Madam, - It is disappointing to read of the decision of the Dutch government to ban the Muslim burqa in public places (The Irish Times, November 18th). This is a backward step because it denies the freedom of the individual to choose his or her own dress (within reasonable limits). A core tenet of liberalism is that the State should not intervene to support or undermine any particular religion and this ban is clearly aimed at Muslims.
According to reports, the ban is to be linked with a measure banning "full facial covering" such as visored crash helmets. Crash helmets are banned in banks for understandable reasons, but no bank has yet been robbed by gun-toting Muslim women wearing burqas. To pretend that this law is to support "public order" is farcical. It is more likely intended to let a right-wing government please parts of its constituency by taking a muscular posture towards Islam. The other argument for the ruling, made by the Dutch minister responsible - that this is a strike against Muslim oppression of women - seems to me to be pretty far-fetched. It would be more pertinent to ensure that no Muslim woman in the state was coerced into wearing a burqa against her will.
Not only is this law counter-productive in that it antagonises Muslims and hands a weapon to the jihadists, it is also unenforceable. If you ever travel on the Tokyo underground you will find surprisingly large numbers of Japanese people wearing surgical masks over their noses and mouths to prevent the spread of harmful microbes.
Finally, let me add that I agree generally that the niqab (veil) or burqa, but not the headscarf, are unsuitable for women in posts that demand sensitive communication, such as teaching. That aspect could be best handled by a public debate such as that initiated by Jack Straw in the United Kingdom. - Yours, etc,
TOBY JOYCE, Navan, Co Meath.