Denmark Bans Burkas

[Victorian Gray]

This is a serious issue that affects the country. They are totally different. The burka has nothing to do with religion. Why dont you seem concerned about the women being oppressed?

Why do you bother writing about stuff that you know nothing about while pretending to give a damn. Oh. I know. You're a silly little troll looking for some kind of validation as a human being. Sorry , you're failing. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And banning them is not about women's rights. It's an anti-Muslim agenda that's wrapped up in a pretty package to fool morons.

Bingo!

 

[zinfamous]

And banning them is not about women's rights. It's an anti-Muslim agenda that's wrapped up in a pretty package to fool morons.

banning the hijab, yes. Burka, no. The hijab is far more of a traditional, cultural, legitimate muslim custom. The burka is only ever enforced by extreme niche fundamentalist cults like the Taliban or ISIS. Hell, even bin Laden and his lieutenants didn't force his ladies to wear a burka. That shit is too crazy for Al Qaeda.

I liken the burka and its deployment to polygamy--the naive idea of what it is, the confusion of what it could be, and what it actually is in practice. On paper, polygamy is one of those: "Eh, if regular old adults want to do it, who am I to judge? whatever." But that never is it in practice. The only time we see polygamy in action is when it is enforced by extreme fundamental cults where women are bread for the sole purpose of being traded off and spoken for as sex slaves and fetus vessels, for the "chosen elite" of whatever fucked-up apocalyptic sociopath cult is involved. Women are usually married off at 13 and expected to produce by 14....unless of course it's some 60 or 70 year-old surviving widow...who is then married off to the 2nd in command.

It is only ever a factor of sexual abuse and sex slavery, and is rightly banned in the US and other developed nations.

This, in a nutshell, is the burka. It maybe sounds like some crazy religious people doing their religion thing that is otherwise harmless, but it is universally banned in established, modern, muslim communities because it is only used as a tool for sexual dominance and a symbol of the chattel slavery model of female existence in extremist, apocalyptic muslim sects.

When the French wanted to ban the hijab from public schools, that was rightly denounced as a specific anti-muslim policy. But the burka is an entirely different animal.





....that being said, it is possible that letting the burka stay is a convenient way to profile and locate any local terrorist cell in your community. So, I dunno...maybe let it stay?

 

[feralkid]

....that being said, it is possible that letting the burka stay is a convenient way to profile and locate any local terrorist cell in your community. So, I dunno...maybe let it stay?

Oh yeah.

Let's make it so with white supremacists and Nazis over here.

 

[pmv]

banning the hijab, yes. Burka, no. The hijab is far more of a traditional, cultural, legitimate muslim custom. The burka is only ever enforced by extreme niche fundamentalist cults like the Taliban or ISIS. Hell, even bin Laden and his lieutenants didn't force his ladies to wear a burka. That shit is too crazy for Al Qaeda.

I liken the burka and its deployment to polygamy--the naive idea of what it is, the confusion of what it could be, and what it actually is in practice. On paper, polygamy is one of those: "Eh, if regular old adults want to do it, who am I to judge? whatever." But that never is it in practice. The only time we see polygamy in action is when it is enforced by extreme fundamental cults where women are bread for the sole purpose of being traded off and spoken for as sex slaves and fetus vessels, for the "chosen elite" of whatever fucked-up apocalyptic sociopath cult is involved. Women are usually married off at 13 and expected to produce by 14....unless of course it's some 60 or 70 year-old surviving widow...who is then married off to the 2nd in command.

It is only ever a factor of sexual abuse and sex slavery, and is rightly banned in the US and other developed nations.

This, in a nutshell, is the burka. It maybe sounds like some crazy religious people doing their religion thing that is otherwise harmless, but it is universally banned in established, modern, muslim communities because it is only used as a tool for sexual dominance and a symbol of the chattel slavery model of female existence in extremist, apocalyptic muslim sects.

When the French wanted to ban the hijab from public schools, that was rightly denounced as a specific anti-muslim policy. But the burka is an entirely different animal.





....that being said, it is possible that letting the burka stay is a convenient way to profile and locate any local terrorist cell in your community. So, I dunno...maybe let it stay?

