Denmark bans wearing the burqa in public

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Denmark is the latest European country to pass a law banning face veils, outlawing the burqa and niqab worn by some Muslim women.

Parliament voted on Thursday for the law, proposed by the center-right government, by 75 votes to 30, with 74 abstentions. It comes into effect on August 1.

Those who break the law could be fined 1,000 kroner (€134). The law does allow headscarves, turbans and Jewish skull caps to be worn.

Danish national radio reported that people will still be allowed to cover their face in certain circumstances, such as a costume party or pulling up a scarf during cold weather. It will be up to police to decide if a person’s face is “too covered.”

Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-burka-bans-in-public/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Men telling women what to wear, yet again.

However, I think it it is reasonable for moments when identification is needed, that the veil must be lifted, even if it is a male lawfully requesting ID, for example for public services or security checkpoints or complaints about a washroom user.

But in any other instance, who should care if a man or woman or teenager or large primate is under the burka? Nobody.

Those 74 abstainers are cowards avoiding their duty. They should have voted against it.

[packman]

4. But, aren't the women wearing that covering which

was, and still is, being dictated by men and a male-oriented religion? Seems as if the law is giving them an "out" in granting them a degree of freedom from a culture that demeans them as objects to be covered.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Sure, but you don't need men telling women what not to wear either.

Don't need men fighting men over what women should wear or not wear.

[packman]

61. Agree 100% - BUT, Reality is what it is

I just can't see a women (or anyone) being dictated as to behavior by religion. I really view the law in this case being a positive for a woman who perhaps wants to escape the commands of a culture, custom, and religion that believes a women has to cover herself so as not to tempt a man.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

75. It will harm women more than help them. RW Islamophobes are rejoicing.

When their husbands get the bill they'll forbid their women going out at all. And there will be more violence than otherwise.

[Doodley]

270. You are saying the husbands will forbid women from leaving their homes. You admit

the men are oppressing the women. Should nothing be done?

[demosincebirth]

125. I agree with you. Also, who knows what someone can hide under a burqa

[treestar]

222. True but then it might radicalize those men

Get them to feel persecuted (and some of the women too, as we know women do go along with partiarchies a lot).

[oberliner]

164. What men are you talking about?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

174. The majority male Danish Paliament (63%). I looked it up before I posted.

37% women in 2017 down from a high of 39%.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?locations=DK

[oberliner]

176. The men should have recused themselves from voting

Just the 67 women should have voted.

[treestar]

221. It is amazing how laws have no effect

when a religion or culture is paramount. Those women already have the freedom not to wear it when they live in the West. Yet they still feel the pressure from the men in their culture.

[PatSeg]

12. As a woman, I have mixed feelings about the subject

Though I don't believe a government has the right to dictate what a woman can and cannot wear, I also see the burqa and face veil as a symbol of oppression and slavery of women. If you look back at societies like Afghanistan or Iran before they were taken over by restrictive religious leaders, the vast majority of women dressed in the Western styles of the time. That leads me to believe, that there are very few women who wear burqas voluntarily.

Perhaps laws like this are the only way to set some women free.

[Nay]

19. That's exactly how I feel.

[treestar]

223. Yes.

And they could see it as Western, too and be against it over that. When it really isn't so much Western, as that liberalization freed women from any kind of restrictive physical requirements, like foot binding or corsets or floor length skirts.

[PatSeg]

237. This is true

We can look throughout history in many cultures, where clothing was used as a way to subjugate and control women, but the men could dress any way they liked.

I've seen this with some fundamentalist churches in the U.S. as well. Men and boys go out wearing khakis and polo shirts, but the women with their Victorian bouffant hair styles, no makeup, and long denim skirts appear to be wearing a uniform.

[YessirAtsaFact]

68. I think Muslim men should wear blindfolds

Instead of making Muslim women cover themselves.

Think of all the fabric that would save

[marble falls]

85. meh.

[dhol82]

126. Especially since they are the ones inflamed by seeing a woman's face or hair

Damn, how can you keep them down on the farm once they have seen Paree?

[treestar]

224. Good analogy

Yeah, if they can't control themselves. It puts that in perspective about the basis for these types of requirements.

[YessirAtsaFact]

271. It's always the women who have restrictions placed on them

That’s not an accident

[Demsrule86]

112. In a western country with any sort of freedom such laws against wearing a burqa should not exist.

[Hortensis]

247. I basically agree. The only reason would be policing,

and I have hugely mixed views about requiring faces to be visible for the surveillance cameras that are being mounted by the millions every week.

As for burqas in and of themselves, though, I think it's very wrong for government to interfere with women's own choices, religious or secular, through mandated acculturation. No matter how many Muslim women in western nations tell the world it's by their own choice, some insist on disrespecting their choices and casting all as victims. Of course wearing the burqa is not always an individual woman's true preference.

But society's role should be to protect citizens from abuse and oppression, to keep all doors open to them as free people, and to render assistance securing their freedoms when appropriate. I just don't think women wearing burqas when they go out in public, because their own family and friends expect it, rises to a level of abuse that requires this severe government interference.

But then, as government oppression and suppression of ethnicity and religious beliefs go, this is at least fairly mild. And how else are those cameras to get a good view?

[Demsrule86]

337. I can see that about security. I completely agree.

I have know very religious Muslim families and I tell you,many women will be forced to remain in their homes because of this law...unintended consequences. Below is a comment made by French women on this issue...

"The school is not only a haven for students but also for veiled female staff who would otherwise have difficulty getting work in a public school while wearing religious garb.

Myriam Hacib, 22, an administrative assistant and classroom monitor, previously worked as a store cashier but found it difficult to manage having to remove her hijab every time she entered or left work. Once, as she exited a train, someone feigned surprise and commented she looked like a ghost. “We’re judged right away [in France] and that hurts," she said.

When the discussion turned to the recent law seeking to ban the niqab in France, set to take effect this fall after a final legislative step next month, both young women had a similar reaction. “To ban the burqa is really like chasing a flea,” said Dib.

“It’s a shame because this is a country of freedom,” said Hacib. “I am French, I was born here but I don’t feel French.”

https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-06-15/french-muslim-girls-flee-private-school

[Hortensis]

347. Interesting article, thanks. I hope that school

wins its court battle, and soon.

[Demsrule86]

349. I hope so too.

[oberliner]

162. Denmark's parliament is majority women

[Bernardo de La Paz]

173. Nope. I looked it up before I posted that. 37% women in 2017, down from a high of 39%

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?locations=DK

[oberliner]

175. That's still a pretty high precentage

I was thinking of Sweden, but even they are now only at 43%.

Do you know what the m/f breakdown was on this vote?

[malthaussen]

2. Sumptuary laws are ridiculous.

It is unfortunate that a normally-liberal nation like Denmark would bow to bigoted pressure to pass such a law.

And WTF with 74 abstentions?

-- Mal

[TomVilmer]

9. This is the most weird vote in Denmark ever...

We have this right wing nuts Putin-loving party, with too much influence. To get enough votes for anything, they make these extremely silly deals: Support their stupidity, and they will vote for something else for you. Sounds familiar?

The law leaves this possibility: "The prohibition referred to shall not apply to the covering of the face which serves a qualifying purpose." Anything carried by Muslims does not qualify, but my hats does. They also tried to forbid beards - also just for Muslims. And mandatory pork served in school and homes for the elderly..............

Sorry about it - we do what we can to stop their nonsense!

[Squinch]

3. I support this. The burqa, and any of the other garments whose purpose is

to hide the face and completely obliterate identity, has nothing to do with any religion. It is not a requirement of any Islamic text or tenet.

We wouldn't allow people to require others to wear shackles every time they go out in public. This is pretty much the same thing.

[LittleGirl]

6. +1 eom

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. "wouldn't allow people to require others ...". Your post takes away women's rights.

Your post assumes that it always men telling women to wear burkas.
Your post assumes a woman would never wear a burka of her own choice.

So you reason you should take away her choice.

Please don't take away women's choices.

[Squinch]

10. Oh, fer fuck's sake. Just stop.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. You want different law. Yes. Let's stop men telling women what not to wear and what to wear.

If you want to prevent men from telling their wives what to wear / not wear, put THAT into the law: a prohibition on husbands restricting women's choices.

But please do not support laws that take away women's choices.

[Squinch]

13. Give it up.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

66. +100 .. n/t

[Kilgore]

122. Your making my head hurt

[leftynyc]

17. I supposed it's everyone's imagination

that it's only when fanatical religious freaks take over a country that we start to see women wearing those disgusting garments. Before that women are fine wearing western wear. They're for one reason - to make women disappear. Good for Denmark.

[pnwmom]

18. The law takes away the right of men to force women to wear those hot, uncomfortable

things that restrict vision and even prevent women from recognizing each other -- their own friends and sisters -- on the street; prevent men from keeping women in such social isolation.

Unlike you, I imagine, I have encountered women wearing those things on the street, and it is unnerving. Those face covers are de-humanizing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. No. Does not. It FINES the WOMAN 134 Euros. Read the OP again. . . . nt

[pnwmom]

25. The Euros will come from the pocket of the man who is forcing the woman to hide herself. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. You hope. And you hope there isn't violence as a result. . . . nt

[pnwmom]

28. The man who would commit violence against a woman because she had been fined

for wearing the thing he forced her to wear is capable of anything.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Now you are starting to get it. Punish the man, not the woman. Limit the perp, not the victim.

And don't limit other women who are not victims.

If a woman in that culture is simply more comfortable with the outfit and there is no coercion, then she should not be restricted by male lawmakers as to what she can or cannot wear in public (though of course nudity is not permitted for any gender). Such a situation may be rare, but laws should be constructed to get at root causes and reduce the collateral damage, especially if that damage means reducing the rights of the victimized class.

[pnwmom]

40. Since the fine is being paid by the man, it punishes him.

There is no way to show that a woman wearing that get-up is more comfortable with the outfit, since her response may also be coerced.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. You presume & hope. But the better law would directly address the coercion & not take women's rights

[pnwmom]

44. You presume and hope that all women wearing it are doing it out of free will.

And offer nothing to the women who aren't.

I'd rather take the risk of depriving the few women who want to hide under those things, rather than the risk of assisting the men who are coercing other women to wear them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. No. I have written the opposite. Don't attempt to stuff words in my mouth. It not honorable debating

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. "nothing"? Reread what I wrote. Better laws go after the coercive men. The coercion is the problem.

The problem is not any fears islamophobes have with seeing the women attired thus until center-right parliaments act on those fears and make laws such as this.

The problem is not the women wearing such clothing, either not by choice or by choice (even if none make the choice).

The problem is the coercion.

The law will have the effect of simply keeping the women off the streets. Their men will not allow them out of the house for any reason because they don't want to pay the fines.

The law will restrict women and harm women much more than it will benefit them.

[pnwmom]

59. What would this better law be that would go after the men? How would it be enforced? n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

80. It would have to make police act on every complaint & investigate any allegation of coercion.

It would need some support with public education, especially for women so they would know their rights.

