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

[Deleted]

Another what?

Government that you elect.

[Deleted]

What the actual f***? I'm not sure how to respond to that.

So sometimes its ok to go against democratic values for the greater good but other times its not and YOU decide when its not, not the general population of a country. Good to know

- - - Updated - - -

Where did I do that? It's not an insult when I point out that your logic does not hold and that has nothing to do with me being biased in any way. I'm not even sure what you mean with that in this context.

- - - Updated - - -



Another what?

I'm actually suprised you cant even own up to that :P

[Azadina]

Nope. Forcing another religion in front of others is what limits freedom. Keep it at home. I'm not in their face about my religious choices, they shouldn't be either. Besides, in western society you are indentified by your face. Covering your face is an atempt to be unrecognised and it's a highly dangerous situation. It cannot be permitted. It's thieving behaviour.

If you don't like the rules of the country you go to, you are free to leave. There is a reason why i don't move to paquistan, but if i did, i'd abide by the local customs. There can be no exception for muslims, like they give no exception for us. This is not limiting freedom, it's basic conduct when you move to a different country.

Does this mean I will no longer have church shoved in my face every time I walk to the store? You will come, pick it up and move it somewhere else?

[Aggrophobic]

So sometimes its ok to go against democratic values for the greater good but other times its not and YOU decide when its not, not the general population of a country. Good to know

- - - Updated - - -



I'm actually suprised you cant even own up to that :P

You're not even making any sense now. What does that even mean?

I have also not insulted you and I highly doubt you have any insight into my political leaning. All I did was point out the very obvious flaws in your arguments.
I guess you saw that as well as you have turned this away from the actual subject and into some personal vendetta.

[caervek]

Women should not be forced to wear them. They should also not be forced from wearing them if they want to.

The issue is women don't want to, but if the law made it optional they would still be forced to so it would achieve nothing.

The comes a point where you try so hard to be tolerant that you find you're actually importing intolerance, that's what the head coverings represent.

Saying that women living in the west should be free to "choose" to wear head coverings that the oppressive society they come from demands is like saying Chinese women living in the west should have been free to have their feet bound a birth so they couldn't walk properly as adults. No doubt some would feel forced to choose it, but none would do so willingly.

[Aggrophobic]

Does this mean I will no longer have church shoved in my face every time I walk to the store? You will come, pick it up and move it somewhere else?

Maybe some form of large tent? But you know, with the inside painted so to not ruin their view or anything.
With the added benefit of every church sunday being rain free, eh!

[LMuhlen]

The issue is women don't want to, but if the law made it optional they would still be forced to so it would achieve nothing.

The comes a point where you try so hard to be tolerant that you find you're actually importing intolerance, that's what the head coverings represent.

Saying that women living in the west should be free to "choose" to wear head coverings that the oppressive society they come from demands is like saying Chinese women living in the west should have been free to have their feet bound a birth so they couldn't walk properly as adults. No doubt some would feel forced to choose it, but none would do so willingly.

I think you underestimate faith. They don't wear it because they are forced by men, but because they believe it is a divine will. You can see it as brainwashing or something like that, but if a person believes not wearing them will bring disfavor in the afterlife, forbidding it could be quite damning.

But I agree with you, there can't be a completely tolerant society. In the very least, it has to be intolerant against intolerance.

[Deleted]

You're not even making any sense now. What does that even mean?

I have also not insulted you and I highly doubt you have any insight into my political leaning. All I did was point out the very obvious flaws in your arguments.
I guess you saw that as well as you have turned this away from the actual subject and into some personal vendetta.

You and the other guy defend extremism when it comes to freedom of whateveryouwant but only in the cases that you decide are the right ones. Making you guys dictators posing as democrats

- - - Updated - - -

And I'm simply giving my personal reasoning. I support freedom of expression, people who support this law do not. It really is that simple.

No, you are calling me a beta, because you think it will somehow insult me. Personally, I don't give a shit what you call me, because it's a retarded thing to try and say. People who use such terms are clearly fools.

