No. The premise of the OP is that the only explanation is anti-muslim sentiment.
But that is not the ONLY explanation. I have provided another explanation.
now we need to discern which is correct.
I say the real explanation is that female alien space nazis are using the burqas to hide their vagina mouths. Belgium feels the need to fight this menace.
Does anyone have information on how many crimes in Belgium have been committed while wearing a burqa to conceal the person's face? Has there been a somewhat high profile one recently?
I have been googling and can't find anything after 2004 - 2005.
Does anyone have information on how many crimes in Belgium have been committed while wearing a burqa to conceal the person's face? Has there been a somewhat high profile one recently?
I have been googling and can't find anything after 2004 - 2005.
Well, that speaks volumes on this debate, I think.
As religion is the ultimate social oppressor, I wholeheartedly support the banning of any property that will eventually lead to its obsolescence.
That goes for yalmulkas and gaudy cross necklaces, too.
However, that's just me, and I see any and all self-identification or reference to Abrahamic religions as both incitement and hate-speech.
I am all for this as well, such as when France enforced the ban on hijabs for those in public schools and those working in the public sphere, along with crosses, yarmulkes, and turbans for Sikhs. However, the ban on the niqab has no plausible motivation other than religious (and possibly ethnic) bigotry, just like the ban on minarets in Switzerland (as opposed to bans on minarets, steeples, and other religious tower-like constructions).
It may be, but at least it takes a swipe at an oppressive ideology. It's replacing one horrifyingly sexist and condescending practice with a more benign one.
I think freedom of speech issues should take a backburner when that "expression" is filtered through a hundred generations of barbaric behavior and ignorance, at the direct behest and command of others.
It may be, but at least it takes a swipe at an oppressive ideology. It's replacing one horrifyingly sexist and condescending practice with a more benign one.
I think freedom of speech issues should take a backburner when that "expression" is filtered through a hundred generations of barbaric behavior and ignorance, at the direct behest and command of others.
So "there there, we know better what's good for you" is a good argument if we think it leads to more freedom, rather than, say, education?
Not to mention there are converts who choose to wear the niqab.
Note that I am not at all in support of the niqab, nor the religious arguments for it even from a religious perspective, but I am really annoyed that the solution to "omg women are being forced to wear this" is "let's force them to not wear it!" That, uh, won't work.
So "there there, we know better what's good for you" is a good argument if we think it leads to more freedom, rather than, say, education?
You're right. A slave class of zealots that carries out wanton acts of violence and oppression in a millenia-old fight over whose imaginary friends are the coolest is far preferable to any other alternative.
Religion should die. All of it.
Should you then wish to be educated about it, you can be referred to the reference section of your local library.
So "there there, we know better what's good for you" is a good argument if we think it leads to more freedom, rather than, say, education?
You're right. A slave class of zealots that carries out wanton acts of violence and oppression in a millenia-old fight over whose imaginary friends are the coolest is far preferable to any other alternative.
Religion should die. All of it.
Should you then wish to be educated about it, you can be referred to the reference section of your local library.
Okay, and when they ban religion entirely, it will no longer be an act of bigotry to ban the burqa or niqab. I'm more opposed to bigotry than religion, since, you know, I'm usually one of the next in line the bigots come for.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Okay, and when they ban religion entirely, it will no longer be an act of bigotry to ban the burqa or niqab. I'm more opposed to bigotry than religion, since, you know, I'm usually one of the next in line the bigots come for.
I think banning religion, at this stage, is a bit of a tall order. Especially in the very Catholic EU.
But the burqa is inarguably an oppressive and sexist institution. So you're more upset that they aren't attacking the other less-prominent forms of sectarian oppression than you are that they doing away with one of the worst?
I mean, your idea isn't wrong, but I think your priorities are. I, too, am for the abolition of religiously-mandated social behavior, like those put in place by Hassidics, Pentecostals, et al. But I'll take what I can get right now.
I'm sorry, but your argument sounds a bit like someone arguing that we should just do away with all police if they're just going to spend all their time solving murders and not acting on other crimes, like jaywalking and parking violations.
So "there there, we know better what's good for you" is a good argument if we think it leads to more freedom, rather than, say, education?
