Denmark bans full face veils.

greencap

''DENMARK HAS BECOME the latest European country to ban the Islamic full-face veil in public spaces in a move slammed by human rights campaigners as “a violation of women’s rights”.

“Anyone who wears a garment that hides the face in public will be punished with a fine,” says the law, which was passed by 75 votes to 30 in the Danish parliament.

Presented by the centre-right government, the legislation was also backed by the Social Democrats and the far-right Danish People’s Party.

The new rule will take effect on 1 August...''

http://www.thejournal.ie/denmark-burqa-banned-4047357-May2018/

A growing trend worldwide, Quebec brought something similar in for public services recently iirc.

GreeBo

I can't wait to see the expression on Islamic womens faces when they hear this!

riffmongous

It's also a handy law to sneak in a way to ban demonstrators from hiding their faces

dreamers75

greencap wrote: »

in a move slammed by human rights campaigners as “a violation of women’s rights”.

But forcing them to wear them isnt

DickSwiveller

dreamers75 wrote: »

But forcing them to wear them isnt

What if they want to wear it?

Kimbot

Guess I'm not going to Denmark so

DickSwiveller

I'm very wary of governments telling people what they can or can't wear. Fair enough if they are working in the public service, but if its in a private capacity I don't see a problem.

2 Scoops

"Violations of Women's rights"

Did they ever ask themselves why the veils are black nylon in the awful middle east heat and not white gauze, they are a form of punishment and the sooner they disappear from that cult the better

greencap

I bet the UK wouldn't have the balls to do it.

AllForIt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm very wary of governments telling people what they can or can't wear. Fair enough if they are working in the public service, but if its in a private capacity I don't see a problem.

Is there any other fashion issues on the cards that governments wish to get rid off?

Marlow

Ok .. let's put things in the clear first: I'm a danish citizen, Denmark is my home, I live in ireland and I don't agree with the way things have gone in Denmark especially in the last 10 years.

Denmark has turned very much right wing.

BUT ... Denmark has generally a very socialistic and open political view.

Because of Demarks very socialistic views and the way the system works, it's often exploited by immigrants. In ways that are beyond belief (social welfare, tax credits, etc).

It's build up the point, that there are extremist islamic ghettos in urban areas, that he police can't even get into, if there are issues (due to violence).

So yes .. this results in extreme political kick back.

Then there is the story of the anti-islamic cartoons a few years back, that resulted in a complete boycott of danish products in islamic regions. Here's the fun part: those were a re-print. Why didn't this happen the first time around ?

So ... yes, I don't necessarily agree with the political views at home at the moment .. but .. there's always 2 sides to the story. One extreme leads to another. And to be honest, the islamic community of primarly asylum seeking immigrants, that came to Denmark for it's social security, has caused these laws. They came to Denmark, didn't respect the culture there, so now they're forced.

But they would expect us to respect THEIR culture 100%, if we entered their country. Or they would penalise us. (Try, being a woman, go to a muslim country and don't wear a veil in public and see what happens. The newspapers don't write much about that).

That law is nothing compared to what they do to us in their country.

That's my 2c on it. Like it or not.

/M

DickSwiveller

AllForIt wrote: »

Is there any other fashion issues on the cards that governments wish to get rid off?

Don't think so. But were discussing the face veil.

Yer Da sells Avon

Marlow wrote: »

So ... yes, I don't necessarily agree with the political views at home at the moment .. but .. there's always 2 sides to the story. One extreme leads to another. And to be honest, the islamic community of primarly asylum seeking immigrants, that came to Denmark for it's social security, has caused these laws. They came to Denmark, didn't respect the culture there, so now they're forced.

So it's essentially a symbolic "fuck you" to Muslims.

Marlow

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

So it's essentially a symbolic "fuck you" to Muslims.

With the way our right wing government thinks ...: YES !

It's: as long as you don't respect our culture, even in your country ... we won't respect your culture in our country ... because you've taken the piss now. It has been coming over a period of more than 10 years ... and they've caused it themselves with the agro. It's the extremists, that ruin it for the overall community.

Danes are very liberal, but also very nationalistic and patriotic.

/M

riffmongous

Marlow wrote: »

With the way our right wing government thinks ...: YES !

It's: as long as you don't respect our culture, even in your country ... we won't respect your culture in our country ... because you've taken the piss now. It has been coming over a period of more than 10 years ... and they've caused it themselves with the agro. It's the extremists, that ruin it for the overall community.

Danes are very liberal, but also very nationalistic and patriotic.

/M

What do you think of this article? Reasonable/biased? I just saw it a few days ago and it seemed a bit odd for the Indo

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/not-so-hygge-why-denmark-is-no-cosy-place-for-migrants-36943770.html

DickSwiveller

Marlow wrote: »

With the way our right wing government thinks ...: YES !

