Denmark passes law banning burqa and niqab

[Abdullah719]

Denmark has joined several other European countries in banning garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils such as the niqab and burqa, in a move condemned by human rights campaigners as “neither necessary nor proportionate”.

In a 75-30 vote with 74 absentees on Thursday, Danish lawmakers approved the law presented by the centre-right governing coalition. The government said it is not aimed at any religions and does not ban headscarves, turbans or the traditional Jewish skull cap.

But the law is popularly known as the “burqa ban” and is mostly seen as being directed at the dress worn by some Muslim women. Few Muslim women in Denmark wear full-face veils.

The justice minister, Søren Pape Poulsen, said it would be up to police officers to use their common sense when they see people violating the law, which comes into force on 1 August.

The legislation allows people to cover their face when there is a “recognisable purpose” such as cold weather or complying with other legal requirements, for example using motorcycle helmets under Danish traffic rules.

Those violating the law risk a fine of 1,000 kroner (£118). Repeat offenders could be fined up to 10,000 kroner or jailed for up to six months.

Austria, France and Belgium have similar laws.

Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s Europe director, said of the Danish decision: “All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs. This ban will have a particularly negative impact on Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab or burqa.

“While some specific restrictions on the wearing of full-face veils for the purposes of public safety may be legitimate, this blanket ban is neither necessary nor proportionate and violates the rights to freedom of expression and religion.

“If the intention of this law was to protect women’s rights, it fails abjectly. Instead, the law criminalises women for their choice of clothing and in so doing flies in the face of those freedoms Denmark purports to uphold.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/denmark-passes-law-banning-burqa-and-niqab

 

[Josh]

Good ! All the religions and their religious show offs should be banned from public.

 

[Justcrazy]

I am not surprised . The Dajjal system is well in place and progressing. This increase my faith in Islam even more

 

[TM Riddle]

Hijab's not banned right?
Shouldn't be a problem then. Burqa is a hideous piece of clothing anyway.

 

[TM Riddle]

Good ! All the religions and their religious show offs should be banned from public.

Do you support ban on Sikh turban?

 

[Hermoine Green]

Hijab's not banned right?
Shouldn't be a problem then. Burqa is a hideous piece of clothing anyway.

You don't like it, don't wear it. We should not police some one.

 

[TM Riddle]

You don't like it, don't wear it. We should not police some one.

Tbh I am one of the vocal supporters of freedom of expression but brother you have to consider the possibility that it's a security threat.
My mother for instance do purdah to the elders but I wouldn't want her to roam outside that way. It leaves a bad taste in mouth and has a no place in 21st century.

Hijab's completely fine though.

 

[LastManstanding]

India should follow the suit.

 

[MenInG]

India should follow the suit.

Is that your level of respect for fellow Indians in your country?

 

[LastManstanding]

Is that your level of respect for fellow Indians in your country?

Nothing to do with my respect for Muslims. I just believe it's a security risk.

 

[akki]

Loll even pakistan can ban burqa but india no chance in hell...it wud be impossible to do that ,tgere wud be higher chances of aliens conquering the world than this

 

[hafeezrocks]

Loll even pakistan can ban burqa but india no chance in hell...it wud be impossible to do that ,tgere wud be higher chances of aliens conquering the world than this

Yes no chance of it happening in India because the Hindus know very well any attempt of curtailing the religious rights of the Muslims would result in another division of the country.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yes no chance of it happening in India because the Hindus know very well any attempt of curtailing the religious rights of the Muslims would result in another division of the country.

That's right.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Burqa and Niqab are security threats.

Hijab is fine.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Burqa and Niqab are security threats.

Hijab is fine.

Sir, the saree is also a security threat.

 

[Varun]

Yes no chance of it happening in India because the Hindus know very well any attempt of curtailing the religious rights of the Muslims would result in another division of the country.

The problem is that we have no collateral to offer even if we wanted to make that move. Denmark provides a lot of glossy things to distract from any perceived affront in this regard. Us? Nothing much.