There should be more cooperation from sympathetic imams and mullahs and scholars who can show that there is nothing in the Q'uran that requires the burka.

I have a limited imagination with regard to lawmaking, not as much as others more educated in the field.

Genital mutilation laws could be a model. You don't punish the woman who was coerced or forced to submit to mutilation. Similarly it would be a mistake to punish a woman for wearing a burka.

It is disingenuous to say "the man will pay". It is the woman's name on the infraction. It is the woman who has to suffer her husband's anger. The net result will be more violence against women and fewer muslim women allowed out in society (by their husbands).

[pnwmom]

84. And what woman coerced to wear these things would be brave enough to make an allegation?

She could lose her home. Probably her children. And as an isolated burka wearer, she probably has had no chance to develop a means to support herself.

A truly voluntary burka wearer wouldn't need to take advantage of such a law. But what about the others, who ARE coerced? How would the law protect them and their children from repercussions after making a complaint?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. Some women are coerced by mother in laws and surrounding women.

Your arguments in post 84 also apply to women reporting violence. They may lose their home and their children and may have no means to support themselves. Our response is not to fine women who are raped or harassed.

If the male dominated Parliament can legislate clothing standards aimed at women, perhaps they will outlaw pants for women next. Or decorative hats for men (no bowlers, stetson, trilbies).

You asked for some ideas and I gave it my best shot and stated that I'm not a lawmaker. You could join in and suggest laws that don't take away a woman's right to choose what to wear or not wear, because this is how that law operates.

Simplistic solutions like simply banning burkas in public are easy but rarely effective. In this case, the blowback will harm and restrict women more than it helps them.

Ball in your court. Can you think of an alternate law that reinforces women's rights without taking away choice? It's not easy.

[pnwmom]

94. Banning the public wearing of these things supports women who'd rather not wear them.

And the main reason for these laws is that they prevent women from taking an equal place in the public sphere -- by obscuring their individual identities. Women who wear these things are INVISIBLE, not recognizable even to their friends and relatives.

There would be no similar justification for banning pants or other clothing styles for women or anyone else.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

100. On the surface it supports them. In practice it will harm & restrict more than it supports.

Plus taking away rights is not as good as reinforcing rights.

If burka wearing women were truly "invisible" they would not "unnerve you" the way they do.

[pnwmom]

102. It unnerved me because it's dehumanizing. That particular woman was a cipher,

following behind her husband in a store. He did all the talking (though their boys were speaking in unaccented English, so they'd been living here for a while).

She was invisible and mute, like a black ghost.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/raheel-raza/niqab-burka-ban-canada_b_8189112.html

As a Muslim mother who never saw a niqab when I was growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, I am astonished to see Canada's judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada's values of gender equality. . . .

But in the 25 years I have called Canada home, I have seen a steady rise of Muslim women being strangled in the pernicious black tent that is passed off to naïve and guilt-ridden white, mainstream Canadians as an essential Islamic practice.

The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam.

They're the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia.

Now I learn I have not only to fight the medieval, theocratic adherents of my faith for a safe space for myself, I have to battle the Federal Court of Canada as well, which has come out on the side of these face masks.

[treestar]

229. The odd thing is the conditioning

Here, African Americans had to struggle for equality.

These Muslim women wearing the full burquas who live here don't have to fight it. They have it. For them, it is just exercising that right. It would be interesting to ask them why they aren't doing it.

For example, Christian women here who defer to their husbands. They don't have to. We don't have to make a law forbidding that. It can be outside the law - ask they why they won't take their own rights, the ones others fought for.

[Demsrule86]

118. I agree completely this is not freedom but oppression...

There are some who choose the Burqa.

[treestar]

266. Somebody has to be brave enough

Somebody has to be Susan B. Anthony.

In Denmark, it might well be possible for an escape. A man keeping a woman at home could be arrested. It would not be like trying to bid for freedom for women in Afghanistan.

I would venture to guess Denmark also does have a structure for women who are abused to reach - and this would definitely qualify.

[treestar]

225. Not officially

And she might have a job. But she would be legally liable.

That's an assumption underneath it - the man has the money and he'll just pay. He might not. If the one legally liable does not pay, there will have to be further punishments or the law is unenforceable and useless.

Though it might be more of a statement than something they intend to enforce.

[TomVilmer]

39. Muslims in Denmark wearing burkas are newly converted...

... and it is their very own stupid decision. In last counting there were three of those. 3!

If somebody force you to do something against your will, we have plenty of laws punishing this. This new law is different by punishing the person choosing to wear it. I myself wears a scarf all year round, and now I can get fined for covering my face in the winter.

[pnwmom]

42. No, the law allows for wearing things over the face because of weather conditions. n/t

[TomVilmer]

47. Yes - but who is to decide when it is properly cold!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

87. Unfortunately, in Denmark and pretty much everywhere else, ... most likely a man. . . . nt

[treestar]

234. One law leads to another

Yes, next they have to decide when it is cold enough to cover your face!

[GulfCoast66]

142. So basically you think the Danes should allow men to dehumanize their women,

Because if we do not allow him to dehumanize her he might beat the shit out of her??

My head hurts...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

154. No. And no. Take an aspirin and reread when you are feeling more capable. Duh. . . . nt

[Demsrule86]

158. That is your take. What gives you the right to decide about other people's religion?

[GulfCoast66]

172. I have no interest in others religion

They can believe any fairytale they want.

Actions are another story. As humanity has progressed we have eliminated countless actions done in the name of religion. Polygamy, enforced gender norms, FGM, stoning, ghettos and on and on. Burkas are just another one for the list.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. You falsely presume my experience. I too have encountered people wearing burkas. . . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. You being unnerved is not sufficient reason to deny a woman the right to wear all-covering clothing.

[pnwmom]

37. I'm not convinced that any woman would choose to wear those hot, uncomfortable,

restrictive, vision-impairing, identity-hiding things except under duress.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. I'm not covinced any would choose except exceedingly few. But it is their right.

What if a group of men, or people identifying as asexual or bigender, wanted to wear total coverings?

What if some people got a sexual thrill from doing it, in the same degree as some do from wearing revealing clothing?

It would be their right too.

[treestar]

226. That can be an underlying difficult issue for feminism

We aren't Muslims from those cultures and don't have any means of understanding how they'd feel.

[Me.]

54. It's Not Just Hot

It's disorienting often making wearers dizzy and nauseous. And yes it is unnerving when you come across it.

I must say, I have also, always, resented the rule that women must cover themselves up if they want to meet the pope.

[pnwmom]

71. The "rule" went away quite a while ago, unless you're someone like Melania and Ivanka,

making a show for the right-wingers.



Here's Hillary Clinton with Pope John Paul II in 1995, in her pantsuit. (No hat). (Picture #7 of 11)

https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/05/world/europe/vatican-pope-sainthood/index.html

Here's Mary Robinson, former Irish President, in her pantsuit. (No hat)

https://www.looktothestars.org/news/17314-the-elders-stand-in-solidarity-with-pope-francis-on-peace-refugees-climate

Here's Angela Merkel in her navy suit. (No hat)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/merkel-pope-talk-strong-europe-140331095.html

Here's Michelle Obama in her sky blue dress. (No hat)

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/434104851561323104/


Here's hatless Laura Bush in 2009.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/history-presidential-visits-pope


Here's Camilla, in her off-white dress (No hat)

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1397&bih=803&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KF4QW7-MN4rD8APiuo_YBA&q=camilla+pope+francis&oq=camilla+pope+francis&gs_l=img.3...262995.263905.0.264132.7.7.0.0.0.0.96.582.7.7.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.3.276...0i7i30k1j0i7i5i30k1j0i8i7i30k1.0.w5TFEKQbzd0#imgrc=XPrLDiuao28eAM:

[Me.]

79. Good

and thank you

[treestar]

230. Thanks for putting that together

Not a thing I would have realized about the Madam Drumpfs.

[OnDoutside]

105. My wife's niece works in Saudi Arabia currently and has to wear the

Full garb, even though she's a Catholic Irish woman...no choice there !!!! Even has to wear it in restaurants unless the women only go into a private sealed booth..then they can take off the gear. She said the sweat would be streaming off her when she goes outside.

[pnwmom]

110. I've read descriptions of what it's like to wear them and it's awful.

They are hot, impede vision, and can make it hard to walk. No rational person would wear these voluntarily.

[OnDoutside]

151. Yes, and she said that as soon as they get home, it's straight

into western clothes !

[Demsrule86]

157. Some women choose the veil. What will happen is women in countries who do this won't be allowed out.

So this is not a victory for women to be housebound and perhaps not even allowed to seek medical treatment. This is an anti-religious ruling. I believe in freedom for all religions...even those I don't like particularly (in terms of the treatment of women).

[fallout87]

49. Are those women choosing to wear it?

Or is it a rule?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. You don't strengthen women's rights by legislating away those rights.

The problem is not the women. The problem is the cultural coercion and husbands forcing them. Don't punish the women.

You don't strengthen women's choices by reducing their choices. It doesn't matter whether any choose it or not. They have the right. Don't take it away.

It would be like jailing women who get abortions. Some of those women would be forced into abortions by their partners. The correct law would be jail their partners who force them.

[dbackjon]

82. You seem to be good at telling women what to do and think

[Bernardo de La Paz]

83. Nope. I'm telling the predominantly male Danish Parliament they should stop.

Nothing in the post you are responding to tells women what to do or think. Nothing.

"wouldn't allow people to require others ...". Your post takes away women's rights.

Your post assumes that it always men telling women to wear burkas.
Your post assumes a woman would never wear a burka of her own choice.

So you reason you should take away her choice.

Please don't take away women's choices.

[dbackjon]

90. Female headcoverings have nothing to do with women's choice - but furthering male domination

hell, 40 years ago, before the Iranian Revolution, the vast majority of Muslim women either wore no head covering, or scarves in certain circumstances.

It is the male domination/female subjugation of fundamentalism that fueled the resurgance.

[Coventina]

14. I also support this. In Europe/America world Muslim men dress like westerners.

The same should be true of the women.

To say it's not misogyny is to ignore the evidence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Men telling women what not to wear is misogny. So is men telling women what to wear. . . . nt

[Coventina]

33. Not buying what you're selling.

If I saw as many western men wearing the thawb as western women who wear the veil, I might buy it.

Until then, nope.

[Squinch]

55. But he certainly is pushing it hard. I'll take that

seriously when I see him wearing one.

[Coventina]

56. Faux liberalism at its finest.

My husband travels pretty regularly to Saudi Arabia on business.

He says it's quite eye-opening to see women robing/dis-robing on the flights in and out of Riyadh.

Long faces as the abyahs go on when landing, joy as they pull them off once wheels are up.

Anyone who says that women (except for a tiny, zealous minority) want to wear those things can STFU.

