Italy Bans the Burqua

[Surlethe]

So, the United States isn't the only country rolling back freedoms in the name of security. Interesting.

I don't think Italy has any justification -- other than fear -- for demolishing part of Islamic women's freedom of expression.

Guess you never heard of culutral assimilation. This measure isn't so much about "fear" as it is about trying to get muslim immigrants to adopt Italian culture and (hopefully) leave Islamic fundamentalist extremism behind.

Guess you never heard of freedom of speech. There's no reason to legislate cultural assimilation when it will occur anyway, especially at the expense of basic freedoms.

[Chmee]

Assimilation usually takes generations ... people wanting it to happen on the same timetable as their instant coffee and microwaved burritos have seen too many Borg episodes ....

[Surlethe]

Guess you never heard of freedom of speech. There's no reason to legislate cultural assimilation when it will occur anyway, especially at the expense of basic freedoms.

Reading over my post, I noticed the wording should be clarified:

Guess you never heard of freedom of speech. There's no reason to legislate cultural assimilation, especially at the expense of basic freedoms, when assimilation will occur anyway.

[Master of Ossus]

I dont see why they should have to 'assemilate' if they arent hurting anyone. There is nothing 'radical' about wearing a burqa it's just a covering over the face. Or hey, maybe they like it. That thy cant see their faces is not a valid reason to ban burqas, and in fact i doubt a logical reason can be found.

Why is the inability to see someone's face an invalid reason to ban burqas? People who deliberately conceal their identity in public places are circumventing methods that the government and private citizens take to protect themselves against crime. I was once locked in a bank for nearly ten minutes because someone with a motorcycle helmet on wished to enter the bank, and did not understand hand gestures designed to inform him of the need to remove his helmet before he walked in. It is a perfectly reasonable safety precaution for banks to take to be able to photograph customers. Why is it unreasonable to allow the government to make similar requests of the citizenry?

PS. Would you similarly agree that Muslim women should be allowed to be photographed for identification purposes (ie. drivers' licenses, passports) while wearing their burqas? If not, how can you justify allowing them to conceal their identity in public? Both methods are designed to prevent them from being identified by authorities and others.

[Kuja]

I can't resist... Seeing as its now illegal to cover your face in Italy.


Won't someone please think of the Ninjas! Why is no one thinking of the Ninjas!??

Any ninja incompetant enough to get caught by the Italian police deserves his punishment.

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm torn...one person's freedom of expression is another's symbol of the subjugation and unequal treatment of women simply becasue they are women.

PS. Would you similarly agree that Muslim women should be allowed to be photographed for identification purposes (ie. drivers' licenses, passports) while wearing their burqas? If not, how can you justify allowing them to conceal their identity in public? Both methods are designed to prevent them from being identified by authorities and others.

I guess you hadn't heard about this (from 2003, but it applies):

(CNN) -- A Florida judge rejected a woman's request to have her face covered by a veil in the photograph on her state driver's license, siding with the state Friday that a favorable ruling could be exploited by terrorists.

The 18-page ruling was issued in Orlando.

"Although the court acknowledges that plaintiff herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would be willing to use a ruling permitting the wearing of full-face cloaks in driver's license photos by pretending to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives," Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe said in her ruling.

Sultaana Freeman, a Muslim, had testified that a state order requesting that she remove her veil -- a hijab, which covers all of her face except her eyes -- infringed upon her right to observe her religion, to which she converted in 1997.

Her attorney, Howard Marks, vowed to appeal the ruling.

"This is just round one in a long legal battle," Marks said. "Obviously, we're quite disappointed with the ruling."

Freeman, wearing a black hijab, refused to comment to reporters. Her husband, Abdul-Maalik Freeman, said his wife would fight the decision.

"She's not lifting the veil. This is a religious principle," he told CNN-affiliate WKMG. "We don't quit. We have a no-quit attitude. We're doing it the appropriate way. We're not doing it the malicious way, the vicious way. We're doing it through the court system."