You’re kidding me, Belgium.

This is so laughably/mournfully foolish, it made me think immediately of Douglas Adams’ Life, The Universe, and Everything. In my American printing of the book, there is a scene in which it is explained that the word “Belgium” just happens to be the most taboo dirty word in the galaxy, which leads to a bit of a misunderstanding between two partygoers — one from Earth, and one very much not.

“[He won an award for] The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word ‘Belgium’ in a Serious Screenplay. It’s very prestigious.”

“The most gratuitous use of which word?” asked Arthur, with a determined attempt to keep his brain in neutral.

“Belgium,” said the girl, “I hardly like to say it.

“Belgium?” exclaimed Arthur.

A drunken seven-toed sloth staggered past, gawked at the word and threw itself backward at a blurry-eyed pterodactyl, roaring with displeasure.

“Are we talking,” said Arthur, “about the very flat country, with all the EEC and the fog?”

Yes, Arthur, we’re talking about that Belgium. From the BBC:

Belgium’s lower house of parliament has voted for a law that would ban women from wearing the full Islamic face veil in public.

The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street. No-one voted against it.

The law now goes to the Senate, where it may face challenges over its wording, which may delay it.

If passed, the ban would be the first move of its kind in Europe.

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

Look. I agree with the MPs who said “the full face veil was a symbol of the oppression of women.” I am solidly against the tradition of telling women that their simple physical presence is so distracting and troubling that they are obliged to hide it away. The origins of the practice are linked to the Qur’an only in a very, very flimsy way, and it’s pretty clear that the practice has a lot more to do with protecting the patriarchy than it does with fulfilling Allah’s wishes. The full veil certainly is a lot more striking in its message of subjugation than the headscarf, which comes across as more of a religiously-themed fashion accessory.

But this is not how to go about convincing people not to wear the full veil. First of all, everyone sees through the ridiculous pretext and it just makes you look idiotic. You want anyone to believe this law was passed “on the grounds of security,” because it’s difficult to immediately discern the identity of someone wearing a burqa? You better be ready to enforce this law against people wearing sunglasses, as well as those in hats with big floppy brims. And maybe anyone who shows up with those joke glasses with the fake noses attached. (Rare, I’m sure, but probably roughly  the same percentage of the Belgian population as the burqa-wearers.) Something tells me that this is not really about security.

Secondly, you’re going about secularization all wrong. People don’t want to be told by their government that they can’t practice their religion the way they want — that’ll just make them feel victimized, and they’ll draw even closer to their religion for support. If you want them to move away from religion, or at least move in a more liberal direction in their faith, you need to let the marketplace of ideas do its thing. You need their beliefs to be addressed seriously in the public discourse. That will actually prompt some people to rethink their way of life, and you’ll see a bit of genuine change instead of backlash. More importantly though, people don’t deserve to be told by their government whether and how they should practice their religion. Faith is  a very personal thing, and the government ought to leave it up to people to decide for themselves what they think about God, gods, or lack thereof. There is no legitimate governmental need to impinge upon this private sphere.

I don’t like when people believe farfetched and implausible things without evidence. I also don’t like when people use their farfetched beliefs to justify their farfetched behaviors. But people think, and do, and say a lot of things I consider stupid. I believe very strongly in their right to think and say and do stupid things, so long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s ability to make their own choices about what is stupid and what is not.

This right definitely does not extend to legislatures, since when they do something stupid like this, it affects an entire nation and sends a message to the world. Here’s hoping that the Belgian Senate is the smarter half of its parliament.