[Squinch]

58. There is a new community near where i work.

It's a very busy urban area. To see a mom trying to cross a four lane street with three little kids in tow wearing one of those things is terrifying. She can't see a damn thing, including oncoming traffic.

[eissa]

64. Exactly. Not to mention that those who claim to do so "willingly"

usually suffer from Stockholm Syndrome; the emphasis on women's chastity and modesty is so ingrained within the larger community that to not adhere to the norm is to cast not only yourself in the spotlight, but your family as well.

I have an acquaintance in Florida who lives in a community with a large Muslim population. She's a young woman who refuses to don that oppressive garb, despite the fact that many of her peers (most born and raised here) do so. Once, a colleague of her father's paid them a visit to "express his concern" about his daughter, fearing she was "going down the wrong path." Fortunately, her father is quite open-minded and defended his daughter's decision. Not many girls are that lucky.

[treestar]

239. It is tough to tell at what point a human being does not know their own mind

Interestingly, we have women in the free USA doing things they don't have to - they are free to leave, but it could be at a cost to them personally. Look at Warren Jeffs' cult and other Mormon women who go along with polygamy. Or even the right-wing Christians who follow old-fashioned sex roles, though they don't have to.

[treestar]

227. That is a different thing

The women in Denmark are free to not wear it all the time. Their wearing it is from a different place.

A government that can do something to annoy the Muslims could do something to annoy others. Just because it is Muslims who are getting thwarted here does not make the government getting in on this a good thing.

[Coventina]

241. This isn't about annoying Muslims. Millions of Muslim women wear western clothing.

This is about not allowing a repressive garment to impede a women participating in a free society.

[treestar]

242. What about when there is a government that can decide that

wearing a bikini is oppressive to women?

In some extreme areas of feminism, that can be a thing.

[Coventina]

246. Governments make decency laws all the time.

If I decided covering my breasts in public was oppressive, the government would certainly tell me otherwise.

[treestar]

250. That's because of who is in the government.

Supposing there were elected enough people to think decency included head to toe covering, or face covering?

[Coventina]

252. Then we would no longer be living in a free society and I would flee to one that was.

People who come to free societies need to leave their repressive mindset behind them.

[treestar]

254. The reason we are a free society

is because the government is kept out of such areas.

for the most part. Interestingly, women are not free to go without shirts in our society.

[Coventina]

257. Our government has had to legislate in such areas many times.

They had to specifically outlaw slavery, for instance.

The law is deeply involved in rooting out the Fundamentalist Mormons in northern AZ because of their abuses of women and children.
They stamped out the Branch Davidian cult also for abusive behavior.

They forbid FGM, also considered a "religious" practice because it's abusive.

When you have lived 6 months in a full burka, with your face completely covered, and you can tell me it's not abusive, and dangerous to the woman and the people around her, then we will talk.

Until then, you do not know what you are talking about.

[treestar]

258. None of that is relevant to the issue and involves other issues

I don't have to wear a burqua and don't choose to. I don't even need to try one out to decide not to. That's what freedom is. But if I did want to wear one, I could (in the US at least). If I wanted to wear a hairshirt, I could, as an extreme Christian. That is unpleasant too. People decide to do things I think would be unpleasant all the time. I don't advocate forbidding them by law though. I may be living some way people find unpleasant and they don't understand and don't know what they are talking about, but I would not want them to tell me I could not by law.

[Coventina]

262. A hairshirt doesn't keep people from interacting with you.

This isn't about "unpleasantness" it's about women who cannot interact with their fellow human beings.

That is slavery and torture.

It goes against our biological nature as well as our needs as social animals.

It is cruelty and as a liberal and a feeling human being I won't stand by and say nothing.

[treestar]

274. They can talk

The Burqa is the worst of them, no doubt. Probably only a few individuals involved. Even most Muslim women don't go that far.

But the Burqa does not prevent you from "interacting with human beings" and further, that is a choice even if you are out wearing a bikini. If a woman is wearing one, it does not require her to interact with anyone. And that includes all lessor covering than the burqa.

The only rational reason for forbidding it is not being identify people, and as such is should be classified with ski masks. Other than that, it should have nothing to do with religion, being able to interact with others, being uncomfortable for the wearer or for other people to see, being oppressed by men, etc.

[Coventina]

277. Yes it absolutely does keep from social interaction.

Again, until you have worn one for 6 months, you have nothing to say to me.

They are instruments of torture and slavery.

[treestar]

278. How do they prevent them from talking to other people?

Physically. And why is 6 months the criterion? Of course I would hate it. But what of those who are wearing it in Western countries, where legally they don't have to? They are the objects of this law.

[Coventina]

279. Please read up on the science of communication

Not being able to read facial expressions is a huge impediment to understanding, especially if (presumably) many of these women are using English as a second language.

They cannot smile at the cashier in the grocery line, they cannot see people or objects out of their direct line of sight. Their hearing is impaired.

I just said 6 months so that you would experience multiple seasons and conditions, it's not a magic number.

Any garment that obliterates a person does not belong in a free society, period.

[treestar]

281. Then being on the telephone is just as oppressive

Suppose I don't smile at the cashier even if I'm not wearing one? Again, it is up to her.

[Coventina]

285. Your comparisons are way off. Telephones enable a limited form of communication

in lieu of face to face. It's a convenience, not a limitation.

That argument doesn't even begin to work.

You have a CHOICE to smile or not. The women whose face is covered does NOT have that choice.

Again, your argument is way off base.

[treestar]

287. It is a choice, in the western nations, she does not have to wear the

burqu or niqab. So it's a form of choice not to smile at random people.

[Coventina]

291. If she wants that choice, she has no business is a free society.

It prevents the person, and the people who interact with her, from having a social contract by standards set by our biology.

Therefore, it is destructive to a free and open society.

[treestar]

292. someone else wearing it does not

impact the freedom of the other people in the society.

[Coventina]

293. Yes it absolutely does. Again, read up on the science of communication. n/t

[treestar]

295. It does not impact on your freedom not to wear one.

Communication is not required to include body language - I know all about that. It is not the issue here. They are not being banned from wearing what they want due to not having facial expression available to communicate. If they wanted that, they could abandon the burqa/niqab in the free western society they live in.

[Coventina]

299. But facial expression IS required to understand meaning. Ask ANY psychologist.

Not to mention the physical safety concerns.

And yes, their inability to see and hear clearly affects everyone around them.

It is not something fitting for adults in a free society.

And I will keep on saying it for as long as you try to rationalize barbarism.

[treestar]

308. I am not rationalizing barbarism

don't oversimplify the issues.

How do they survive in the Muslim countries, or here? You'd need proof of your assertions that they can't see to the point where physical safety of others is compromised. You are randomly coming up with various justifications for prohibiting it; now it's safety. If that small number of female Muslims have caused accidents due to their "inability to see" it has not become a widely seen phenomenon.

It is not justified to prohibit them by law from wearing them and from deciding when they will stop wearing them, not the government. Don't rationalize tyranny.

[Coventina]

317. I'm not oversimplifying anything.

Tyranny is erasing a person's identity, which these garments do.

My objections are not random, they are the same as they have always been: they compromise a woman's ability to participate in society, and safely navigate her world.

[Demsrule86]

338. I find your comment horrifying... what you suggest would not create any sort of free society...

How can you not understand you haven't got the right to tell others what to wear. I thank God that this law is unlikely to pass in the US as we have a constitution that prevents bigotry against what is increasingly a unpopular religion in western societies.

[Coventina]

342. Well, I find your attitude horrifying, that it is OK to normalize a garment that does nothing

but oppress women.

[treestar]

357. Are you horrified at very high heels?

[Coventina]

363. Yes, I am. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

369. Last time I checked...

No one had been beaten, gang raped or killed for not wearing high heels. My executive wife has worn flats for years and has never felt personally threatened. Nor professionally for that matter.

But women are regularly beaten, ganged raped and killed for not conforming to misogynistic dress codes.

So what point were you attempting to make??

You do know, there were lots of happy slaves.

[treestar]

373. In Western countries, and not arrested for that?

My interlocutor had a different issue; so I was responding to that - no need for your hostility - I guess you took it personally over your wife. Well this is a discussion board - if you choose to look for ways to be offended by deciding to take issues personally, you will not enjoy the discussion.

[treestar]

228. It is about male domination

Presumably in colder climates, men wear what is more comfortable there.

Ironically it is in the middle east that the burkas must be most uncomfortable. And in the winter, Danish women may wear practically as much cover as the burka, minus the face.

[Coventina]

245. It has nothing to do with climate. I live in Arizona and have traveled

to 49 out of our 50 states, and across much of Europe and Asia

Everywhere I go, (note: I have not been to the Middle East) I see women dressed in the full burka, while their male companions wear t-shirts, shorts, khakis, polo shirts, sports jerseys, etc.

I have been to mosques, to predominantly Muslim neighborhoods and communities, and never have I EVER seen Muslim males in the thawb. NEVER.

And, I see many women dressing western as well. So, nobody can tell me that the religion requires it or that women can't adapt to western clothing.

(In fact, I went to college with a guy from Kuwait, when his grandmother came to visit him here in the States, she threw off her burka and said she'd never wear it again! And she was only visiting, not moving here!)

Anything that impedes the face or movement of a person cannot be tolerated in a free society. End of story.

[treestar]

251. Ski masks in the extreme cold?

Should that be tolerated?

Your standard in your last sentence could possibly prohibit mini-skirts.

[Coventina]

253. I stated elsewhere in the thread that exceptions should be made for weather and health conditions.

I would also of course add certain jobs that require facial protection while working.

[eissa]

15. Yep. Punishing women for men's "weaknesses"

Happy to see this move.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. The law FINES the WOMEN. Why are you happy to see that?

[eissa]

24. Buying into your own subjugation has a price. eom

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Please don't blame the victim. . . . nt

[Demsrule86]

159. Exactly right...the husband or father forces the women to wear the burqa or they sit home...

and the woman gets fined. How many women will now be housebound because of this ruling?

[treestar]

236. Perhaps their domestic relations laws

would cover something like that, though she'd have to get out of the house to file.

The issue here is are there any Muslim women who would want to be freed of the burqua and fight for it. Were there any Muslim women campaigning for this law? The oppressed have to want to be freed.

[RelativelyJones]

16. +1

[Raine]

113. I do too.. nt

[Demsrule86]

114. I don't support this...freedom of religion.

I dislike what burqas mean in terms of women's rights...but it is part of their religion.

[Squinch]

131. But it isn't. There is no religious requirement in Islam to wear these face-covering, dehumanizing

garments. It has nothing to do with religion. It is entirely a cultural norm, from a culture that highly values the subjugation of women.

[Demsrule86]

160. That is your interpretation.

"Quran (33:59) - "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." This is from the Noble Quran. The word 'annoyed' is yu'dhayna, which actually means 'harmed' or 'hurt' elsewhere in the same sura. How would a woman be 'harmed' for not covering herself? Let's just say that Yusuf Ali translates it as 'molested' - as in a woman could bring sexual abuse on herself if she is not properly covered.
Quran (24:31) - "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known." The woman is not only supposed to cover herself, except with relatives, but to look down, so as to avoid making eye-contact with men.

