What's new

Denmark passes law banning burqa and niqab

Those Muslims who promote veiling of face are wrong because nothing in Islam suggest women should cover her face.

Denmark is wrong because it will only target Muslim female who chose to cover their face as they fit their narrative of believes.

And if Denmark is citing the reason for this law is security then when was the last time a Muslim women with a burqa or veil attacked Denmark ?
 
You have less freedom for expression with your face covered. Banning the burqa is in line with the values of more freedom of expression.

This is your view, and it is a viable one, I am merely giving the view held by Amnesty in the OP article.
 
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.

Yes I have read the thread, the views of both Danish people and Amnesty International are there for all to see. No one is suggesting that Danes don't have the right to implement their own laws to suit themselves, groups like Amnesty are there to report on what they perceive to be universal standards which they believe should be upheld. They often report negatively on individual rights in Pakistan and India, and of course those countries are well within there rights to tell them to mind their own business just like the Danes.
 
This is your view, and it is a viable one, I am merely giving the view held by Amnesty in the OP article.

Amnesty has a long history of going against the nations it has presence in. Always finds something to malign the majority..they are against burqa ban in Netherlands, against death penalty in Saudi and against Indian presence in Kashmir. They can't be taken seriously. These people do business of human rights.
 
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.

Thanks for these calm and thought-provoking responses [MENTION=48620]Cpt. Rishwat[/MENTION].
 
Yes I have read the thread, the views of both Danish people and Amnesty International are there for all to see. No one is suggesting that Danes don't have the right to implement their own laws to suit themselves, groups like Amnesty are there to report on what they perceive to be universal standards which they believe should be upheld. They often report negatively on individual rights in Pakistan and India, and of course those countries are well within there rights to tell them to mind their own business just like the Danes.

Why are the perceived views of Amnesty international be considered universal standard?

Why there needs to be a universal standard? Different cultures different societies different people.
 
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.

There is no evidence that the majority of woman are forced to wear it in the UK, so there is no oppression. Robert you sound like reading a column in the Daily Mail.

This is just your opinion it's a matter of mutual respect. People wear scarfs and hats only showing their eyes in winter in England every single year. If they stop to talk to you in the street when it's freezing cold, would you also see them as oppressed and lacking in mutual respect?

Britain hasn't banned it because people here are free to do and dress how they wish. Please look into what British values are Robert :)
 
Why are the perceived views of Amnesty international be considered universal standard?

Why there needs to be a universal standard? Different cultures different societies different people.

Amnesty International is used by many human rights activists in third world countries like Pakistan and India to raise the standard for individuals. In Britain news is often referred through these organisations to make a point against cruelty and oppression in those countries. I am sure Danish media would also support Amnesty in those cases, so they must take note when they are called to account as well.
 
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.

Re-establish and protect the cultural landscape? Can you explain what that means?
 
Re-establish and protect the cultural landscape? Can you explain what that means?

It means women can roam naked and unleash moral terrorism, but not with full clothes and warped in all spiritual modesty.
 
It means women can roam naked and unleash moral terrorism, but not with full clothes and warped in all spiritual modesty.


It's funny how it's always the men deciding what is "spiritually modest" for women.

Maybe men should start covering their faces too as a sign of solidarity to their Muslim sisters.
 
It's funny how it's always the men deciding what is "spiritually modest" for women.

Maybe men should start covering their faces too as a sign of solidarity to their Muslim sisters.

In the Qur'an before hijab of women it's mentionned that men should lower their gaze.

Ideally we should never look at non-mahram women.

Carnal desire is the gaze's unholy child.
 
In the Qur'an before hijab of women it's mentionned that men should lower their gaze.

Ideally we should never look at non-mahram women.

Carnal desire is the gaze's unholy child.

Yep, have walked into many a street light before trying to avoid the unholy carnal gaze at a non Mahram back in my religious days, even though it was just a blur of black with eyes.

Btw you just said Hijab (which many including myself are fine with) instead of Niqaab which is what the whole thread is about.
 
Yep, have walked into many a street light before trying to avoid the unholy carnal gaze at a non Mahram back in my religious days, even though it was just a blur of black with eyes.

Btw you just said Hijab (which many including myself are fine with) instead of Niqaab which is what the whole thread is about.

Hijab in a generic semantic sense encompasses niqaab.
 
True. Would you wear one though?

I'm not a woman. I won't be able to give birth either. I have other responsabilities/duties. This duality exists in all the cosmic drama : the sky isn't the earth which isn't the sky either, etc. Respect polarity and complexity.
 