 

[good guy]

The problem is that we have no collateral to offer even if we wanted to make that move. Denmark provides a lot of glossy things to distract from any perceived affront in this regard. Us? Nothing much.

haha great comment

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Do you support ban on Sikh turban?

I do. Not immediately perhaps, first the Muslims can be used as the thin end of the wedge by activists like Tommy Robisnon, once the foothold of supporters of Olde England is established, then we can look at others who refuse to integrate and adopt British culture fully.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Burqa and Niqab are security threats.

Hijab is fine.

This is not very sensible at all.

Scarfs are made to cover the face, should they also be banned?

Hundreds of millions of Indian Hindu women cover their face with clothing to protect themselves from wind/dust etc Should they be banned?

Nobody in my family has ever worn it and I dont believe its required but women should be allowed to wear what they like as long as it's not indecent. The security argument is very silly. A few militants took over an Indian city for days killing over 100 people, the security is non existent in India and most places on Earth.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Tbh I am one of the vocal supporters of freedom of expression but brother you have to consider the possibility that it's a security threat.
My mother for instance do purdah to the elders but I wouldn't want her to roam outside that way. It leaves a bad taste in mouth and has a no place in 21st century.

Hijab's completely fine though.

Burqa and Niqab are security threats.

Hijab is fine.

Calling it a security threat is lame, infact pretty lame.
If wearing Burqa is a security threat, then heavy jackets of males and men shawls, clothing of Christian Nuns are also. Ban it.

And saying it has no place in 21st century, well who are you to decide it? Christian, Hindus, Sikhs religious clothing have a place in modern society but not Burqa.

 

[DeadBall]

This is not very sensible at all.

Scarfs are made to cover the face, should they also be banned?

Hundreds of millions of Indian Hindu women cover their face with clothing to protect themselves from wind/dust etc Should they be banned?

Nobody in my family has ever worn it and I dont believe its required but women should be allowed to wear what they like as long as it's not indecent. The security argument is very silly. A few militants took over an Indian city for days killing over 100 people, the security is non existent in India and most places on Earth.

Quite contradictory statements my friend.

 

[DeadBall]

Calling it a security threat is lame, infact pretty lame.
If wearing Burqa is a security threat, then heavy jackets of males and men shawls, clothing of Christian Nuns are also. Ban it.

And saying it has no place in 21st century, well who are you to decide it? Christian, Hindus, Sikhs religious clothing have a place in modern society but not Burqa.

All attire should be allowed as long as the face is visible. You can cover your face in private but for travelling, driving etc wherever a positive ID is required it is unfeasible. Not to mention the social taboo of covering the face in the West.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Calling it a security threat is lame, infact pretty lame.
If wearing Burqa is a security threat, then heavy jackets of males and men shawls, clothing of Christian Nuns are also. Ban it.

And saying it has no place in 21st century, well who are you to decide it? Christian, Hindus, Sikhs religious clothing have a place in modern society but not Burqa.

It's not being banned as a security threat, that is just the ostensible reason given, if you read the OP article, it is even suggested there that it is aimed mainly at Muslims. The real reason is that the burka is both offensive and scary to western sensibilities, that has been magnified 10x in the past generation with the rise of conflict with Muslim nations. As someone who lives in the west I find it perfectly understandable. A burka probably wouldn't have got more than a curious stare 20 years ago, now people are genuinely repulsed by it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Security threat doesn't make sense. So many attires which can be used to conceal weapons and explosives.

The argument to preserve the native way of life is a valid one. If the native way of life has the basic requirement to show ones face, it must be respected.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Quite contradictory statements my friend.

Not at all. There is nothing offensive about a woman covered up head to toe, women do this all the time in winter. Unless it's a Muslim woman and the person is a bigot.

But a topless woman walking in public would offend most. 99% of people.

 

[DeadBall]

Not at all. There is nothing offensive about a woman covered up head to toe, women do this all the time in winter.

Yeah it's freezing in most of the countries where women are covered from head to toe.

Unless it's a Muslim woman and the person is a bigot.