It's: as long as you don't respect our culture, even in your country ... we won't respect your culture in our country ... because you've taken the piss now. It has been coming over a period of more than 10 years ... and they've caused it themselves with the agro. It's the extremists, that ruin it for the overall community.

Danes are very liberal, but also very nationalistic and patriotic.

/M

Do you not think you should hold your country to higher standards than Saudi Arabia or Iran?

purplepanda

Should be illegal to cover your face in any public place especially public transport, that applies to everyone including demonstrators.

Wearing a head & neck covering is more than enough for those that want to dress modesty.

Marlow

riffmongous wrote: »

What do you think of this article? Reasonable/biased? I just saw it a few days ago and it seemed a bit odd for the Indo

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/not-so-hygge-why-denmark-is-no-cosy-place-for-migrants-36943770.html

I've only quickly skimmed it, but it sounds about right. I left Denmark about 20 years ago and have lived quite a few years abroad since in various countries. I'm over 14 years in Ireland now.

I'm married to a Brazilian and I couldn't bring her home, even if I wanted to.

The reason for this is, the danish social system has been exploited by immigrants for decades. It got to the point, that the right wing got actual foot-hold in the goverment, so that now I couldn't even move back home and on the basis of family (or marriage) could get my wife a visa.

On the upside, I got married in Denmark (with my brazilian wife) in December. It took all but one week to get it all sorted (would actually only have taken 24 hours, if we were residents).

In Ireland, it takes 3 months notice to get married and a tourist visa only lasts 3 months. Make the maths yourself. On the upside, once you're married, your partner is guaranteed a Family Visa (Fam 4 EU Visa). It's matter of fact the easiest country to get an EU Visa for married couples, where the partner is from outside of the EU. Any other country will cause you nightmares.

And other nordic countries will cause you even worse troubles than Denmark as an immigrant. The system just won't take it any more. That's were these laws come from. People have had enough of immigrants abusing their gratitude.

Here's the fun factor: Once my wife has lived 5 years in Ireland, she can apply for irish citizenship. If she gets that, we can move to Denmark if we want and they can't deny her. Being an EU citizen and all. The UK will be a nightmare very soon because of Brexit. More than any other place.

I was told, that I had to sign a document at our wedding ceremony, acknowledging, that she wouldn't get a visa. I pointed that fact out to them and they didn't even bother It's knowing the system and how to deal with it. Abusing it and you get screwed over eventually. Don't accept the culture and you get f***cked.

/M

Marlow

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Do you not think you should hold your country to higher standards than Saudi Arabia or Iran?

I think every person should accept the cultural consequences of the country that they elect to move to.

Saudi Arabians and Iran expect us to adhere to their culture, when we visit or live there. Why can't we expect the same, when they come to our countries ?

Looking at it from that perspective, all European countries are extremely liberal and relaxed to other cultures. Even with laws like this being introduced.

It doesn't mean, that I approve of the law, but gives you a picture, where it comes from.

/M

s7ryf3925pivug

The explicit reasons for wearing it:
1. So men are not aroused by them.
2. Female modesty

This implies:
1. For a woman, displaying your face is giving permission to be viewed sexually
2. Women who don't cover their face are immodest

I view the above as being unacceptable viewpoints in western society. Therefore I agree with burqa bans in western countries.

derfderf

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What if they want to wear it?

What if i want to wear a balaclava?

s7ryf3925pivug

greencap wrote: »

'slammed by human rights campaigners as “a violation of women’s rights”.

Bizarre PoV. The nordic countries are the most progressive in the world when it comes to women's rights. Islamic notions of female modesty are some of the most regressive. Burqas are dehumanising.

justshane

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm very wary of governments telling people what they can or can't wear. Fair enough if they are working in the public service, but if its in a private capacity I don't see a problem.

If I decided to walk around Dublin with a balaclava on I would give it around ten minutes before the Gaurds caught up with me, and rightly so.

Canis Lupus

justshane wrote: »

If I decided to walk around Dublin with a balaclava on I would give it around ten minutes before the Gaurds caught up with me, and rightly so.

Honestly in winter I doubt it unless you decide on making a withdrawal at a bank.

Graces7

Marlow wrote: »

to.
every person should accept the cultural consequences of the country that they elect to move to.


Saudi Arabians and Iran expect us to adhere to their culture, when we visit or live there. Why can't we expect the same, when they come to our countries ?

Looking at it from that perspective, all European countries are extremely liberal and relaxed to other cultures. Even with laws like this being introduced.

It doesn't mean, that I approve of the law, but gives you a picture, where it comes from.


