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

[caervek]

Nope, I would not have supported slavery

And yet you are making the same arguments as the slavery supporters...

Like I said if an oppressed person is forced into making a bad choice then taking away the choice does nothing to their freedom, it just removes some of their oppressors control over them.

[Machismo]

And yet you are making the same arguments as the slavery supporters...

Like I said if an oppressed person is forced into making a bad choice then taking away the choice does nothing to their freedom, it just removes some of their oppressors control over them.

Not at all. I'm supporting freedom, plain and simple. People should not be forced to do things against their will, certainly not by a government. That was exactly what slavery was, forced submission.

"I'm oppressing them, so they will no longer be oppressed."

Yep, that's you.

[sarahtasher]

For the third time, are edgelords digging for it realize even with the upmost confusion that the burqas are a symbol and not the problem ? If the Mollahs forced the women to wear a costume acceptable by neckbeards (such as a hooters work uniform) there would still be the real issues beneath, that is that Muslims fundies considers women as cattle (kinda like edgelords, in fact)

[Machismo]

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.

Thanks for the historical lesson. Yes, that was genuine, even if it came off as sarcastic.

[Pannonian]

And yet you are making the same arguments as the slavery supporters...

Like I said if an oppressed person is forced into making a bad choice then taking away the choice does nothing to their freedom, it just removes some of their oppressors control over them.

Your problem is that you start your argument with the assumption that everyone if oppressed. While it might be true that some are oppressed, no one has ever shown any proof that all of them are oppressed. This is an important distinction, because as soon as you're banning these dresses YOU oppress anyone that isn't oppressed to begin with. You're literally doing the thing you want to save people from.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the historical lesson. Yes, that was genuine, even if it came off as sarcastic.

It was more targeted at the person you were quoting anyway...

[Machismo]

Some people that are against this should learn some history

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

I fully support women protesting the hijab, good for them. This law is no different than a government forcing them to wear a hijab. That's the irony of it all, trying to rationalize the restriction of someone's freedom of expression... all to stop someone else from restricting someone's freedom of expression.

[sarahtasher]

FTR, for people drooling over ''YES, BAN A BAD RELIGION'', most of you are Americans of English descent, yeah ? Would you kindly inform us how smoothly went banning catholicism in Ireland by making priests public ennemies ? Or how a whopping success was the repression of Covenanters in Scotland ?

[Pannonian]

FTR, for people drooling over ''YES, BAN A BAD RELIGION'', most of you are Americans of English descent, yeah ? Would you kindly inform us how smoothly went banning catholicism in Ireland by making priests public ennemies ? Or how a whopping success was the repression of Covenanters in Scotland ?

To be fair - they banned Christmas for a few decades; must have been wonderful.

[caervek]

Not at all. I'm supporting freedom

No, you're not, you can repeat it as much as you like but you are promoting oppression plain and simple.

Here are the reasons women wear face veils:

• Their society dictates they must
• Their husband dictates they must
• They will be beaten/attacked if they don't
• They will be shunned by those who do if they don't
• etc

By banning women from being forced to wear them all of those reasons become voided and it gives them liberation/freedom from the oppressive men/society that force them upon them.


I understand your argument that removing a person's choice is removing freedom, but you have to understand it DOES NOT apply when the choice never existed in the first place and was just a lie. In that situation removing the choice is actually removal of oppression.

A good comparative example is a banana republic where you're free to vote for any leader you like but it has to be El Presidente and if you don't vote for him your family will pay the price. That is not a free election, just like being allowed to choose to cover your face or not as long as you cover it like your husband/family/community demand is not a freedom of choice it is oppression.

[ingsve]

"It is incompatible with the values in Danish society and disrespectful to the community to keep one's face hidden when meeting each other in public spaces," Justice Minister Søren Pape Poulsen said in a statement.

"With a ban on covering the face, we are drawing a line in the sand and underlining that in Denmark we show each other trust and respect by meeting face to face," he added.

Aren't both of these women covering their faces?
If one should be banned then why not the other?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'd like to see the defenders of these things go to Germany, throw on a Nazi uniform, and walk around town. You can wear whatever you want to wear, dammit! It's not about the symbolism at all, you're wearing it cause, uh, you think you look sharp in it! Go you!!! Nothing bad will happen if you choose to do that. Nothing bad at all.

Ditto for a KKK outfit in Harlem or anywhere in Detroit.

I’d be fine if people wanted to wear either as long as they are not killing Jews or blacks.

[Machismo]

No, you're not, you can repeat it as much as you like but you are promoting oppression plain and simple.

Here are the reasons women wear face veils:

• Their society dictates they must
• Their husband dictates they must
• They will be beaten/attacked if they don't
• They will be shunned by those who do if they don't
• etc

By banning women from being forced to wear them all of those reasons become voided and it gives them liberation/freedom from the oppressive men/society that force them upon them.


I understand your argument that removing a person's choice is removing freedom, but you have to understand it DOES NOT apply when the choice never existed in the first place and was just a lie. In that situation removing the choice is actually removal of oppression.

A good comparative example is a banana republic where you're free to vote for any leader you like but it has to be El Presidente and if you don't vote for him your family will pay the price. That is not a free election, just like being allowed to choose to cover your face or not as long as you cover it like your husband/family/community demand is not a freedom of choice it is oppression.