Unfortunately, it is due to the current political climate and what people are doing in the name of Islam but the law will apply to everyone and not just Muslims.

But a topless woman walking in public would offend most. 99% of people.

There are many tribes where women still go around topless without been given a second glance. It only becomes vulgar when indoctrinated since birth and then tend to sexualize it.

Also topless would mean no clothes which would go against your initial argument of wearing indecent clothes. Once we go down this road of deciding what is indecent there is no end, for some skirts could be indecent, for others bikinis, for some even the showing of an ankle.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yeah it's freezing in most of the countries where women are covered from head to toe.



Unfortunately, it is due to the current political climate and what people are doing in the name of Islam but the law will apply to everyone and not just Muslims.



There are many tribes where women still go around topless without been given a second glance. It only becomes vulgar when indoctrinated since birth and then tend to sexualize it.

Also topless would mean no clothes which would go against your initial argument of wearing indecent clothes. Once we go down this road of deciding what is indecent there is no end, for some skirts could be indecent, for others bikinis, for some even the showing of an ankle.

Clothes are also worn below the waist.

We dont need to go down any road, there are private areas of the body which uncovered would offend in the most liberal of nations in a general public arena. Of course there are people who are extreme and dont like women covering their faces or women showing their legs.

 

[Mamoon]

Who defines decency, and who sets the boundaries?

What if women walking around in bikinis is indecent for you, but decent for others? Would the critics of burka ban be open to Muslim countries allowing women to wear whatever “they” deem decent?

This question has been recycled and rehashed a thousand times, but no one is willing to give a straight answer.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Who defines decency, and who sets the boundaries?

What if women walking around in bikinis is indecent for you, but decent for others? Would the critics of burka ban be open to Muslim countries allowing women to wear whatever “they” deem decent?

This question has been recycled and rehashed a thousand times, but no one is willing to give a straight answer.

Muslims countries and Non-Muslims countries can decide on their own, it;s not the job others who dont live in such nations to suggest otherwise.

If the majority of people in Pakistan agree to allow the burka, good for them and everyone should accept it.

The same goes for the UK and the bikini.

Indecency is defined by each nations laws and cultures.

But nowhere in any developed civilisation can a woman or man walk around naked in a public arena.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Lol. Even bell-bottoms are a security threat. You can easily conceal a weapon under it. Hell, any dress can be a security threat.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Lol. Even bell-bottoms are a security threat. You can easily conceal a weapon under it. Hell, any dress can be a security threat.

Dont forget shoes too, lets all walk around with bare foot because of the shoe bomber.

Turbans, coats, jackets, sari's and even wigs can be used. In the name of security everyone should walk around naked. Now there's an idea

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Sir, the saree is also a security threat.

It endangers many marriages so yes, ban it too!

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Dont forget shoes too, lets all walk around with bare foot because of the shoe bomber.

Turbans, coats, jackets, sari's and even wigs can be used. In the name of security everyone should walk around naked. Now there's an idea

Exactly!

 

[CanadianG00se]

Only if Canada could follow this....

 

[CricketCartoons]

Only if Canada could follow this....

Nothing that deserves a facepalm. If Canada wants to follow multi kulti, that is fine, and if France wants to follow monoculturalism, that is fine too.

 

[www787]

Only if Canada could follow this....

I know, Canada should also ban all kind of turbans, it can be an eye sore seeing old dudes in their tighty whity and turbans walking on the street of brampton .

 

[CricketCartoons]

I know, Canada should also ban all kind of turbans, it can be an eye sore seeing old dudes in their tighty whity and turbans walking on the street of brampton .

Agreed. Sikhs have been given too much of leeway just because their religion demands it. Need to adapt with the society.

 

[PakLFC]

I have no problems with it. Generally I greatly dislike both the burkha and niqab. There country, there rules. If you don't like it then move to a Muslim country.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I know, Canada should also ban all kind of turbans, it can be an eye sore seeing old dudes in their tighty whity and turbans walking on the street of brampton .

Turbans belong in the east, I have long campaigned against the Sikhs trying to impose their culture on natives in the west, refer to my thread on Southall which laid a marker for the transgressions inflicted on the local population.

