Denmark bans face veils

[Morphine Prince 109,917]

13 minutes ago, darkpaw said:

Wow! All these negative comments and frankly just the stupidity and hate on this thread have left me in awe! 

Don't be surprised. I'm not saying this is true for everyone who supports this ban, but it's really easy to be ok with banning certain aspects that don't apply to you. 

Situations where controversial bans are put in place remind me of that Nazi era poem: 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." 

 

It's easy to applaud certain bans without seeing the overall picture. Even people from marginalized groups do it. 

[OMonster 15,025]

8 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

Is there something wrong with me, or is it just telling that most of you guys in this thread are so supportive of this ban?

I mean, "don't ban the fashion, ban the religion," "It's called Stockholm Syndrome," "Let's say goodbye to those that only kill and make people dumb"? Really? Now look, I'm no expert in Islam, nor will I ever claim myself to be an expert in Islam, but from what I know and from what I've heard, there's a difference between women who want to wear veils and women who don't.

Now obviously, if those women are being forced to wear the veils and feel that they are being oppressed, then something needs to be done to help them; however, if a woman freely wears the veil because she believes that that's what she needs to do then banning it is the exact opposite of what most of you guys are fighting for. You want these women to be "free," but fail to understand that if they want to wear the veil, you're doing a disservice to them by taking it away.

Seriously, can someone help me wrap my mind around this? Again, I understand that the women being put in oppressive situations need to be helped, but if there are women out there who freely wear clothing that represents their religion, why take that away from them? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean that you have the right to take it away. It's like me wearing a gay pride shirt that celebrates my sexuality, but then someone saying to be "Hey, we're now going to ban all gay pride shirts, so you have to take that off now." If that were the situation, you guys would be all up-in-arms about it.

Totally agree with what you're saying... but the argument goes beyond normative, religious and ethical notions. 

Unlike wearing a gay pride shirt for example, wearing the veil/burka has very physical consequences. In a society where your face itself is a convention (of security, identification, communication, cohesion), is it right that some are allowed to conceal theirs? Is it right that a white, Christian man would be charged to the police station for walking into a bank with a black mask on, but a muslim woman would not?

John Stuart Mill offers a really interesting definition of liberty in his Harm Principle. He defines liberty as non-intervention unless an act is 'other-regarding' - essentially, unless it impeaches upon anybody else. Now, it's difficult to apply this to the burqa. Is hiding your face in a Western society really only a self-regarding act? What does it do to the people around you? What security implications does it bring up? Does it prevent society from forming a collective unit?

Again, I agree with all your points. I just think there's a more dynamic debate to be had here. It isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' scenario... and those who are pro the ban are certainly not all ignorant or stupid. There is logic on both sides. 

[SLAG 7]

13 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Don't be surprised. I'm not saying this is true for everyone who supports this ban, but it's really easy to be ok with banning certain aspects that don't apply to you. 

Situations where controversial bans are put in place remind me of that Nazi era poem: 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." 

 

It's easy to applaud certain bans without seeing the overall picture. Even people from marginalized groups do it. 

Right! People now only speak out of something will directly affect them. If this were a ban on LGBTQ for example, I’m sure the reactions would be totally different.

[River 128,546]

I said it before

1. If you ban something from 1 religion, ban from the others, so crosses, kippah, etc are out too, it doesn't matter what is my opinion about the niqab, burqa etc.

2. on the other hand, on the street everyone can cover anything from their body, no my problem, their life and choices BUT when you enter the bank, the supermarket, the kiosk, anything that is public and in a closed place - YOUR FACE MUST BE REVEALED.

If a motorbike driver MUST take off the helmet and reveal their face, the muslim women must take their veils and reveal their faces.. it's a common sense when you enter a public place..

So you need 2 for tango, if both would show respect to each other, life would be better for both..

 

[REALITY 80,244]

6 minutes ago, OMonster said:

Totally agree with what you're saying... but the argument goes beyond normative, religious and ethical notions. 

Unlike wearing a gay pride shirt for example, wearing the veil/burka has very physical consequences. In a society where your face itself is a convention (of security, identification, communication, cohesion), is it right that some are allowed to conceal theirs? Is it right that a white, Christian man would be charged to the police station for walking into a bank with a black mask on, but a muslim woman would not?

John Stuart Mill offers a really interesting definition of liberty in his Harm Principle. He defines liberty as non-intervention unless an act is 'other-regarding' - essentially, unless it impeaches upon anybody else. Now, it's difficult to apply this to the burqa. Is hiding your face in a Western society really only a self-regarding act? What does it do to the people around you? What security implications does it bring up? Does it prevent society from forming a collective unit?

Again, I agree with all your points. I just think there's a more dynamic debate to be had here. It isn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' scenario... and those who are pro the ban are certainly not all ignorant or stupid. There is logic on both sides. 