Once again, it is entirely possible to oppose force from both. That's the part you cannot seem to grasp. Women should not be forced to wear a niqab or burqa. They should also not be forcefully prevented from wearing them.

Like I said, your argument is that your oppression is justified, because you are trying to undo someone else's oppression.

No thanks, I'll stick with freedom.

[Deleted]

Aren't both of these women covering their faces?
If one should be banned then why not the other?

You must be really special to compare both images

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Good, it's pure oppression.

And how is you forcing them to wear something else not?

[Machismo]

You must be really special to compare both images

Well, one cannot easily see the facial expressions of either. What about surgical masks that are worn in public? I'm guessing those need to be banned, as well.. right?

[Deleted]

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.

Considering your general (though perhaps not absolute) stance against regulation, I think you would have supported then what we today would say that amounts to slavery.
Perhaps support for the existence of a legal figure whereby people can willingly and freely exchange some of their freedoms, ad perpetuum, for food.
Perhaps the ability for humans to be owned and traded, provided the human in question willingly surrenders him or herself as a trade good.

The issue, back then, was not only slavery being against anyone's will. It was the capacity to privately own people (independently of them wanting to be owned). What got abolished was that aspect of property: people can't be trade goods, even if they want to.
Labor regulation often forbids workers from surrendering certain rights. Here, for instance, when employed you have a right to vacation, and you can't trade it for wages, even if you really really want to. Under your optics, this effectively is one less freedom we have, in exchange not of security, but for the capacity to have a society at all: because absent all such regulations, we've seen the powerless trade their lives in exchange for livelihood.
The powerless are not actually free when acquiring the necessary tools for their own survival. That goes for markets such as labor, or healthcare. Nobody in their right mind supports freedoms as a blanket statement: we pick and choose which ones to surrender, as a society or state, in order to actually being able to pursue other freedoms.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I think all clothing that will cover your face in public places should be removed incl Muslim related gear.
Really don't care what others think about my opinion. Religion is outdated and should be banned as well.

Ya good luck banning religion.

[Machismo]

Considering your general (though perhaps not absolute) stance against regulation, I think you would have supported then what we today would say that amounts to slavery.
Perhaps support for the existence of a legal figure whereby people can willingly and freely exchange some of their freedoms, ad perpetuum, for food.
Perhaps the ability for humans to be owned and traded, provided the human in question willingly surrenders him or herself as a trade good.

The issue, back then, was not only slavery being against anyone's will. It was the capacity to privately own people (independently of them wanting to be owned).
Labor regulation often forbids workers from surrendering certain rights. Here, for instance, when employed you have a right to vacation, and you can't trade it for wages, even if you really really want to. Under your optics, this effectively is one less freedom we have, in exchange not of security, but for the capacity to have a society at all: because absent all such regulations, we've seen the powerless trade their lives in exchange for livelihood.
The powerless are not actually free when acquiring the necessary tools for their own survival. That goes for markets such as labor, or healthcare. Nobody in their right mind supports freedoms as a blanket statement: we pick and choose which ones to surrender, as a society or state, in order to actually being able to pursue other freedoms.

I have no doubt that some people would willingly submit themselves to be slaves for food and/or shelter. Honestly, that's how a great deal of the work was done, all the way through the early 1900's.

The issue that comes when surrendering such freedoms, is the slippery slope it leads down, as well as the unequal application and focus of such laws. Nobody can reasonably argue that this law is about banning facial coverings in public as a way to ensure safety. It's all about suppressing a specific religion. We do pick and choose which freedoms we surrender, and in this case, I would not pick to surrender such a freedom. I consider individual freedom to be a top priority, others seem much more willing to sacrifice those freedoms. The only real issue, is that most of those people are very hypocritical when it comes to sacrificing freedoms they actually enjoy. This ban is no different than a ban on hate speech, Swastikas, or even cursing in public.

[Pannonian]

I have no doubt that some people would willingly submit themselves to be slaves for food and/or shelter. Honestly, that's how a great deal of the work was done, all the way through the early 1900's.

The issue that comes when surrendering such freedoms, is the slippery slope it leads down, as well as the unequal application and focus of such laws. Nobody can reasonably argue that this law is about banning facial coverings in public as a way to ensure safety. It's all about suppressing a specific religion. We do pick and choose which freedoms we surrender, and in this case, I would not pick to surrender such a freedom. I consider individual freedom to be a top priority, others seem much more willing to sacrifice those freedoms. The only real issue, is that most of those people are very hypocritical when it comes to sacrificing freedoms they actually enjoy. This ban is no different than a ban on hate speech, Swastikas, or even cursing in public.

That's exactly the point, especially since the Austrian law was brought forward. In Austria it was never illegal to cover your face. Something i personally like, especially with the advance of face recognition. I like if someone with the necessary power ISN'T able to cover each of my steps.

There are about 200-300 woman in Austria that cover their faces for religious reasons. As it would go against not only EU law, but Austrian law and tradition to ban religious practices, the only way they could implement the ban, was by banning covering your face for all 8 million people!

So to give the finger to 200 people, they took away the rights of 8 million. The worst part? People cheering on facebook as their freedom was taken away.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

Ya you having to see that some one is religious isn’t limiting freedom at all.