Films like 300 have also been invaluable in depicting the heroics of a small band of westerners fighting to stop the evil turban wearing hordes in their tracks.

 

[www787]

I have no problems with it. Generally I greatly dislike both the burkha and niqab. There country, there rules. If you don't like it then move to a Muslim country.

I know, Imagine If most of the countries stay out of each other countries trying to promote their way of life then people wouldn't migrate and can live the way they want to in their respective countries.

 

[akki]

I have no problems with it. Generally I greatly dislike both the burkha and niqab. There country, there rules. If you don't like it then move to a Muslim country.

But those countries wont be called secular then right ? Imagine if india implements this rule then would you say the same ? Say honestly ???

 

[DeadBall]

But those countries wont be called secular then right ? Imagine if india implements this rule then would you say the same ? Say honestly ???

It was allowed till now. The ban is the result of the current climate of fear and terrorism. Also it is just the covering of the face (which could pose security threats) and not the head (which is still allowed).

 

[akki]

It was allowed till now. The ban is the result of the current climate of fear and terrorism. Also it is just the covering of the face (which could pose security threats) and not the head (which is still allowed).

If it gets imolemented in india then what is your opinion on that .,is it a big deal ? Wud it be implemented easily like there in denmark ?? I am in delhi ,i see daily tons of muslims women covered in burqa from delhi metro to streets to markets everyday and that too in 45 degree temperature . What is your opinion on this ?

 

[DeadBall]

If it gets imolemented in india then what is your opinion on that .,is it a big deal ? Wud it be implemented easily like there in denmark ?? I am in delhi ,i see daily tons of muslims women covered in burqa from delhi metro to streets to markets everyday and that too in 45 degree temperature . What is your opinion on this ?

Indians can decide for themselves.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If it gets imolemented in india then what is your opinion on that .,is it a big deal ? Wud it be implemented easily like there in denmark ?? I am in delhi ,i see daily tons of muslims women covered in burqa from delhi metro to streets to markets everyday and that too in 45 degree temperature . What is your opinion on this ?

It looks fine in India, goes with the general dress of people there who wear saris, turbans and lungis.

 

[www787]

But those countries wont be called secular then right ? Imagine if india implements this rule then would you say the same ? Say honestly ???

secularism is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

India isn't.

make sure you educated your fellow RSS supporters on this forum

 

[CanadianG00se]

I know, Canada should also ban all kind of turbans, it can be an eye sore seeing old dudes in their tighty whity and turbans walking on the street of brampton .

Man honestly wont mind banning that as well. But burqa should be immediate concern as it pose security threat. One doesnt know who is behind the niqaab which leads to security threat

 

[CanadianG00se]

Nothing that deserves a facepalm. If Canada wants to follow multi kulti, that is fine, and if France wants to follow monoculturalism, that is fine too.

Canada is just too liberal for its own good. Just look at Mississauga and the dump that Syrian refugees have been causing. Trudeau is good man but he is awful leader and under him economy has taken a huge hit.

Burqa ban should be done to prevent any security related issues in future.

 

[akki]

secularism is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

India isn't.

make sure you educated your fellow RSS supporters on this forum

Dnt teach india which gave birth to hinduism or sikhism kr budhism or jainism so many religions and even have second largest muslim population on earth who never applied to citizenship to pakistan after 1947 and rightly so because india is a land of religions and freedom. I have not even included christians or jews who also quite have significent population here and have many other religions which you wont have even heard of.
But 1 thing i agree there is a inclusion of religion in politics in india but its not like that its against only muslims ,it goes against many other religions as well..but that's how it is. But denmark has not banned burqa because of only security reasons and many posters have agree to that .

So my question was what would be the reaction if india implements that ?? Although even this thing can be executable in pakistan but india can never execute that except when all muslims decide themselves to do that and that too in full majoritu. Nobody in india can dare to do that.but i am asking just for the sake of the argument

 

[PakLFC]

But those countries wont be called secular then right ? Imagine if india implements this rule then would you say the same ? Say honestly ???

