Dump the politicians who defect and desert

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

The following is a presentation that will be given at a public meeting on Jauary 23, 2007 in Toronto in which the issues being discussed at that meeting are related to elections in Ontario.

Let me say right from the beginning; I do not like politicians. They are one of the mysteries of Canadian life. They comprise of a bundle of paradoxes, they are shrewed as a fox, naïve as a schoolboy and sometimes, as crooked as Al Capone. Notwithstanding that, we need them so we vote them into office in hopes that they just might be interested in our best interests more than they are of their own.

I am not here to denounce politicians per se as a Canadian entity as I don’t have the time to do that. Rather, I am here to make a recommendation as to how we might solve some of the problems constantly facing Canadian voters.

One problem I am speaking about is the one where politicians desert the political parties that they were voted into by the citizens in their ridings thereby creating an electoral problem of having to have an unnecessary and expensive by-election. This is a common problem in both provincial and federal politics. It is referred to as a defection.

Unscrupulous, deceitful, nefarious, unprincipled, repugnant, underhanded, scheming, unconscionable, disgraceful, and dishonourable. Those are just a few of the words that came to mind of many people in Belinda Stonach’s riding when she deserted her party and made her surprising move to the Liberals. Of course, Belinda Stonach was no different then the male members of parliament that have crossed the floor to another party in the past.

Scott Brison a Nova Scotia MP deserted the Progressive Conservatives to join the Liberal party when the PCs and Alliance parties merged.

Just recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper added a Liberal backbencher, Wajid Khan to his Conservative caucus in a move that could provide a buffer against the threat of his minority government's defeat in the coming months. The additional Tory seat in the House of Commons gives the party 125 MPs, and means that all three opposition parties will likely have to gang up to defeat the minority Conservative government and force an election. Liberal Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt) said Khan would do whatever he could to get ahead, and had never let political affiliations get in the way. "This is his style," he said, adding that Khan became friendly with provincial Tories before latching on to Martin's Liberal leadership bid. Khan's riding office manager Stefano Pileggi said he had no advance warning of the switch. He said, "We came in this morning, turned on the TV, that's how we found out,"

Khan was first elected as a Liberal MP in 2004 and he was re-elected last January. His move to the Tories proved unpopular among people in the vicinity of his Queen St. S. riding office in Mississauga's west end. Norm Scherb, a Khan volunteer campaign worker in the last election said angrily, "I feel my vote has been stolen today." I think Anthony Bischoff from Streetsville said it best when he said upon hearing of the defection; “You don’t vote Liberal because you like the Conservatives.”

They were speaking for the majority of Canadian voters. We elect people to office for two reasons. The first is because they will serve the political party in which we hope will protect our collective interests and the second reason is that we feel that the candidate we vote into office is the best person for the job.

For that candidate to switch political parties during his or her time in office is in effect committing a fraud on the voters who elected that person. The defection, irrespective of the motive, is a betrayal of trust that the electors had for the person they voted in.

The second problem that voters are facing is one of desertion. I am speaking of those politicians who decided to desert their political office to enrich their prospects by running for another office.

I remember in the late 1970s, a municipal alderman in our area was running for office again. I learned that he also was planning to run in an upcomming election as a member of the Ontario Legislature in two years time. At a public meeting I asked him if he was going to desert us in the middle of his term as our alderman if he got elected as our MP. He replied and I quote, “There is no law that says I can’t run for two offices at two diffcerent times.” He lost both elections.

On September 8, 2006, Liberal MP Joe Fontana announced that he would run for Mayor in London against current Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best. On September 20, 2006, he formally resigned his seat in the House of Commons in order to run for Mayor. The good news is that he was unsuccessful, losing to Mayor DeCicco-Best. The bad news is that his desertion necessated a by-election.

In the 1999 and 2003 general elections, Gerald Kennedy was elected to represent the new district of Parkdale-High Park. Following the latter, he became province's Minister of Education in the Liberal Party of Ontario government of Dalton McGuinty. In 2006, he resigned his cabinet post in order to seek leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Now the citizens in his riding will have to have a by-election.

