Well, now...

Submitted by munineye (United States), Dec 18, 2008 at 03:34

Okay, if I (a woman) were to go to a Middle-Eastern country in a tank-top and shorts, I would be harassed and possibly arrested (depending on the country). If I so much as didn't wear headscarf in some countries, that would be enough. There is a strong cultural aversion to seeing a woman (un)dressed so. And since I want to keep my freedom, I would have to wear such things.

But a burqa? In Holland, I think it's quite intelligent and safe to ban them, if only for security reasons. It's not about your culture, it's about whether a security guard can see your face or not.

Laws about the burqa were designed to enslave and confine women, not to set them free, and any suggestion to the contrary is quite ludicrous. The current thought on veils, headscarves, and burqa are what are important, not what ancient Sumerians thought. That was before the Roman empire was even a twinkle in Greece's eye! Two thousand years before people knew the Americas existed!
Yes, it's lovely to know that veils were a visual signal for "harlot" in ancient times, but now they are a sign of oppresion and confinement.
Anyway. Eye for an eye, as the Babylonians would say. If I have to wear a headscarf or cover up in your country, you can show your face in mine. We each must follow as the customs dictate in order to fit in

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".