Comments:Belgium passes ban on full face veil

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

ISLAM SHALL PREVAIL ALLAH-U-AKBAR Sikh turbans aren't symbols of discrimination. Mini-skirts are in a certain way the opposite. People shouldn't heed to this scaremongering by backwards Muslims who insist to bring their seventh-century values with them into the West.

As much as I despise the mistreatment of women and the degredation of personal freedoms, especially womens', I think that people should be able to wear whatever the hell they want. I wear a ski mask in the winter when I'm out in the snow. Would that be illegal? I think it's shameful that tax dollars will paid for the passing of this law, and even more disgraceful that tax dollars will be spent trying to enforce it. Don't we have more important things to worry about than what kind of clothing people wear? Are we as a society that bored?

I think the passing of this law is an excellent idea. We're not "bored" as a society. This law is being passed in the interest of security. There's a reason criminals conceal there faces with masks and hoods. If everyone is forced to show their face, I think the general public can feel that much safer.

You are a scary bastard. (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this move. You can argue against the building of minarets on aesthetic grounds, or face veils on security grounds - superficially, I'd like to see both of them gone as well - but I think it boils down to a religious/racial prejudice on the part of Europe. I hardly think there was public pressure around this issue. -- (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think all western countries should ban the full-face veil. Nobody should be able to obscure their identity when in public. Moving to a western country is an option, and anyone doing so should expect to deal with western customs, just as I would expect to deal with different customs when I travel abroad. Now here's where my opinion gets inflammatory: I think the full face veil is part of a culture of hatred towards women. Not all Muslim women must wear the full face veil, only those living in countries where women are expected to be subservient to men, and are punished when they are not subservient. The full face veil says that women are not a part of society and must be covered up. It implies that since men can't control their sexual urges, women must cover up, otherwise it's their fault if they are attacked. It also allows a man to brutalise a woman as much as he likes and nobody can see his handiwork. Men are capable of controlling themselves and treating women like equal human beings, it just depends on how they are raised. Not all Muslim men expect women to accept second-class status, only those living in countries where women must wear the full-face veil.

your ignorance is dumbfounding (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Start a new discussion

Halloween is now dead.

Seriously, how can they expect to enforce this law without seeming discriminatory against Muslims? Ban face coverings during Halloween? Ban ski masks?

Benny the mascot (talk)03:58, 1 May 2010

They may as well just make them wear yellow stars.

ScalePoint (talk)04:06, 1 May 2010

On that note, It seems that the results of recent events like this have amounted to a sea change in Europe's reputation abroad. As recently as 10 years ago, American liberals were waxing enthusiastic about Europe as a model for human rights extolling what they perceived as its virtues of fairness, tolerance and openness. Sadly this is no longer the case.

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)04:43, 1 May 2010

what about those who wear veils for medical reasons, like congenital Photosensitivity or immune system diseases like advanced Lupus or HIV

ScalePoint (talk)04:47, 1 May 2010

It actually helps if you already know the law in Belgium, instead of spouting off like most of the poorly-informed people here crying "religious intolerance" or, even more ignorantly, "racism".

First off, this has bugger-all to do with Rwanda. So get that cretinous bee out your bonnet folks.

And, as nobody seems to actually know, it is already illegal in Belgium to go aound with a mask on. I covered the anti-Scientology protests in Brussels. Demonstrators were threatened wih arrest if they wore the iconic V for Vendetta masks popular for those protests.

So, on that basis, why should anyone get a special exemption for something as stupid as a medieval religious edict?

i thought you scots believed in freedom of religion, i guess not (talk)08:19, 4 May 2010

Go play in traffic.

I believe in freedom from religion.

HERR ADOLF HITLER LIEBEN!!!!!!!!! (talk)23:58, 9 May 2010

Why don't you bugger off, you nazi twat?

ScalePoint (talk)00:00, 10 May 2010

I believe there is an enormous difference between state preservation of secularism and religious discrimination. The matter we are discussing is a manifest example of the latter.

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)00:12, 10 May 2010

Comments from feedback form - "Good move. Other countries mus..."