These practices have to stop. Canadian voters are constantly reminded that they should vote. It is the civic thing to do. How many are going to vote in the next election if they believe that it is possible that the person they choose to represent them will either defect to a party that was not their first choice or alternatively desert them in the middle of their term, thereby leaving them to face a by-election?

The Americans have to their credit, partially solved these problems. Everyone running for office in the United States runs for office at the same time. This means that if a politician is going to desert his office to run for another office, it will happen near the end of his or her term in office.

Giving Ontario voters the right to recall MPPs who defect to another party during their term in office between elections will further ensure that politicians are more accountable to the people they serve. They will risk being defeated at the by-elections that will follow their defection.

I think watching a politician who chooses to defect at the risk of being defeated at the inevitable by-election that will follow his defection and subsequently gets defeated at the polls will put a gleam in the voter’s eyes that are not unlike the gleam in the eyes of a young child who has just opened a toy at Christmas.

I believe the way to stop politicians from deserting their posts in mid-term so that they can run for office again in a different setting is to make them pay for the by-elections that invariably must follow.

There are honest politicians who will remain at their posts and will serve their constituents faithfully. They don’t need to be written about. Their deeds speak for them. I am writing about the bad ones who defect and desert. They are the ones we have to be protected from.

Politicians pay raises are obsecene

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

I am annoyed by the Ontario Legislature's decision to boost MPP salaries by 25 per cent. Backbenchers pay increased by $22,000 a year to $110,775. What really make their actions obscene is that most of them claim that they run for office from a sense of public service. That’s hogwash. According to the way they talk, they would work for the minimum wage and still run for office from a sense of duty to their fellow citizens. More hogwash.

Premier Dalton McGuinty back in 1996, when he was running for the Liberal leadership, explained at some length that he wanted to become premier so he could bring the kind of common-sense, problem-solving approach his parents taught him to the entire province. His paycheque has now jumped $39,000 to $198,620 annually. The hogwash just keeps piling up.

Labour Minister Steve Peters – who along with other cabinet ministers will see his pay go up $596 a week or $31,000 annually to $157,633
By comparison, the governor of New York state is paid $179,000 (U.S.) and state legislators $79,500. In Michigan, the governor's salary is $172,000 while legislators make $79,650.

When the former New Democratic premier Bob Rae was asked in December 2006 why he wanted to be federal Liberal leader. He said, "The reason is because I love this country.” He was careful to not mention that he gets $147,700 as an MP. Are we to believe that his salary has no bearing on his real motive to be a member of parliament?

There are exceptions however. Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory, a wealthy lawyer from a wealthy family, made about $4.5 million a year before he entered provincial politics. It's doubtful that he's doing his current job for the money. So, it's odd that he assumes everyone else is. Tory is one of those who say that unless MPPs' salaries are substantially increased, the best and brightest will go elsewhere. The hogwash is getting deeper.

Is there a positive correlation between salary capacity and political ability? Consider Paul Martin. He made a bundle running Canada Steamship Lines. But as prime minister, he was a bit of a loser. David Emerson is another highly paid corporate big shot drawn into the world of federal politics. But as a functioning politician, the one-time Liberal turned Tory is a disaster.

There is no doubt in my mind that most politicians do work long and hard. There are exceptions of course but when it comes to their incomes, service to their fellow citizens is irrelevant.

The governing Liberals refuse to raise the minimum wage from $7.75 to $10 an hour and instead only raised it another twenty-five cents to eight dollars an hour. They also refused to raise welfare rates to a level that would allow those on social assistance to live above the poverty line.

Those who receive the minimum wage, in the doughnut shops, pizza joints and sweat shops of the province, work long, hard hours. Eight dollars an hour is not a living wage but the politicians believe that that’s all these unfortunate workers are entitled to.

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara (another wealthy individual drawn to politics supposedly for non-monetary reasons) argued that an increase in the minimum wage would devastate the economy. He argued that if employers were forced to pay minimum-wage pizza-delivery drivers more, they would fire these Ontario workers and outsource the jobs to China. If that happened, the waiting time for service would be astronomical. The hogwash is now overflowing.