/M

Heaven forbid! We need the dilution.

and second quote; you think so? interesting.

Graces7

Rudy Immense Lambskin wrote: »

Bizarre PoV. The nordic countries are the most progressive in the world when it comes to women's rights. Islamic notions of female modesty are some of the most regressive. Burqas are dehumanising.

For you they might be. For those wearing them not.

Graces7

Rudy Immense Lambskin wrote: »

The explicit reasons for wearing it:
1. So men are not aroused by them.
2. Female modesty

This implies:
1. For a woman, displaying your face is giving permission to be viewed sexually
2. Women who don't cover their face are immodest

I view the above as being unacceptable viewpoints in western society. Therefore I agree with burqa bans in western countries.

More modesty here would be a good thing. Rather than the current over exposure of bare flesh.. and all that that leads to

Mrtestosterone

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

For you they might be. For those wearing them not.

Women are forced to wear them because men are ashamed by women just like Allah has said. When Afghanistan was ruled by taliban, windows were blacked out in buildings where women grouped together to prevent the shame of the public seeing the woman. It is a fact, do a few minutes of research and you will see that it is.

Mrtestosterone

Graces7 wrote: »

More modesty here would be a good thing. Rather than the current over exposure of bare flesh.. and all that that leads to

Who doesn't like a bit of orgy

Canis Lupus

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

For you they might be. For those wearing them not.

What about muslim women who don't want to wear them?

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

More modesty here would be a good thing. Rather than the current over exposure of bare flesh.. and all that that leads to

What does it lead to?

pickarooney

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

So it's essentially a symbolic "fuck you" to Muslims.

Interestingly, according to the map, Uzbekistan, which is 80% Muslim, bans full-face veils.

cdeb

Rudy Immense Lambskin wrote: »

Burqas are dehumanising.

Dehumanising the absolutely the correct word.

The face is the seat of all outward human emotion and expression. We recognise people from their faces. We communicate emotions through our faces - smiles, laughs, arched eyebrows, a surprised expression, fear. Eye contact is key in building trust. When people lie, they're very likely to break eye contact. Poker players will wear sunglasses to hide their emotions. To lose social standing is to literally lose face.

This is not something new; this is part of our evolution going back tens of thousands of years.
David Attenborough has shown how barely communicated tribes in the jungles of Papua New Guinea use the same facial communication expressions as western people do, and it breaks down barriers, and aids communication amongst people with no shared language. (See the last episode of Life on Earth for more on this)

To insist that a person's entire face is covered in public it to literally dehumanise them - to take away all this human interaction. It absolutely should be banned. This "Oh, it's their culture" argument is absolute nonsense.

"But what if they want it", others will say. According to UNICEF, Muslim women also, by and large, agree that their husbands should be allowed beat them when necessary. Do they really want to be beaten? Of course not - this is just how subjugated women are in Islam, particularly the stricter codes. So how can you argue in that instance that they want to wear the burqa? They don't have a choice. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other" - so says the Qoran.

Anyone who supports basic human rights can only conclude that the burqa has no place in not only European culture, but any culture. It's particularly ironic that, in the week that Ireland has repealed the eighth - the central argument to which was women's rights - some people will decide to tread on women's rights because "culture"

Fair dues to Denmark.

YFlyer

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm very wary of governments telling people what they can or can't wear. Fair enough if they are working in the public service, but if its in a private capacity I don't see a problem.

Should that read 'I do see a problem'?

YFlyer

AllForIt wrote: »

Is there any other fashion issues on the cards that governments wish to get rid off?

Hoodies in Ireland.

Joe Dog

If you become an immigrant in any country you have to follow their laws and accept the way things operate in the country you have moved to, if you don't like it then **** off back to where you came from.

I would also argue that you almost certainly should not be able to claim social welfare in any country that you have moved to as an immigrant unless you have worked their for 10 years or more (and that includes irish immigrants all over the world).The point of immigrants is that they should add to a country's economy not take from it.

Taytoland

About time they got stood up to.

Graces7

Mrtestosterone wrote: »

Women are forced to wear them because men are ashamed by women just like Allah has said. When Afghanistan was ruled by taliban, windows were blacked out in buildings where women grouped together to prevent the shame of the public seeing the woman. It is a fact, do a few minutes of research and you will see that it is.

Yes I know all that and still say the same. OK? OK! Their custom.

Graces7

So? You are seeing it from your viewpoint not theirs. The ultimate in intolerance .
Let them be. Dress as you want by all means.

cdeb wrote: »

Dehumanising the absolutely the correct word.

The face is the seat of all outward human emotion and expression. We recognise people from their faces. We communicate emotions through our faces - smiles, laughs, arched eyebrows, a surprised expression, fear. Eye contact is key in building trust. When people lie, they're very likely to break eye contact. Poker players will wear sunglasses to hide their emotions. To lose social standing is to literally lose face.