Quran (33:55) - "It shall be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled" A woman may present herself without a veil only to family and slaves".

[treestar]

249. Fair enough in those days, like the Bible

These texts are written for what are ancient times for us, so people trying to follow them look silly.

[Demsrule86]

336. You don't have the right to tell others how to live or what to believe...freedom means

the right to live as you choose.

[treestar]

356. Hat is true

If they want to live like people of thousands of years ago, they have that right

[dhol82]

127. +2

[smirkymonkey]

152. +1000

[OnlinePoker]

8. What if I want to wear a mask?

Does this ban groups like fascists and anarchists from wearing their face coverings? What about police? Unless it's a blanket ban for all, it's discrimination aimed at one group.

[ExciteBike66]

30. It's a blanket ban, not just Islamic "fashion"

"https://uk.news.yahoo.com/denmark-becomes-latest-european-country-ban-burqa-head-covering-garments-111705708.html?guccounter=1"

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

57. You can't wear a mask. Unless you're a cop, then your balaclava is fine.

Or if it's Halloween, then you're ok.

So, yes, fascists, anarchists, and soccer fans all have to show their faces.

[treestar]

232. +1

It would fail the 14th Amendment here, unless it does that.

[guillaumeb]

29. Islamophobia 101.

From a supposedly tolerant western European country.

[msongs]

31. does the koran demand women wear those things? if not, it is not islamophobia nt

[guillaumeb]

32. It is classic Islamophobia,

hiding behind a supposed concern for oppressed people.

[pnwmom]

38. How? It isn't a requirement of Islam. And others, like Elizabeth Smart's captors,

have required women to wear face veils.

[guillaumeb]

91. It is specifically designed to target Muslims.

I am not a Muslim, so who am I, or you, to explain to Muslims how they must interpret their own beliefs?

[pnwmom]

95. No, it's designed to ensure that women aren't made invisible in the public sphere. n/t

[guillaumeb]

97. Who are you to decide what the burqa means for those Muslim women

who wear it?

[pnwmom]

98. This isn't about that. it's about the fact that the burka makes women invisible

in the public sphere, which prevents their full participation in these democracies. That is objective fact.

[guillaumeb]

99. That is your opinion as to what it means.

And I respect your right to hold that opinion, but I also respect the right of Muslim women to decide.

[pnwmom]

272. It is a fact that the burka makes the wearer invisible, even to family members and friends

who see her in public.

[treestar]

233. It is akin to the marijuana laws

more back in the day when it was still generally illegal. Some Rastafarians sued, but the court held that so long as everyone was forbidden to use MJ, it was not a violation of the First Amendment.

This law applies to anyone, regardless of motive. So here if that were attempted to be a law, it would pass muster. It would need a rational basis. The prohibition against hiding your face might have a rational basis.

Note the Halloween exception caters to Western culture.

[Demsrule86]

168. It is a requirement of Islam to cover ones self. And by what right do you or I tell someone how to

practice their religion? This will harm women who will be fined and in my opinion become prisoners in their homes as they will be not be allowed out. Now I have no doubt that all who bash the burqa as a symbol of male dominance have a point, but this sort of law is not helpful and will lead to a bad outcome for women in the end. It won't help the women you champion but only hurt them.

[MicaelS]

48. How about a "you can't cover your face when in public" law?

That should "cover it".

[guillaumeb]

92. Again, Islamophobia 101.

[leftynyc]

371. Too bad

There is NOTHING in the koran about a woman covering her face so it's not a religious law, just some BS made up by some men trying to control their women. PERIOD. Don't like it? Move to where it's not against the law.

[HopeAgain]

53. Islamaphobia involves culture as well as the Koran.

Who are we to tell someone how to practice their religion?

[Squinch]

62. The Maori people's culture used to include occasional

cannibalism. If Maori people visited, you would have no problem with that?

[HopeAgain]

63. That is the biggest false equivalency I have seen

in quite a while. We are talking head wear, not cannibalism.

[Squinch]

65. And saying its "headwear" is either showing ignorance

about what a burka is or is disingenuous.

The objection is not to headwear. No one cares about a headscarves. It's about coverings that obscure everything about the person and cover most or all of the face.

[HopeAgain]

67. It is head wear, and to ban it regardless of personal choice

would unquestionably deny a person's freedom of choice.

[Squinch]

70. I can't help but conclude you have never seen one

close up in real life.

[HopeAgain]

72. I see them all the time

and you are assuming that none of them have made the personal choice to wear them.

[Squinch]

73. I just don't believe that. Maybe headscarves, maybe

hijab, maybe khimar, none of which anyone is objecting to.

But I simply don't believe anyone who has ever interacted closely with women in burka or niqab would ever call it "headwear."

[Coventina]

74. It's akin to calling a space suit "headwear"

[Squinch]

76. I think people often confuse hijab with niqab or burka, and they think we are objecting

to hijab. Which no one is.

[onenote]

143. So if Trump proposed barring any woman wearing a burqua from immigrating to the US

would folks here applaud him for it or would they recognize it as just another attempt to limit muslim immigration to the US?

What if he proposed that women who have immigrated here who are caught wearing a burqa three times are to be deported?

If this was really about security, it wouldn't allow for exceptions for other coverings (masks, etc) that cover the face. It wouldn't allow someone to wear a burqa while going to a costume party but not otherwise. And if it was about protecting women from male oppression, it would bar the hijab or garb that covers all parts of the body except the face.

That this was promoted by the right leaning political party in Denmark should tell you something.

[Squinch]

146. That's kind of all over the place.

[Demsrule86]

161. In my area, the Trumpers have made it so Islamic women are afraid to wear

their veils. I find it disgusting to interfere with the practice of other's religion as long as it doesn't break the laws of the country. I thank God that unless they change the constitution, we won't ban religious clothing here.

[Demsrule86]

169. I have seen Burqas...that is not the point. It is call freedom...you ever see

what Amish women wear or Hasidic women? In my area some of the Evangelical churches require long skits and stupid looking caps (Church of God not all sects but some)...this is about Islamophobia...nothing more. People have the right in my opinion to practice their religion as they choose as long as they obey legitimate laws in their country...this is an illegitimate law and I doubt it would fly here thankfully.

[Squinch]

194. None of these things you are referring to covers the face like a burka. Neither do the headscarves

and hijabs of the vast majority of Islamic women. No one is objecting to any of those.

The burka and the niqab, garments that cover the face, are dehumanizing, cruel and have nothing to do with the Islamic religion.

[Demsrule86]

205. Actually not true...France banned the hijab...and in the end so will Denmark no doubt becaue this is

about one Religion ...Islam.

[Squinch]

208. We are talking about the Danish law and the people in this thread.

Opposition to burka and niqab has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It has to do with respecting the humanity of others.

[treestar]

275. That is disingenuous

I would be pretty sure the motive for the law is Islamophobia. That does not make it invalid. Still at least as cover, they need to ban ski masks and niqabs too. In order to make it seem like it is about identity.

[Demsrule86]

334. Yes it does...and it won't help women either.

[Coventina]

212. No, France did NOT ban the hijab. They only banned covering the face.

Not that it matters, because we are talking about Denmark in this thread and not France.

But, I thought you would want to know what is actually true.

[Demsrule86]

333. France did ban it...and it is wrong and so is this.

http://www.islamicity.org/7644/the-french-ban-on-hijab-sends-the-wrong-message/

[Coventina]

341. you are confusing two different things.

Yes, the hijab ALONG WITH ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS IDENTIFIERS are banned in the public schools.

That is not the same as banning the hijab in public, which France did NOT do.

In the case of the school ban, it affects ALL religions equally, so there is no punishing one religion more than another.

Also, France takes their secularism VERY SERIOUSLY! This is nothing new. The French made a decision, going back to the French Revolution of 1789, to get ALL RELIGION out of the public sphere. If immigrants coming to France are unaware of that history, that is on them.

[Demsrule86]

343. It is discriminatory.

"When Youssra's three-and-a-half-year-old son started nursery school, he really wanted his mum to come on a school trip. So she signed up to help out on a cinema visit. She buttoned the children's coats outside their classroom and accompanied them to the front hall. But there, she was stopped by the headteacher, who told her, in front of the baffled children: "You don't have the right to accompany the class because you're wearing a headscarf." She was told to remove her hijab, or basic Muslim head covering, because it was an affront to the secular French Republic. "I fought back," she says. "I brought up all the arguments about equality and freedom for all. But I was forced home, humiliated. The last thing I saw was my distressed son in tears. He didn't understand why I'd been made to leave."


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/22/frances-headscarf-war-attack-on-freedom

This is not a free society.

[Coventina]

346. Well, you need to take that up with the French. It's their history and their culture you're

railing against.

They would say the same thing to the woman if she refused to take off a crucifix around her neck. It applies to ALL RELIGIONS EQUALLY, so it is not discriminatory against Muslims. You could say it discriminates against people who want to advertise their religion.

[Demsrule86]

350. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of so called 'western democracies' and their what I consider a war

on Religious freedom...particularly Islam...don't think it can happen here with our constitution.

[Coventina]

355. In what way are the French being hypocritical?

Again, the French are known for their aggressive secularism.

It's been one of the cornerstones of their Republic since its inception.

If someone wants to live a very religion-oriented life, France is not the best place for you. Just the tiniest bit of research would show you this.

[treestar]

273. I can get banning the Niqab and the burqa

https://www.thoughtco.com/islamic-clothing-glossary-2004255

But the hijab is the least of them.

[Squinch]

283. No one is talking about banning the hijab.

[treestar]

286. I was responding to a post about it being banned in France

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

It applicable in only the public schools.

Hijab applies to men too (Islamic men are supposed to cover their heads, too).

[Squinch]

288. And yet usually they don't.

[treestar]

290. They can if they want to in western democracies

No law is posed at stopping them.

[Squinch]

297. And no cultural patriarchal hatred of their gender is forcing them TO do it.

[treestar]

300. There is a difference between the law and cultural pressure

The women don't have to wear the burqa in Denmark. Their problem is not the government protecting them from wearing it. They need to be able to decide not to wear it for themselves. And they have that decision. No need for Parliament. We can find a way to inspire them to want more freedom.

There are likely only a few women actually involved here. It would be far better to get them to abandon the burqa of their own free will than to force them not to wear it by government decree. We don't even know how scared they might get being forced not to wear it.

[Demsrule86]

335. It is Islamaphobia ...all of it. No so called free country has any business fining women for

wearing a specific item of clothing.

[treestar]

263. A reminder on the terms:

https://www.thoughtco.com/islamic-clothing-glossary-2004255

[treestar]

260. If someone decided they wanted to wear a space suit

should they be forbidden? Man or woman, that would be oppressive to me. But what of someone who wanted to do it?