I'm not a woman. I won't be able to give birth either. I have other responsabilities/duties. This duality exists in all the cosmic drama : the sky isn't the earth which isn't the sky either, etc. Respect polarity and complexity.

I'm not a woman

You don't say.

Many women have equal or more responsibilities/duties than males in this day and age. Think they haven't heard about the duality cosmic drama thing yet.

the sky isn't the earth which isn't the sky either, etc

Ok, I don't really know how to respond to that. Seems like a lot of thought has gone into it though.

Respect polarity and complexity.

Quite ironic.
 
Last edited:
The reasons for burqa/niqab ban are mostly cultural but I believe that they are a security threat in this modern world.

The difference between Burqa/Niqab and the rest of the traditional attire (Hijab, Saree, Turban, etc) is that the former doesn't allow you to see who the person is.

That's the biggest security threat.

1. Since, you can't see the person, you can't identify them.

2. You can't easily distinguish someone's body language, so odd behavior cannot be spotted easily.

3. Since it's a religious attire, you (eg - restaurant owner or grocery store owner) will not have the liberty to ask someone to show their face (even if something feels off) for the fear of them considering it as discrimination and taking a legal recourse.

The fact that anyone can wear a burqa, easily mingle with the crowd and not have anyone (except authorities in certain situations) question them makes it a security threat.

This doesn't mean people wearing burqa are committing tons of crimes now.

However there are instances like a burqa clad person trying to stab someone who didn't have a clue till the last second - it was a scary video honestly or the bandit in Sydney who robbed a bank wearing burqa.

It just means this is a security threat.

Morocco has banned Burqa citing it as a security threat .

A high-ranking interior ministry official confirmed the ban to the Le360 news site, adding that "bandits have repeatedly used this garment to perpetrate their crimes".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38574457
 
Last edited:
While clearly a blow to the liberal values which the western world claims to espouse, I think this is the way forward for European countries. As the old PP adage goes "Their country, their rules". Muslims are free to go back to Muslim countries where they can practise their religion freely.
 
While clearly a blow to the liberal values which the western world claims to espouse, I think this is the way forward for European countries. As the old PP adage goes "Their country, their rules". Muslims are free to go back to Muslim countries where they can practise their religion freely.

Indeed, although I wouldn't stop there. Eventually I am hopeful that turbans and saris will also be banned...and why not? As the old cricketjoshila adage goes, "Their country, their rules". If these people want to wear Indian clothing and build temples which are alien to European culture, they are free to go back to the subcontinent where they can practice their religions and social customs freely.
 
If Danes perceive Saree/Turbans as cultural and security threat, they are well within their rights to ban them.
I for one wouldn't agree with it since I have never heard of Saree/Turban wearing criminals causing havoc on the streets but 'their country their rules'.

Also loving the way certain 'intellectuals' tryna justify wearing tents by throwing in random esoterics and calling other men to lower their gaze :))
 
Indeed, although I wouldn't stop there. Eventually I am hopeful that turbans and saris will also be banned...and why not? As the old cricketjoshila adage goes, "Their country, their rules". If these people want to wear Indian clothing and build temples which are alien to European culture, they are free to go back to the subcontinent where they can practice their religions and social customs freely.

Why are you hopeful that Sarees and Turbans get banned?
 
While clearly a blow to the liberal values which the western world claims to espouse, I think this is the way forward for European countries. As the old PP adage goes "Their country, their rules". Muslims are free to go back to Muslim countries where they can practise their religion freely.

Can Western soldiers go back to their countries as well, where they'll be able to drone White children or bomb hospitals and other civilizational stuff ?
 
Last I checked you were not from Denmark. Why would you care what they wear as long as it wasn't a threat to the local population?

I was agreeing with Nikhil who isn't from Denmark either. The threat to the population isn't the major factor for either of us, as the lack of willingness to integrate and respect European culture.
 
Incidentally, I don't know that much about either Danish or Austrian culture as I already said, which is why I am quite keen to find out more in both threads so I can support the drive to preserve European heritage across the continent.

Join me in the Austria thread where Varun and myself are addressing a similar theme there.
 
Indeed, although I wouldn't stop there. Eventually I am hopeful that turbans and saris will also be banned...and why not? As the old cricketjoshila adage goes, "Their country, their rules". If these people want to wear Indian clothing and build temples which are alien to European culture, they are free to go back to the subcontinent where they can practice their religions and social customs freely.