Can I just point out that the burka is a specific, and very extreme, form of "Islamic" dress? One only really common in Afghanistan, I think. You almost never see it in the West. It's one step away from a woman going round in a wooden create on wheels (I expect competitive modesty will eventually lead to that - and men will still complain that the crate is provocatively shaped). This ban, surely, is of the niqab or veil? I.e. of face-covering?

I don't like the practice of face-covering. There's a good reason why its considered threatening or just rude in Western culture. The only non-Muslim uses that come to mind are the SAS and the IRA and armed bank-robbers. And the occasional molotov-throwing anarchist in the middle of a riot. There are obviously many different reasons why some Muslim women do it, but I disagree with and dislike all of those reasons - every one of them is dodgy.

Nonetheless I don't agree with a blanket ban on such face-covering in public spaces. After all, it's only one step away from banning hooded tops or weird face-obscuring hair-cuts or anything else that prevents the authorities getting a good look at everyone's face. Or insisting everyone has to give a full-face gaze into all those CCTV cameras we have everywhere (soon to be linked up to face-recognition software). People have the right to not display every aspect of themselves, and even to be a bit rude, up to a point.

I'm not going to ever _like_ the niqab, but I'd defend people's right to wear it if they want to.

I'm OK with them being banned in specific places and situations where it's critical that people be identifiable. Or for jobs where it's really necessary for people to see their faces. But a general ban is too oppressive (and not just of Muslims, of everyone).

I couldn't care less about the hijab, banning that would be nuts. For starters we'd have to lock up the Queen (who often wears headscarves). Though there was that interesting employment law case when a woman employed as a hairdresser insisted she had to wear one, while her employer reckoned showing off your own hair was part of the job.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Fair position

 

[thilanliyan]

nm

 

[compuwiz1]

How do you identify a person who is all covered up? Law enforcement might want to know who robbed that bank. Security could be an issue and if concentrated enough, could be a national security issue. Wanting to be able to see who people are is not necessarily being against a group of people.

Go google images of Afghanistan in the 70's. Women looked like westerners, out having all kinds of fun, with their big hair and go-go boots. Men, very evil men, caused this shift in dress requirements. What these men have done to oppress their women cannot be excused.

Years ago, when I worked as a manager at a Ford dealership, a man, his wife, and his family drove onto the lot. When they got out of their car, his wife was covered up so well, I could barely tell her from a full black garbage bag. Our salesman was showing them a car and she said " I like the red one better". The man literally slapped her across the face, told her to shut up, it's not your decision, then he sent her back to the car. Yeah, great stuff there. Ban that shit!

 

[sdifox]

So in one thread, Incorruptible is upset because an European country is infringing on freedom of expression, while in another thread, he celebrates a European country infringing on freedom of expression.

Interesting.

Curtailing invasion of brown people is very different than infrindging the rights of white defender of freedom of expression!

 

[MrSquished]

banning the hijab, yes. Burka, no. The hijab is far more of a traditional, cultural, legitimate muslim custom. The burka is only ever enforced by extreme niche fundamentalist cults like the Taliban or ISIS. Hell, even bin Laden and his lieutenants didn't force his ladies to wear a burka. That shit is too crazy for Al Qaeda.

I liken the burka and its deployment to polygamy--the naive idea of what it is, the confusion of what it could be, and what it actually is in practice. On paper, polygamy is one of those: "Eh, if regular old adults want to do it, who am I to judge? whatever." But that never is it in practice. The only time we see polygamy in action is when it is enforced by extreme fundamental cults where women are bread for the sole purpose of being traded off and spoken for as sex slaves and fetus vessels, for the "chosen elite" of whatever fucked-up apocalyptic sociopath cult is involved. Women are usually married off at 13 and expected to produce by 14....unless of course it's some 60 or 70 year-old surviving widow...who is then married off to the 2nd in command.

It is only ever a factor of sexual abuse and sex slavery, and is rightly banned in the US and other developed nations.

