Denmark Bans Burkas

[WelshBloke]

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.

Have you actually asked anyone who wears the veil why they wear it?

I have and some of them do wear it for the reasons pmv stated.

 

[Perknose]

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 [sic] 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.

Finely-tuned post, which eloquently states my position on all this, as well. As an aside, the bolded (by me) made me literally laugh out loud. Thanks for that!

 

[Muse]

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.

Bingo. Men can be very very nasty creatures, they know it from a young age. I think that's 90% of it.

 

[Muse]

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

Well, you're not going to ban that, but yeah, arguably, religion is indeed the root of the problem.

 

[realibrad]

Well, you're not going to ban that, but yeah, arguably, religion is indeed the root of the problem.

It goes deeper. The next level is the desire to subjugate people through collective power structures. Once you realize that level, religion fits into other power systems.

 

[Incorruptible]

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

Agreed. Religion causes so many problems in the world. Too many innocent people have died because of religion and many more have their rights violated by religion.

 

[NAC4EV]

ISIS has outlawed the burka at their security centres in a northern Iraqi city, despite previously brutally enforcing a law requiring them to be worn..

 

[UglyCasanova]

How can anyone see that and thing that’s anything other than a dehumanizing form of subjugation. Frickin disgusting 😡


And it’s amazing how some of you think you support #metoo and women’s rights but defend this with "they want to, they like it". It’s a cage used by men to keep them in their place. That simple.

 

[nickqt]

How can anyone see that and thing that’s anything other than a dehumanizing form of subjugation. Frickin disgusting 😡


And it’s amazing how some of you think you support #metoo and women’s rights but defend this with "they want to, they like it". It’s a cage used by men to keep them in their place. That simple.

Call me a constitutional conservative if you must, but I just can't support the gub'mint legislating what kind of clothes you can or cannot wear.

 

[WelshBloke]

That simple.

Simple explanations for complicated issues are always wrong.

 

[rommelrommel]

I am concerned about Muslim women being oppressed. That's one reason I'm replying in this thread, because your only motivation here is to oppress Muslim women by having governments infringe upon their right to freely exercise their religion. If it were up to you, all that is Islam would be outlawed. Which I'm sure you can rationalize to yourself just fine, but I believe that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution apply to everyone, and not just to myself and those I agree with, as you do.

Baby steps, he can’t put them all in the cattle cars on the first day.

 

[pmv]

How can anyone see that and thing that’s anything other than a dehumanizing form of subjugation. Frickin disgusting 😡


And it’s amazing how some of you think you support #metoo and women’s rights but defend this with "they want to, they like it". It’s a cage used by men to keep them in their place. That simple.

That's a burkah. But that's not actually what even conservative Muslim women wear in the West. Mostly the form of face-covering used in the West is less extreme than that. Though the fact that in places like Afghanistan women certainly are forced to wear it is one of the reasons why I am not impressed by those who say they wear it out of choice. It seems to me to be politically questionable to choose to adopt something that is a symbol of oppression in other countries. Again, though, doesn't justify a ban.

(I also wonder about the issue of Vitamin D)

 

[obidamnkenobi]

That's a burkah. But that's not actually what even conservative Muslim women wear in the West. Mostly the form of face-covering used in the West is less extreme than that. Though the fact that in places like Afghanistan women certainly are forced to wear it is one of the reasons why I am not impressed by those who say they wear it out of choice. It seems to me to be politically questionable to choose to adopt something that is a symbol of oppression in other countries. Again, though, doesn't justify a ban.

(I also wonder about the issue of Vitamin D)

What about Amish or Mennonite dresses? Are they worn of free will (by women)? Why are those ok? Just because they don't cover the face?

 

[pmv]

What about Amish or Mennonite dresses? Are they worn of free will (by women)? Why are those ok? Just because they don't cover the face?

Well, given that 'covering the face' is precisely the issue being discussed (and is what the Danish law is about), maybe you can work out the answer for yourself?

I'd also add there are precious few, if any, Amish in the UK, so it's not really my concern. You deal with it if you think it needs dealing with. I have heard those communities are somewhat sexist, though. Indeed there have been claims of worse (but I can't say I've given it much thought as I say, it's not my concern).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ape-culture-ahead_us_581e7b02e4b0334571e09cfd

Edit - also, I honestly have no clue as to what point you are trying to make

 

[Commodus]

How can anyone see that and thing that’s anything other than a dehumanizing form of subjugation. Frickin disgusting 😡

And it’s amazing how some of you think you support #metoo and women’s rights but defend this with "they want to, they like it". It’s a cage used by men to keep them in their place. That simple.

