The high court of the Netherlands has ruled the practice of a fundamentalist political party to exclude women from its ballots is unconstitutional and at odds with international civil rights treaties. The SGP party has been around since 1918 and currently holds two seats in the 150-seat Dutch parliament. There are other religious political parties in the Dutch multiparty system, but none are rooted as firmly in the Bible as the SGP, which believes a woman’s role is to take care of the family, not run for political office.

Through its ruling, the high court has let the constitutional prohibition of discrimination prevail over the freedoms of religion, association and speech that are also guaranteed by the constitution. Citizens who want to exercise their religion or beliefs in a democratic state should always do so within the limitations of the law, the court stated.

In an editorial, NRC Handelsblad asks whether it is really up to the government to set the party straight. The women in the SGP’s rank and file seem unlikely to even want to run for office, and if they were to change their minds, there are many other parties they could join.

What do you think? Should all forms of discrimination be eliminated within political parties to uphold democracy? Or is the core of democracy that people can form parties based on their beliefs and ideas even if those exclude other groups in society?

An article published on NRC International last week sums up the ongoing debate in several European countries over a piece of cloth only a few fingers wide: the facial veil that is part of the burqa.

Only a few thousand women in Europe actually wear this head to toe veil. But a poll by the Financial Times showed a majority of Europeans support banning it.

France has tried to ban the traditional Islamic garment from its streets, but found the plan thwarted by legal impediments. The French Council of State said it would be legally untenable for any reason other than security.

In Belgium, a ban is already in effect in some municipalities, causing no apparent legal problems. It could soon become the first country in Europe to outlaw the burqa completely. A statement by local politicians called the prohibition “essential for living together in an emancipated society that ensures the rights of all”.

In other countries, such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, a ban remains out of the question for the time being. “In the UK, we are comfortable with expressions of belief,”  prime minister Gordon Brown said in a statement.

In an opinion published in Der Spiegel and on NRC International, Yassin Musharbash argued that facial veils are only a symptom of an underlying problem and that efforts to outlaw it are misguided. “At issue is not the veil that covers the head, but the one that is inside the head, ” according to Musharbash.

What do you think? Is the burqa, as some claim, a symbol of the submission of women and should it therefore be banned? Or is it a harmless form of religious expression?