As you are undoubtedly all aware, there's just nothing quite so exciting as Dutch politics. Don't you agree? No? Well, bear with me anyway.
Geert Wilders, the feisty Dutch MP and leader of the Dutch Freedom Party ( or PVV ), who also happens to be rather opposed to the infiltration of Islam into the Netherlands, has recently landed himself in a whole heap of trouble...again:
" Wilders's newest proposal is to tax the Muslim headscarf. Any Muslim woman who wants to wear a headscarf - which he described as a 'head-rag' - would have to apply for a licence, and pay one thousand euros for the privilege. Wilders says the money raised would go toward women's emancipation programmes.
The rest of the Dutch parliament reacted to the proposal with disbelief. One after another, they asked Mr Wilders if this was a serious proposal. For instance, would he include other types of head covering in the tax? And how about orthodox Christian women who wear a headscarf quite similar to the Muslim version?
In reaction, Mr Wilders said he would actually prefer to ban the headscarf altogether, but that appeared to be legally impossible. He would not tax the Christian form of the headscarf, but he did not say how policy would make that distinction. "
Now, Geert Wilders has a history of saying all sorts of impolite things: this January he's going on trial before a Dutch court under hate speech charges. He's been denounced as a fascist, as an anti-Islamist, a bigot. This latest statement would seem to support such claims, and has a subsequent uproar to go with it.
But 'seem' is the operative word. Such a proposal is, quite frankly, a social engineering project. It's something that the government has no business doing, and it's a strange recommendation from the leader of the Freedom Party to suggest, no matter how glib it may have been. But at the same time, if you really think about it, social engineering projects are nothing new. Every sin tax or tariff on alcohol or tobacco ( I'm unsure of the Dutch regulations when it comes to such things - perhaps someone who knows more than I could enlighten me in the comments ); every tax exemption for certain behaviors; what difference do they really have from an Islamic headscarf tax?
It's the same idea. The Muslim headscarf is not a religious requirement. It's a choice, although one undoubtedly forced or pressured on to some women. I find it a rather strange practice myself. But, as far as I know, it's a theoretical choice - just like smoking, or drinking, or eating junk food. What difference is there between government interference in what we eat or drink, and what we wear on our heads? I can't help but feel that any uproar over a 'headscarf tax' is rather over-looking previous government attempts across the Western world at similar social engineering projects fueled by taxation.
Indeed, something closer to the kind of monstrous social engineering project that Geert's detractors are detracting him for can actually be seen in the policies of Job Cohen, the mayor of Amsterdam, rather than in the policies of Geert Wilders:
Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen says women who fail to find a job because they wear a burqa should not receive unemployment benefit. If you are not prepared to compromise, he adds, you cannot expect to receive benefits intended for those genuinely trying to find employment.
Speaking in an interview in the daily newspaper Trouw, Mayor Cohen emphasized that he is opposed to a general ban on the burqa, since it is an expression of religious belief. However, in situations in which contact with other people is necessary, such as at school or in the workplace, he argues that women should choose a less restrictive head covering.
In all cases, social engineering is something to be distrusted at best, and opposed at worst, but that hasn't stopped it from wending its way through government policy - whereever there is government policy, really. I don't agree with it, and I don't think Geert Wilders should be promoting it in any form - although the knife's edge that Holland is currently walking between Islamic extremism and an illiberal response is an admittedly difficult nut to crack.
But geez guys, relax. It's just a tax, like any other. We've seen this before, a million times. No less in need of opposition, but more of an evolutionary development along an old theme than anything else.