You're right. A slave class of zealots that carries out wanton acts of violence and oppression in a millenia-old fight over whose imaginary friends are the coolest is far preferable to any other alternative.
Religion should die. All of it.
Should you then wish to be educated about it, you can be referred to the reference section of your local library.
Except this ban will have the opposite effect. Even the Muslim women that see Burqas as oppressive will view this ban as an attack on all Muslims. The progressive Muslims will find common cause with the hardliners and people will embrace their faith more strongly.
Guys, I live in Belgium, and I have never heard of this. (also, I like to think I keep up with the news pretty well)
We have shitstorms every other week because nowadays in some places it is not allowed for muslim women to wear veils in government-funded places like public schools and town halls (when they're employees, I think), because the government refuses to touch religion with a ten-foot pole. Then again, they also banned wearing crosses, or other christian-specific stuff, so as an atheist, I can only agree.
A law like this, if it were really about racism (or well, you know, anti-Islam sentiments), would come from the extreme-right in our country. Seeming as how the idea comes from the libruls, this is really more likely to be general religion-shunning (e.g. they basically don't want anyone, not just muslims, to publicly display what kind of religion they adhere to, muslims are just the first and most obvious targets around here).
As it stands, though, our politicians are notoriously bad at actually stating their real goals, since that essentially always comes down to them not getting what they want. Targeting the burka in this case is probably pandering to the right, seeming as how they probably wouldn't mind banning them either, albeit for entirely different reasons.
This is just a silly political game, as far as I can tell, but it's getting pretty blown up in the international media, it seems, while us Belgians have barely even heard of it. By the time they actually attempt voting this into law, it will cause the usual gigantic shitstorm from both sides, people will threaten stepping out of the government over it, and nothing will change.
The burqa (that's the ninja mode) isn't even clearly dictated by the Qur'an, which means it is a cultural, rather than a religious, phenomenon. A cultural phenomenon that implies that men are all potential rapists and that women have to go out of their way to show that they are not careless and promiscuous with regards to their libido. It's like the "danced suggestively" rape "defense" on a bigger, communitarian scale.
So, fuck the burqa, really. It's not a matter of religious freedom here, but an erroneous view of men and women seeking a sort of vindication out in the open. I say we dictate that a culturally mandated clothing that clearly symbolizes the view of men and women I described above is not OK in public.
Also as far as I know the French State Council has advised against banning the veil because it might be unconstitutional and also it would violate the ECHR.
Also as far as I know the French State Council has advised against banning the veil because it might be unconstitutional and also it would violate the ECHR.
How? I mean the burqa/niquab is an actual repressive regressive symbol forced upon women, for deeply sexist reasons (such as rape apologist ideas), which acts to otherise them.
Also as far as I know the French State Council has advised against banning the veil because it might be unconstitutional and also it would violate the ECHR.
How? I mean the burqa/niquab is an actual repressive regressive symbol forced upon women, for deeply sexist reasons (such as rape apologist ideas), which acts to otherise them.
This is the government controlling what people can wear as opposed to regulating building standards. The minaret ban is stupid but the veil ban is just as oppressive as the sexism you describe.
This arguement has been gone through before, supporters of the ban say that the veil is a symbol of oppression against women. However that same arguement can be made for g-strings, mini-skirts boob tubes etc. Yet the government isn't banning any of those.
Also, if these women are being forced to wear the veil then it's a symptom of abuse by their husbands, you can't cure a disease by getting rid of the symptoms. The ban won't do anything to help them, in fact they might be forced to stay indoors if they can't wear it outside.
J stop trolling. This is aimed openly at Muslims despite one guys attempt to hand wave about forcing people to show their faces in public. Privacy is held at a place equal if not superior to free expression in most of Europe (including Belgium). Pinning this on requiring people to display what has been ruled in most European courts (including France and Belgium) as a private aspect of personality - the face- makes no sense. You can't even take a picture of a public place with someone in it and distribute it without explicit permission because such a thing would violate EU privacy law. NYT
“This is a very strong signal that is being sent to Islamists,” the French-speaking liberal deputy Denis Ducarme said, adding that he was “proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter.”
Continental Europe is simply not committed to freedom of expression or religion or multiculturalism as they like to pretend they are. When the big scary brown people of Islam show up, they turn into more extreme version of the 1960s-70s White Flight.