This, in a nutshell, is the burka. It maybe sounds like some crazy religious people doing their religion thing that is otherwise harmless, but it is universally banned in established, modern, muslim communities because it is only used as a tool for sexual dominance and a symbol of the chattel slavery model of female existence in extremist, apocalyptic muslim sects.

When the French wanted to ban the hijab from public schools, that was rightly denounced as a specific anti-muslim policy. But the burka is an entirely different animal.





....that being said, it is possible that letting the burka stay is a convenient way to profile and locate any local terrorist cell in your community. So, I dunno...maybe let it stay?

I agree. It's one thing to have freedom of religion, it's another thing to ban oppression of women. The burqa takes it one step too far.

 

[cytg111]

I believe Denmark all ready have a law against masking your face, exempt from religious purposes and that is the clause we are removing now.
On some level I think its fine, how are you gonna hold a regular job being tied up in one of those? The thing is that if you are unemployed in Denmark you can get a shitload of benefits but they require you to be actively seeking jobs and/or try specific job openings appointed to you.. As of right now a valid excuse is "I cant cause burka/something, cause religion", so Denmark is removing that loop hole. We got a big fat safety net but it only works if everyone who can contribute actually contributes, there is nothing racist about it.

 

[wahdangun]

Wtf, never know that liberal in here defending burqa. It's symbol of oppression, even in our country, the biggest Moslem country, don't agree about burqa and will banning it in government own building.


I have meet several women with burqa and their view in their religion is quite extreme, their men will not even allow their women to drive their own car or motorcycle, never allowed to travel by themselves, and abused to always give birth, just because they think condom and birth control is Haram.
But still as free speech advocate, I'm against banning it in.

 

[Starbuck1975]

banning the hijab, yes. Burka, no.

This. It’s also worth noting that many Muslim women have claimed the hijab as a symbol of empowerment and identity, and in doing so, changed its meaning.

There is however no way to change the meaning or intent of essentially covering someone with a full body piece of cloth.

 

[hal2kilo]

What if they ban the wearing of tin foil hats? Where would you be?

 

[Incorruptible]

I hate this, but fuck you, Incorruptible for being right.

😀:beer:

Finally we agree.

It's Incorruptible, you know. I wonder when he will start worrying about US laws being violated in the US, rather than crying himself to sleep every night over US laws being "violated" outside of the US....oh and the consistency thing.

I mean, I'm not that patient.

I will say this, though: fuck the burka. the burka is not a hijab, and it is either rare or simply unheard of to find a free, "un-imprisoned" woman voluntarily wearing a burka. It's one of those issues where the so-called liberals of the world need to put up or shut up about real sexual exploitation anywhere.

I will speak out when I see something wrong whether its in the US or anywhere in the world.

That is the best post I have seen from you and if I could I'd buy you a beer, I 100% agree with you and applaud you for speaking the truth and defending these women as well as calling out the liberals. One of the few times we will ever agree.

 

[WelshBloke]

This was desperately needed and burkas shouldn't be worn in public, they are a complete violation of human rights and used by men to control women.

Says the man who wants to control what women can wear.

 

[Muse]

Is it freedom of expression or freedom of repression? Are these women wearing them because they are made to or because they prefer to. I think that's a major issue here. IMO, even if it's their preference I can understand it as being objectionable. Anonymity in public is a questionable right, IMO.

 

[Incorruptible]

Is it freedom of expression or freedom of repression? Are these women wearing them because they are made to or because they prefer to. I think that's a major issue here. IMO, even if it's their preference I can understand it as being objectionable. Anonymity in public is a questionable right, IMO.

They are forced to wear them and many have been indoctrinated so much they think they're supposed to wear it.

 

[umbrella39]

They are free to come to America where they can tell their fathers, uncles, grandfathers, brothers to GFT and dress like American girls like 10's of thousands have done in and around the Dearborn, Michigan area for generations now. More and more each year...



Oh wait... they are still brown and not welcome here. Sorry girls... Only care about you up until our borders...

 

[pmv]

Is it freedom of expression or freedom of repression? Are these women wearing them because they are made to or because they prefer to. I think that's a major issue here. IMO, even if it's their preference I can understand it as being objectionable. Anonymity in public is a questionable right, IMO.

