The Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, advice on behalf of the European tolerance from a state interference in this contention question
Which head and which world view hide behind a burka, the nature of the clothing stuck is foggy. Nevertheless, for a faith, it seems completely clear that it is concealed, women who carry twisted manner the flag of the fundamentalist Islam; Mute and underwurf, intake light, entitative. The criticism of clothing, whether the headscarf or burka, has become a banner, which combines all possible varieties of so-called Islam criticism.
It is not always clear which head hides behind the veil of Islam criticism; The transition to the islamophobia with parallel to anti-Semitism is fleeing. It is no longer about arguments, but often only a stroke direction. The Burka quarrel is exemplary.
The Fact That The Public Discussion in A Number of European Countries Has Almost Exclusive Focused on What is perceived as Muslim Dress Has Been Unfortunate and Created The Impression of Targeting One Particular Religion. Some Of The Arguments Have Been Clearly Islamophobic And That Has Certainly Not Built Bridges or Encouraged Dialogue.
The "limits of tolerance" (see the outstanding book Ian Burumas on the background of the murder of theo van Gogh), so far brought in particular as a defense against the perceived threat by immigrant Muslims, should also be re-adjusted in the other direction , Challenges Thomas Hammarberg, Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, now in his viewpoint to the debate about the Burkaverbot. He places the Burkastreit on a level with the cartoon dispute:
A ban on the Burka or the Niqab became such oppressive and regrettable to my catching, as it has been the censorship of the Danian cartoons. Such prohibitions are foreign to the European values.
Hammarberg argues in his defense of the right to wearing the Burka not only with freedom to community. A prohibition of full swing, which is discussed in France, in the Netherlands and Danemark, in conflict, in conflict, above all, with two fundamental rights, which are anchored in the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life executed in Article 8 " and the "thought, conscience and religious freedom", which is listed in Article 9.
So far, so Hammarberg, those who enter into a ban on the Burka and the NIQAB can not yet prove that these clothing "democracy, public safety, the public order or the public morality" had undermined ". In addition, there are only a few women who were wearing such garments in European countries.
"We will not get there with laws"
So clearly invited European countries to demonstrate against regulations which require the wearing of the Burka, so little appropriate is – in view of the diversity, for Europe – in turn to introduce laws against the Burka.
Legislation had to be drawn by law only where it goes about representatives of the state, police officers about or judges, officials in contact with the openity:
In General, The Aproach Should Be That The State Must Avoid Legislating On How People Dress Themselves. It Is, However, Legitimate to Regulate That Those Who Represent The State, For Instance Police Officers and Judges, Do Not Wear Clothes Or Carry Symbols Which Signal A Partisan Religious – Or Party Political – Interest. Likewise, Civil Servants in Contact with the Public Should NOT HAIR THEIR FACE COVERED.
The proof of Dafur that the veiled women are in any case and flat-rate victims of a stronger sexual (gender) repression, after segregation Hammarbergs still stands out. To date, he removed the interviews with these women that they have very different religious, political and personal reasons. Even if there is underground that there is also trap of "snubbing prere", it was far from providing that a ban on these women became "welcome" (which is not necessarily, that this claim is Hammarbergs also of all women, which are forced to carry the Burka will be welcomed).
Hammarberg here is a harmless picture that is not in line with reality as described elsewhere elsewhere. "Umbarry prere" was not always allowed to meet the reprisals, which are exposed to women in parallel companies with informal legislation. On the other hand, it is disputed whether the wearing of a Burka must be understood as "religious expansion". In the Koran there is no clear regulations; This type of concealment is more associated with tribal cultural traditions.
The question is whether to come with a ban on such archaic rituals. Hammarberg’s revolution that a Burkaverbot could do that the women of the community alienate that the foreclosure was stronged that they were no longer undergoing hospital or state facilities, but also from Burka opponents such as Turquo-Master Sociologist Necla Kelek – "A woman who carries a burka does not follow me a faith, but an ideology" – shared:
With laws we will not get there. The women in doubt will no longer leave their homers.