I think there is a limit to secularism. Hiding your face can be a security threat more then anything else. Another thing is that most of these burkha wearers are migrants towards whom the local community is hostile enough. Most non Muslim Indian's I know have no problems with the burkha, they have been living with it for centuries.

 

[www787]

Canada is just too liberal for its own good. Just look at Mississauga and the dump that Syrian refugees have been causing. Trudeau is good man but he is awful leader and under him economy has taken a huge hit.

Burqa ban should be done to prevent any security related issues in future.

Only GTA area is liberal, rest isn't when it comes to refugees.

Canada with 36 million population, less than the state of California has no choice but to import people.

I rather see refugees migrating to Canada especially those who are in need to get away from violence created by foreigners, Canada being part of it, then someone from India walking around on the street of brampton in his Turban and his tighty whity on the streets of Brampton.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Here is how a smartly dressed Sikh might look if he respected the local culture of London. If everyone followed this example I daresay there would be no calls for bans on turbans or burkas.

 

[Robert]

Burqa and Niqab are security threats.

Hijab is fine.

I agree with this. Quite apart from anything else I think covering your face is inimicable to open society.

Be modest by covering your hair by all means, but show your face.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Only GTA area is liberal, rest isn't when it comes to refugees.

Canada with 36 million population, less than the state of California has no choice but to import people.

I rather see refugees migrating to Canada especially those who are in need to get away from violence created by foreigners, Canada being part of it, then someone from India walking around on the street of brampton in his Turban and his tighty whity on the streets of Brampton.

Id rather want someone from whereever comes to Canada regardless of their faith that adds value to economy of Canada rather than refugees who comes and destroys economy(demanding free cash and housing while us locals pay hefty taxes). I seriously want to deport all these useless Syrians back to their native land if they continue to create problems for locals. I have no problem with those who are willing to blend in and work hard for their families rather than those who are causing troubles.

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

The reason to ban Burqa in Denmark was not so much because of security. The arguments were that burqa is a symbol of opression and the women wearing it are opressed. LOL. So now you will fine those already opressed? Does not make sense. Also many women wearing burqas are converted to Islam..

Some of you are arguing weather Bikini will be OK in muslims countries.. The problem with DK is that they like to show themselves as tolerant and flag barrier of freedom etc. And yet they deny some women in DK to wear whatever they want. They fight freedom of speach by defending insult cartoons of prophet mohammed, but will not give the freedom to people to wear whatever they want.

 

[barah_admi]

There was a great article I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that the reality of attacking the burqa, the headscarf, the beard (which is also being attacked in Denmark) is not actually an attack on any one of those symbols, but an attack on Islam as a whole. Groups across many parts of Europe (Denmark, France, Scandinavia etc) want Europe to only maintain and grow Christian symbolism and this is an attack on Muslims, their practices and Islam as a way of life.

In one of the Scandinavian countries, the minaret is banned. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are reasons for banning the burqa because it is "oppressive", or the beard because...well I don't know, but why is a building, a particular piece of architecture being banned?

The answer is simple, to oppress and repress the Muslim population of these countries.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There was a great article I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that the reality of attacking the burqa, the headscarf, the beard (which is also being attacked in Denmark) is not actually an attack on any one of those symbols, but an attack on Islam as a whole. Groups across many parts of Europe (Denmark, France, Scandinavia etc) want Europe to only maintain and grow Christian symbolism and this is an attack on Muslims, their practices and Islam as a way of life.

In one of the Scandinavian countries, the minaret is banned. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are reasons for banning the burqa because it is "oppressive", or the beard because...well I don't know, but why is a building, a particular piece of architecture being banned?

The answer is simple, to oppress and repress the Muslim population of these countries.

Or it could be to re-establish and protect the cultural landscape of those countries wherever they are. I have no idea what the cultural landscape of Scandinavia looked like previously but I am assuming it held some historical value to the locals.