Let the europeans decide which customs they want to ban and which not to. If they feel temples and Indian clothing are not in line with European culture they can ban that too.
 
Can Western soldiers go back to their countries as well, where they'll be able to drone White children or bomb hospitals and other civilizational stuff ?

We all know how "liberal" the West truly is and the atrocities they commit. Point is no one can stop them from bombing hospitals or droning children etc. They , on the other hand, can and will ban whatever they want in their own countries.
 
Let the europeans decide which customs they want to ban and which not to. If they feel temples and Indian clothing are not in line with European culture they can ban that too.

Just to be clear, I was merely giving an opinion same as you and along a similar theme. At no point did I suggest Europeans were bound to follow my opinion.
 
Let the europeans decide which customs they want to ban and which not to. If they feel temples and Indian clothing are not in line with European culture they can ban that too.

What do you mean "let the europeans" decide? There are non white people living in Europe for decades, some for centuries. Their skin colour does not dictate their nationality. They are officially British, Danish, Belgian etc etc etc. That is a legally binding citizenship, meaning they have a say in politics and policy. So do you believe only white people are european?
 
What do you mean "let the europeans" decide? There are non white people living in Europe for decades, some for centuries. Their skin colour does not dictate their nationality. They are officially British, Danish, Belgian etc etc etc. That is a legally binding citizenship, meaning they have a say in politics and policy. So do you believe only white people are european?

Don't be surprised bro, these are the same people who have difficulty in swallowing the concept someone like me can be a native Brit. Their disgusting racist outbursts litter these threads but I have maintained a dignified silence as I believe they shouldn't be held responsible for their third world mentalities.
 
Muslim woman becomes first to be fined for wearing face veil in Denmark

A Muslim woman has become the first person to be fined in Denmark under a new law which prohibits wearing garments which cover the face in public.

The 28-year-old woman had been involved in an altercation at a shopping centre north of Copenhagen, where another woman had attempted to remove her face veil.

After police were called, they found that she had been illegally wearing a niqab in public and - when she refused to remove it - she was issued a fine of 1,000 Danish kroner (£120).

The two women were both charged with breaching the peace.

Denmark's facial covering law came into effect on Wednesday, and brings the country in line with similar prohibitions in France and Belgium.

Civil liberties campaigners and Muslim women's advocacy groups have argued that the ban is discriminatory.

Some Muslim women have said that they will refuse to comply with the ban and intend to continue to wear a niqab.

Repeat offenders of the ban could be fined up to 10,000 kroner (£930).

https://news.sky.com/story/muslim-w...ned-for-wearing-face-veil-in-denmark-11461545
 
If western women go into very conservative countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... they are expected to dress what is considered decent in those societies. Imagine a white woman wearing a mini skirt and roaming around Pakistan. Some people would stare, some people would be shocked, some people would be offended. Majority of people would not find it acceptable. Forget white women, imagine one of Pakistan's one females dressed like that in public in Pakistan.

If Denmark as a society does not consider face veils decent, then muslims in that country should abide by those rules.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
If western women go into very conservative countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... they are expected to dress what is considered decent in those societies. Imagine a white woman wearing a mini skirt and roaming around Pakistan. Some people would stare, some people would be shocked, some people would be offended. Majority of people would not find it acceptable. Forget white women, imagine one of Pakistan's one females dressed like that in public in Pakistan.

If Denmark as a society does not consider face veils decent, then muslims in that country should abide by those rules.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Totall agree, could not have said it better.

Growing up in the early 90s in the UK I could not remember anyone wearing the veil, infact even the hijab was not that common.

But suddenly after 2000 this phenomenon sprung up especially in the north of England. Now here around London the veil has become very rare (like you said partly because it has the opposite intended effect - non stop curious stares) but not sure if has died down up North.

You can’t blame the European governments that had to take this action - some of our people take liberty to the extreme which means shutting themselves out in an open society and thus then alienating the majority.
 
If western women go into very conservative countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc... they are expected to dress what is considered decent in those societies. Imagine a white woman wearing a mini skirt and roaming around Pakistan. Some people would stare, some people would be shocked, some people would be offended. Majority of people would not find it acceptable. Forget white women, imagine one of Pakistan's one females dressed like that in public in Pakistan.

If Denmark as a society does not consider face veils decent, then muslims in that country should abide by those rules.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

A white woman would have to be pretty ignorant to wear a mini skirt in Pakistan, it's well known as a culturally conservative Islamic country where that sort of dress is still considered inappropriate. In European countries banning of certain types of dress has only recently been introduced, Muslim women will take some time to adapt to the new restrictions. We should show patience and understanding for these women who are now being culturally reprogrammed to fit in with what Europeans find pleasing. It will take time but can certainly be done.
 