We're not defending the burqa itself. We're defending against attempts to ban clothing because it both denies choice (not that it's a good choice, just that it's a choice) and has implications for other kinds of clothing. If you ban a piece of clothing because it covers someone's face, will it also be illegal to wear a scarf over your nose? What's to stop these women from just replacing the burqa with ordinary clothing that achieves a similar effect? There are better ways to tackle extreme forms of Islam than to ban the superficial symbols of it.

And let's not deny it -- the only reason incorruptible brought this up is because it hurts Islam, even if it is an extreme form that few people support. He jerks off daily to the thought of making the entire religion illegal.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You think a woman wearing a burqa has any choice 😀

 

[Thebobo]

You think a woman wearing a burqa has any choice 😀

In countries where they won't get stoned to death yea.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You think a woman wearing a burqa has any choice 😀

Some do

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/04/france.burqa.ban/index.html

https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/w...at-they-really-think-about-wearing-the-burqa/

 

[Incorruptible]

We're not defending the burqa itself. We're defending against attempts to ban clothing because it both denies choice (not that it's a good choice, just that it's a choice) and has implications for other kinds of clothing. If you ban a piece of clothing because it covers someone's face, will it also be illegal to wear a scarf over your nose? What's to stop these women from just replacing the burqa with ordinary clothing that achieves a similar effect? There are better ways to tackle extreme forms of Islam than to ban the superficial symbols of it.

And let's not deny it -- the only reason incorruptible brought this up is because it hurts Islam, even if it is an extreme form that few people support. He jerks off daily to the thought of making the entire religion illegal.

You're a sick son of a bitch defending women's rights being violated and being raped you pathetic excuse for a human being.

I have never said to ban the religion you dumb motherfucker, either show me proof or STFU you POS . You're a disgusting human being who jerks off to child pornography.

Your response is unwelcome and over the line, even for P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're a sick son of a bitch defending women's rights being violated and being raped you pathetic excuse for a human being.

I have never said to ban the religion you dumb motherfucker, either show me proof or STFU you POS . You're a disgusting human being who jerks off to child pornography.

Good grief but you are one silly little ah heck. Time to change socks I think and you really might want to consider retiring this one. It's really, really dumb.

 

[sdifox]

Good grief but you are one silly little ******************. Time to change socks I think and you really might want to consider retiring this one. It's really, really dumb.

You are wrong. These are his smartest posts in a while.

 

[Indus]

You are wrong. Theae are his smartest posts in a while.

Showing his -1500 IQ proudly!

 

[Commodus]

You're a sick son of a bitch defending women's rights being violated and being raped you pathetic excuse for a human being.

I have never said to ban the religion you dumb motherfucker, either show me proof or STFU you POS . You're a disgusting human being who jerks off to child pornography.

I'm not going to respond to such a puerile response other than to deny absolutely every claim you just made. Please grow up.

 

[1prophet]

It's really not a tricky question. What informed adult individuals voluntarily consent to should be the moral baseline for what society should tolerate. FGM and other such examples don't fit in that box.
Barely over a century ago, women in America were expected to be fully clothed up to their necks, even when they went swimming. No laws banning such clothing were needed to change that, nor would they have helped.

No laws banning such clothing were needed because women back then didn't purposely wear full clothing to some bikini beach in order to profess their culture/religious identity.

Actually laws that required such clothing and their enforcement was the problem women faced in America back then, and until such laws were ignored or removed women in America had to obey certain dress codes under penalty of law,

thus making your statement non-sequitur.

Swimsuit police measure women's bathing suits to ensure compliance with the government length requirement. Washington, DC, 1922.

 

[pmv]

No laws banning such clothing were needed because women back then didn't purposely wear full clothing to some bikini beach in order to profess their culture/religious identity.

Actually laws that required such clothing and their enforcement was the problem women faced in America back then, and until such laws were ignored or removed women in America had to obey certain dress codes under penalty of law,

thus making your statement non-sequitur.

Swimsuit police measure women's bathing suits to ensure compliance with the government length requirement. Washington, DC, 1922.

And in France quite recently they were still measuring bathing suits to ensure compliance with the government's length requirements. Ensuring they don't cover too much is no less a waste of police time, and pretty much as undignified a situation for the state to be in, as ensuring they don't cover too little.

Photos 90 years apart, but to me they look equally absurd and a waste of police time.

(and, yes, I think the burkini is a silly garment, but what next - the 'fun' police, arresting anyone who isn't sufficiently enjoying themselves?)

French agency AFP saw a ticket given to the woman by police, which said she was not ‘wearing an outfit respecting good morals and secularism’. Photograph: Vantagenews.com