i did note that he was talking about the burqa itself. and it is not a quibble, but the effect is the same. i am thinking of two Chinese women (a mother and daughter) who decided this past spring to go view the cherry blossoms at Wuhan University in China wearing homemade kimonos amidst crowds of other Chinese, some of whom then started hurling abuse at them and ran them out of the park. presumably they themselves were perfectly "welcome" on Chinese territory until they put on the "indecent" clothing which was "not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society". that case also supports my notion that intent to upset others is what may differentiate "indecency" that may be prohibited by law from "indecency" that is in the eye (or head) of the beholder and therefore is not acceptable for the state to proscribe (as I claim burqas are a case of). Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Still, resorting to the "I knows it when I sees it" rule for indecency and then invoking it to brand and ban burkas seems unsatisfying and arbitrary to say the least, and potentially dangerous. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
What is enforced is sexual harassment laws in public places. The main difference here is that this needs a victim for the harassment.
Actually, in Sweden a burqa is one of the safest ways to dress. After the Gothenbourg riots in 2001 a law was enacted to ban being masked in a riot, thus making sure there is always one crime a masked youth has committed if there is a riot. To not have to use this law in other circumstances, heavy clothing is allowed if needed for temperature reasons (even if there is a riot) and an excemption was also made for religious attire. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