As for increasing welfare rates, the government tells us that this too is a no-no. They say that eliminating poverty would undermine the incentive structure by permitting the lazy poor to sit at home drinking beer and watching TV. Careful where you walk----there is hogwash under foot.

True, politicians in Ottawa – and even on some municipal councils – make more than MPPs. But this sorry state of affairs occurs only because of trade distortions. Let’s outsource Queen's Park’s politicians by electing cheaper MPPs from the developing world who could stay in their home countries and vote on bills via the Internet.

The vote – with 77 Liberal and Progressive Conservative MPPs in favour of the raise and seven New Democrats against – was the MPPs' last official business before beginning their long Christmas break. NDP House leader Peter Kormos said of the raise. "It's the height of arrogance, it's the height of greed, it's the height of avarice. I am curious as to what he is going to do with his raise.

But not all New Democrats appeared on side with their leader, with MPPs Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) and Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay) absent from yesterday's vote. Both privately favoured the increase.

Hampton and several of his MPPs committed to give their raises to charity, although they could have opted out of the wage increase under terms of the bill. Hampton said he would keep giving the raise to charity after the next election. Hey, wake up. If he really felt that the pay raise was inappropriate, then why didn’t he refuse it instead of giving it to charity and probably getting a tax cut as a direct result of his so-called ‘generosity’.

Scrooge said it best in the Christmas Carol. Bah! Humbug!

Should mercy killing be punishable by imprisonment?

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that 12-year-old Tracy Latimer
was severely handicapped. She suffered from cerebral palsy, a motor function disorder which is usually acquired at birth as a result of lack of oxygen in the brain at birth. The victims of this illness can suffer varying degrees of mental retardation, (although some victims possess normal intelligence) slurred speech, difficulty in seeing and hearing, partial or total loss of use of limbs or involuntary movement of the limbs, loss of or delay in acquiring sphincter control, difficulty in sucking and swallowing, etc.

Tracy suffered from extreme cerebral palsy. She had the mentality of a 3 month-old baby, her severely damaged brain sent chaotic messages to muscles in her limbs and back, causing her terrible pain as the muscles were abnormally tightened. By the time she was 8, her rampaging back muscles had twisted her spine sideways and even after the surgeon cut some tendons to allow the muscles to relax, by the time she was 11, her back curvature was worse than before. After an operation in 1992, her backbone was fused and that seem to help to some degree. She could sit for unlimited periods of time. The ball socket in her hip had meanwhile slipped out of place and that made any movement of her leg extremely painful. She couldn't feed herself, wash or otherwise clean herself in any manner. Her future looked extremely dim.

According to the doctors, eventually she wouldn't suffer the same kind of pain she was suffering during the years before her death but the pain she was suffering from up to the time of her death was agonizing. Robert Latimer concluded that she had suffered enough and that it might be years before the pain finally subsided. He didn't want his daughter to suffer anymore.

The burden placed on the parents of such victims is enormous. The victims practically need 24-hour care, they cannot be left alone, they must be fed, bathed, wiped, dressed, carried about--the list of inconveniences to the long-suffering parents is endless. The older the victim, the greater the burden. Many are embarrassed by it all and tend to shy from strangers and in some cases, even friends. As the child grows, the burden placed on the parents is increased until it almost becomes unbearable.

Iain Benson, a lawyer from B.C. who practices constitutional law, wrote in The Law Times, a legal periodical, " It is easier, far easier to attach a gas hose than carry a child's bent body day after day. It is easier, far easier, to inject a patient with a drug with the intention of killing them, than treat pain and assist in reducing suffering as part of a compassionate community." unquote. I totally concur with his concerns.

In October 1993, 44-year-old Robert Latimer of Saskatchewan, carried his pain-ridden daughter to the cab of his truck and placed her onto the seat and then inserted a hose into the window in which the other end was connected to the exhaust. He was forced to watch his daughter writhing while inhaling the deadly carbon monoxide filling the enclosed space within the cab of his truck. Her father would have obviously suffered terrible anguish (that which cannot be described by anyone except by those who have killed a loved one out of an act of mercy) as he watched his daughter slowly dying before his eyes.