My issue has always been about freedom. In this case, people are seeking to strip away religious freedom and freedom of expression. Since I want to have those things, then I have no desire to take them away from others. It's a shame you oppose those two freedoms so strongly.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you like to dick slap underage boys?

Wow, that's a rare case of honesty you have right there. Sure, it was very awkward, but thanks for sharing.

You and aggro are the people defending extremism when it comes to freedom. Not me. As i said previously i am against any sort of extremism.

Did you have an argument?

- - - Updated - - -

Where did I do that? It's not an insult when I point out that your logic does not hold and that has nothing to do with me being biased in any way. I'm not even sure what you mean with that in this context.

- - - Updated - - -



Another what?

An opinion is biased. I assume you know this. WHenever you say something you dont back it up with facts you just spout your opinions. That was my point. If you want to be taken seriously then instead of acting clueless all the time try argueing your case with things beside opinions

[Pannonian]

So the same ridiculous law that worked oh so well in austria. People with scarfes and costumes getting arrested. Great idea.

But we were able to send the finger to all 200 muslimas, wearing this stuff in the country!

Only for the price of taking the freedom to cover the face of 8 million people.

8 Mio. vs. 200 - sounds like a good deal to me.

/s

[Aggrophobic]

You and the other guy defend extremism when it comes to freedom of whateveryouwant but only in the cases that you decide are the right ones. Making you guys dictators posing as democrats

No, I am not. I am not defending any form of repressive religious ideas or extremism of any kind.
But what your goverment is trying to achive with this proposal is not going to help any one at all. It's them fishing votes with populistic ridiculousness that will have zero effect when it comes to combat the actual problems you, yourself described. It might very well make them worse.

The reasons for wearing these are just as ridiculous and the values they symbolize have no place in a modern society but that still doesn't make this a very good solution. The jackass that forces his wife to wear such a thing is just as likely to not let her out at all now and the integration issues are hardly solved by locking people away from the rest of the world, now are they?

It will also have no effect on people causing trouble in the streets as this does not cover things such as skimasks, helmets.

Your own goverment are the ones that are trending towards extremism here. Thats not something you should be defending. Europe should know all too well how that tends to end.

- - - Updated - - -

An opinion is biased. I assume you know this. WHenever you say something you dont back it up with facts you just spout your opinions. That was my point. If you want to be taken seriously then instead of acting clueless all the time try argueing your case with things beside opinions

I always do.

[sarahtasher]

More liberal lies.

Even in my small town in Sweden the shopping malls are littered with burqah wearing women. Yes the full body covering burqah with the little viewing port by the face. I see them all the time at buss stops, shops etc.

However it is probable that it's just a way to take the spot light off the real problems with immigration. Meaning stopping it entirely until we get our countries under control again. The problems are so enormous and disastrous right now it boggles the mind. I don't think the general public in Sweden realize just how bad it has gotten. In many part of Sweden you have to wait MONTHS to see specialist doctors. Can you believe that? And this is in a country where over 64% of our salary get eaten up by taxes, we have a 25% VAT on everything we buy and extra taxes and fees tacked on many other products and services.

Sweden is (was) probably one of the easiest countries in the world to manage. You'd have to actively sabotage it in order to fail.

I'm struggling immensely to understand how banning burqas will ease the waiting times.

[Player Twelve]

More liberal lies.

Even in my small town in Sweden the shopping malls are littered with burqah wearing women. Yes the full body covering burqah with the little viewing port by the face. I see them all the time at buss stops, shops etc.

However it is probable that it's just a way to take the spot light off the real problems with immigration. Meaning stopping it entirely until we get our countries under control again. The problems are so enormous and disastrous right now it boggles the mind. I don't think the general public in Sweden realize just how bad it has gotten. In many part of Sweden you have to wait MONTHS to see specialist doctors. Can you believe that? And this is in a country where over 64% of our salary get eaten up by taxes, we have a 25% VAT on everything we buy and extra taxes and fees tacked on many other products and services.

Sweden is (was) probably one of the easiest countries in the world to manage. You'd have to actively sabotage it in order to fail.

