Denmark formally proposes ban on Islamic full-face veil in public

[Player Twelve]

You're still providing zero context to the claim, and relying solely on virtue signaling, while protesting you aren't. This is getting boring.

You can be fine with a pat on the back for sex offenders if you want to.

It easily can. Any hard object can.

Not unless it's forced in, a wine bottles narrow top is smooth and won't cause rupturing unless it's forced in. Which you only do if you intended for her to be hurt or if you didn't care about her getting hurt, which is basically equivalent to intent in law.

Yes, it is. The article you linked made it clear that there was no evidence that she was forced, in any respect, hence the case being dismissed.

No it didn't, it said it was possible that she kept her legs closed out of shyness and they acquitted on that basis.

[NotFunny008]

If all complete facial coverings are being banned unless they are required for specific situations (such as ski-masks while skiing) then I don't see a problem with this. They aren't banning the hijab unlike France and I think being unable to identify someone by their face is a problem in everyday settings.

If however this is limited solely to niqabs or burqas then there is an obvious problem with this even if I don't agree with the two aforementioned facial coverings in a Western society.

Ski mask? Think about something more common like motorcycle helmet.

[Endus]

You can be fine with a pat on the back for sex offenders if you want to.

That's not what anyone said, but you haven't stuck to the truth at any point thus far, so why stop now?

Not unless it's forced in, a wine bottles narrow top is smooth and won't cause rupturing unless it's forced in. Which you only do if you intended for her to be hurt or if you didn't care about her getting hurt, which is basically equivalent to intent in law.

This is just flat-out untrue. You're ascribing magical powers to the vagina. While being forced in can, obviously, cause tearing, so can plenty of fully consensual stuff.

No it didn't, it said it was possible that she kept her legs closed out of shyness and they acquitted on that basis.

It specifically says that they could not establish that things occurred the way the accuser described. Courts don't exist solely to punish criminal acts. They exist as a check to ensure that innocents do not face conviction for crimes they did not commit. And to maintain that balance, the standard of evidence is deliberately tight, as it's deemed more ethical to let some guilty parties walk free than to convict an innocent person.

The courts stated it was not rape. You don't get to keep insisting it magically was despite that.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt". The men in that case established reasonable doubt. The article stated this. Stop ignoring your own cited sources. Not being able to establish guilt to that standard does not mean the courts are antagonistic towards women's rights, it means they aren't willing to convict anyone without being able to establish their guilt. Which didn't happen, in that case.

[Player Twelve]

This is just flat-out untrue. You're ascribing magical powers to the vagina.

No, I'm not.

It specifically says that they could not establish that things occurred the way the accuser described. Courts don't exist solely to punish criminal acts. They exist as a check to ensure that innocents do not face conviction for crimes they did not commit. And to maintain that balance, the standard of evidence is deliberately tight, as it's deemed more ethical to let some guilty parties walk free than to convict an innocent person.

The courts stated it was not rape. You don't get to keep insisting it magically was despite that.

So much for women's rights. The court stating it was not rape doesn't mean it wasn't. That's like saying if I had someone try to kill me but they were acquitted in court they didn't commit attempted murder.

[Endus]

No, I'm not.

As I edited in above, fully-consensual activity can cause vaginal tearing, too. The vagina can't magically tell the difference. So yes, you are.

So much for women's rights. The court stating it was not rape doesn't mean it wasn't.

How is requiring the guilt of an attacker to be proven, an attack on women's rights?

Because that's literally your entire argument, here.

Edit: And to bring it back on topic, why do you support stripping women of the clothing they want to wear because of this? How is this in any way going to help women?

[lummiuster]

Honestly, putting aside burqas and niqabs, I dislike that they want to force everyone to show their faces.
What if I (white man) don't to show my face. It is none of your business to force me to show my face when I walk outside. What if my brother with down syndrome loves to wear that Transformer's uniform in public. That's none of anyone's business to put a law against it.
I know he would not get stopped by a cop because he is a white male. But even if he'll be allowed to do it, I have to stand against a law that would mean he can't do so.

[Player Twelve]

As I edited in above, fully-consensual activity can cause vaginal tearing, too. The vagina can't magically tell the difference. So yes, you are.

Minor tears =/= Vaginal walls rupturing.

How is requiring the guilt of an attacker to be proven, an attack on women's rights?

Because that's literally your entire argument, here.

If someone comes at me with a knife and stabs me several times but I survive and they're acquitted in court, did they not attempt to murder me, because the court says so? Fuck yes, they did try to murder me, doesn't matter what the court says.

[Aggrophobic]

Ofc, When they live in Denmark. They will have to listen to the danish rules.

You do not really understand sarcasm, do you?

[cparle87]

To reiterate this point, this law is to bamboozle the right. It's an act of ''play pretend'', to pick an non existent issue to act ''tough on immigration''.

