burqa ban? The Netherlands now 
Should Muslim women in Switzerland wearing the burqa ban
? Certainly, the attitude of Islam towards women is anything but open. You might even find that Islam in general, especially freedom. Tolerant Muslims are found only in fact always there, where Islam is in the minority. Predominantly Muslim societies are characterized by contrast, a high degree of oppression and violence. Personally, I have no doubt that Muslim women are prevented regularly in a free personal development, the burqa and the increased mass circumcision of women is an expression of this mentality terror.
is now to ban the burqa, the Swiss government as a "symbol of oppression"? Several problems arise in this context: on the one hand, a ban will change little if anything to the real situation of these women. Does anyone seriously because their husbands will leave them just now without the burka in public? Obvious point is that these women, the transition to outside will now be banned altogether, which is hardly in the sense of their "liberators" may be. In their oppression by their husbands will not change anything anyway. Another dilemma is heralded in adult women who insist credible that they voluntarily wear the burka . Who Can they now simply pay no faith and deny them the self-determination, even though they are legally of age (and perhaps even voting)?
And finally, how such a burqa law supposed to look like in reality? Defined it in his article a burqa, the garment? Is then defined with bureaucratic precision, which makes up a burka, including centimeters in length and fabric quality? Or just the religious disguise is prohibited on public property? And what about private property? And scarves are amorphous and coats, as found particularly often in Turkish women and Bosnian women, will continue to "legally"? These garments are so well suited to flesh out the oppression of women by men. The delimitation, definition and enforcement problems are inevitable.
These laws idea highlights a classic problem of the interventionist state, in which we live: The provision reflects a commendable in itself may attitude, they should make the good intentions of their makers to the test and provide the justified outrage of the public a forum. Similarly, they have done in the
anti-racism legislation : Everyone who was against racism had to be for this bill, so it seemed. That it
liberal and practical arguments could be against it, even if you own Holocaust-deniers and racists hated, it was unthinkable for the people who seek salvation at social problems always patronizing government regulations, irrespective of the effect is achieved in the real world then, "rather a well-intentioned ineffective law as no law. " But laws have always seen the immediate effects can, and effects that you see just immediately, but just falling weight. This has put the great French
Libéral , Frédéric Bastiat
, noted in 1850:
"In the area of economics called an act, a habit an institution, a law not only one effect but produced a number of effects. Of these effects is only the first directly, it appears simultaneously with its cause, you see . The others develop only gradually, you can not see ; happy when they anticipates .
This is the whole difference between a good and a bad economist: one at the visible effect, another stuck into account both the effect that you see and one that we must anticipate .
But this difference is enormous because it is almost always the case that the direct Result is favorable and the ultimate consequences of disastrous and vice versa. . - The result is that the bad economist seeking a small current enhancement, which arises from a great evil, while the true economist strives for a great future improvement of the risk of a small present evil "
Therefore: A Burkaverbot is ineffective, illiberal and suffers only from demarcation and enforcement problems.