Dying by carbon monoxide is not an easy way to die. The victims suffer from severe headaches and nausea before they lapse into unconsciousness and death, the latter which comes about when the carbon monoxide forces oxygen from the blood cells. Tracy would have lived several minutes at least in that enclosed tomb and perhaps during her final moments of life, wondering why her father was doing this to her.

He then took the lifeless body of his daughter from the cab and placed her in her bed. His wife not being aware what her husband had earlier done to their child, tried to awaken Tracy from what her mother thought was a sound sleep. Then she discovered the horrible truth.

Robert called the police and as to be expected, he was arrested and charged with the 1st degree murder of his daughter.(later reduced to 2nd degree)

His first conviction was set aside because of stupidity on the part of the crown attorney (in the USA, district attorney) with reference to the choosing of a jury and as to be expected, he was tried a second time.

Again he was convicted of 2nd degree murder. In Canada, first degree homicide is murder when the killer premeditates the death of another and Latimer admitted to the police that he had planned to kill his daughter several days before he killed her. The police in sympathy for him, charged him with second degree murder and the crown attorney didn't object. The jury had no other choice but to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder.

But what really perplexed the jury was the kind of sentence he would get. They all knew the law. They knew that in Canada, anyone convicted of 2nd degree murder is automatically sentenced to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole available to the prisoner only after serving a minimum of ten years in prison. They correctly presumed that the judge wouldn't increase the eligibility date to the maximum of 25 years but they didn't like the idea that Latimer would have to serve at least ten years in prison before being released. They had recommended to the judge that Latimer only serve one year in jail even though the law normally didn't give the judge that right to give Latimer only one year in jail.

Then something happened that has never happened before in Canada.
Latimer's lawyer asked the judge to rule that forcing Latimer to serve a minimum term of ten years in prison (even though the law says that he must) is unconstitutional.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights states that 'everyone has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.' There can be no doubt that making a person convicted of 2nd degree murder serve a minimum of ten years imprisonment is not unusual since those sentences are awarded many times to people who kill others.

The real issue was whether or not the sentence of a minimum of ten years of imprisonment in Latimer's case constituted cruel punishment.

When someone kills another, it is as a general rule, premeditated with malice towards the victim. But in Latimer's case (as with all cases of mercy killing) he loved his victim and was compassionate towards her and acted in what he believed was her best interest.

Although everyone was sympathetic to Robert Latimer, there were many who felt that he didn't have the right to kill his daughter. Various advocates for the disabled felt that only a disabled person has the right to decide when his or her life should come to an end. I agree with that concept however in Tracy's case, she, having the mentality of a three-month-old baby, was hardly in a position to make that kind of decision for herself. Obviously the doctors wouldn't make that kind or decision for her. If such a decision was to be made, it would have to rest with Tracy's parents.

Robert Latimer took on the responsibility without consulting his wife. That was, in my opinion, a decent thing to do because if his wife had become involved in the decision making, she too could have been charged with and convicted of 2nd degree murder. Robert chose to take upon his own shoulders, the decision, the anguish that accompanies such a deed and the blame and consequences of his action that invariably followed.

Justice Nobel had two enormous tasks before him. He first had to make a determination of whether or not a ten-year minimum sentence in a case like this was unconstitutional. But his second task was even harder. He had to decide if Latimer merited this kind of consideration.

Even if he was to rule that Latimer was to serve a minimum of ten years in prison, he or his lawyer could ask the federal government for its perogative of mercy, that is, a pardon in which he would be released which would reduce his sentence to time served.

After much soul searching, Justice Noble decided that mercy was due to Latimer and he sentenced him to one year in a provincial jail and one year under house arrest in which he is to remain on his farm except when authorized to leave by his probation or parole officer.

In actual fact, he is eligible for parole after he serves a quarter of his time although he may be expected to serve at least six months in jail. His time under house arrest will no doubt be considerably reduced also.

I think what Justice Noble was trying to say was that he understood Latimer's plight but he felt that anyone who makes that kind of decision, such as the one made by Latimer, must be prepared to satisfy society's need for atonement as his or her personal anguish wasn't enough.