What town is this? I live in Karlskrona and I've never seen anyone wearing one here, I have seen it in Stockholm though.

[DJ117]

Very good news for my country.

[Machismo]

The issue is women don't want to, but if the law made it optional they would still be forced to so it would achieve nothing.

The comes a point where you try so hard to be tolerant that you find you're actually importing intolerance, that's what the head coverings represent.

Saying that women living in the west should be free to "choose" to wear head coverings that the oppressive society they come from demands is like saying Chinese women living in the west should have been free to have their feet bound a birth so they couldn't walk properly as adults. No doubt some would feel forced to choose it, but none would do so willingly.

So, then the solution is to do the exact same thing you are trying to prevent?

The irony is not lost on me.

- - - Updated - - -

You and the other guy defend extremism when it comes to freedom of whateveryouwant but only in the cases that you decide are the right ones. Making you guys dictators posing as democrats

- - - Updated - - -



You and aggro are the people defending extremism when it comes to freedom. Not me. As i said previously i am against any sort of extremism.

Did you have an argument?

- - - Updated - - -



An opinion is biased. I assume you know this. WHenever you say something you dont back it up with facts you just spout your opinions. That was my point. If you want to be taken seriously then instead of acting clueless all the time try argueing your case with things beside opinions

Where am I defending extremism? I'm defending freedom, plain and simple. My argument is simple, the second you decide to take away someone's freedom, because you don't happen to like something about them... is the moment when you give up all cause to complain when someone chooses to do it to you. If someone wants to take away your freedom of speech or expression, you have just given them tacit permission to do so.

[caervek]

I'm defending freedom, plain and simple.

No, no you're not.

You're like the pro-slavery people back in the day who complained about the abolishment of slavery because some of the slaves liked being slaves. The reality was none of the slaves liked being slaves it's just some had been conditioned to accept it as the way of things. Just like some women have been conditioned to believe they are substandard to men, property, lesser, etc.

If somebody is not free to choose then taking away the choice does nothing, except remove some of their oppressors control.

[Machismo]

No, no you're not.

You're like the pro-slavery people back in the day who complained about the abolishment of slavery because some of the slaves liked being slaves. The reality was none of the slaves liked being slaves it's just some had been conditioned to accept it as the way of things. Just like some women have been conditioned to believe they are substandard to men, property, lesser, etc.

If somebody is not free to choose then taking away the choice does nothing, except remove some of their oppressors control.

Yes, yes I am. I don't anyone to force women to wear what they do not want to wear. I don't support radical Islamists when they do it, and I don't support the Danish government when they want to do it.

Nope, I would not have supported slavery, as they were being kept against their will. Slaves were bound by law, which is exactly what you want to support... interesting.

[Deleted]

Some people that are against this should learn some history

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wom...ng-hijab-1979/

[Pannonian]

Yes, yes I am. I don't anyone to force women to wear what they do not want to wear. I don't support radical Islamists when they do it, and I don't support the Danish government when they want to do it.

Nope, I would not have supported slavery, as they were being kept against their will. Slaves were bound by law, which is exactly what you want to support... interesting.

A better analogy can be found in the history of europe itself. For the longest time there were rules how you could dress according to your status. Which kind of fabrics you were allowed, the length of shoes or your arms. There is a plethora of rules to make sure villains and craftsmen aren't mistaken for nobles. The enlightenment got rid of these rules, so everyone could wear how what they wanted to (as long as there are no decency or security reasons (uniforms that give you privileges). It's very sad to see rules like that return.

[Deianeira]

Whining about clothes when women do not have guaranteed physical safety is nothing more than virtue signalling.

Then WHY are so many on the right so adamant on restricting the clothing of these individuals? Stop whining about stuff so much.

Also how would one go about guaranteeing physical safety for women or anyone for that matter?

[Pannonian]

Some people that are against this should learn some history

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wom...ng-hijab-1979/

Some people that are FOR this should learn from your link, because it's about forcing people. If there are people who are forced to wear this stuff against their will, this is already illegal. Now you're forcing people who want to wear this to undress.