This is the government controlling what people can wear as opposed to regulating building standards. The minaret ban is stupid but the veil ban is just as oppressive as the sexism you describe.
Also, if these women are being forced to wear the veil then it's a symptom of abuse by their husbands, you can't cure a disease by getting rid of the symptoms. The ban won't do anything to help them, in fact they might be forced to stay indoors if they can't wear it outside.
To the first point, not really. I mean yes it would be questionable, but trying to equate the two as being exactly the same is about on the level of going 'religious extremists and atheists are just as bad'. It's clearly false equivocation. The real problems with it apart from freedom of expression is the latter point, that yeah the culture that forces women to wear them, isn’t going to be reticent about telling them to stay indoors all day, and all the damage that entails.
Why do these kinds of threads always become a coded attack on Yurp?
Because Europe is all one country!
Look man, I don't think you understand how big America is, very! Different States are like equaly akin to different countries, how dare you talk about America as a whole.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
If we parallel this with US racism this would be like banning black people from bowing and scraping and saying 'Yessir'.
Or we could look at domestic violence and ban women from flinching when their drunk husband comes home.
That's why so many people don't like this - they feel it's oppressing the victims of sexism rather than addressing the actual sexism.
Not really.
What the aim seems to be here is the removal of an outward symbol of a specific cultural element from society. Apparently they've already done this with crosses and such, so it doesn't really look like freedom of religious expression is going to keep the burqa in Belgium. So what you're looking at is the equivalent of removing whites only restrictions from restaurants, schools and water fountains in order to push that kind of thinking out of the mainstream. It's worked over a couple generations in the United States to push racism from a campaign plank for some in the south to a nearly instant career killer for those in public life.
Thus, the idea that oppressing an ideology won't lower the incidence of it is pretty silly. It's something groups have been doing successfully for millenia.
For the burqa specifically, I'm personally conflicted about the specifics, but the move has a significant chance of succeeding from a historical standpoint.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
If we parallel this with US racism this would be like banning black people from bowing and scraping and saying 'Yessir'.
Or we could look at domestic violence and ban women from flinching when their drunk husband comes home.
That's why so many people don't like this - they feel it's oppressing the victims of sexism rather than addressing the actual sexism.
Not really.
What the aim seems to be here is the removal of an outward symbol of a specific cultural element from society. Apparently they've already done this with crosses and such, so it doesn't really look like freedom of religious expression is going to keep the burqa in Belgium. So what you're looking at is the equivalent of removing whites only restrictions from restaurants, schools and water fountains in order to push that kind of thinking out of the mainstream. It's worked over a couple generations in the United States to push racism from a campaign plank for some in the south to a nearly instant career killer for those in public life.
Thus, the idea that oppressing an ideology won't lower the incidence of it is pretty silly. It's something groups have been doing successfully for millenia.
For the burqa specifically, I'm personally conflicted about the specifics, but the move has a significant chance of succeeding from a historical standpoint.
The French have already banned crosses, skullcaps and veils from schools.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
If we parallel this with US racism this would be like banning black people from bowing and scraping and saying 'Yessir'.
Or we could look at domestic violence and ban women from flinching when their drunk husband comes home.
That's why so many people don't like this - they feel it's oppressing the victims of sexism rather than addressing the actual sexism.
Not really.
What the aim seems to be here is the removal of an outward symbol of a specific cultural element from society. Apparently they've already done this with crosses and such, so it doesn't really look like freedom of religious expression is going to keep the burqa in Belgium. So what you're looking at is the equivalent of removing whites only restrictions from restaurants, schools and water fountains in order to push that kind of thinking out of the mainstream. It's worked over a couple generations in the United States to push racism from a campaign plank for some in the south to a nearly instant career killer for those in public life.
Thus, the idea that oppressing an ideology won't lower the incidence of it is pretty silly. It's something groups have been doing successfully for millenia.
For the burqa specifically, I'm personally conflicted about the specifics, but the move has a significant chance of succeeding from a historical standpoint.
You're not oppressing an ideology. That would be laws against being sexist. Laws against telling women what to do. Laws against forcing women to wear what you want. Laws against putting social pressure on women to wear what men want. Laws against men oppressing women.