The Canadian Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan said the day after the jury found Latimer guilty the second time, "I was struck, as I am sure all of you were, with the intense and very diverse reactions to the situation, the very tragic and difficult situation presented in Latimer. I think Canadians are deeply conflicted on these issues." unquote.

I have had the good fortune of recently meeting a woman (Mrs. Jenny John) a lady in Ontario in her forties who has a daughter who also suffers from cerebral palsy, albeit, her daughter doesn't suffer with the severity that Tracy did. Jenny's daughter is 15 years old and must be cared for as she is unable to care for herself.

Jenny's husband and father of their handicapped child was unable to cope with her handicap so when she was seven, he deserted her and her mother. Jenny remarried but her second husband couldn't accept the fact that he had a step daughter that was (in his own words) an embarrassment so he too deserted the child, his wife and his two girls she bore him. Then, if that wasn't enough for Jenny, her oldest son deserted her and refuses to acknowledge that he has a sister that is so severely handicapped. He refuses to even visit her or his mother and other siblings.

Jenny told me that at one point in her life, she seriously considered killing her daughter. She felt that her daughter was living a meaningless life and that the burden of caring for her handicapped daughter was far greater than she was mentally and emotionally prepared to bear.

But it must be considered that what put Jenny in such a severe state of depression (that invariable brought to the fore, the thought of killing her child)was the loneliness and hopelessness of being deserted by her two husbands, her friends and her oldest son and to make matters worse, no-one was offering her emotional support, not even her church.

But Jenny didn't kill her child and I asked her why. She said, and I will quote from our conversation.

"My daughter was a gift from God to me. I wanted a daughter and I got a daughter. It wasn't my place to decided that God's gift was to die. I love my daughter very much and I could never live with myself if I were to take it upon myself to end my daughter's life simply because she didn't turn out to be like the daughter I expected." unquote

I didn't ask Jenny what she would have done if her daughter suffered from severe pain like Tracy Latimer did because Jenny's daughter doesn't suffer from that kind of pain. The question would have been academic and inappropriate under the circumstances.

Clair Hoy, a noted Canadian columnist, in an article he wrote for The Law Times said in part; "Tracy Latimer is dead. Her father didn't ask her if she wanted to die. He didn't search for options like sending her to an institution, which, while painful, surely is a better solution than death." unquote.

Ian Benson in his article with The Law Times, said in part; "….it is not kindness to kill another person. Kindness, rooted in compassion (from the Latin compassio--to suffer with) is a world away from the selfish acts that is now trendy to call merciful." unquote.

These two issues are uppermost in the minds of everyone who has thought about mercy killing, either as a victim or as a loved one. Advances in medicine have advanced to such a state, that pain can be controlled and become to some degree, bearable. But there are some illnesses that no amount of drugs will ease the agony of the victims. A good example of this is cancer in the lungs. The victim slowly suffocates to death--a fate that has to be one of the most agonizing and terrifying of all. Then there is the paraplegic who is blinded and deafened by an accident to boot and merely lies in bed, oblivious of everything around him, 24 hours a day, year after year with nothing left in his or mind but thoughts of the past and no one really caring whether he lives or dies.

Can anyone truly argue that such victims have to continue to live the rest of their lives like that? How does anyone rationalize that kind of existence? To quote a cliché, "It isn't prolonging life--it's prolonging death."

In one country in Europe, the doctors are permitted to hand a fatal pill to a patient and let the patient end his own life. In the USA, a doctor helps
severely ill patients end their own lives. Some doctors will indirectly let a patient end his or her own life by placing three pills on their night table and tell them to take a pill if the pain become unbearable. The doctors warn them however not to take three at one time as the pills will kill them. The doctors know that the patients will take all three at once so that their life and agony will finally end.

But in situations like this, the victims of these illnesses have the choice and the ability to exercise their choice.

What do we do with those who are unable to bring about their own deaths or worse yet, don't even understand what is happening to them, because of their mental handicaps?

Perhaps in the next millenium, there will come a time when a panel of doctors and judges will make that decision for them but until then, parents are making the decisions for their children and in some cases, children are making that decision for their parents and in other cases, spouses are doing the same for their spouses.

