgin Mary (and her companions) they always dress in a garb that covers them from head to toe. Amish women in Pennsylvania, (U.S) also wear scarves over their hair. Why should the state jump in and ban this? Unless there is proof that someone is being harmed by this?

I understand the problems with covering the face...but again, wouldn't it be better to give the power to remove it to the relevant people, like job employers, security guards etc? When the state deems it necessary to spend time and money on making it a LAW, it acquires a whole different meaning.

Australian authorities seem to have finally decided on something slightly more practical than fingerprinting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/australia-new-south-wales-police-burqa-removal

http://www.france24.com/en/20110705-australia-police-get-power-demand-burqa-removal

The chairman of the Islamic Council of NSW, Khaled Sukkarieh, says there is no problem with asking a Muslim woman to lift her veil, but it would be preferable if it was by a female officer. "From a perspective of it being done sensibly and with sensitivity," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/21/3249623.htm?site=sydney

I won't want to equate the force of being 'obliged' to wear a burqua (not the same as a veil) with the pressure on some women and men to wear minimal clothing but there is some pressure (commercial and other) there too. And I do appreciate the difficulties of wearing a burqa and its almost silliness as it is well described in the book 'The Bookseller of Kabul' where women struggle to keep up with each other in the hustle and bustle of markets where sometimes they can only identify their relatives by the shoes or socks they are wearing. As wel the book relates all the extensive beautifcation preparation prior to a wedding which is then all covered up by a burqa.

How about the freedom to walk stark naked? How far do we go with this 'freedom'?

I recall a few years back a Blairite minister (Jack Straw) who insisted women who wanted to consult him in his constituency office remove their burqa ( at least their face covering!) so he could read their facial expressions and better communicate. At the time I thought (and still do) how ridiculous this is because no one is an expert in reading body language or facial expressions - there is no hard science of the reading of 'body language'.

Also I thought of his blind colleague minister (the name fails me) and thought he must be utterly unable to communicate with his constituents!

Finally, Arun, please no costumes but perhaps some fond de teint, eyeliner and lipstick to accentuate (coverup?) those remarkable features! And a platinum blonde wig if you have one - if not you can borrow mine!

Thanks Felipe. i wanted to make exactly that point exactly a few days ago but the posting mechanism wasn't working. A bit of overkill especially when there are so many more pressing issues in France and throughout the world.

I'm also concerned about police who wear hats making it difficult to fully identify their features e.g. baldness or a bald spot and head apparel like other apparel can give facial and body features a different appearance so I might advocate for nude police. (What to do about Batman and Robin though I'm stil undecided!).

Interesting point about tolerance of intolerance. Karl Popper called this the paradox of tolerance of intolerance which then would allow intolerance compromising tolerance. I did have some problems with his arguments and reasonings as some of his terms and ideas were rather arbitrarily defined.

No it's not the norm to walk in bikini but a few years back women earned the legal right to go topless in Toronto and this was especially noted in the press with some young women washing windows topless. Their argument was that if men can go topless then why shouldn't they. I think eventually the freedom for women to go topless was reversed.

It was David Blunkett, Education Secretary and then Home Secretary (before he was forced to resign for a sex scandal!!)

I'd like to introduce a new element in the discussion.  What is the meaning of wearing a veil, burka, niqba, mantilla?

The ful veil or burka has been outlawed in France and even though I would have preferred another solution because of the repressive nature of any “banning law”, as a woman, I am relieved.  Behind the wearing of the veil there is the authority of a male figure disguised with a religious outfit. And this applies to three monotheistic religions.  I remember my mother wearing a “mantilla” that covered her head and having to also cover her shoulders.  This tradition went originally to Saint-Paul who wrote in his first Epistle to the Corinthians “A man ought not cover his head being the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” In other words, a woman is submitted to man and by covering her head this is made clear. I cannot quote anything from the Quarn or the Torah but I am pretty sure similar lines of "reasoning" exist in both religions.

Then in the 60’s the Vatican decided that is was no longer compulsory for Catholic women to wear the veil in Church.  My mother and her friends were delighted with the Vatican's announcement. 

Many young women in Muslim countries try not to wear the veil and in almost every case end up being confronted by a male member of the family that prevents them from doing so.  Only if they get married and the husband gaves his permission, they can be free not to wear it The only other exceptions I have encountered are women from the elite.

While I know that there many other elements around this issue and colonialism is a very important one, when a woman in some areas of London or Paris (to cite a couple) is being harassed for not adapting to so-called religions principles, the word freedom loses any meaning. 

Hi Nefertiti

Thanks for your thought provoking post. I do agree with you that in any case where a man is forcing or pressuring a woman to take the veil, it is a serious problem.

There are a few points I'd just like to clarify.