Because, again, a minuscule minority of Muslim women wear the burqah. Across the entire Canada, maybe 100 or 150. Which does not prevent the Tories to build entire narrative about how this is an affront to Canadian democracy and so forth.

- - - Updated - - -



I know it's VERY hard to fathom for some people, but banning the burqah is not banning the veil wore by around 99% of conservative muslim women. It's especially not banning muslims, as some people drool about.

"The niqab is a full veil with a small slit for the eyes, while the burqa is a full veil that covers the head and body with a mesh screen over the eyes."

Right from the post. That's what's being banned. We know it's not the headscarf that most of us are well familiar with.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I started reading the article and thought to myself, "Oh, so they aren't banning religious garb, they are banning covering the face. That seems reasonable." Then I kept reading and it said, "But covering the face in a recognisable manner, such as wearing winter clothing, sports gear and masks for festivities, are exempted" and that's where the bill becomes discriminatory. Apparently muslims practicing religion is not "recognisable" enough. What a laugh.

[Player Twelve]

Honestly, putting aside burqas and niqabs, I dislike that they want to force everyone to show their faces.
What if I (white man) don't to show my face. It is none of your business to force me to show my face when I walk outside. What if my brother with down syndrome loves to wear that Transformer's uniform in public. That's none of anyone's business to put a law against it.
I know he would not get stopped by a cop because he is a white male. But even if he'll be allowed to do it, I have to stand against a law that would mean he can't do so.

Don't go outside if you don't want people to see your face. Simple solution.

[Endus]

Minor tears =/= Vaginal walls rupturing.

They're literally different words for the exact same thing.

If someone comes at me with a knife and stabs me several times but I survive and they're acquitted in court, did they not attempt to murder me?

Based on that sentence alone? The courts decided that, at least, there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened. You don't get to demand the government convict someone based on your testimony alone and without giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves.

Which really seems to be your only argument, here. That women should be able to point a finger and have someone convicted of rape, with no evidence and without giving them any chance at a defense, or "womens rights aren't protected". It's a useless and garbage standard.

[Lochton]

It's an idiotic law. Most people agitating pro ban have never even seen a burqa or niqab, maybe on tv. Those are shitty pieces of cloth but bans are a pretty impotent and stupid instruments that don't work at all. I foresee that 95% hit by this law don't wear a veil-lie cloth at all.

To be honest, the law is struck out due to a majority holding a fear of it as well. I honestly don't care as long as you don't work in a customer service or facing job. I foresee that the ones being hit are the ones wearing the stupid mouth masks to look edgy, and then the ones who doesn't wish to follow said rule, which is often too.

[Zelk]

As a man, I love to tell women what not to wear

[Lochton]

100-150 is the number actually brought up by studies on the matter. Even if there was 500, 1000 of such women in Canada, they would not even be 1/10th of a 1/100th of Muslim women in Canada.

Honestly, 100-150 is quite amazingly low.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you go to the town square butt naked?

Nope, you can't without being charged with indecent behavior. Though, I guess you were sarcastic.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I'm expecting more support for such a ban from the "free-speech" crowd.

I'd say it's more of a security and safety bill, and people are usually comfortable giving up free speech when it comes to safety.

[Player Twelve]

Based on that sentence alone? The courts decided that, at least, there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened. You don't get to demand the government convict someone based on your testimony alone and without giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves.

Which really seems to be your only argument, here. That women should be able to point a finger and have someone convicted of rape, with no evidence and without giving them any chance at a defense, or "womens rights aren't protected". It's a useless and garbage standard.

You're basically saying that people don't get to decide if what happened to them was rape, assault, attempted murder or whatever when someone hurt them, that the courts can tell them "No, they didn't rape you", "No, they didn't try to murder you", "No, you weren't assaulted", that's not how the justice system works in any country.

[Aggrophobic]

If someone comes at me with a knife and stabs me several times but I survive and they're acquitted in court, did they not attempt to murder me, because the court says so? Fuck yes, they did try to murder me, doesn't matter what the court says.

Actually no they didn't and what the court says is all that matters here.

[Lochton]

Good!

If bikers had to remove their helmet when they enter a building for security reason, the people refusing to remove their veils ARE the security concern.

That is where the problem is, we have a law stating they have to, as well as ski masks though we permit others who can wear full covered to do so. Not saying the person under the sheet is bad but it could be rather a problematic thing.

[Player Twelve]

Actually no they didn't and what the court says is all that matters here.

The court doesn't say that. They say they can't establish if it happened or not, they don't say it didn't happen, like Endus said. If someone unprovoked punched me in the face because they thought it was fun the court saying they can't establish if that happened or not doesn't mean I wasn't assaulted.