Seabass wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:it's about being able to properly identify people in the public sphere.
Ostensibly, but if that were true, such laws would have been passed a long time ago. Balaclavas and motorcycle helmets didn't seem to bother anyone before, so why now? The answer is of course that they don't. Clearly this is about muslimy veils.
I was unaware of your expertise vis a vis Dutch legal history.
But you seemed to have forgotten the fact that similar laws have been introduced multiple times in the past and law actually need to be voted on.
So it's not as simple as 'some people want better indentification laws = such laws are passed', nor is it the first time such a law is introduced.
In fact mayors are already allowed, as part of calling a state of emergency, to ban the wearing of balaclavas and similar face-coverings for the duration of the SoE.
http://www.burgemeesters.nl/bevoegdheden/manifestatiesThis law makes it a national, permanent ban, rather than an emergency measure.
And yes the whole Nikab discussion has influenced this decision, but that's no different than an increase in machine gun murders might influence the debate on gun law, or the increase in private drone-ownership might affect laws concerning the use of remote-controlled flying vehicles.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."