Muslims, politicians wonder why opponents of migration want to ban a rarely-seen item of clothing.
Transitions Online (tol.org) 20 January 2016
Plans to ban the burqa in Latvia and Estonia are dividing public opinion, with some claiming their value in preserving local identity, while others contest their need in countries where the burqa is almost unknown.
Latvian Justice Minister Dzintars Rasnacs said a ban was needed “not to ensure public order and security, but to protect Latvia’s cultural values, our common public and cultural space, and each individual,” according to the Baltic Times.
The draft proposal, which has yet to be approved by the government, would ban the wearing of the burqa in all public places.
In neighboring Estonia, the Muslim community is questioning the need for a ban, since very few Muslim women wear a hijab (a veil that covers the head and chest), and next to none wear a burqa, Lembi Treumuth, from the Estonian Islamic Center in Tallinn, told the newspaper.
“We think there are much more important things in society that politicians should address, instead of wasting time on such matter,” Treumuth added.
Rainer Saks, Secretary General of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called such a ban “premature,” in the absence of any thorough debate and analysis of its implications.
• Lithuania also considered the ban in 2015, at the height of the immigrant crisis, as a preventive security measure, according to Arturas Paulauskas, chairman of the Lithuanian parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee.
• The Baltics’ wariness of Islamic female dress might be a byproduct of the regional reluctance to accept migrant quotas, The Economist suggests.
• Most Lithuanian officials dismissed Paulauskas’ proposal for a ban as absurd, according to The Economist. “I suggest you look around the streets to see how many women cover their faces,” Justice Minister Juozas Bernatonis said. “I have seen none.”
• Although Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania accepted the European Commission’s migrant quota scheme, committing them to take in a total of 2,000 asylum seekers, all three countries declared their opposition to mandatory quotas, while the public response to the refugees was less than welcoming.
• Lithuanian churches have sponsored the migration of a few dozen Christian migrants from Syria and Iraq. Slovakia, whose prime minister is an outspoken opponent of Muslim immigration, has also accepted Christian families, as has the Czech Republic.
Baltic Burqa Ban Plans Questioned (1)
Rahvusvahelised uudised | 22 Jan 2016 | EWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
I am in favour of banning both headcloth and burka. These are not written down in the Koran but are inventions of medieval preachers. For details, see my own website -
http://home.foni.net/~tm-stgt/...
(German, English, Finnish and Estonian)
A legal ban may also protect returners from punishment under their domestic legislation as in this case they did not leave the Islam but were just forced not to show its symbols in public. Don't forget that Christians suffer from reprisals in the Muslim world - so why do we let the Muslims go?
Though refugees not yet accepted as immigrants should not be dropped upon - they have other emotional problems to face -, a general prohibition is the right way to fight religious compulsions kept alive by national power. A "Freedom of religion" legislation must not accept compulsions of discipline, nor do I accept that Muslims invade a non-Muslim country by demanding acceptance to their stringent lifestyle regulations. In Germany, headcloths and burkas are a common sight in the streets. In earlier, Estonian-language news on the issue of Muslim immigrants in the EU in this magazine -
http://www.eesti.ca/moslemid-5...
-, it was learned that Latvia might become a Muslim country within fifty years with the simple aid of the abundant, brain-washed offspring of Muslims already living there. Muslim immigrants do not give their children the right of choice of religion, and as long as they don't, at least in Germany they break a Constitutional Law.
http://home.foni.net/~tm-stgt/...
(German, English, Finnish and Estonian)
A legal ban may also protect returners from punishment under their domestic legislation as in this case they did not leave the Islam but were just forced not to show its symbols in public. Don't forget that Christians suffer from reprisals in the Muslim world - so why do we let the Muslims go?
Though refugees not yet accepted as immigrants should not be dropped upon - they have other emotional problems to face -, a general prohibition is the right way to fight religious compulsions kept alive by national power. A "Freedom of religion" legislation must not accept compulsions of discipline, nor do I accept that Muslims invade a non-Muslim country by demanding acceptance to their stringent lifestyle regulations. In Germany, headcloths and burkas are a common sight in the streets. In earlier, Estonian-language news on the issue of Muslim immigrants in the EU in this magazine -
http://www.eesti.ca/moslemid-5...
-, it was learned that Latvia might become a Muslim country within fifty years with the simple aid of the abundant, brain-washed offspring of Muslims already living there. Muslim immigrants do not give their children the right of choice of religion, and as long as they don't, at least in Germany they break a Constitutional Law.
Rahvusvahelised uudised
TRENDING