 

[Robert]

The reason to ban Burqa in Denmark was not so much because of security. The arguments were that burqa is a symbol of opression and the women wearing it are opressed. LOL. So now you will fine those already opressed? Does not make sense. Also many women wearing burqas are converted to Islam..

Some of you are arguing weather Bikini will be OK in muslims countries.. The problem with DK is that they like to show themselves as tolerant and flag barrier of freedom etc. And yet they deny some women in DK to wear whatever they want. They fight freedom of speach by defending insult cartoons of prophet mohammed, but will not give the freedom to people to wear whatever they want.

Such cartoons are often a deliberate provocation and should be shunned.

Freedom does not mean ‘anything goes’. That way lies abuse of freedom by authoritarians such as neo-Nazis and Islamofascists who intend to take freedom away.

Part of freedom and liberal democracy is civic responsibility and willingness to respect fellow citizens by showing your face to them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Such cartoons are often a deliberate provocation and should be shunned.

Freedom does not mean ‘anything goes’. That way lies abuse of freedom by authoritarians such as neo-Nazis and Islamofascists who intend to take freedom away.

Part of freedom and liberal democracy is civic responsibility and willingness to respect fellow citizens by showing your face to them.

Robert, can you please show me where this is written? I assume this is your personal view of what a liberal democracy is?

For me the UK's liberal democary means just that. You can't be liberal and then demand women wear what you want them to wear. As long as there is no harm to others or any laws are broken, people are free to wear what they like. This the why Britain is great, not because of it's bloody past but because of what it is today, a free nation which protects the rights and beliefs of all and does not allow hatred or incitment against anyone because they are different.

 

[Robert]

Robert, can you please show me where this is written? I assume this is your personal view of what a liberal democracy is?

For me the UK's liberal democary means just that. You can't be liberal and then demand women wear what you want them to wear. As long as there is no harm to others or any laws are broken, people are free to wear what they like. This the why Britain is great, not because of it's bloody past but because of what it is today, a free nation which protects the rights and beliefs of all and does not allow hatred or incitment against anyone because they are different.

Where is it written that a woman - and they are always women, never men - has to cover her face?

It doesn’t have to be written anywhere to be the way we do things around here. Showing your face is an act of mutual respect. If you cover your face you are mistrusted because why would anyone choose that in our free and open society? We even frown on teenagers wearing hoodies.

I think you are giving the nod to oppression in the name of liberalism, which is what those neoNazis did at Charlottesville. Have a look at Popper’s Paradox. We should not tolerate intolerance in the name of liberalism.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes no chance of it happening in India because the Hindus know very well any attempt of curtailing the religious rights of the Muslims would result in another division of the country.

Pakistanis can dream about such a scenario.

 

[James]

I can’t think of any examples where the burqa was used as a disguise during a terrorist attack. Is it really a security threat? Yes you could hide an assault rifle underneath a burqa but you could also hide an assault rifle inside a long, bulky leather jacket. And suicide bombers don’t tend to wear much at all over their bomb vest, which is specifically manufactured to be concealable underneath conventional clothing.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Where is it written that a woman - and they are always women, never men - has to cover her face?

It doesn’t have to be written anywhere to be the way we do things around here. Showing your face is an act of mutual respect. If you cover your face you are mistrusted because why would anyone choose that in our free and open society? We even frown on teenagers wearing hoodies.

I think you are giving the nod to oppression in the name of liberalism, which is what those neoNazis did at Charlottesville. Have a look at Popper’s Paradox. We should not tolerate intolerance in the name of liberalism.

I think this is a fudge. Showing your face might be an act of mutual respect, but no one ever considered it one before the onset of anti-Muslim sentiment. People might have frowned upon the burka same ways as they might have frowned on hoodies, but from my recollection I just felt they looked strange when I saw one. Hoodies elicited far more fear because they are often associated with crime in Britain, how many people genuinely feel a woman in a burka might attack them?

We have to bear in mind that the reason given for banning burkas isn't that they are oppressive to women, so when we start arguing from that perspective, we are hinting at the real underlying reason these bans are put in place. That might well be a more convincing argument, but it's not the one that is being used to enforce restrictions.

