Burka or niqab forbidden

[Anneki]

Hi
From 1. august wearing a burka or niqab will be forbidden in country.
It's the dress worn by muslim women where you can only see the eyes.
I don't wear one since am not a muslim.
But what do you think of that?
Is it a helping hand to muslims or just intolerance. :confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Jinglebottom]

Good job.

[Leprous]

Personally I think this is good. I think prohibiting it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Muslims wear it but more due to the recent terror threats. People don't feel comfortable when they can't see your face.

[breaux]

I'm from Denmark too, I don't feel uncomfortable at all when I see people with burkas/niqabs, I think it should be allowed as there isn't really a point in banning it :/

[ShineintheDark]

I don't agree with an all-out ban. Instead, I would enact a law that allows businesses to ask for it to be removed for security purposes. If a bank teller wants to see your face before allowing access to your account, that is only fair though the bank should at least meet them halfway and provide a private room if asked so that the woman may still keep her face hidden from the wider public for religious reasons. Same may go for airport security. Otherwise, quite bluntly: screw you not feeling 'comfortable' seeing a woman covering her face and body in public since it's not your choice to tell her what she can and cannot wear. If she poses no security threat to you then I see no problem with a woman being able to wear what she wants down the street. A burka isn't what a terrorist would wear to carry out an attack, it's far too restricting and impractical to be of any real use.

[sobi99]

i think it's stupid.

in this day and age, people are advocating for women's rights and that they should be allowed to wear what they want and dress in skimpy clothing without being harassed, or without being told what to wear - but Muslim women are being told what not to wear? It doesn't make any sense.

it's not an issue and it shouldn't be one if people mind their businesses to be honest. women that wear the burqa or niqab aren't doing it to antagonise anyone; they're doing it because they feel closer to God when they wear it. we should let them freely practise their religion if they arent harming anyone.

[mattsmith48]

I'm against it, as long it is the woman's decision should be able to wear it.

[Pultost]

I think it should be banned. I mean, I don't care what people wear, but I want to see people's faces. It could be anyone under that thing!

[Vlerchan]

People don't feel comfortable when they can't see your face.
The entire point of freedom of expression and freedom of religious practice is to ensure that people can continue to engage in activities important to their own moral development that make other people uncomfortable.

Per helping women: Extending the option to wear a veil allows Muslim women to better reach out to those outside their conservative communities without the risk of impeaching their modesty--i.e. facilitates integration.

In other words restricting veiling is profoundly counterproductive in engaging women's empowerment.

[SethfromMI]

I don't agree with an all-out ban. Instead, I would enact a law that allows businesses to ask for it to be removed for security purposes. If a bank teller wants to see your face before allowing access to your account, that is only fair though the bank should at least meet them halfway and provide a private room if asked so that the woman may still keep her face hidden from the wider public for religious reasons. Same may go for airport security. Otherwise, quite bluntly: screw you not feeling 'comfortable' seeing a woman covering her face and body in public since it's not your choice to tell her what she can and cannot wear. If she poses no security threat to you then I see no problem with a woman being able to wear what she wants down the street. A burka isn't what a terrorist would wear to carry out an attack, it's far too restricting and impractical to be of any real use.

This is what I was thinking. If the situation calls for them to have to see your face, esp for some type of legal verification, it should be removed (maybe that is already the case?). Other then that, I don't have an issue. I have never felt uncomfortable for seeing a woman in a burka. Even if you tried to make an argument they have something on underneath, if you really want to hide something like that, there are other things you can wear to help the process.

[Rationallity]

The law doesn't target Muslims or the burka/niqab. It just bans clothing that completely covers one's face. This is due to multiple reasons including the rise of violent political groups. The burka and niqab also may have been included due to the rising terrorism threat in Denmark from Muslim groups, kickstarted by the "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". The ban also only affects a very small number of people and doesn't include other head-coverings like the hijab which are worn much by a much wider community.

[Vlerchan]

The law doesn't target Muslims or the burka/niqab. It just bans clothing that completely covers one's face.
Let us pretend that it is a benign rule which has nothing to do with the burka or the niqab and it's full intentions are to tackle criminal behaviour*. There still should be exceptions made for religious groups and necessary religious circumstances, and we still shouldn't force people to choose between being a criminal and remaining true to their faith on an issue which is not associated with material harm towards any unwilling third-parties.

Freedom of Religion tends to be written alongside Freedom of Conscience, because both secure the same end: An extraordinary host of differences fundamental to a diverse, pluralistic and ideologically-competitive society. This law, even if it has certain ends in mind, significantly curtails these freedoms and sets a wholly unfortunate precedent that if we legislate broadly enough, we can eliminate the practice of any specific activity we don't like.

---

* And, not, say, an actually anti-Islamic effort by a conservative Danish government to stop more of their votes from going to the far-right, framed in this way because an explicit burqa ban has already been ruled unconstitutional.