This is not something new; this is part of our evolution going back tens of thousands of years.
David Attenborough has shown how barely communicated tribes in the jungles of Papua New Guinea use the same facial communication expressions as western people do, and it breaks down barriers, and aids communication amongst people with no shared language. (See the last episode of Life on Earth for more on this)

To insist that a person's entire face is covered in public it to literally dehumanise them - to take away all this human interaction. It absolutely should be banned. This "Oh, it's their culture" argument is absolute nonsense.

"But what if they want it", others will say. According to UNICEF, Muslim women also, by and large, agree that their husbands should be allowed beat them when necessary. Do they really want to be beaten? Of course not - this is just how subjugated women are in Islam, particularly the stricter codes. So how can you argue in that instance that they want to wear the burqa? They don't have a choice. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other" - so says the Qoran.

Anyone who supports basic human rights can only conclude that the burqa has no place in not only European culture, but any culture. It's particularly ironic that, in the week that Ireland has repealed the eighth - the central argument to which was women's rights - some people will decide to tread on women's rights because "culture"

Fair dues to Denmark.

Graces7

Canis Lupus wrote: »

What about muslim women who don't want to wear them?

Well, for them to settle with their family. Stop interfering and putting your values on others, please. .

Hector Savage

It's amazing how western feminists have fetishized the hijab.

Hector Savage

Graces7 wrote: »

So? You are seeing it from your viewpoint not theirs. The ultimate in intolerance .
Let them be. Dress as you want by all means.

People like you are part of the problem.
You give extremists a platform and a pass.

GLaDOS

I'm generally not a fan of telling people how they should/should not dress. It tends to come across as rather fascist. I don't like what the burqa represents, but banning it is a step too far for me.

From a purely practical point of view it makes sense not to allow people to cover their face in public however.

s7ryf3925pivug

Graces7 wrote: »

So? You are seeing it from your viewpoint not theirs. The ultimate in intolerance .
Let them be. Dress as you want by all means.

As per my first post, their viewpoint is that exposing your face is a sexually ostentatious display. It implies permission for men to view women in a sexual context just because they don't hide their face. This viewpoint is not acceptable by Western standards.

It is the mentality behind sexual assaults on Europeans by some of the same people. They dehumanise other women as not virtuous. They dehumanise their "virtuous" women by concealing their individual identity.

Graces7

Rudy Immense Lambskin wrote: »

As per my first post, their viewpoint is that exposing your face is a sexually ostentatious display. It implies permission for men to view women in a sexual context just because they don't hide their face. This viewpoint is not acceptable by Western standards.

It is the mentality behind sexual assaults on Europeans by some of the same people. They dehumanise other women as not virtuous. They dehumanise their "virtuous" women by concealing their individual identity.

That is very devious and complicated thinking for such a simple issue.

You see individuality as confined to your face? now THAT is restrictive.

There is an element of privacy involved also.

OK I have to go and cover up if you will excuse me!

cdeb

Not sure your posts qualify you to comment on devious and complicated thinking. I've made a number of arguments against the burqa, all of which you've ignored.

Let's allow, for example, people to lob hands off for theft here just because "culture".

Too far you say? How very dare you, you intolerant person.

To paraphrase a famous quote, if you want tolerance, you must be prepared to be intolerant of intolerance.

Dehumanising an entire gender? Sounds like intolerance to be.

But maybe you think "culture" trumps women's rights. I would argue that's very intolerant of you

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Good hopefully Ireland follows suit. I respect traditions and customs in countries I visit, and the same courtesy should be extended by visitors here

Vladimir Poontang

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What if they want to wear it?

Tough titty. Feel free to go somewhere like Saudi Arabia

Vladimir Poontang

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

For you they might be. For those wearing them not.

Wrong

wes

How someone else dresses doesn't effect me, so legislating against it is nonsense imo, and a little bit fascist. Enforcing dress codes is more of a Taliban thing.

I think one of the best criticisms of forcing women to wear face veils came from Star Trek, when they flipped it on its head, and had the Ferengi force Ferengi women not to wear clothes. It was the exact same kind of oppression at the end of the day.

This ban reminds of that, I fail to see much difference between forcing a woman to wear something, to forcing a woman to not wear something. Both claims falsely to have the woman's best interests at heart. My position is how someone else dresses not my business.

There can be security concern in some instance in regards to covering faces, but that can be handled without a full on ban.

Also, for people making a women right argument, how does fining and potentially jailing women being forced to wear a face veil help them exactly? I have never gotten a coherent answer on that question anytime this topic comes up.

What happens when ISIS leaves.