Side note on the Dutch burqa ban
The Journal reports on the Netherlands’ new burqa ban, although if you read down, you’ll find it’s also reported that the Dutch police have said it’s unenforceable. The Guardian also notes the Dutch cops’ refusal to enforce the new law. The Dutch law is different from ours, banning face coverings in public buildings including schools and hospitals and on public transport, but it’s an example of how difficult it is to reconcile sumptuary laws with modern notions of freedom of choice.
Chris 21:44 on 2019-08-01 Permalink
It’s also an example of how difficult it is to reconcile 7th century superstition with modern notions of equality of the sexes.
Your summary doesn’t make it clear: but 1) this law only applies to full coverings like burka, not lesser coverings like hijab. 2) it’s not religious only, it applies to balaclavas and the like too. 3) it does not apply on the street, only in select places. (These are just facts, not an endorsement.)
Kevin 21:57 on 2019-08-01 Permalink
I know some people have been hit a few times by the ugly stick. I think we need another stick labelled The Constitution allows freedom of religion.
Doesn’t apply in France though, since they don’t have that in their Constitution.
Chris 09:03 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Freedom of religion is not absolute!
Many religions call for human sacrifice[1], should that be allowed? I grant that such rituals are virtually unpractised today, but religions are ideas, and ideas never die. How about lesser examples like FGM? That’s illegal in Canada. Surveys show that many people cite *their* religion as requiring it.[2] How about divorce? That’s forbidden by some religions[3], shall religion trump our laws there too? How about homosexuality? Several religions call for the death penalty there.[4]
Really these ancient superstitions should be generally ignored when making laws in the 21st century. Yes, we should have freedom of religion in the same way we should have freedom of thought and freedom of assembly; but it doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want because your god said so.
Anyway, the Dutch law seems to say nothing about religion. Helmets and balaclavas are not religious, and banned identically. Quite clever on their part. It reminds me of Montreal’s P-6 bylaw.
Also, France? You mean Netherlands?
Lastly, I’m generally not for these kinds of laws (except in very narrow cases: showing id and few other things). But I think I’d rather have this Dutch law than the Quebec law: no one is denied a job and the hijab is not affected at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Religion
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Religion_and_divorce
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion
Kate 09:33 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Chris, I am satisfied if religion is held back by existing law. Murder is not legal and therefore you can’t practise human sacrifice. We shouldn’t have laws specifically against religious actions or culture simply because they are seen as religious. It is not illegal for a woman to wear a scarf on her head or a man to wear a tiny hat, so it should not be forbidden simply because some people perceive it as religious.
Ian 12:18 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
This is an important distinction for secular humanism, Kate, that sadly few people seem to comprehend. As much as regular folks shouldn’t be subject to religious law except by choice, and religious folks should be able to practice their faith only insofar as it doesn’t conflict with human rights as enforced by state law, you can’t make state laws that persecute religious folks for stuff other folks are allowed to do.
That should just be common sense.
Chris 18:04 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
And the Dutch were clever about that, weren’t they? They didn’t ban anything religious, they banned _completely_ covering your face and hiding your identity (in select places), regardless of how or why. Just as we’ve banned killing, regardless of how or why.
Ian, how about making state laws that allow religious folks to do something, but make it illegal for others to do the same? Like Alberta and its ‘no helmets required for Sikhs but required for everyone else’ law?
Ian 20:24 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Honestly in that particular instance I just hope their organ donor cards are filled out. Getting on a motorcycle without a helmet is just stupid.
Chris 21:40 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
May those motorcyclists stay safe by dodging obstacles as deftly as you dodged the question. 🙂 I agree with your first two, but would be interested to know your thinking on the third:
regular folks shouldn’t be subject to religious law except by choice
religious folks should be able to practice their faith only insofar as it doesn’t conflict with human rights as enforced by state law
regular folks shouldn’t be forbidden by state law to do something that religious folks are permitted by law to do.
Kevin 22:17 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Don’t people know the reason nothing is absolute is because their belief affects other people? Your right to swing your fist stops before you hit my nose.
Since nobody is walking around the Netherlands weaing balaclavas or face masks, a law that specifically tailored should make people think: the rule of do what you want as long as you don’t harm others is being broken.
And yes, I did mean France, source of countless bad ideas appropriated by our province’s intellectual class.
Kate 09:14 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
regular folks shouldn’t be forbidden by state law to do something that religious folks are permitted by law to do.
See, this all sounds very plausible until you turn it around. Writers at the Journal de Montréal have been known to get worked up because police are tolerant of parking around synagogues on major Jewish holidays, for example. Tolerance should not be tolerated?
I’m not religious but that’s not the society I want to live in.
Chris 11:18 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
Kevin, we have lots of laws that go against ‘do what you want as long as you don’t harm others’. How does it harm anyone else if I don’t wear a helmet motorcycling? Or if I walk the streets nude? Or if I use heroin? These are all nonetheless illegal. I guess one could argue that *if* I crash by motorbike, taxpayers pay for my care. But then one could also argue that *if* I commit a crime, taxpayers will have to spend more on the harder job of identifying a masked perpetrator.
Kate, interesting example to think of. Not sure it’s quite the same though. If a Jew and non-Jew park next to each other on such a holiday, do the cops ticket one and not the other? Seems more like the tolerance is indeed religion-based, but gets applied to everyone equally at that time/place. There’s no actual test of an individual’s religiosity as there is with the helmet case. And cops are lenient with parking tickets on many occasions, it’s not like religion is the only example.