The complexities of issues surrounding capital punishment and abortion pale when compared with euthanasia. Until these issues are addressed, we will continue to have mercy killing at its worst--that is, victims or their loved ones doing it themselves--some by stuffing kleenex down their own throats so that they will suffocate to death, others who will place pillows over the faces of their loved ones so that they too will suffocate--and of course, placing loved ones in the cab of trucks so that they can die of carbon monoxide--the list of methods is endless.

In summation, I would like to quote from a paper I wrote that was published in November 1973 in Modern Medicine of Canada, a medical journal (and also published in other medical journals around the world) My quote sums up what my feelings are about mercy killing and it is something that must be considered by anyone, be they a victim, a loved one forced to resort to mercy killing, and more importantly, by those in the medical profession that are aware of the problem and also the judiciary who may some day have to rule on it.

"…….study the case of 1927 which took place in the United States when a man who, after watching his little daughter dying of tuberculosis and gangrene of the face, heard her screaming, months on end, driving him mad, took the pitiful creature into his bathroom and drowned her. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, knowing that he acted out of remorse and that his act was a humane act. They knew he would suffer forever, never be able to block out of his mind the sight of his little girl, grasping his arms, and not making any attempts to fight the death which was going to end her misery. Justice Branson at his trial said; 'It is a matter which gives food for thought when one comes to consider that, had this poor child been an animal instead of a human being, so far from there being anything blameworthy in the man's action in putting an end to its suffering, he would actually have been liable to punishment if he had not done so.'

Carrying knives on our streets should be illegal

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

Back in the 1970s a man was walking on Dundas Street in downtown Toronto when suddenly he felt a sharp pain in his back. As he turned, he gasped "Why?" He was dead before he hit the sidewalk. At the trial of the killer, he was asked 'why' again and the killer told the prosecutor that he wanted to see what it was like to kill a human being. In September 1992, another man was stabbed by a man who just walked out of a crowd and stabbed him and then ran away. Neither knew each other. In March 1993, another man was in his car when a crazy thought that the motorist had stopped his car too close to him. The crazy pulled out a Japanese Samural sword and stabbed the motorist. During the summer of 1993, a man slashed a 15-year-old girl in a subway station with a razor. Neither knew each other.

In 1993, there were 630 killings in which 31% were the direct result of stabbings. That means approximately 195 killers that year walked around the streets with knives on their person for the purpose of killing someone. Those figures haven't changed that much since then.

Thousands upon thousands of people carry knives in their pockets or in sheaths hanging from their belts when they walk down our streets every day and their purpose is to either use the knives for intimidation, (robbery or sexual assault) self defence (they are looking for trouble) or murder. (exacting revenge or thrill killing)

There just doesn’t seem to be any legitimate reason why anyone nowadays should be carrying a knife within the confines of a community.

Admittedly, there was a time when men would carry small pocket knives to trim their cigars or clean their pipes and those were legitimate uses. And of course, anyone hunting or camping in the bush should have one also. But how can anyone walking our streets nowadays, justify carrying a knife, especially a concealed hunting knife hanging from their belt?

Most persons who are carrying knives these days, when stopped by the police, say that they are carrying their knives for protection. That is clearly against the law. Anyone carrying a concealed weapon is contravening section 89 of the Criminal Code. The offence is completed when the person takes steps to hide the weapon from view. When they say that they are carrying it for protection, that is the evidence needed to establish that the person intends that his knife should be considered as a weapon. All it takes to be convicted is concealing what is intended to be used as a weapon. Motive is immaterial in instances like this.

As we all know, even small children are carrying knives and many have used them on other small children. Taxi drivers and pizza drivers are very often robbed and in many cases, stabbed for a few dollars. Often violent sex offenders carry these knives not only for intimidation but to murder their victims so that they won't talk.

The law should be enforced vigorously. Anyone found with a concealed weapon, especially a knife, no matter what it's size should be arrested and charged under section 89 of the Code. Perhaps sixty days in jail will get the message across that honest and peaceful people do not need to carry knives on their person. They can always flee their attackers.

If such a law was enforced vigorously, them perhaps these constant robberies, sexual assaults and murders will be reduced in considerable numbers.