Firstly, the reasoning behind the veil. Let me quote the passage from the Bible:

 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

Clearly here, women appear to be required to cover their hair for various reasons, but especially to show deference to God and Man.

In the Quran, let me quote you the relevant verse:

"Tell the believing men to lower their eyes and guard their private parts. This is purer for them. Tell the believing women to lower their eyes, guard their private parts, and not display their charms except what is apparent outwardly, and cover their bosoms with their veils and not to show their finery..." Surah Nur, verse 30, 31.

Both men and women are asked to dress and behave modestly but because of the nature of a woman's body (women's breasts apparently are very sexually appealling to men....any man out there who wants to correct me, please do so), there are more detailed requirements for women in this regard. Now we can read into this verse whatever we want...does it mean we cover our heads or not? The bit which says "except what is apparent outwardly" is ambiguous and open for interpretation. There is no mention on women having to dress modestly to show their inferiority to men.

I can't quote the Torah, so I can't comment on the Jewish reasoning behind it.

I must also add that I grew up in a family where no women every covered their heads...not my grandmothers, aunts, mothers etc. I also saw women who decided for themselves and against the wishes of their men folk and families to take the hijab. My own mother in law at the age of 40-something decided she was going to cover her hair. Her brother said to her at that time that he would not publicly acknowledge her if she did this. (he has since mellowed). She is a gynaechologist and would routinely have to rush out in the middle of the night to do a C-section or go and deliver a baby.

I wish to eradicate this belief that a lot of western women seem to have of muslim women who wear the hijab: a lot of them are doing it of their own free will. A lot of them are highly educated career women, independant thinkers and are not oppressed. They are not doing it to because their father, husband, brother is telling them they have to, although I know there are plenty of examples where this is the case.

We tend to view 'the other' from our own experiences...that is only natural. But the only way we can truly understand 'the other' is "to climb into his skin and walk around in it" (To Kill a Mockingbird).

Now one can add Belgium to the list of countries concerned about the welfare of a few dozen women. So concerned are the democratic Belgian parliamentarians about the welfare of Arab/Muslim women, Belgium is participating in the military action in Libya.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14261921

I don't think banning the veil has anything to do with freeing some women living in the West, the ban is a way (so they think) of fighting Islamization, as Amna said before.

England as far as I am aware is very tolerant and the wealfare system there is also very generous. Some women officers even went up to wear the burkha for community awareness. Well in spite of all their efforts they still have plenty of radicals, some of whom are very well educated, it is even said that UK universities are breeding grounds for radicals. What is missing there is probably the notion that in order to have people integrating, these people also need to want integrating. Personally I am not for a ban but I would also like to be able to walk anywhere in Europe including London and Paris without having to cover myself when entering a specific area (ok if you visit a so called 'holly' place then it is different).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5967944/Police-dress-up-in-burkhas-to-improve-community-relations.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece

The west being the free world is a washed up cold war era cliche!!!

The west is opressive, classist, racist and brainwashing!!!  people in the west are slaved to jobs, money, social status, the ones who have and the ones who don't have... westerners like to believe they're free yet they have to work their butts off their entire lives more than any other people on this planet in order to be productive members of a society that looks back at them as simple replaceable numbers!!!   that's the west for you....  this is the reason why the west is full of depressed, borderline psycho individuals (things like the Norway massacre are clear proof that the west is very decadent and falling apart as we speak)

------

Going back to the topic:

I think religion in general (not only Islam but all others) should be banned from public spaces.....  people should believe whatever they want to believe and they can do so in the comfort of their own homes.

I could care less about veils and burqas... I feel more for the inner conflicts many young girls born in Europe with Islamic backgrounds have to face daily... be the good Islamic girl and obey dad at home or else and then society demanding them to be "modern open minded" western girls when they step out of their houses!

I feel sorry for them, and I know some in Belgium who had to live a double life... have the veil in their handbag so before you get home so you can put it back on to make daddy happy, and then when you leave home take it off so people on the street won't look down on you!!!

God forbids your brother or some family member don't see you without it on the street.

I like this law because in a way it works in favor of thousands of girls in the situation I just described!

I know one... but I know of them too.....

I don't care about burqas in the sense that if some one wants to wear it or not it doesn't affect me in any way or form... I support such law because it works in pro of many young girls in europe who come from islamic backgrounds that have to sort of live a double life in order to comply with family traditions and social norms.

Religion is something very personal and should be kept at the privacy of everyone's home, regardless of what religion it is.... I was born a Roman Catholic and although I don't practice it I think there is no need to be public about it..... same goes for all other religions.

Does anyone know what is the formal reason given by law makers who support the no-veil law?

Another ban: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/06/10/soccer-v-headscarf-0-1/

kind of funny too!