This is a law telling women what they can and can't do. Not men. Not sexists. It avoids engaging the powerful, but instead attacks the victim. That's always been the easiest way to go - trying to get men to stop being sexist is just incredibly difficult. Doesn't make it OK, though.
It is absolutely nothing like anti-racist legislation in the US. I can't understand how someone could think that. Did anti-racism laws make it illegal for black people to drink at their own water-fountains? Would Jewish rights have been improved by making it illegal for them to be money-lenders? Would gay men's lives be improved if we banned being in the closet? All of these are symbols of oppression too.
Frankly I think it's a symptom of sexism within our own societies that so many people are willing to try this kind of approach.
The French have already banned crosses, skullcaps and veils from schools.
Ah. I must have misread a previous post. I thought those actions were being attributed to Belgium. Mea Culpa.
The French have done the above and were also considering banning the veil in public places too but like I said a few posts back it's been deemed as unconstitutional by France's highest administrative body.
Belgium's Home Affair's committee has proposed legislation to ban the veil but it has not gone through Parliament yet.
I should point out that no European country has just outright banned the veil yet and if any tried they could well be taken to task on the issue by the ECHR.
You're not oppressing an ideology. That would be laws against being sexist. Laws against telling women what to do. Laws against forcing women to wear what you want. Laws against putting social pressure on women to wear what men want. Laws against men oppressing women.
This is a law telling women what they can and can't do. Not men. Not sexists. It avoids engaging the powerful, but instead attacks the victim. That's always been the easiest way to go - trying to get men to stop being sexist is just incredibly difficult. Doesn't make it OK, though.
It is absolutely nothing like anti-racist legislation in the US. I can't understand how someone could think that. Did anti-racism laws make it illegal for black people to drink at their own water-fountains? Would Jewish rights have been improved by making it illegal for them to be money-lenders? Would gay men's lives be improved if we banned being in the closet? All of these are symbols of oppression too.
Frankly I think it's a symptom of sexism within our own societies that so many people are willing to try this kind of approach.
I disagree with your assessment, that this isn't the oppression of an ideology. Burqas are symbols of practicing Islam, and they're trying to remove them from mainstream society. As ideological oppression goes, that's pretty textbook.
The parallels to the American Civil Rights acts are being used here in the context that both are removing public, mainstream expression of a specific idea. Separate but Equal was a symbol of it being OK to be hold racist views, just like the burqa is a symbol that it's ok to require your women to completely cover themselves in public. Neither will eradicate the core of the idea on its own, but if you're looking at the long game that type of behavior will become associated with crazy, undesirable people within a few generations. That seems to be the aim here.
For a more direct example, think Germany and their Nazi-symbolism laws.
I am personally very conflicted as to the respecting religious views (particularly as a non-believer myself) vs removing an overt symbol of sexism issue. But the parallels for what they're trying to do here are obvious, at least to me, for better or worse.
Okay, and when they ban religion entirely, it will no longer be an act of bigotry to ban the burqa or niqab. I'm more opposed to bigotry than religion, since, you know, I'm usually one of the next in line the bigots come for.
I think banning religion, at this stage, is a bit of a tall order. Especially in the very Catholic EU.
Thank goodness we have the 1st Amendment in this country to prevent the type of tyranny you seem to advocate.
And I say that as an Agnostic.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
While I disagree with such bannings, I still think that it should be possible to ban someone from wearing one in specific situations where it is deemed innapropriate. Basically any situation where wearing any kind of mask is inapporpriate. A bank should be allowed to refuse service to a burka wearer if the person refuses to unveil their face temporarily. An employer should be able to disallow the burka if it doesn't fit the office's dress code. Being a religious symbol should never be an excuse to bypass any rule.
Posts
Now we need to discern which is correct.
I have been googling and can't find anything after 2004 - 2005.
can I wear MY burqa
The Embrace of Allah will make you fleet of foot and pure of heart. Except for that bank-robbing thing, but it's Great Satan money so it's okay.
That goes for yalmulkas and gaudy cross necklaces, too.
However, that's just me, and I see any and all self-identification or reference to Abrahamic religions as both incitement and hate-speech.