[Coventina]

264. If you can see the person's face and are able to interact with facial expressions

I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[HopeAgain]

77. Semantics aside

I am not the arbiter of how others should live and what their customs should be. I don't like the idea of burqas, but I was raised very differently than the people who adopt them. Not everybody thinks like westerners although we like to assume they should. Will some feel shame and humiliation rather than liberation if they can't wear them?

[Squinch]

78. But there are cultural practices that we simply will not tolerate in our country, like

the Maori cannibalism. They had good reasons for doing that too, but still it was just too much for our tolerance.

So as I said, it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.

I often interact with women wearing burka or niqab. They are cruel and unbelievably oppressive garments. I draw the line before that cruelty and wish they were not tolerated in my country.

And some background on those garments: they had all but disappeared until the seventies, when fundamentalism reared its head. So older women were NOT raised with them. They are not supposed to be worn until marriage either, so anyone wearing them previously showed her face for many years without shame and humiliation.

[Demsrule86]

163. What about the Hasid? You want to talk about mistreatment of women...But it seems

only the Muslims are forced to endure second guessing on their religious practices. It is against the law to kill and eat people...it violates the law...no religion should be able to violate the law of the land no matter what their orthodoxy calls for...and it is and apple or oranges kind of argument. We are not discussing the merits of eating human beings but of a certain way of dressing. I do not believe that any people should be forced to abandon their culture (unless it breaks the law) in a country that was built on the premise of religious freedom. Denmark is kowtowing to the extremist in their culture with this law and do not I believe guarantee religious freedom. In this country we do.

[Squinch]

193. So much freedom.

[Demsrule86]

202. They are out and about aren't they? Without the Burqa, they won't be allowed out.

And I suggest you read about Hasidic Jews in this country particularly Brooklyn and the abuses against women in that community. You are not striking a blow for freedom for women by supporting laws like the one in Denmark...just the opposite. Such laws will make it harder for women.

[christx30]

213. Sounds like it is more of a problem

with their culture that oppressed women than it is a problem with anything else.
So pass the law, and run PSA in every commercial break that says, “are you being kept in your home against your will? Here is the number for the local police. Call, and we’ll be there in 5 minutes to get you out and arrest the guilty party for false imprisonment.”
If there are families that actually consider the hijab as important as pants, there are countries where it is more culturally acceptable.

[Demsrule86]

214. And it will amount to nothing.

Seriously, a big misunderstanding as how it works.

[Squinch]

218. No one is objecting to the hijab, though. The objection is to the garments that cover the face.

[mr_lebowski]

385. One thing you may want to consider ... this law DOES give women the excuse to tell their oppressors

"Hun, it's the LAW ... I cannot wear this ... I mean do you want our children to get to school? Do you want your dinner when you get home? Then I must go out, without the Burqa" ... and MANY men are going to acquiesce because their material needs will be more important. And many women will be freed by this mechanism, I suspect many more than will be now suddenly req'd to sit at home at all times, basically.

I mean, I 'get' the argument 'for' the women who WANT to wear them ... and in fact I'm kinda even against the law being on the grounds that everyone needs to be identifiable in public (in no small part, so they can monitored by facial recognition cameras every f***ing major city nowadays) ... but I bet far more women than not are going to feel liberated and their husbands are not going to KEEP them at home now because they WANT their womenfolk out there 'doing stuff for their family' ... more than they care about orthodoxy.

[treestar]

276. We are all free to wear those in the US if we want to

Just like Mormon or Catholic women choosing certain restrictions. We can try to talk them out of it and into being more feminist and free, but the government/laws should have nothing to do with it.

We are a lot more oppressed, to our thinking of the word, but right-wing Deplorable females than we are threatened by a few Muslim immigrants wearing niqabs.

[Squinch]

69. And ps, it is not false equivalency. There are

certainly things that you would not allow, even if they were part of someone's culture.

The only question is where the line is drawn.

I happen to believe it should be drawn to exclude cruel mysogynistic attempts to obliterate women's identities for no particular reason.

[treestar]

298. If you live in the US that will never happen

And that is why feminists have been able to make inroads. The few stragglers who are way behind cannot be a cause cutting off the very means of progress. They are behind the eight ball, but talk to them rather than make laws forbidding things that don't harm others.

[treestar]

240. It's a decent comparison, the question is where along the

continuum is it reasonable to leave people to live in a way we think oppresses them.

No Western county is so tolerant as to allow cannibalism, at least, where it involves killing the person in order to eat them. We would have health laws that would have a rational basis if it did not involve killing them.

Not allowing face covering has some rational basis - wearing a ski mask to commit a crime shows an illustration of that.

I have noticed in Catholic churches some women reverting back to wearing head coverings (not hats but the ones women of the 60s used to pass - when hats were out of fashion and they bought a lace thingy to cover their head). This is a very little thing and there would be no rational basis for making a law against it. Still disconcerting to see them prefer even this little oppression.

[treestar]

235. That is one that could be universally forbidden

The question is the more subtle ones, like use of marijuana in religion. Though that question is going away, the US did face the issue of whether people who used it in their religion could be forbidden by law along with everyone else.

[guillaumeb]

93. Exactly.

This is another example of Europeans deciding for others what constitutes acceptable religious practices.

[Demsrule86]

170. And with the long history of European abuse of women, it seems hypocritical to me.

The Catholic church has a long history of not giving women a seat at the table and allowing the mistreatment of women...and the Episcopal church was created for the sole purpose of divorcing a woman...Henry the VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon. Now the Episcopal church is a find diversified church today ( I belong) but it didn't start out that way...and there are many other religions in this country which treat women like dirt...this is Islamophobia pure and simple.

[guillaumeb]

181. Nice short history lesson. eom

[Demsrule86]

198. Thanks! I don't see how anyone can support such an obvious blow to personal freedom which will only

hurt women in the long run.

[Squinch]

196. So we should continue and condone the cultural oppression of women because oppression of women

existed in the past?

[Demsrule86]

197. I believe in freedom of religion...also why single out the Muslim religion...you want to see some

real oppression, go visit Monroe New York where there is a large Hasidic community or the Amish areas... How about those Mormons then we have the Evangelicals-I have personally seen such sexism in Evangelical churches that I laid an ultimatum down to hubs (he liked the music), we go to another church or I don't go to any church. We went back to the Episcopal church. Some Church of God sects force women to wear long heavy cotton dresses and stupid looking caps...etc.

We don't have the right to tell others how to practice their religion...and what has been done in this instance that will be positive for women? Nothing. The women who wear the Burqa will simply now be prisoners in their own homes...not allowed out. How is that helpful? And by what right do you have to decide how others practice their religion? I find many of these posts bordering on totalitarianism.

This is a discriminatory law that will cause additional suffering for women. I actually hate burqas and head covering etc...I find it anti-woman...but I would die for the right of all religions to practice their religions how they choose as long as they don't break the laws of the countries they reside in...now this law passed in Denmark is specifically for Muslims...oh they cloak it with bullshit...but it is for Muslims...I don't approve of singling out any religion. France has passed a law banning even the scarf...it is just plain wrong. I hope our constitution holds strong and such a thing doesn't happen here. It is a blow to freedom. And I see many on this post would ban religion if they could and that is frightening...we need freedom of religion and freedom from religion...both are vital to any Republic or free nation.

[Squinch]

200. Burkas and niqabs make humans into

possessions. For a long time, one of the arguments for slavery in the US was that the bible condoned it and therefore it was ok for Christian people. That was wrong. So is this. And it has nothing to do with the religion.

[Demsrule86]

204. That is your opinion. By what right do you claim... which entitles you to decide for everyone?

[Squinch]

209. The same right that allows me to decide slavery is wrong, wife-beating is wrong and

marrying 12-year olds is wrong, among other things. All of those have been justified in the name of someone's religion. All of them are wrong. So is this.

[treestar]

309. There's a line between those things and what to wear

If polygamy or marrying 12-year-olds is allowed in Muslim countries, we still don't stand for those things. There are good reasons for not allowing people to follow such things here, even if due to religion. While marijuana is prohibited, Rastafarians can't smoke it either, even if required by religion. We had other reasons we wanted it to be illegal to smoke marijuana.

But what good reasons do we have for telling others not to wear things they want to wear, whatever the reason, religious or not? Suppose a non-Muslim decides to wear one because she is really shy and it makes her feel more comfortable.

[Demsrule86]

345. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in the United States thank God.

I doubt even the right wing SCOTUS would rule against the right to freely practice your religion.

[MicaelS]

361. There are plenty of cases ...

Where Christian Scientists, and other self-identified Christians of one sort or another, were prosecuted for letting one of their children die because they don't believe in medical help other than prayer.

Not to mention Mormon Polygamy being outlawed a long time ago.

The right to freely practice one's religion CAN be, and are curtailed. It is only a matter of how extreme the practice is. If a society decides the practice is inimical to society it will be curtailed.

I doubt even the right wing SCOTUS would rule against the right to freely practice your religion.

Your statement is thus false.

[treestar]

284. Not under Danish or any other Western law

The dressing does not deprive them of any of their rights in those countries. They are free to abandon those outfits at any time, legally.

[GulfCoast66]

330. You destroy your argument when you bring up Mormons...

Because Polygamy. It was part of their religion.

We universally decided it is in opposition to Liberal Democracy(ok, a stretch). But it was illegal in the US. And guess what? God suddenly told them it was wrong.

I have no problem with treating forced face coverings the same. Believe whatever you want. Don’t care. But certain actions are unacceptable. And that includes females, or anyone wearing something covering their face.

Enforce that and sure as shit women will no longer have to cover their faces. Because the men want to live here.

[Demsrule86]

331. Some mormons still live that way...they simply don't have state marriages and are left alone...but

I was referring to their clothing actually.

[GulfCoast66]

339. I normally agree with you on DU. Obviously not here.

These are not false equivalencies. There are tons of examples where religions call for things that we have decided are unacceptable.

Do you believe that under the guise of religion any thing is acceptable? Obviously a rhetorical question and I know your answer because I respect your beliefs.

We in the west have a history and culture, hard earned at times, that we deal with individual people. No one should be allowed to walk around totally veiled. Especially when it is designed to dehumanize females. The men who make the women do this are not victims, but oppressors. In my opinion if you want to live in the west you should show your face.

Your response maybe that’s because they are Muslims, and yeah, that may be true. But I like to believe that is because that is the only religion that requires this. I am also opposed to tentents of other religions and the way they treat women.

I really appreciate how we have kept this disagreement respectful. It is so easy to turn to personal insults on the interweb!

I have yet to research it, but my father told me that one of the reasons the clan died was because they were no longer allowed to march in public streets with their faces covered. So I have always seen covered faces in public as a bad thing. Perhaps that is influencing my opinion in a different way than yours.

Plus, I grew up in an evangelical church and saw the way women could so easily be abused by powerful man in such a situation.

I guess we are all influenced by our personal histories.