I think the answer is 'there are many different reasons why they wear them'. They might be older and raised in a foreign country and culture where that was just what you do and they have internalised the rules to a degree where its part of them and they can't imagine doing otherwise. They might just be making a choice that it's better to 'fit in' and concede to community pressure, in return for the sense of belonging and support that gives. They might be young and be doing it in the same spirit in which some young people wear peircings or purple hair - as a way of making a song-and-dance about their 'identity', especially when set against a majority culture that seems hostile to every aspect of Islam. They might believe men are just uncontrollable monsters who will sexually harass them if they show any skin at all (and it's not as if there isn't at least some basis for that belief). They might be making a conscious political statement of allegiance to a form of political Islam and expressing a reluctance to interact with non-Muslims in a normal equal human way.. They might (again, if young) just think it looks cool and like that it winds some people up. They might even have somehow acquired the belief that it's what God wants (because God is a sexist, apparently).

And it might, probably in a very small minority of cases, be down to direct coercion,

I think all those reasons are problematic, crucially, though, in different ways. But I don't think any of them justify a ban. Even the last one would probably be better dealt with by the same legal intervention that is used for other cases of domestic violence (and 'coercion and control' as the UK's new law puts it).

 

[tamz_msc]

While wearing the burqa might very well be an abhorrent practice when viewed through the modern lens of individual freedom due to it being a result of a rigid interpretation of the religious text, it is not however, as somebody has claimed in this thread, restricted to being worn predominantly in the Muslim communities which have been subject to the rule of extremist groups. For example, India has the third highest population of Muslims in the world, and in some Muslim communities in India wearing the burqa is a common practice.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Dude, no. They aren’t wearing it to fit in or because they think it looks cool. It’s repression. Fear of being beaten. Etc. that’s like Kanye saying slavery was a choice. Just...no.

 

[tamz_msc]

I think the answer is 'there are many different reasons why they wear them'. They might be older and raised in a foreign country and culture where that was just what you do and they have internalised the rules to a degree where its part of them and they can't imagine doing otherwise. They might just be making a choice that it's better to 'fit in' and concede to community pressure, in return for the sense of belonging and support that gives. They might be young and be doing it in the same spirit in which some young people wear peircings or purple hair - as a way of making a song-and-dance about their 'identity', especially when set against a majority culture that seems hostile to every aspect of Islam. They might believe men are just uncontrollable monsters who will sexually harass them if they show any skin at all (and it's not as if there isn't at least some basis for that belief). They might be making a conscious political statement of allegiance to a form of political Islam and expressing a reluctance to interact with non-Muslims in a normal equal human way.. They might (again, if young) just think it looks cool and like that it winds some people up. They might even have somehow acquired the belief that it's what God wants (because God is a sexist, apparently).

And it might, probably in a very small minority of cases, be down to direct coercion,

I think all those reasons are problematic, crucially, though, in different ways. But I don't think any of them justify a ban. Even the last one would probably be better dealt with by the same legal intervention that is used for other cases of domestic violence (and 'coercion and control' as the UK's new law puts it).

Yeah, banning such things outright only serves to reduce the opportunities for dialogue to find common ground by making Muslims feel alienated from the political process.

 

[Thebobo]

The the root of the problem is Religion. Ban that lol.

 

[pmv]

Dude, no. They aren’t wearing it to fit in or because they think it looks cool. It’s repression. Fear of being beaten. Etc. that’s like Kanye saying slavery was a choice. Just...no.

But how do you know that? You are presuming to know what's in other people's heads. And I've heard from a few young Muslim women who did indeed adopt it in that (slightly petulant, in my opinion) 'statement of identity' way. Likewise it's clear that some wear it as an extremist political statement. And for older women who were born abroad, they might have endured violence, but at this point it has probably just become something they are choosing for themselves.

A number of young Muslim women have run off to Syria to join ISIS. They weren't beaten into doing that. They have agency (even if they have very misguided and dumb ideas).

And even if it is down to fear of being beaten, you deal with that the same way the legal system is supposed to deal with DV generally, not by banning the clothing item for everyone.