Danish far-right party calling for Muslim deportation to stand in election

A far-right political party demanding the deportation of all Muslims and the preservation of the country for its “ethnic community” will be on the ballot paper in Denmark for the first time, in a general election due to be called within days.

The Stram Kurs, or Hard Line party, led by Rasmus Paludan – a lawyer who is currently appealing against a conviction for racism – is feared to be on track to gain MPs after recently passing a threshold of voter support needed to stand in the election.

A national election has to take place before 17 June under Danish law. Denmark’s prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, is expected to launch the campaign early this week.

Paludan, whose videos on YouTube, eccentric fashion sense and penchant for stunts have long earned him a following among teenagers, has emerged in recent weeks from relative obscurity to become headline news in Denmark.

Stram Kurs received the required 20,000 signatures of endorsement from voters to stand in the elections after he played a central role in fomenting riots over Easter in the ethnically diverse Nørrebro district of Copenhagen.

Paludan, who has taken to regularly provoking unrest through anti-Islam demonstrations in areas of the Danish capital where large numbers of Muslims live, had tossed a book in the air he claimed was the Qur’an and let it fall to the ground.

He is currently banned from commenting on Facebook following the posting of a picture the platform said broke its rules, which include a prohibition on hate speech aimed at people of a particular religion or ethnicity. He is also appealing against a conviction from April for expressing racist views about Africans in a video recording.

Such are the concerns over Stram Kurs’s potential foothold in Danish politics that the leader of the Social Liberal party, Morten Østergaard, a former government minister, has called for the mainstream parties to rule out the prospect of the party forming part of a future governing coalition.

“We need to point out that there is a distinction between us and those who want to cleanse selected communities based on their beliefs or race,” Østergaard said. “There must be something called right and wrong in the Danish society.”

In order to be represented in the parliament, the party must now either pass a threshold of 2% of the national vote in the election, or gain a district seat. Stram Kurs is currently standing at 2.2% in the polls.

Rasmussen’s centre-right Venstre party has run a minority government since 2015 with the support of the far-right Danish People’s party along with the Liberal Alliance and the Conservative People’s party.

But Østergaard said there was a profound difference between the anti-immigration Danish People’s party and Stram Kurs, which campaigns in favour of so-called “ethnic Danes” and the need to deport all Muslims.

“It’s not about them, but about myself, and what I want as a politician,” Østergaard said. “I do not want to legitimise people who point to Danish citizens and say that they must not be in our society because of their religious beliefs. I don’t want to legitimise them by working with them.”

Despite the controversy, some of the political parties appear loth to follow the example in Sweden, where the far-right party, the Swedish Democrats, were blocked out of coalition talks, leading to 133 days of party negotiations and the forming of an unstable minority administration earlier this year.

The Danish prime minister’s spokesman, Britt Bager, when questioned over Rasmussen’s attitude towards Stram Kurs’s potential involvement in a government, has refused to rule it out.

“Lars Løkke takes a position when we know the final election result,” she told the Danish newspaper Politiken. “We’re not going to take a stand now.”

The country’s justice minister, Søren Pape Poulsen, who is also leader of the Conservative People’s party, suggested that it would be a mistake to ignore the new party on the scene, although he insisted that he did not see any potential areas of cooperation.

A party spokesman, Naser Khader, told reporters: “You need to hear what he wants and what is to be negotiated.”

Prof Rune Stubager, from the department of political science at Aarhus University, said Stram Kurs would have to stand in all 10 Danish constituencies to gain representation in parliament.

He said: “One candidate from the party I saw is a pro-bono artist who makes his art by peeing in public. He has a conviction for peeing in public as the court didn’t see the art in it. Many more candidates of this type and it will surely count against them.”

Stubager said that Paludan was “a different sort of creature in the circus” of Danish politics.

“He will have to compete against the Danish People’s party and the New Right for the anti-immigrant vote and they are established parties,” he said.

But Stubager said the two rivals would be unlikely to be able to match Paludan’s demand for the forced deportation of Muslims.

“What will be really interesting will be to see how they respond: they will have to say that not all Muslims are criminals and that would be a new thing from them,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...g-for-muslim-deportation-to-stand-in-election
 
I guess the racist fanatics have always been around. But the media coverage has boosted their popularity in recent times.
 
Back
Top