Belgium Moves Towards Public Ban On Burka And Niqab: Muslims Have A History Of Tolerance

16 June 2011

By Juan Cole

Home affairs committee of Brussels federal parliament votes unanimously to ban partial or total covering of faces in public places

Ian Traynor Brussels Wednesday 31 March 2010 17.33 BST

Belgium today moved to the forefront of a campaign to restrict the wearing of the Muslim veil by women when a key vote left it on track to become the first European country to ban the burka and niqab in public.

The home affairs committee of the Brussels federal parliament voted unanimously to ban the partial or total covering of faces in public places.

“I am proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter,” the centre-right MP Denis Ducarme said.

Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal MP who proposed the bill, said: “We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen.

“It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society.”

The Belgian move came as neighbouring France and the Netherlands continued to grapple with the idea of imposing similar restrictions.

The Canadian province of Quebec last week introduced parliamentary measures to proscribe facial covering in public service employment – a move that enjoyed overwhelming public support in Canada.

Support for the ban in Belgium transcended party lines, ranging from the Greens to the far right, and also resulted in a rare show of unity between the linguistically divided halves of the country.

The full support of the home affairs committee means parliament is likely to vote for the curbs in mid-April, with a ban in force by the summer.

Under the proposals a fine or punishment of up to seven days in prison would be imposed for wearing the full-body burqa or face-masking niqab. The bill, to be debated next month, states that anyone in a public place “with face covered or disguised in whole or in part to the extent that she cannot be identified” is liable to incur the penalties.

While today’s vote paved the way for the first nationwide ban on the veil in Europe, local authorities in Belgium already have the power to ban the burqa and niqab in public places.

Of the 500,000 Muslims living in Belgium – with big populations in Brussels and Antwerp – very few women wear the full veil, and there has been little public debate about the need to ban it.

While Bacquelaine admitted there was little problem with full facial covering among Muslims in Belgium, he argued for a preemptive move, saying: “We have to act as of today to avoid [its] development.”

Rather than being about the burqa and the niqab, the bigger debate in Belgium – as elsewhere in Europe – is about the less severe headscarf, with Muslim parents pressing for schools to allow their daughters to cover their heads and often opting to send them to private schools tolerant of the practice.

The Belgian move is similar to other campaigns in Europe.

Following a heavy regional elections trouncing last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called for a burqa ban. “The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” he said. “The answer is to ban it. The government will introduce a bill to ban it that conforms to the principles of our laws.”

The headscarf is banned in schools in France.

In the Netherlands rightwinger Geert Wilders – riding high in the opinion polls prior to elections in June – is also campaigning for Muslim veil bans and has issued warnings about the “Islamification” of Dutch society.

Isabelle Praile, the vice-president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, warned that a Belgian ban could be the thin end of the wedge.

“Today it’s the full-face veil. Tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans, and then perhaps it will be miniskirts,” she told AFP.

Muslims have a history of tolerance toward other faiths - Khalid Sajjad

On May 27, Bill Stephens published a letter in The Star Press in which he claimed, “Muslims want Shariah law, that has death as a penalty for not converting to Islam, and permits honor killings, stoning to death if guilty of adultery, or cutting off hands if guilty of theft, and treating women like slaves. …”

Thanks to the major news outlets, like Fox News, and their biased reporting, they help the likes of Mr. Stephens in fueling intolerance and hatred toward the Islamic faith.

Moreover, the mainstream political parties, like the GOP, have found that attacking Muslims and other minorities has become a way of gaining electoral popularity. They have confused insulting the religious beliefs of others with the concept of freedom of speech, by making false allegations against Islam and by portraying Islam as a violent and backward religion.

It is these same people who, rather than responding to Muslims with debate, have called for the banning and burning of the Shariah and Quran respectively. Are they not the ones who are intolerant?

Muslims have a glorious history of tolerance under the Islamic caliphate system of governance. For centuries, Jews, Christians and others lived side by side with Muslims and they did not have to endure insults on their beliefs. During the caliphate system of governance, Judeo-Christian laws were implemented for the Jews and Christians respectively. Jews and the Christians held high positions in the government to represent their people, so that no injustice may be done against them. In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mount Sinai:

“This is a message written by Muhammad the son of Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens and by Allah (God)! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant, and disobey his Prophet. Verily, they are only allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nations is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the World.”