I appreciate the fact that many of these kinds of thugs are capable of carrying guns and of course that has to be addressed also but if we don't punish them for carrying knives on their person, how can we expect them to obey the law about not carrying guns?

Should there be restrictions om Muslim women wearing face coverings?

A burqua is a cloak that covers all but a woman’s hands and feet. In includes a small mesh-like area which allows Muslim women to see, but covers their bodies in order to maintain their modesty. The niqab on the other hand is a veil covering the face but leaving the eye area clear. The word hijab used in the Qur'an for a headscarf or veil is called khimār

Recently, the Dutch cabinet said it was proposing a bill banning clothing that covers the face in public, targeting in particular Muslim woman wearing the burqa or niqab.The ban would be imposed in public and "semi-public" places such as schools, courts, ministries and trains. They claim that it's a public safety measure, saying that garments covering the face may make others feel threatened and that suicide bombers in particular could use burquas to hide the explosives more easily. I am concerned that young Muslim women, especially those 'jihadists' who are teens who are in head-to-toe attire may be forced to carry bombs strapped around their bodies.

Dutch Muslims have objected at the proposed government ban of face veils, saying it infringes on their religious rights. No matter what we may think of Islam, veils, or burkas, they may have a point. What these women wear is a vital part of freedom of expression, and in this case of expression as per a custom- values fundamental to a liberal society. In a liberal society, it is simply assumed that (barring workplace safety issues, or balaclavas in banks), they can wear what they like in public. Many Muslims maintain that it is not the government's business to dictate fashion or tell them what they should wear, any more than it is the government’s business to tell them what they should believe or what they can and cannot do in bed.

A hitherto unknown group calling itself the ‘Just Swords of Islam’ issued a warning to Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip in the first week of December 2006 that they must wear the hijab or face being targeted by the group's members. The warning was directed primarily against female students in a number of universities and colleges who do not cover their heads in line with Islamic tradition. The group said its followers a week earlier threw acid at the face of a young woman who was dressed "immodestly" in the center of Gaza City.

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense? To do so, I would consider myself a moral coward so I will speak my mind.

I don't care if Muslim women wear Burquas in Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Africa, the United Arab Emirates, or any other Muslim nation. However, when they choose to live in Europe or North America, they have to adjust themselves to our customs if it conflicts with our security and well-being. For example, Afghan girls are now free to remove their burquas, which were strictly enforced under the Taliban regime.

As an example of sheer stupidity, some Muslim women who have applied for driver’s licences in some jurisdictions where photos of the drivers must be on the licences, have insisted that they be photographed wearing the burquas so that their faces are hidden and not shown on the liences. How long will it be when these stupid women begin demanding that photographs of their faces not be placed in their passports? These women in my opinion are so daft, they want to spend their days looking at life through a slit. It doesn’t say much for that part of female race with respect to their intelligence or lack thereof.

It’s ironic when one thinks of it. The veil was a symbol of prostitution sanctioned by a religion some 7000 years back. The veil used to identify woman as willing prostitutes who want to be taken to bed by any strangers. Further, prostitutes dedicated to the fertility Goddess were working at the Temples in Canaan. They were required to cover their bodies and faces when entering the temples.

Face coverings make communication and integration into a new culture more difficult, hampering efforts to integrate immigrants into society. According to Reuters this shouldn't present much of a problem in the Netherlands, since only about 50 women in that country actually wear a burqua as they're are already illegal in schools and on public transportation in the Netherlands. However, this law doesn't seem as strict as the French law prohibiting religious attire of any kind (crosses or head scarves) in public schools.

The right-leaning coalition in the Netherlands said that it would look for a way to outlaw the wearing of all Muslim face veils. The grounds for a ban were laid last December when parliament voted in favour of a proposal to criminalize face coverings, as part of a security measure. There have been several instances in India were unknown persons wearing burquas so that they could defeat the purpose of the surveillance cameras, subsequently robbed the stores so I can see why the Dutch authorities are concerned about face coverings.