I am all for this as well, such as when France enforced the ban on hijabs for those in public schools and those working in the public sphere, along with crosses, yarmulkes, and turbans for Sikhs. However, the ban on the niqab has no plausible motivation other than religious (and possibly ethnic) bigotry, just like the ban on minarets in Switzerland (as opposed to bans on minarets, steeples, and other religious tower-like constructions).
It's also sexist and condescending.
I was curious about that, but from what I can tell it is illegal for ANYONE to wear a burqa or niqab.
It may be, but at least it takes a swipe at an oppressive ideology. It's replacing one horrifyingly sexist and condescending practice with a more benign one.
I think freedom of speech issues should take a backburner when that "expression" is filtered through a hundred generations of barbaric behavior and ignorance, at the direct behest and command of others.
So "there there, we know better what's good for you" is a good argument if we think it leads to more freedom, rather than, say, education?
Not to mention there are converts who choose to wear the niqab.
Note that I am not at all in support of the niqab, nor the religious arguments for it even from a religious perspective, but I am really annoyed that the solution to "omg women are being forced to wear this" is "let's force them to not wear it!" That, uh, won't work.
So no pictures of the Sun, I guess? Also no pharmacies, what with the Eye of Horus and all.
Are you a pedant full-time, or just a hobbyist?
You're right. A slave class of zealots that carries out wanton acts of violence and oppression in a millenia-old fight over whose imaginary friends are the coolest is far preferable to any other alternative.
Religion should die. All of it.
Should you then wish to be educated about it, you can be referred to the reference section of your local library.
Okay, and when they ban religion entirely, it will no longer be an act of bigotry to ban the burqa or niqab. I'm more opposed to bigotry than religion, since, you know, I'm usually one of the next in line the bigots come for.
I think banning religion, at this stage, is a bit of a tall order. Especially in the very Catholic EU.
But the burqa is inarguably an oppressive and sexist institution. So you're more upset that they aren't attacking the other less-prominent forms of sectarian oppression than you are that they doing away with one of the worst?
I mean, your idea isn't wrong, but I think your priorities are. I, too, am for the abolition of religiously-mandated social behavior, like those put in place by Hassidics, Pentecostals, et al. But I'll take what I can get right now.
I'm sorry, but your argument sounds a bit like someone arguing that we should just do away with all police if they're just going to spend all their time solving murders and not acting on other crimes, like jaywalking and parking violations.
Except this ban will have the opposite effect. Even the Muslim women that see Burqas as oppressive will view this ban as an attack on all Muslims. The progressive Muslims will find common cause with the hardliners and people will embrace their faith more strongly.
We have shitstorms every other week because nowadays in some places it is not allowed for muslim women to wear veils in government-funded places like public schools and town halls (when they're employees, I think), because the government refuses to touch religion with a ten-foot pole. Then again, they also banned wearing crosses, or other christian-specific stuff, so as an atheist, I can only agree.
A law like this, if it were really about racism (or well, you know, anti-Islam sentiments), would come from the extreme-right in our country. Seeming as how the idea comes from the libruls, this is really more likely to be general religion-shunning (e.g. they basically don't want anyone, not just muslims, to publicly display what kind of religion they adhere to, muslims are just the first and most obvious targets around here).
As it stands, though, our politicians are notoriously bad at actually stating their real goals, since that essentially always comes down to them not getting what they want. Targeting the burka in this case is probably pandering to the right, seeming as how they probably wouldn't mind banning them either, albeit for entirely different reasons.
This is just a silly political game, as far as I can tell, but it's getting pretty blown up in the international media, it seems, while us Belgians have barely even heard of it. By the time they actually attempt voting this into law, it will cause the usual gigantic shitstorm from both sides, people will threaten stepping out of the government over it, and nothing will change.
As usual.
So, fuck the burqa, really. It's not a matter of religious freedom here, but an erroneous view of men and women seeking a sort of vindication out in the open. I say we dictate that a culturally mandated clothing that clearly symbolizes the view of men and women I described above is not OK in public.
This is actually worse.
Also as far as I know the French State Council has advised against banning the veil because it might be unconstitutional and also it would violate the ECHR.
How? I mean the burqa/niquab is an actual repressive regressive symbol forced upon women, for deeply sexist reasons (such as rape apologist ideas), which acts to otherise them.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If we parallel this with US racism this would be like banning black people from bowing and scraping and saying 'Yessir'.