 

[Gilly]

I think this is a fudge. Showing your face might be an act of mutual respect, but no one ever considered it one before the onset of anti-Muslim sentiment. People might have frowned upon the burka same ways as they might have frowned on hoodies, but from my recollection I just felt they looked strange when I saw one. Hoodies elicited far more fear because they are often associated with crime in Britain, how many people genuinely feel a woman in a burka might attack them?

We have to bear in mind that the reason given for banning burkas isn't that they are oppressive to women, so when we start arguing from that perspective, we are hinting at the real underlying reason these bans are put in place. That might well be a more convincing argument, but it's not the one that is being used to enforce restrictions.

Many people consider it disrespectful to hide your face in western society. It is not a normal thing to hide your face.

Women cannot wear what they want, there are limitations and have always been limitations that are regulated by society. If a woman wanted to catch the bus topless it wont actually hurt anyone but is not acceptable and the same for the niqab, it wont hurt anyone but its not acceptable. Society is made up of everyone agreeing to mutual standards and there has to be compromises made on both sides on different issues.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Many people consider it disrespectful to hide your face in western society. It is not a normal thing to hide your face.

Women cannot wear what they want, there are limitations and have always been limitations that are regulated by society. If a woman wanted to catch the bus topless it wont actually hurt anyone but is not acceptable and the same for the niqab, it wont hurt anyone but its not acceptable. Society is made up of everyone agreeing to mutual standards and there has to be compromises made on both sides on different issues.

But that's not the reason given for banning burkas, otherwise, why wasn't it done twenty years ago? Were burkas any less disrespectful then?

 

[Gilly]

But that's not the reason given for banning burkas, otherwise, why wasn't it done twenty years ago? Were burkas any less disrespectful then?

Banning things is never instant, at times people think that it may be just a fad and will pass or they think that in time people will assimilate and adapt society norms. I don't understand why there is a need to wear the burkas when the majority of society find it offensive.

 

[Robert]

I can’t think of any examples where the burqa was used as a disguise during a terrorist attack. Is it really a security threat? Yes you could hide an assault rifle underneath a burqa but you could also hide an assault rifle inside a long, bulky leather jacket. And suicide bombers don’t tend to wear much at all over their bomb vest, which is specifically manufactured to be concealable underneath conventional clothing.

I don’t think it is a significant security threat. I think it is at best failure or refusal to assimilate, and at worst coercion / opppression by Muslim men.

 

[Syed1]

Their country, their rules.



We have ban on public eating during daytime throughout Ramzaan, anybody consider how inconvenient that is for people of other faiths and those who cannot fast due to health or other issues?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Banning things is never instant, at times people think that it may be just a fad and will pass or they think that in time people will assimilate and adapt society norms. I don't understand why there is a need to wear the burkas when the majority of society find it offensive.

I don't think there is a need to wear the burka either, I am perfectly okay with the ban, the only issue I have is that we are pretending that it is for security reasons, when in fact the real reason is that we find it offensive (now).

 

[Gilly]

I don't think there is a need to wear the burka either, I am perfectly okay with the ban, the only issue I have is that we are pretending that it is for security reasons, when in fact the real reason is that we find it offensive (now).

You will never get a consensus on why it should be banned, they are many people with many different reasons as to why they don't want the burka to be a part of their community. Notice that they only want it banned in their community and are quite happy for other communities to include the burka.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You will never get a consensus on why it should be banned, they are many people with many different reasons as to why they don't want the burka to be a part of their community. Notice that they only want it banned in their community and are quite happy for other communities to include the burka.

I didn't notice that, not quite sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

 

[Robert]

I think this is a fudge. Showing your face might be an act of mutual respect, but no one ever considered it one before the onset of anti-Muslim sentiment. People might have frowned upon the burka same ways as they might have frowned on hoodies, but from my recollection I just felt they looked strange when I saw one. Hoodies elicited far more fear because they are often associated with crime in Britain, how many people genuinely feel a woman in a burka might attack them?
.