Good move. Other countries must follow it. (talk)18:07, 3 May 2010

Comments from feedback form - "RACIST"

RACIST (talk)19:25, 2 May 2010

Comments from feedback form - "A little short, im py opinion,..."

A little short, im py opinion, maybe a few more paragraphs longer with more background. (talk)14:33, 2 May 2010

An outrage, and a tragedy.

Edited by author.
Last edit: 04:20, 1 May 2010

The lawmakers who were responsible for the authorship and passage of this ban should be hauled before the European Court of Human Rights and dismissed from their posts. This is an egregious form of discrimination against the most basic level of human freedom, as well as a flagrant display of hatred and religious intolerance. What the Government of Belgium has done will leave a rotten, festering black stain upon the very soul of Europe for generations to come, unless the heinous action is promptly rescinded. For such a reactionary and totalitarian law to be passed in a continent known for its rich humanistic tradition of enlightenment thinkers who promoted ideals of rationalism,fairness, jusice , and equality, this is a most uncharacteristically cruel and despotic attempt to rob human beings of their liberty. (talk)03:16, 1 May 2010
Edited by author.
Last edit: 05:19, 1 May 2010

A colonial legacy of the Rwandan genocide, recent successive failed governments and now THIS? Perhaps the Belgians should stay out of politics altogetheand stick to making Chocolate and Waffles, those seem to be the only things they can manage to get right.

ScalePoint (talk)03:43, 1 May 2010

mm...waffles..chocolate.. yum

Post-Industrialist (talk)03:51, 1 May 2010

Rwandan genocide wasn't Belgium, it were the rwandans themselves that killed each other. And how is stopping people from wearing masks a bad idea? I bet that if the law was to ban KKK masks instead of burqas you would think it's a good idea, but because this is even slightly related to muslims, people get angry. (talk)16:17, 1 May 2010

Yes, the Rwandans did the killing, but in the even responsiblity ultimately rests with the Belgians, as it was a result of a century of racist indoctrination and enforced apartheid by the Belgian colonial authorities of the Tutsi and Hutu. at the time of the genocide, the belgians were in a stronger position than any other nation to intervene to stop the slaughter, but they simply looked the other way and washed their hands of it. And yes, banning KKK masks is also an attack on human liberty but it is most certainly not comparable to banning veils. The former is a public symbol of hatred intended solely to offend, while the latter is a deeply personal observance of religious duty. (talk)11:10, 2 May 2010

Useless, discriminatory and against liberty

1. A man doesn't need to wear a mask or a veil to conceal identity. Have you read about Sherlock Holmes? He could perfectly imitate a sailor, an old lady or anyone else without a mask. So skillful criminal will not attract attention by a mask or a hood. He will learn to impersonate.

2. Some people (Muslims?) prefer to wear a veil. Some time before veil wasn't unusual for the West. Nowadays this ban will be a ban against Muslims.

3. And it will be a ban against liberty to wear whatever you want. Will set of sunglasses + mask against sand/dust be considered a full face veil, for instance?

>Nobody should be able to obscure their identity when in public.

It means a surveillance state. I think the opposite: you should be able to obscure your identity as much as you can in public (and in private, too, though you will not need it).

>The full face veil says that women are not a part of society and must be covered up.

Or it says that the woman it shy and modest and prefers to hide her face.

Besides, many people in fiction like the Count of Monte Cristo are also seen wearing a disguise/mask. It doesn't imply that they are not a part of society.

Among the Tuareg of West Africa, women do not traditionally wear the veil, while men do. The men's facial covering most probably relates to protection against the harsh desert sands as well; it is a firmly established tradition. Men begin wearing a veil at age 25 which conceals their entire face excluding their eyes. This veil is never removed, even in front of family members.

>I think it's shameful that tax dollars will paid for the passing of this law, and even more disgraceful that tax dollars will be spent trying to enforce it.

Yes, it's a security theater, and it is putting more pressure on Muslims. (talk)10:49, 2 May 2010

On that note, many feminist critics argue that the expectation in contemporary Western societies for a woman to wear sexualised clothing revealing large areas of of her body is a form of patriarchal oppression (talk)11:15, 2 May 2010