I understand that there are physical consequences when it comes to the burqa, and when it comes to other types of veils. And I don't know how practical or realistic this argument is, but I'm just gonna go for it. If a white, Christian man walks into a bank with a black mask on, and a Muslim woman does the same—except with a veil covering her face instead of a mask—doesn't it still provide the same outcome? Both people's faces are covered, and if they both robbed a bank, they'd both get in trouble with the law, regardless of their religion. You'd get sentenced for robbing the bank, not for wearing something that covers your face.

It does bring up an issue of safety, and I completely understand that, which is why this might be a difficult topic for some people to argue. I don't know, I just feel like this is inherently discriminatory against Muslim women. 

[River 128,546]

8 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

I understand that there are physical consequences when it comes to the burqa, and when it comes to other types of veils. And I don't know how practical or realistic this argument is, but I'm just gonna go for it. If a white, Christian man walks into a bank with a black mask on, and a Muslim woman does the same—except with a veil covering her face instead of a mask—doesn't it still provide the same outcome? Both people's faces are covered, and if they both robbed a bank, they'd both get in trouble with the law, regardless of their religion. You'd get sentenced for robbing the bank, not for wearing something that covers your face.

It does bring up an issue of safety, and I completely understand that, which is why this might be a difficult topic for some people to argue. I don't know, I just feel like this is inherently discriminatory against Muslim women. 

Did you work with people before? trust me it's so annoying when you talk to a person and they wear only sunglasses.. so let's not talk about a helmet.. it's just not polite..

In my bank there's a list of thinks that you can't wear: hats, helmets, sunglasses and some more that I don't remember.. it's simple as that, socially accepted.

So inside public places, everyone must be equal, everyone must show their faces, we can't just give away some authorization to others just because they feel discriminated when it's clearly not good for the exact situation in a public place.

On the street, everyone must have the freedom to wear whatever they like, if you ban it, it's a discrimination.

 

[Melech 9,900]

5 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Don't be surprised. I'm not saying this is true for everyone who supports this ban, but it's really easy to be ok with banning certain aspects that don't apply to you. 

Situations where controversial bans are put in place remind me of that Nazi era poem: 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." 

 

It's easy to applaud certain bans without seeing the overall picture. Even people from marginalized groups do it. 

The reach to compare the ban to the nazis

 

OP: yas, I hope more countries follow.

 

[Morphine Prince 109,917]

4 hours ago, Melech said:

The reach to compare the ban to the nazis

 

OP: yas, I hope more countries follow.

 

I didn’t compare the ban to Nazis. 

What I said was bans and things of that nature are easily applauded when they don’t affect you personally. 

Which is the mechanism discussed in this poem. 

[Seeka 12,372]

10 hours ago, M Monstre said:

Is there something wrong with me, or is it just telling that most of you guys in this thread are so supportive of this ban?

I mean, "don't ban the fashion, ban the religion," "It's called Stockholm Syndrome," "Let's say goodbye to those that only kill and make people dumb"? Really? Now look, I'm no expert in Islam, nor will I ever claim myself to be an expert in Islam, but from what I know and from what I've heard, there's a difference between women who want to wear veils and women who don't.

Now obviously, if those women are being forced to wear the veils and feel that they are being oppressed, then something needs to be done to help them; however, if a woman freely wears the veil because she believes that that's what she needs to do then banning it is the exact opposite of what most of you guys are fighting for. You want these women to be "free," but fail to understand that if they want to wear the veil, you're doing a disservice to them by taking it away.

Seriously, can someone help me wrap my mind around this? Again, I understand that the women being put in oppressive situations need to be helped, but if there are women out there who freely wear clothing that represents their religion, why take that away from them? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean that you have the right to take it away. It's like me wearing a gay pride shirt that celebrates my sexuality, but then someone saying to be "Hey, we're now going to ban all gay pride shirts, so you have to take that off now." If that were the situation, you guys would be all up-in-arms about it.

THIS.

Honestly, it is not religion itself that is bad, just people using the religion as an excuse for whatever evil crimes they are committing. Religion has never hurt anyone. Man has used religion as a tool to hurt someone.

Religion is an idea. Ieas don't hurt people. People hurt people. End of.

[666 others 1,856]

Is this ban specifically on Burqa/Niqab or on covering face in public in general?

If it's the former then there is clearly a problem. If the later then I can live with that.

[Melech 9,900]

45 minutes ago, 666 others said:

Is this ban specifically on Burqa/Niqab or on covering face in public in general?

If it's the former then there is clearly a problem. If the later then I can live with that.

In general 

[666 others 1,856]

10 minutes ago, Melech said:

In general 

Title of the original article is kind of misleading.

[Melech 9,900]

4 minutes ago, 666 others said:

Title of the original article is kind of misleading.

Are we really surprised ?