Why do these women cover their faces in the first place since there is nothing in the Qur'an directing them to do so. The answer is quite simple. It’s their menfolk who are demanding that they do so. They don’t want any other man gazing upon the faces of their women with lust. Give me a break. Why, for example, would a man look upon the face of a sixty-year-old woman with lust? I don’t care if this custom goes back hundrds of years ---- it’s utter nonsence. I strongly doubt that these women are happy wearing their black burqas on a hot summer day while gardening in their back yards. How they must yearn to go swimming in the cool waters of the lake, sea or ocean nearby.

I have nothing but contempt for any man who insists that his wife or adult daughters wear this form of attire. They obviously don’t trust their womenfolk and that by itself is an insult to these women. These men have only their own interests in mind and not the best interests of their wives and adult daughters. I think it actually detracts from the woman’s active witness to her faith, by focusing only on one aspect of it - exagerated ‘modesty’ - covering herself from ‘lustful gaze’ - and misses out a far more important part, which is her witness to her faith lived out through her life, a life which is best served by fully engaging with her fellow humans. Head to toe coverings negate such women to a cypher, a woman must cover herself from lust; as if all men are lustful animals. Do all men, especially since they are assumed by many Muslim husbands and fathers, of women wearing such clothing, appear to them as predators? Do they not deserve more trust and respect than to be assumed to be lascivious uncontrollable rutting brute beasts when in the presence of their women? If women feel so at risk from male sexuality (as if wearing a burqua protected women from being raped and mistreated anyway) that they must cover up in full, then the problem lies with the menfolk of their aquanitance.

I find it very hard to believe that any of these unfortunate women; if given a choice, would continue to wear such foolish attire. I doubt any "moderate" Muslims wear full burquas. It is only a small proportion of Muslim women who are tricked into believing that there is a religious obligation to do so. The burqua is a symbol of old cultural custom that has no place in a modern liberal society especially since facial identification is a pretty fundamental part of western society. If you take away male intervention and assume that Muslim women wear the veil without any coercion from the men in their lives, then I would argue that it is therefore a political act and has nothing whatever to do with the women’s modesty.

Itis also highly rude in our society to not show your face when talking to someone whether it be wearing sunglasses or wearing a veil over one’s face.

One Muslim perception may well be that the west is not in the best position to preach to Muslim women about what types of attire denote and encourage female self- determination. I am not suggesting that these women, go out and buy a dress, put away their shalwar kameez and saris, or even to ban their burquas, I am simply saying that when they talk to someone, they should show their faces. Nothing in Islam prevents this, its not a sin and it is not a sign of disrespect. Nowhere in the Qu’ran does it say that the Muslim women’s faces must be covered at all times when in public.

Women have covered their bodies for centuries. There are plenty of ways for them to dress modestly. What we culturally understand to be ‘modest’ does not mean they have to cover up their entire bodies. Surely the point of modesty and modest dress is so that the woman’s intellect, opinions, faith, character can come through loudly and clearly and truthfully. The niqabs and burkas seem to take that away by acting as ostentatious masks - and masks are usually worn to disguise the persons wearing them.
Western women put on makeup and wear nice clothes to feel attractive. It is a perfectly natural instinct for a human being to try to look attractive. Men groom themselves to look attractive to women so why can’t women do the same? The issue is whether a society/culture should impose restrictions on one sex that it is not prepared place on the other sex. The key difference between Saudi Arabia and Western society is that the latter does not make women second class citizens as the Saudis seek to do. In western society it is not Muslim men’s place to pass judgment on what women can and can’t wear.

We must not forget that that when Ataturk was the leader of Turkey, he ordered that the fez was not to be worn. No one in Turkey wears a fez and it is an accepted practice to not wear a fez in Turkey. In Canada, most men do not wear fedoras on their heads anymore. In fact one rarely sees a man wearing any hat nowadays. They can if they want to but few men do. Japanese women no longer have their feet bound so tight that if unbound, they couldn’t walk. Customs change and we all change with them.

I sincerely hope that the day will come for the Muslim women forced by custom to wear the burquas, when they can shed them and enjoy the fresh air that will strike their bodies and enjoy the sun’s rays as it shines on them. When that day comes, these women will then truly be liberated.