[Demsrule86]

199. I should add that banning the burqa will not stop the cultural oppression of women. It will merely

make their world smaller...chances are without the burqa their movements will be restricted...unintended consequences perhaps but consequences nonetheless. This law was enacted because of Islamophobia and should not be defended by those who value freedom.

[Squinch]

201. No it won't. Those men won't suddenly start doing their own grocery shopping and picking their

children up from school. They will adapt quickly when their convenience is at stake.

And it has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It has to do with the prevention of cruelty to human beings.

[Demsrule86]

203. Believe me in a highly religious house...women will become prisoners without the Burqa.

You are kidding yourself...this law is disgraceful.

[Squinch]

206. No I'm not. I've met many of the men who require this of their wives. They'll adapt.

[treestar]

315. Men can't force them to do anything legally

They just don't have to wear it. In a Western culture, the individual is the actor vs. the law.

[treestar]

311. Good point. There were no laws made against

the corset. No Western feminist has previously suggested any such law to free women - it was always positive, get the vote, be able to hold jobs, offices, not outlawing some artifact of past oppression.

[Demsrule86]

332. Exactly right. This is wrong...

[oberliner]

167. "Who are we to tell someone how to practice their religion?"

Is this for real?

[madville]

191. The Quran also says it's ok for a husband to beat his wife

if she exhibits dishonesty or ill-conduct. Should domestic violence laws not apply to muslims since their religion says it's acceptable?

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). Quran 4:34

[treestar]

316. Non religion based laws still apply

because there is reason to do that. No one proposes that straw man. It would be like making a straw man accusing people of wanting to prohibit people from carrying rosary beads because it is a religious practice.

Where to draw the line is the question. What people are wearing seems a good side of the line to leave alone. What they eat too. Should we make Muslims or Jews eat something they don't want because their reason for not eating it is religious?

[treestar]

231. Supposing some odd female, not a Muslim

decides she is going to wear something that covers everything, including her face? Not a burqua, but some total body covering of her own fashioning.

Would the law stretch to that? If that woman doesn't have to pay the fine, the law is anti-Muslim.

The 14th Amendment would prevent us from doing this without prohibiting any total cover-up, no matter what the motive.

[Squinch]

60. Burkas have nothing to do with Islam.

[guillaumeb]

96. Who are you to decide for those observant Muslims

who choose to wear it?

[Squinch]

101. It has nothing to do with the religion.

[guillaumeb]

103. Not my question.

Who are you to decide for another?

[Squinch]

106. That's the same as asking who are we to decide that any oppression is worth fighting.

Who are we to decide that our fellow humans should be treated like humans? Who are we to decide that women and POC should not be subjugated? After all, the subjugation of women and POC was an important part of our culture for hundreds of years.

Same thing.

We are people who value the humanity of others.

[guillaumeb]

107. No, it is not the same.

Unless you are making an assumption that you know how these women feel, and that you somehow know why they are doing what they do.

It seems to me that, by denying that someone might in fact choose to wear the burqa, you are saying that they lack the capacity to make such a decision.

[Squinch]

108. Are we wrong to prohibit female genital mutilation in this country? Even if we don't

know why girls are having it done and women are doing it?

[guillaumeb]

109. We allow male genital mutilation.

For religious reasons.

[Squinch]

111. Are you equating circumcision with female genital mutilation? If so, we have nothing

further to discuss because you are clearly not familiar with what I am referring to.

And you didn't answer the question of whether we are wrong to prohibit female genital mutilation.

[guillaumeb]

115. FGM is illegal in most countries.

And to equate wearing a burqa with FGM, as you seem to be doing, is ridiculous.

[Squinch]

117. You still haven't answered.

[guillaumeb]

120. Nice try.

And your comparison still fails.

[Squinch]

121. Still not answering. But the obvious answer is that of course it is right to prohibit FGM.

Because it is barbaric and harmful and has no purpose other than to allow men to subjugate women using abject cruelty.

And who are we to judge it like that? We are people who believe in the value of the humanity of others.

So that establishes that there are things we must, as decent people, not tolerate. That is the case whether those things are considered important parts of other cultures or not. Not only is our judgment of them legitimate, it is necessary.

Then the question becomes, where is that line drawn? You, obviously, feel that burqas and niqabs, which are barbaric and cruel and have no other purpose than the extreme subjugation of women, are A-OK because "but its their culture!"

In one of my work sites, I have frequent interactions with women in burkas and niqabs. I see the cruelty, the senselessness and the identity obliteration of them up close and personal, and I don't give a shit that it's their culture. It is wrong and it is senseless, and it has no purpose other than the extreme subjugation of women.

I'm all for outlawing any garment that covers the woman's face. Barring that, if women are still to be required to wear them, then their husbands need to start wearing pillow cases with eye slits over their heads.

[guillaumeb]

124. Your question was an attempt at diversion.

If you do not believe in religious freedom, simply say that.

Or, if you do not believe in religious freedom for Muslims, simply say THAT.

As to your assertion about religious garments, you are free to not wear whatever garments you do not wish to wear, but you are not free to dictate to other people what garments they can or cannot wear.

[Squinch]

128. Aaaand we're back to the beginning. The burka has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

It is nothing but a very visible and dehumanizing subjugation of women, and dehumanizing subjugation of women is not something that people should allow if they value the humanity of others.

But you seem to need to cling to the straw man (and I believe you KNOW it is a straw man) of it representing religious freedom. The abject cruelty of it does not seem to figure in your opinion. I notice it is mostly men in this thread who are vociferously defending this dehumanization of women, which is interesting and unsurprising.

We will have to disagree.

[guillaumeb]

129. You are casting yourself as the decider of what the clothing means.

And you have that right, for yourself.

However, you do not have the right to decide for others, no matter how confused you feel that they may be.

[Squinch]

133. I can see what the clothing does. Just as we can determine that mutilating women is wrong,

we can also determine that dehumanizing them and obliterating their ability to participate in the world is wrong.

Now you'll need the last word, so have at it.

[guillaumeb]

135. Post deleted to allow you the last word. eom

[smirkymonkey]

153. Do you ever feel like you are beating your head against a wall?

Just wondering.

Some people can be so obstinate.

[Squinch]

187. More and more often here.

[treestar]

321. why would that not include both arguers?

[treestar]

320. Then you would be for banning Playboy and other porn?

that dehumanizes women and harms their participation in the world.

[treestar]

319. But then if you want to outlaw it due to the subjugation motive you see behind it

Why not outlaw very high heels, bikinis and other garments used to exploit women?

Clothes should just not be regulated by the government.

[Demsrule86]

165. There is a huge difference in telling women how they can dress and fining said women....than

a harmful medical procedure which is illegal. No religion should flout such laws...it is not even close to the same thing. Have you considered that this law will make prisoners of women who may not be allowed out? How exactly is that a victory for Women's rights?

[RhodeIslandOne]

210. So you're basically admitting it's based on a regressive option

Wear this, or you can’t leave the house.

[treestar]

296. There is no similarity ?

Discuss the issue rather than these giving up types of posts.

[treestar]

282. That is physically intrusive, so distinguishable

from wearing something or not.

[Demsrule86]

116. That is what I think should we ban habits for nuns?

[guillaumeb]

119. One of my cousins was a Claretian Sister.

She wore the veil as a Sister.

She saw it as a sign of her faith.

[Demsrule86]

166. Exactly. And many Catholic nuns covered their faces...some still do.

[guillaumeb]

180. Correct.

[Squinch]

248. Claretian veils don't cover the face. You do know the difference between a burka and a hijab, right?

You do know the law bans the burka and no one objects to the hijab, right?

[guillaumeb]

307. Some countries have tried to ban the hijab as well.

One Canadian province in particular. Islamophobic laws are very popular in many countries.

[Squinch]

310. And? That has nothing to do with this discussion.

[guillaumeb]

312. It illustrate the range of Islamophobia.

From hate speech to acts that specifically target Muslims.

[Squinch]

314. Kay. Still has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Squinch]

136. The law is specifically about burkas, which cover the face. Nun's habits don't do that.

[Coventina]

137. I, for one, am sick of the nun comparison which is a false equivalency.

1. Most nuns do not wear the habit anymore.

2. Nuns are a self-selected group, and choose which order to join

3. They go through a very lengthy process before taking their final vows, in order to ensure that this is the life they are indeed suited for.

4. Finally, as you pointed out, the habit does NOT cover the face, and therefore is entirely different from what we are discussing.

It's completely bogus comparison.

[Squinch]

138. Nuns habits are much more like the hijab. And no one is objecting to that.

[Coventina]

139. Exactly.

It's just a stupid comparison.

[Doodley]

269. Not a fair comparison. A hijab that covers the face - you don't know if it is a

man or a woman under there. At best it is creepy to have somebody disguised, spying through a slit at everyone else.

[Squinch]

318. A hijab does NOT cover the face. A burka (which is what is being banned) and a niqab do.

[treestar]

326. If that is the real motive, it is akin to objecting to the speaking of

foreign languages.

It should be banned because other are "creeped out" to have someone disguised spying through a slit at them?

That motive has nothing to do with protecting those women and everything to do with being scared of their culture.

[treestar]

325. it can be compared as to the regulation of clothing, however

In the end, that is what the issue is. Should the government regulate clothing?

And if based on motive of oppression of women with religion, then that zeal should extend to nuns as well.

Then would you protect the burqa if it only applied to a few Muslim women who went through a convent like procedure to put them in a small category who would wear it?

Or protect a Catholic Order that came up with a face-covering get-up for its nuns?

[Coventina]

329. Now you are just making stuff up.

The government regulates clothing in many ways.
This has already been established.
So, by your criteria, we already living in "tyranny".
I suggest you start campaigning on that platform if you want that changed.

The supposed purpose of the burka, and other such coverings is to prevent women from seducing men.
There would be no need of a burka in a cloistered, all-female environment such as nuns have. Not unless you are proposing on changing the nature of the Islamic belief system.

[treestar]

359. They would go out under my hypothetical

Which you have not answered.

The government only regulates clothing in one way - requiring enough of it.

I fear you only criteria is Islam, otherwise you would rail against other women-dehumanizing unsafe garments.

[Coventina]

364. I am not going to indulge your weird fantasies that are not based on facts.

FWIW: I am opposed to the entire Abrahamic tradition, which is steeped in racism, misogyny, and violence.

But, my problem with the burqa and other face-covering garments has been extensively documented in this thread and I don't need to repeat it yet again.

AFAIAK, people can wear whatever wacky religiously mandated clothing they want, as long as it doesn't cover the face or pose some other safety hazard.

[Demsrule86]

156. Yes they do..Carmelite nuns did for many years and some still do.

Google it if you don't believe me. And telling another person what to wear because you don't like their religion is abhorrent and I thank God we protect religious freedom in this country.

[Squinch]

185. It has nothing to do with the religion. There is no Islamic rule that requires a burka.

And ETA: I googled Carmelite images. Not one photo showed face coverings.

