The Burqua Ban

The "Burqa Ban":

A Causal Analysis of Why the Netherlands is Banning the Burqa

When the September 11th attacks occurred in 2001, America was first faced with how deadly Islamic extremists are. Americans realized that radical Islamics are not going to keep their war in their native countries. Muslim extremists view Western culture as evil and inhabited by infidels, and their resolution is to bring destruction upon these infidels. These radicals have not only declared war on America, but on all Western culture, including Europe. While most countries in the European Union are known to be open and liberal, due to recent attacks and the growing size of the radical Islamic movement, some European countries are trying to put new laws into effect that will better protect their citizens. Currently, the Netherlands is passing a ban on wearing burqas, traditional Islamic clothing worn by women in public. A condition that has caused this ban is the rise in violence throughout Europe due to Islamic radicalism. Some influences of this ban are the difficulty that investigators have had locating terrorist cells within Europe and a government effort to better integrate Islamic women into Dutch society.

To many, a women wearing a burqa embodies the essence of Islamic radicalism. The burqa (also spelled burka), is a body covering garment that exposes only a small area for the eyes, worn in public by many Muslim women (see photo below). The burqa is typically only worn now by strict Muslims who interpret the Qur'an's message that women should dress and behave modestly in pulic to mean that no part except for the eyes may be exposed in public (Browne par. 4). It was Dutch parliament member, Geert Wilders, who first suggested the ban on burqas in the Netherlands. He stated, "We have problems with a growing minority of Muslims who tend to have sympathy with the Islamo-fascistic concept of radical Islam" (Mardell par. 7). Because many wives of Islamic radicals wear burqas, the idea here is if burqas are banned, it will discourage more Muslims that may be sympathetic to the global jihad from immigrating to the Netherlands.

Well-known attacks, such as the July 2005 bombings in London, the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and the 2003 attacks in Istanbul, all signify the vulnerability of all areas of Europe. These attacks were only the beginning though. The European Union's counterterrorism coordinator, Gijs de Vries, conveyed his opinion on the situation with: "No country can nurture false hopes of being safe" (Ulrich par. 8). In the Netherlands, the recent murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh is a precipitating cause for the ban on wearing the burqa in public. Theo van Gogh was an outspoken opponent of the Islamic movement throughout Europe, but his murder shocked and ignited fires within the Netherlands, a country which historically prides itself on its political tolerance. His assasin, Muhammed Bouyeri, a Dutch citizen of Moroccan orgin, was a relatively unimportant figure within a small Islamic group. However on November 2, 2004, he tracked down van Gogh on street in Amsterdam. Van Gogh was later found with several bullet holes in his chest and his throat slit with a butcher knife. Bouyeri also used another knife to pin a list with names of other infidels "that deserved to be slaughtered" to van Gogh's body (Mardel par. 6).

The bombings in Europe and instances like the van Gogh murder overturned an old theory that Islamic extremists would not attack countries that had offered them a home. In previous years, most Muslim immigrants in Europe were only worried about conflicts occurring in their native countries. But as Islamic radicals succeeded in their own countires, their success became a remote cause for their hatred to spread to all that oppose their way of life or religion (Ulrich 1). Guido Steinberg, a terrorism expert working in the office of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, summed up the situation with these words: "Terrorism is coming home. And it's coming home to those countries whose governments may have believed they were immune from terror because for years they have provided safe haven to notorious Islamic extremists" (Ulrich par. 9). Thus the vulnerability of these countries has become a proximate cause for European governments to resond to the terrorist threats in a timely and effective manner to secure their countries.

European countries are mainly concerned with security. The Dutch government alluded to the fact this is the strongest influence for banning burqas in public places. Because of the danger that has come with the increase of Muslim extremists, Mr. Wilders says, "That's also a reason why everybody should be identifiable when they walk on the street or go to a pub or go into a restaurant or whatsoever" (Mardell par. 8). Immigration Minister, Rite Verdonk, confirmed this influence for the ban: "The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing --including the burqa -- is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens" ("Dutch" par. 3). The government claims that from a security standpoint it is essential people be recognizable when they are in a public place.

On the whole, Holland's politicians are struggling with two challenges: how to deal with radical immigrants and their offspring living in the Netherlands mentioned earlier, and how to deal with restrictions that hinder their agencies from finding terrorist cells. Investigators are restricted from pursuing terrorists by Europe's open borders, by weak communication between intelligence agencies, and also by the lack of uniformity in counter terrorism strategies (Ulrich 1). On the other hand, Al-Qaida is not a fixed organization, rather an ideology that fascinates many young Islamists. Islamic terrorist cells, funded by powerful financiers, are able to network throughout Europe, making them highly mobile. These radical holy warriors have deep roots in Europe and are able to move freely around Europe without being noticed. Many of these men and women obtain passports in multiple