I would argue that nobody wore a veil before the onset of anti-Muslim sentiment. I was a student in Bradford decades ago and nobody wore one.

Perhaps they are therefore a reaction to increased anti-Muslim sentiment.

Something must be done to limit the illiberal power of the alt-right press barons who have spread so much antipathy.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

I don’t think it is a significant security threat. I think it is at best failure or refusal to assimilate, and at worst coercion / opppression by Muslim men.

I’m just getting tired of this coercion bit tbh. People in this market economy are constantly being coerced into using products that may not actually have that much use as they are made out to be. People are coerced into buying beauty products to give them a false sense of accomplishment and security. The advertising will coerce women into wearing what they want them to wear. Same with men.

 

[Gilly]

I didn't notice that, not quite sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

Perhaps I should have said country, Denmark want the burka banned in Denmark not banned everywhere.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I would argue that nobody wore a veil before the onset of anti-Muslim sentiment. I was a student in Bradford decades ago and nobody wore one.

Perhaps they are therefore a reaction to increased anti-Muslim sentiment.

Something must be done to limit the illiberal power of the alt-right press barons who have spread so much antipathy.

The veil is mostly worn by Arab women, there wasn't that many here before the 2000's, I think the increased immigration from Arab countries has seen a big rise of burkas. I suppose it might not be a coincidence that the wars in the middle east have seen a perpetual rise in immigration/refugees coming in from those areas. Economic refugees/immigrants would probably be more open to change their cultural outlook at the outset so not so much of a problem for them.

 

[Robert]

I’m just getting tired of this coercion bit tbh. People in this market economy are constantly being coerced into using products that may not actually have that much use as they are made out to be. People are coerced into buying beauty products to give them a false sense of accomplishment and security. The advertising will coerce women into wearing what they want them to wear. Same with men.

Persuasion is not coercion. The latter is misuse of power, such as forcing a woman to go veiled. I accept that this is a generalisation. Plenty of men from all faiths and none coerce their womenfolk and plenty don’t.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Persuasion is not coercion. The latter is misuse of power, such as forcing a woman to go veiled. I accept that this is a generalisation. Plenty of men from all faiths and none coerce their womenfolk and plenty don’t.

I’m not in favour of fashion policing. I don’t want to force people into what they should wear and what they should not. Power dynamics are present in every walk of life. Modern day advertising is the manipulation of human mind which, in a way, is coercion. Remember Cambridge Analytics? It’s just that when it comes to religion, it becomes a matter of freedom of expression and when it’s about business then it becomes a matter of choice and persuasion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Their country, their rules.

We have ban on public eating during daytime throughout Ramzaan, anybody consider how inconvenient that is for people of other faiths and those who cannot fast due to health or other issues?

Their country, their rules isn't the issue here, if you look back at the OP, the argument is being made by humanitarian groups and Amnesty, that these rules are discriminatory according to the values of freedom of expression and religion.

If we want to get rid of Amnesty and Human Rights organisations and use Islamic countries as standard bearers then that would at least bring us into alignment.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Their country, their rules isn't the issue here, if you look back at the OP, the argument is being made by humanitarian groups and Amnesty, that these rules are discriminatory according to the values of freedom of expression and religion.

If we want to get rid of Amnesty and Human Rights organisations and use Islamic countries as standard bearers then that would at least bring us into alignment.

You have less freedom for expression with your face covered. Banning the burqa is in line with the values of more freedom of expression.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Their country, their rules isn't the issue here, if you look back at the OP, the argument is being made by humanitarian groups and Amnesty, that these rules are discriminatory according to the values of freedom of expression and religion.

If we want to get rid of Amnesty and Human Rights organisations and use Islamic countries as standard bearers then that would at least bring us into alignment.

Amnesty or "Human Rights Organisations" have their own idea of how things should be. The Danish people do not agree with that idea. The Danes have the right to rule their country as they deem fit and so does every sovereign nation.

They feel Burqa and Niqab are a security risk as it hides the identity of the person, well they banned it.

Freedom of expression and religion are subject to reasonable restrictions.