[treestar]

328. If it did, would you want it outlawed?

[treestar]

324. The look uncomfortable and certainly are a sign

of religious oppression of women. Yet there is no move to save these women from themselves by outlawing their religious expression.

[wonkwest]

150. You're misguided

I'm gay. I dislike Islam a great deal. I have my pretty justified reasons. When I've expressed this, I've been called an Islamaphobe.

I do not tolerate oppression just because, "It's their culture." I find that oddly more bigoted, actually. A kind of, "Well, they don't know any better."

Nope. I'm a liberal. I believe in liberal values for everyone. Women have choice and equality. LGBTers have rights. We all have or should have freedom to believe or not believe as we see fit. Straight men of one religion don't get to punish or beat down anyone who disobeys their dictum.

Islam has trouble with these things. Even many portions of liberal western Islam.

I loathe Christian conservatives. I get to loathe any form of Islam that is similar.

Calling me a name about it doesn't change my mind.

[guillaumeb]

179. The term describes a behavior.

And this example, like many others, is textbook Islamophobia 101.

[wonkwest]

182. Cultural relativism in service to oppression

Is oppression.

Again. You have a neat term. "Islamaphobia." Here are a few other terms for you. Pro-women. Pro-gay. Pro-equality.

Those are my terms.

I don't heed your terms. They're empty.

[smirkymonkey]

189. Oh, just stop it already!

You are being ridiculous. You aren't even listening to what other people are saying.

[guillaumeb]

190. I disagree.

The motives presented to justify Islamophobia are varied.

[treestar]

360. this kind of post indicates

an argument has hit a nerve, and you don't have an answer for it. If the other person is logically right, admit it rather than telling them to stop it.

[smirkymonkey]

367. He isn't logically right. He's just being obstinate.

You assume because you agree with him that he is logically right. It's only an opinion.

[treestar]

374. Everyone feels that way about their opinions

So asking people to stop because they are obviously wrong is silly - they think the same of you.

[harun]

183. +1

[guillaumeb]

184. Thank you. eom

[madville]

192. They should get rid of their domestic violence laws also

Since the Quran says it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife in the event of dishonesty or ill-conduct.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). Quran 4:34

[RhodeIslandOne]

211. So I suppose you are also against Western women being forced...

.....to wear head and body coverings in Middle Eastern countries, correct?

[bitterross]

280. While Islamaphobia may be the root of it. I still think it's a good thing.

I read the article and wasn't surprised to find the law was proposed by the center-right. That gives your supposition of Islamaphobia 101 great credibility.

Sometimes though, something good comes out of something bad. When bad people (the Islamaphobes) do something they think is tailored to insult and subvert the followers of Islam, in this case, they are shooting themselves in the foot at the same time. They are empowering women. Not usually a goal of those on the right.

I fervently disagree with the statement in the article from Amnesty International:

“If the intention of this law was to protect women’s rights it fails abjectly,” Amnesty International’s Europe Director Gauri van Gulik said. “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.”

I no more believe women freely choose to wear that clothing than I believe in Santa Claus. Note my use of the term freely. I have no doubt that many of the women affected will protest they are having their rights taken away and will say they choose to wear the traditional garb. Like the many intelligent, white women who voted for 45 in this country I think they are more bound to tradition and custom than to their own self-worth and sense of self apart from a patriarch society. Their choice is not made freely. It is still coerced, at least subconsciously, by male tradition and laws.

[Devil Child]

34. Good for Denmark

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Denmark and America need to watch a Canadian sitcom called

"Little Mosque On The Prairie"

[HopeAgain]

52. So, women lose freedoms because others decide they are being subjugated?

I'm not sure I understand how that works.

[christx30]

81. I just think it's hilarious..

Someone from that part of the world comes to the West, they keep their cultural dress, and we have to respect it, because it is is their culture. But if a westerner goes to that part of the world, we have to dress like them, because in their country we must respect their culture. There is no two way street there.
So, yeah, I'm ok with the law. I wish more western countries would adopt those laws. If you want to dress that way, there are plenty of other countries to do it in.
As soon as women in Iran are allowed to dress like this again, https://goo.gl/images/wWURg5 I'd be ok with relaxing those laws.

[Squinch]

88. That photo does put this all in a stark perspective, doesn't it?

I'd also be OK with relaxing the law if the man requiring it of his wife wore one also.

[Squinch]

89. I always wonder about the lives of those women. They're in medical school wearing western

clothing, presumably many are practicing medicine and other professions, and then one day they have to put on a burka and not show their faces outside their homes.

It's just like A Handmaid's Tale.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

104. Bingo.

If they can wear the burqa when in the West, then I should be able to wear a mini skirt and a tank top in Saudi Arabia. Or at least jeans and a t-shirt, no headcovering of any kind. But no, if I go there I need to wear heavy black drapery from head to toe, no choice there.

[dhol82]

130. Yup. I went to Iran a couple of years ago.

I was required to have my visa picture with a head covering.
I was required to wear a hijab and modest dress while in the country. No choice!
Do you know how freaking hot the outfit is?
Sorry, I stand with Denmark.

[treestar]

256. Isn't that what makes us free and them not?

That's what we base our pride on. You're saying we should be more like those other countries, enforcing our culture/religious customs. The very thing we pride ourselves on is that we are not.

[christx30]

386. But our customs and culture are based on individual liberty,

and not oppression. We shouldn't allow one group to oppress another group in our countries. There are plenty of places like that in the world. If someone wants to treat their women like property, they can move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
I've been watching The Handmaid's Tale. If you haven't seen it, you should. It's very well done.
In it, fertile women are enslaved by the state, and forced to join families to breed with the husband. This is done for twisted religious reasons. These Handmaids are executed by hanging, or sent out to a radioactive wasteland called the Colony to work until they die if they don't perform or rebel in any way. They are forced to wear modest clothing. The lucky ones are able to escape to Canada.
Now picture a US family and their Handmaid moving to Canada to live, because of economic reasons. Should Canada tolerate the family keeping their Handmaid against her will, because that's their culture? Should they allow the Handmaid to go to the market in her red slave cloak? Or should they demand the family release her, let her dress how she wants, or threaten to arrest them if they do not?

And before you say "this is fiction", a lot of this stuff goes on in Islamic countries. Women are treated like property. Forced under penalty of jail, rape, or death for failing to dress modestly. It's awful, but we can't do anything in those countries. But we can sure as hell refuse to put up with that crap in the west.

[Squinch]

123. A couple of guys in this thread really, really love them burkas.

[dhol82]

132. Are they all men?

Some might be women agitating for full coverage.
Ptui!

[Squinch]

134. No. The vociferous ones are men.

[Squinch]

351. I stand corrected. Some women have joined the fray. Unbelievable.

[dhol82]

352. I guess it is their right, however

I spent a week in Iran having to wear a hijab and ‘modest dress.’
Boy, was I grateful when I got to the airport and could take off the outfit.

[fleabiscuit]

140. No face coverings... this could get interesting in the future.

I keep my stash of N95 Approved. Last summer was a bitch.

[treestar]

294. Interesting. There is a scientific/rational basis for that one

Not religious. So it is interesting the motive behind it. You ought to be able to see the person's face - otherwise they can wear what they want. Then the exceptions come up. Ski masks for when it is cold or these for when disease is in the air. The motive is really something else.

[fleabiscuit]

365. Ya, like maybe privacy.

Spend a few months in hospital physical rehab and you can get used to people wearing masks.

[wonkwest]

141. People also don't seem to understand European CCTV culture

While it exists in the U.S., CCTV use for law enforcement purposes is very much a part of culture in many European nations. The amount of cameras in places like London is absolutely crazy. But they use them to track down perpetrators of crime. Get mugged? There's footage of it somewhere.

That said, not a fan of the burqa. It's plain old religious misogyny imposed on women by fundamentalist forces. A few months back, I was walking around a lake when I came across a Muslim family. It was a hot, sunny day. The males were in t-shirts, shorts, and flip flops. The mother and (I assume grandmother, hard to say) were fully covered. Two little girls weren't in burqas, but were clothed in long-sleeved shirts and pants.

It just pissed me right off. The men and boys get to be comfortable, while the women had to deal with the heat. Just fuck that shit.

[onenote]

144. Should dress codes imposed on women of other religions be banned

Should the state come to the rescue of amish and mennonite women who are forced to wear head covering and dresses that cover most of their bodies? Aren't those the product of male dominance as well?

Or should men and women just be allowed to wear whatever they wear?

[wonkwest]

147. The burqa obstructs the face

And in a society where being able to I.D. someone is considered important, it's detrimental.

I'm not a fan of all cameras everywhere all of the time. It reeks of Big Brother. But, Europe has a much different view and tolerance of it.

That the burqa is getting banned is just a happy consequence, IMO.

I'd like to see women have a choice. Unfortunately, the cultures that impose burqas on women aren't exactly bastions of women's choice. They face beatings or worse for disobeying. And yeah, I include some Amish communities in that. There was a documentary maybe ten years ago that documented the rampant abuse that happens in some of those communities. It was horrifying.

A lot of more fundamentalist cultures are marked by this. Whenever I see women having their modesty imposed, I'm seeing a culture, religious or not, where a lot of women are getting their asses kicked behind the scenes. It always seems to play out that way. I can't remember the name of the cult. It was some years back, in Texas, where the women were all wearing those long, heavy dresses that looked like they originated in 1890's Oklahoma. I believe there was controversy because the government took all the kids away. Shocker of shocks, abuse was everywhere.

[treestar]

302. If there is abuse, it can be found like it was for the Amish or the followers of Warren Jeffs

There should be no law against Amish dress or the type of dress Jeffs' followers wore either. It does represent oppression. But the women should get to choose to come out of that for themselves and at their own pace.

[Coventina]

148. False equivalency. The Amish and Menonnite men also have strict wardrobe

requirements.

Also, the Amish and Mennonite communities do not force people to stay who don't want to do so.

Every single time I have seen a conservative Muslim family in Europe or the United States, the men are dressed completely western while the women are forced to wear the burka/abaya/niqab. I have never once seen a man wear the thawb.

[wonkwest]

149. That's what chaps my rear

The men (and young boys) were dressed the same way any other Western person would for heat. The women (and young girls) got to experience their full oppression with all the discomfort and suffering it entails.

I'm all about cultural tolerance and respecting traditions and different religions, etc.

But when those things discriminate and cause oppression and suffering, my tolerance runs real low.

It was damn hot out that day. The males seemed to be having a great time. The females less so.

(You made a good point about the Amish. I forgot men are running around in wool and long sleeves and pants in 90 degree heat and 95% humidity. Well, as long as they all get to be misguided together, I suppose. But the abuse documentary I saw about a Mennonite community haunts me. They showed the bruises. As the child of a physical abuser, that one stuck. What's under those clothes is far more important than the reason they're worn).

[onenote]

155. so you believe that any dress requirements that Muslim women obey should be illegal?

The hijab? Simply wearing a head covering? Dressed in long flowing robes? Should it be illegal for Muslim women not to wear "western" clothing in "western" nations?

