"Mayor Halsema supports the oppressors in the battle for the niqab and the burka" – De Dagelijks Standaard

Concept of non-performance

What do these statements mean? It depends on what the mayor means by "maintain". With regard to the execution, it is acts related to the respect of the law. But this is not an unequivocal explanation. Enforcement may involve, for example, responding to citizens' reports, as well as specific inspections planned by the government. The police can inquire in three ways about a violation of the "ban on the burqa".

First, the organization of preventive searches may give rise to actions related to the ban on the burqa. As Halsema indicates, in the context of prioritization, it may be decided locally not to organize certain repressive actions.

Second, a citizen can report a criminal offense to the police. Then the offender will be acted. Here too, of course, there may be a question of hierarchy; A shooting with a wounded weighs heavier than a niqab woman who goes to the hospital. But in a big city like Amsterdam, where the police are active, it will also be used for "non-urgent reports".

Finally, it is possible that the police perceive themselves that someone wears a niqab, for example in public. transport (for example, the police participate in the Transport Transport Transport team). The law requires investigators to record their findings on criminal offenses in minutes. They will also have to do it in such a case. But the homework does not stop there: the offense must be over. The policeman who sees a person wearing a niqab in a tram and who does not take that person off the tram is perhaps even punishable (provocation). So, yes, Mayor, they have to bring out the women wearing the niqab.

Scope of the Problem

The meaning of these statements also depends on what the mayor understands by "the extent of the problem". Does this mean that relatively few people wear niqab or burqa and that active detection of related offenses is disproportionate? Or does it mean that the niqaab or the burqa (in public transport, health facilities, public administrations or educational institutions) does not encounter such a serious problem?

In the first case: how many niqaab or burqadders? there is no relevance to the size and weight of any law. Even if the murder is only committed once every ten years, it is necessary to trace the murderers: murder is a very serious offense. The severity of a law does not depend on the frequency with which this law is violated, but on the severity of the behavior.

In the latter case, the mayor turns a blind eye to the oppression of women by Islam.

Niqaab, helmet or mask

It does not seem that the mayor could say in the context of the new law: " It just does not fit in Amsterdam, that we're going to get women out or the men of the tram because they wear a mask or helmet.It is not negotiable? It looks like me "Why does she do that when it comes to the niqab or the burqa? Halsema seems to want to give preferential treatment to the religious.

Nevertheless, the niqab and the burqa will take place.

The mayor of Amsterdam does not want to give priority to maintaining the burqa ban. This statement is understandable because it is only a violation and not a crime. On the other hand, the fact of removing it from public transport, or from a government, from a care facility or from education, people who wear a niqab under this law is nonetheless unavoidable. The law cautiously indicates that oppression of women is not tolerated in the Netherlands. Although it may be objected that some adult women choose to wear such a garment themselves, you may be wondering how much that is a free choice. Indoctrinated by religious parents, an Islamic environment and Islamic schools, a person is not really free. In Philosophy for a Better World Floris van den Berg explains his universal subjectivism: if you know you will be born tomorrow, what would you think if it looks like a woman in an Islamic environment in which you need to your body? cover because men can not control themselves? Because Allah wants it so badly? No reasonable person can wish this a priori. The same goes for male circumcision, which is even more serious behavior. A courageous woman can still rise against her oppressors; this is not the case of a child or a baby

Because of the above, it is strange that Halsema finds that it is unthinkable to take action against a niqaab carrier in a streetcar. By tolerating the intolerance of Islam – especially with the law on its side – it supports oppression. A slight consolation is that the practical consequences of his statements will be nil. Regardless of the priority given to enforcement, the police can not and will not turn a blind eye to criminal offenses.