The ban also only affects a very small number of people and doesn't include other head-coverings like the hijab which are worn much by a much wider community.
This is irrelevant.

[Rationallity]

This is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant as it illustrates that there are other options. Saying that this forces people to chose between their faith and the law while ignoring that the overwhelming majority of people of the same faith are complying to their beliefs and remain unaffected.

I actually don't support the law but wanted to clarify what it states. Also, to my knowledge Denmark also isn't the first or latest to pass a similar law.

[Vlerchan]

It is not irrelevant as it illustrates that there are other options.
The women who strictly wear the Burqa or Niqab do so because they do not believe that the Hijab in and of itself is adherent to the modesty requirement--the modesty requirement being an issue to which, as I have just suggested, there is significant doctrinal differences around.

In other words, the different forms of head-dress are not necessarily interchangeable.

Also, to my knowledge Denmark also isn't the first or latest to pass a similar law.
France, Belgium, Netherlands all have prohibitions, too.

---

I actually don't support the law but wanted to clarify what it states.
Then I hope you don't mind me leveraging your posts to make broader points about the ban.

[Lucy G]

I don't agree with an all-out ban. Instead, I would enact a law that allows businesses to ask for it to be removed for security purposes. If a bank teller wants to see your face before allowing access to your account, that is only fair though the bank should at least meet them halfway and provide a private room if asked so that the woman may still keep her face hidden from the wider public for religious reasons. Same may go for airport security. Otherwise, quite bluntly: screw you not feeling 'comfortable' seeing a woman covering her face and body in public since it's not your choice to tell her what she can and cannot wear. If she poses no security threat to you then I see no problem with a woman being able to wear what she wants down the street. A burka isn't what a terrorist would wear to carry out an attack, it's far too restricting and impractical to be of any real use.

How about passports?
And do women wear these out of choice or as a subservient request of their male partner?

Just wondering...

Agree about the terrorism thing - very impractical

[ShineintheDark]

How about passports?
Under UK law (and I assume the laws of most countries) you must have your face visible in a passport photo. This means that glasses are also required to be moved, no hair must obscure the face and, yes, all facial coverings must be removed. I have already stated that I would see a requirement by border control to have facial coverings removed in a private booth for identification purposes.

And do women wear these out of choice or as a subservient request of their male partner?

There's no way of making sure every woman who wears the burka/niqab is doing so of her own volition, that is true. However, women may also be forced to be housewives/produce more children by abusive and controlling husbands. Do you also support a ban on being a stay-at-home parent/a limit on childbirth? Or would you say that the possibility of being forced should not counteract the right of many to choose willingly?

[Lucy G]

Under UK law (and I assume the laws of most countries) you must have your face visible in a passport photo. This means that glasses are also required to be moved, no hair must obscure the face and, yes, all facial coverings must be removed. I have already stated that I would see a requirement by border control to have facial coverings removed in a private booth for identification purposes.

There's no way of making sure every woman who wears the burka/niqab is doing so of her own volition, that is true. However, women may also be forced to be housewives/produce more children by abusive and controlling husbands. Do you also support a ban on being a stay-at-home parent/a limit on childbirth? Or would you say that the possibility of being forced should not counteract the right of many to choose willingly?

I don't support any regime that treats women as anything other than free particularly when it comes to getting permission to drive, permission to wear certain clothing etc etc. But I live in UK and women are (allegedly) as free as men to do as they please within the remit of the law here. I wouldn't advocate any ban on either staying at home or how many children women can have. I'm sure if those women were actually allowed a choice they'd most likely choose freedom on the basis that they were not persecuted for doing so

[ShineintheDark]

I don't support any regime that treats women as anything other than free particularly when it comes to getting permission to drive, permission to wear certain clothing etc etc. But I live in UK and women are (allegedly) as free as men to do as they please within the remit of the law here. I wouldn't advocate any ban on either staying at home or how many children women can have. I'm sure if those women were actually allowed a choice they'd most likely choose freedom on the basis that they were not persecuted for doing so
Nice to see that you agree with me. So therefore, by the same principle, unless you can prove that a significant enough amount of women wearing a burka/niqab are forced into doing so against their will, you can't really promote a ban on them on the grounds of protecting their interests. If you feel that it's restrictive and promotes male dominance, that's awesome since that's your opinion. Don't wear a burka. But you can't tell another woman who has equally chosen to wear it a sign of their faith that their choice is less valid simply because of your opinion.

[NewLeafsFan]

It is total intolerance. There is reason to prevent someone from participating in or celebrating their religious beliefs other than to limit their rights. I have sympathy for the people that are having their religion and religious history tarnished as well as the people that are taking it away. I would imagine that they live in fear.

[HeyCameron]

I don't personally like the burqa, but that's not a reason to ban it. I understand the argument about not wanting people's faces hidden, but people can hide their face in a number of different ways, what's stopping them? Besides, the "security" excuse is just that: an excuse. We all know the real reasons behind such a ban.