Or we could look at domestic violence and ban women from flinching when their drunk husband comes home.
That's why so many people don't like this - they feel it's oppressing the victims of sexism rather than addressing the actual sexism.
This is the government controlling what people can wear as opposed to regulating building standards. The minaret ban is stupid but the veil ban is just as oppressive as the sexism you describe.
This arguement has been gone through before, supporters of the ban say that the veil is a symbol of oppression against women. However that same arguement can be made for g-strings, mini-skirts boob tubes etc. Yet the government isn't banning any of those.
Also, if these women are being forced to wear the veil then it's a symptom of abuse by their husbands, you can't cure a disease by getting rid of the symptoms. The ban won't do anything to help them, in fact they might be forced to stay indoors if they can't wear it outside.
NYT
Continental Europe is simply not committed to freedom of expression or religion or multiculturalism as they like to pretend they are. When the big scary brown people of Islam show up, they turn into more extreme version of the 1960s-70s White Flight.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
To the first point, not really. I mean yes it would be questionable, but trying to equate the two as being exactly the same is about on the level of going 'religious extremists and atheists are just as bad'. It's clearly false equivocation. The real problems with it apart from freedom of expression is the latter point, that yeah the culture that forces women to wear them, isn’t going to be reticent about telling them to stay indoors all day, and all the damage that entails.
Because Europe is all one country!
Look man, I don't think you understand how big America is, very! Different States are like equaly akin to different countries, how dare you talk about America as a whole.
What the aim seems to be here is the removal of an outward symbol of a specific cultural element from society. Apparently they've already done this with crosses and such, so it doesn't really look like freedom of religious expression is going to keep the burqa in Belgium. So what you're looking at is the equivalent of removing whites only restrictions from restaurants, schools and water fountains in order to push that kind of thinking out of the mainstream. It's worked over a couple generations in the United States to push racism from a campaign plank for some in the south to a nearly instant career killer for those in public life.
Thus, the idea that oppressing an ideology won't lower the incidence of it is pretty silly. It's something groups have been doing successfully for millenia.
For the burqa specifically, I'm personally conflicted about the specifics, but the move has a significant chance of succeeding from a historical standpoint.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The French have already banned crosses, skullcaps and veils from schools.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You're not oppressing an ideology. That would be laws against being sexist. Laws against telling women what to do. Laws against forcing women to wear what you want. Laws against putting social pressure on women to wear what men want. Laws against men oppressing women.
This is a law telling women what they can and can't do. Not men. Not sexists. It avoids engaging the powerful, but instead attacks the victim. That's always been the easiest way to go - trying to get men to stop being sexist is just incredibly difficult. Doesn't make it OK, though.
It is absolutely nothing like anti-racist legislation in the US. I can't understand how someone could think that. Did anti-racism laws make it illegal for black people to drink at their own water-fountains? Would Jewish rights have been improved by making it illegal for them to be money-lenders? Would gay men's lives be improved if we banned being in the closet? All of these are symbols of oppression too.
Frankly I think it's a symptom of sexism within our own societies that so many people are willing to try this kind of approach.
The French have done the above and were also considering banning the veil in public places too but like I said a few posts back it's been deemed as unconstitutional by France's highest administrative body.
Belgium's Home Affair's committee has proposed legislation to ban the veil but it has not gone through Parliament yet.
I should point out that no European country has just outright banned the veil yet and if any tried they could well be taken to task on the issue by the ECHR.
The parallels to the American Civil Rights acts are being used here in the context that both are removing public, mainstream expression of a specific idea. Separate but Equal was a symbol of it being OK to be hold racist views, just like the burqa is a symbol that it's ok to require your women to completely cover themselves in public. Neither will eradicate the core of the idea on its own, but if you're looking at the long game that type of behavior will become associated with crazy, undesirable people within a few generations. That seems to be the aim here.
For a more direct example, think Germany and their Nazi-symbolism laws.
I am personally very conflicted as to the respecting religious views (particularly as a non-believer myself) vs removing an overt symbol of sexism issue. But the parallels for what they're trying to do here are obvious, at least to me, for better or worse.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And I say that as an Agnostic.
Rigorous Scholarship
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507