Amnesty International condemns burqa ban

Amnesty International condemns burqa ban

Rights group says Belgium's proposed ban on wearing face-covering Islamic dress in public is 'an act of discrimination in itself'.

May 1, 2010 4:18 by Ben Flanagan

Belgium’s plan to ban burqa-type Islamic dress in public has been attacked by rights group Amnesty International and the local Muslim council.

The two groups condemned last week’s vote by Belgium’s House of Representatives to back a bill which considers face-covering dress as being incompatible with basic security because everyone in public must be recognizable, according to a report by AP.

The law is “being presented as an act to combat discrimination against women whereas as an actual fact it is an act of discrimination in itself,” said David Nichols, executive officer Amnesty International Brussels, quoted by AP.

Tags: Amnesty international, Belgium, burqa-ban, discrimination

Previous Article GCC Next Article

Saudi youths call for change in citizenship laws
May 1, 2010 | GCC

Dubai Financial Market Q1 profit down 8.4%
May 1, 2010

More on GCC

All GCC

4 Comments

Logic thinking on May 2, 2010 10:09 am

I see no one complaining about Saudi Arabia “making” european women wear burqa!!? I say if you can’t adapt to local culture, dont go there… it applies for Saudi and Belgium. Each country has the right to put their own rules.
Andrew on May 2, 2010 12:22 pm

Amnesty International stopped being relevant quite a while ago, but it truly lost the plot when it started championing people like Begg.
Khaled on May 4, 2010 8:56 pm

the ban on face covers applies to ku klux clan members, terrorists, ninjas and bank robbers among many other people who wish to hide their identity. it is not exclusive to burqa-wearing women. by the way the niqab or burqa it is not even a real islamic rule. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Holy Quran that women should cover their faces.
Miss Anne Thropic on May 5, 2010 11:29 am

Indeed, the prophet Mohammed said men and women should both dress modestly but no talk of face covering. That is an absurd patriarchal interpretation introduced for the control of women.