[Demsrule86]

171. France employers are allowed to ban he Hijab now. I find this disgusting.

[Coventina]

177. I think anything covering the face should be illegal, yes.

(With exceptions for weather or health conditions)

[Squinch]

195. No one in this thread has voiced any objection to any garment but the dehumanizing

ones that cover the face and have nothing to do with religion. No one has voiced any objection to head coverings of any kind.

[treestar]

303. They are "forced" to stay in the same way

Muslim women living in Western countries are "forced" to stay. Not by the law, but by cultural pressure. If they want out, they have to be the ones who make the terms of how they come out of it. Maybe that could include the dress customs for a while. Imagine wearing that all your life and thinking God wants that - and leaving it be a matter of leaving your family and what you had known. That should be at their pace, not enforced by a government that is supposed to be about being free to do as you want.

No one was forced to be a nun either and yet women chose that. Overall the arc bends towards freedom for women, but let those behind it deal with it as they want.

[Coventina]

305. No, they are not forced the same way. You need to do more reading on the Amish and Mennonites.

The Fundamentalist Mormons are a little different, there is more pressure on the women to stay (young men are actually encouraged and sometimes forced to leave).

But, the Fundamentalist Mormons are currently being dismantled, just as any abusive organization should.

[Jake Stern]

261. There is a truly fundamental difference

Amish and Mennonite women aren't routinely beaten for wardrobe faux pas nor are they threatened with death for choosing a different religion.

[treestar]

255. I had notice too that little girls don't have to wear the stuff

So it must be presented to them as part of growing up.

[GulfCoast66]

344. Not presented

Once they are a woman, capable of child bearing they stop being children...and become property.

[dhol82]

353. In Iran they have training hijabs for the little girls

Starting at age seven.
They were on little headbands.
Matched the school uniforms.

[GulfCoast66]

145. Funny that on DU we semi regularly have threads where some members criticize western natiions

For banning the damn things. But seldom if ever see threads with people railing against all the Muslim countries that enforce their wear with violence, either state sponsored or ‘unofficially’.

They are dehumanizing and I just cannot see how any liberal can support them. But we all come to different conclusions based on our individual circumstances.

[Squinch]

186. I suspect the individual circumstances boil down to whether one has ever actually

seen a burka in real life.

Once you do, I don't know anyone who thinks, "This is OK with me," other than the men who are so frightened of women that they instituted their wear in the first place.

[GulfCoast66]

188. I often see them here...

In central Florida, Summertime, hotter than the gates of hell. The woman encased in a black sleeping bag while her fucking man/posesser walks around in khakis and a madras shirt.

It’s what people do to slaves.

It astounds me liberals can find any justification to defend this barbaric behavior.

[Demsrule86]

215. It astounds me that Liberals can find any justiification to interfere with one of our most important

freedoms ...freedom of religion and from religion...no woman in the US has to don a burqa.

[GulfCoast66]

219. Keep telling yourself that no woman in the US has to don a burqa

If it makes you feel good. But no one is buying that.

I can just hear the conversation when one of them in the swealtering heat says to her man, ‘honey, it is hotter than hell in this rig, I think today I am just going to wear a modest dress.’ Yeah, that’s not happening.

I have no problem with it being illegal to keep your face covered in public. There are legit safety reasons for it and nothing illiberal about it either. Religious beliefs do not get to trump all other laws and/or regulations.

Supporting garb that by its very nature is meant to dehumanize women is, to me, illiberal.

But reasonable and like minded people do on occasion disagree.

[treestar]

301. Legally they don't

They have to decide they want to abandon it. You don't know where they are coming from. I guess there are none on DU to ask. Some of them indeed might look at this as wonderful and they can finally stop wearing it. Others might feel insecure or afraid without it. Imagining growing up in that culture, it would possibly make them feel like they are displeasing God and whether you or I think that is crazy, freedom of religious thoughts is a big deal in the US.

[GulfCoast66]

323. I do not disagree with any of that.

But I think you left out a major reason they wear them-the men in their life’s beating the shit out of them, or worse.

[Demsrule86]

340. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But it is not our job to ban and item of clothing just in case.

[treestar]

244. Liberals are about people doing what they choose to do

Whether it seems wise to the liberals or not.

It's behind the idea that you are free not to get an abortion if you don't think it is right. But you should not be able to make laws making people OK with getting one forbidden to do it where they choose.

This is why liberals are "tolerant." To each his own. Right wingers are not tolerant because they want their way to be enforced against those who don't want to.

[Demsrule86]

216. I am against the Burqa and against lots of things people say...but I would not restrict free speech.

Either we are free to live as we choose or we are not.

[Coventina]

217. Anything that covers a woman's face is restricting her free speech.

These garments prevent women from moving freely, seeing freely, and interacting with others as a full human being.

They have no place in a free society, period.

[treestar]

238. It's the theory that some things should be up to the individual

Even if they seem oppressive to us.

In the US women are free to defer to their husbands and not work. It may be tough to understand willing to be oppressed like that, but we leave them to their choice. That is the concept behind liberal tolerance. You don't have to have the freedom, but they can't stop us from having it.

It is fine to criticize Muslim countries for not granting the freedoms to any women.

[AlexSFCA]

268. We don't like to tell other countries what to do

[rollin74]

178. good for Denmark

[Owl]

207. Good for Denmark

[treestar]

220. That is the reason our First Amendment is an advance

In spite of our being behind on health care and other things.

Being liberal, this sounds good, but the idea of the state ordering what you can wear means that if different people get into power, the same government could prohibit bikinis or the like.

That is what I argue to right wing Christians who insist they are being persecuted by not being able to make Christianity part of political power.

[zanana1]

243. Freedon of Religion does not guarantee...

Religion in government. Separation of Church and State is an absolutely brilliant idea.
I agree with your post. We can't stop people from wearing what their religion dictates. That would be a slippery slope.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

322. Would it be a First Amendment issue? Or Fourth / Fifth amendment?

The point of the seems to be non-religious, but just a way to stop people from hiding their identity by covering their faces.

[SylviaD]

259. As a non-religious woman I applaud this tiny crack in the wall of patriarchy nt

[AlexSFCA]

265. I support the law 100%; it is pro women

burkah is a well documented form of women abuse. When they are abused from birth, they don’t see the difference. Liberal democracies need to step in and demonstrate that this will never be tolerated. Even if it fines women; it cracks that barrier in their brain that abused people from birth have and show that wearing burkah is bad, bad, bad. I am in agreement with Bill Maher, religion is a mental disorder and needs to be looked upon as such; requires intervention to break the OCD cycle. It is very similar to drug addiction.

[treestar]

289. you don't think freedom of religion is a good idea?

It's not a mental disorder by an measure of psychiatry.

[AlexSFCA]

304. I support freedom of religion

covering face in public has nothing to do with it. There is no true freedom of religion in the US. If there was then it would ok to stone people to death for sins and much more like in bible and koran.

[treestar]

313. No one does those things any more

There is indeed no true freedom of religion if you include every possibility from religions of thousands of years ago. No human sacrifice to the sun gods either. We're not in that place.

[GulfCoast66]

368. Well, yes they do.

Muslim woman who do not tow the line get stoned to death. In Muslim countries.

Happens pretty regularly.

[treestar]

375. do you have a real example

I have heard of some horrid things happening in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria but it involved adultery or pre-marital sex. In what countries have women been actually stoned to death for refusal to wear something?

[leftynyc]

370. Where in the koran

does it say a woman must cover her face? I've never seen it quoted. Just modest dress. If it's not stated in the koran, it's NOT religious law and simply something made up (no doubt by a bunch of men) to disappear women. Good for Denmark and anyone else who refuses to allow women to be hidden.

[treestar]

376. Yet a women, even a non-Muslim, might

want to do that. Should it not be up to her? We may not agree but she has a right to do it. People harm themselves if they smoke, but there is no law against it.

[leftynyc]

379. You will NEVER get me to believe

ANY woman chooses to disappear herself. Never. There are security reasons to keep people from covering their faces (been a law in NY since the klan). If they don't like it, they can move.

[treestar]

383. Dunno; this is another culture

I recall reading a book by Angela Davis years ago - she and other American feminists met with some Arabic feminists and found the Arabic feminists had a totally different view and were not ready to adopt the American feminist methods word for word. They were angry the Americans expected that. Maybe there are those that are ready to throw it off, and their ability to do so is enhanced by their being in Denmark, but that doesn't mean they want it to be by these means.

[leftynyc]

384. Then they shouldn't move to the west

It's really that simple. I couldn't go to most Muslim majority countries and wear my hear uncovered and walk around in a bikini - why should we have to assume THEIR cultural norms but not the other way around?

[EllieBC]

327. It is not pro-woman.

You think those women will go out now? No they'll be more isolated.

[Doodley]

267. Time to stop treating women like possessions that should be hidden and subservient to

their "owners."

[revmclaren]

306. Sooooo...

Who here supporting the religious freedom to wear or be forced to wear a burqa support genital mutilation in the name of religious freedom?

Hands please....

Important side note - Danish Parliament voting soon on the matter of circumcision.

Working but will check back later for the answers and I'm sure interesting debate.

[romanic]

348. Good.

The burqa and niqab aren't required by Islam, its just a way for the men to cover up thier "property" (aka wives, girlfriends, relatives etc). Anyone crying about the ban is a doofus.

[luvMIdog]

354. I think it's funny that no one seems to worry about all the women wearing tall spiked high heels

I find spiked heels extremely painful , uncomfortable and oppressive . Many other women seem to love it.

One woman's idea of fashion oppression might not be the same to another woman. I do think it's odd people get so concerned and involved over Muslim clothing and don't seem to care a bit about all the women deforming their feet in high heels.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

358. We don't know what she's wearing, under the burqa.

High-heels, platforms, combat boots, who knows?

I think the Danish issue is about covering the face. Lose the veil piece, and the rest of the burqa is probably legal.

[treestar]

362. Impairs the ability to run away too

So you'd think they'd be seen as "dangerous" to the same people arguing the security facets for always showing your face. And there is real foot deformity, so it's strange there is no campaign against them or advertising them, like cigarettes or alcohol.

[leftynyc]

372. Are men FORCING women to

wear high heels? Will they be beaten or left home if they don't wear them? There is your difference.

[treestar]

377. In a Western society, the men cannot legally force

the women to stay home, or beat them. They'd have recourse to the law.

[leftynyc]

380. Not sure what that has to do with high heels

and how no woman is forced to wear them.

[treestar]

381. That is a different issue

I will concede that women have not been beaten or made to stay home for not wearing high heels, unless there is some case I have not heard of. But if they were, in a western society, they would have recourse to the law. An individual in Western societies cannot be "forced" to stay home or beaten without it being a law violation.

[fleabiscuit]

366. How about doing away with full face motorcycle helmets too?

[treestar]

378. It's a good thing we are past the age of knighthood

Or we'd have to ban the military.