[Hermes]

Let us pretend that it is a benign rule which has nothing to do with the burka or the niqab and it's full intentions are to tackle criminal behaviour*. There still should be exceptions made for religious groups and necessary religious circumstances, and we still shouldn't force people to choose between being a criminal and remaining true to their faith on an issue which is not associated with material harm towards any unwilling third-parties.

So you've made an exception for material harm, which is good, otherwise what's to stop a group of people claiming that their religion requires human sacrifices to me made to their god and that therefore their followers should be exempt from the laws on homicide.

That also raises the question of what one defines as a religion. Does it have to be old? Does it have to have a certain number of followers? A written canon?. It seems to me guaranteeing not to enact laws that, as a side effect, prevents people from complying with some aspect of their religion, or allowing them to claim exemption because of their religion does run the risk that religion will be used as an excuse not to comply with laws people simply don't like. A mundane example of this is that, in the UK, the law requires the wearing of a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you're Sikh, though, you are exempt as it would prevent your from wearing your turban. So, if I don't like crash helmets I could don a turban instead and tell any police officer who stopped me that I was Sikh.

On the other hand I do agree that we should refrain from enacting laws whose purpose is to stop people from doing things that just make us a bit uncomfortable. We've already been through that in the past with the state legislating about what sexual practices are and are not acceptable between consenting adults based entirely on this "Eew!, I don't like the idea of that!" or "I think that's a sin, other people should be prevented from doing that!" philosophy. We do need a strong sense that legislation is a restriction of freedom and the case must be clearly made as why a benefit to the population as a whole makes that intrusion on individual freedom justified.

When we see piece of legislation that has an affect of the ability to practice a particular religion and then the case for the greater good is weak it will look very much like religious hatred dressed up to look otherwise.

[HeyCameron]

Ah, but read the fine print: unwilling third parties. So if someone wants to be sacrificed, then that's potentially permissible. Good luck proving that they wanted it, though.

[Vlerchan]

That also raises the question of what one defines as a religion. Does it have to be old? Does it have to have a certain number of followers? A written canon?.
I don't believe we should employ a rigid definition, with the question of assessing whether a set of beliefs constitutes a religion being left to the courts.

This is the case in all Western countries I can think of.

---

It's worth noting that even if we didn't have freedom of religion clauses, the pursuit of a secular agenda places this burden on the courts irrespective. In promoting the ideal of religious freedom, I'm not forcing the courts to grapple with concepts more difficult than what is already on their plates.

It seems to me guaranteeing not to enact laws that, as a side effect, prevents people from complying with some aspect of their religion, or allowing them to claim exemption because of their religion does run the risk that religion will be used as an excuse not to comply with laws people simply don't like. A mundane example of this is that, in the UK, the law requires the wearing of a crash helmet when riding a motorcycle. If you're Sikh, though, you are exempt as it would prevent your from wearing your turban. So, if I don't like crash helmets I could don a turban instead and tell any police officer who stopped me that I was Sikh.
I think most people feigning religious conversions would find their defences unraveling quite quickly if put under any pressure.

If it is the case that someone decided to don a turban, and gathers an understanding of the Sikh faith, and then masquerade as a Sikh in order to avoid helmet laws then that's unfortunate, but the outcome is acceptable. The entire point of human rights is that we value them independent of their associated utilitarian outcome.

[Lucy G]

Nice to see that you agree with me. So therefore, by the same principle, unless you can prove that a significant enough amount of women wearing a burka/niqab are forced into doing so against their will, you can't really promote a ban on them on the grounds of protecting their interests. If you feel that it's restrictive and promotes male dominance, that's awesome since that's your opinion. Don't wear a burka. But you can't tell another woman who has equally chosen to wear it a sign of their faith that their choice is less valid simply because of your opinion.

I wasn't advocating banning anyone who wants to wear a burka, wearing one. I'm just against anyone being forced to do anything against their will whether its for religious reasons or any other. Maybe I didn't make myself clear - hopefully I now have. Thanks

[Oscar-V3.0]

I think this law is stupid. If its the woman's choice, why go against it ? If it is not her choice, as in she is forced by her husband or family, they will prevent her from going outside, so that will not arrange things

[ShineintheDark]

I think this law is stupid. If its the woman's choice, why go against it ? If it is not her choice, as in she is forced by her husband or family, they will prevent her from going outside, so that will not arrange things That isn't necessarily true as women who are forced to wear the burka/niqab aren't always confined to the household. However, forcing someone to wear something against their will is denying them freedom of expression and personal autonomy which, if reported to the proper authorities, will likely lead to intervention by social services to protect the woman from being controlled by her husband/father/brother etc.

[Connordude]

It’s misogynistic and oppressive

[Jinglebottom]

This thread was bumped :locked: