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

[Logwyn]

Are you seriously comparing male circumcision to female?

You realize the latter deletes sexual pleasure?

Nice false equivalency, you are detestable for implying they are even similar.

Or maybe you could have explained yourself a little more in your original post..... You left much open and nothing specific..... Nice personal attack as well.....

Nice inference on my feelings...... Eveything I said was about me and my experience about ME. No where did I suggest anyone else or doing it anyone else.... You jumped thee shark there...

[Velshin]

You know what the funny part? I bet most of you think that Niqab and Burka is a must for all muslims women right?

The funny reality in Islam it was never ever required to cover your face at all. Women just need to cover her body and her hair (Hijab) that's it. But, over the years more and more people started wearing Niqab and Burka. At first it was a method for a woman who did something shameful that shames her family but wanted to hide her identity so she will not be discovered. After many years now it became a culture and part of the Islamic culture unfortunately but it's still not required.

[Deleted]

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.

For the people who hide their hatred behind rhetoric, yes: it's about suppressing Islam.
The actual laws that Europe is passing may be inspired by that, but the argumentation goes along the lines of protecting coexistence.

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.

I suppose the hypocrisy can be extended to the dullards who support banning "grabher" license plates or shotacon. So much for "both sides"; these threads would be amusing if I weren't on the receiving end of attire bans.
I should also point out that these bans, when they happen in Europe, are not particularly hypocritical: it is here where "hate speech, Swastikas, or even cursing in public" has been banned and remains banned in certain jurisdictions. So, really, it's par for the course.

[Pannonian]

You know what the funny part? I bet most of you think that Niqab and Burka is a must for all muslims women right?

The funny reality in Islam it was never ever required to cover your face at all. Women just need to cover her body and her hair (Hijab) that's it. But, over the years more and more people started wearing Niqab and Burka. At first it was a method for a woman who did something shameful that shames her family but wanted to hide her identity so she will not be discovered. After many years now it became a culture and part of the Islamic culture unfortunately but it's still not required.

Depending on which translation you read, or how well your arabic is, one can also argue that all dress codes have the intention for woman to not stand out in public and to have all eyes on them, which is funny thought if you think about how a woman in even a hijab stands out in western public.

[Tackhisis]

Now you're forcing people who want to wear this to undress.

We do not want anybody to undress. We want women to wear the socially acceptable clothing: open face as postulated by our culture and open hair as postulated by our esthetics. If they do not like our culture or our society, there are different countries with different cultures where they can wear what they want.

[Deleted]

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.

It'll come to bite them back. Eventually.
One only needs to watch how hate speech legislation, supposedly protecting the powerless, are used to suppress political activism.

[Mosotti]

What about Islamic bombs? Can they still wear those under the western regalia?

[Pannonian]

We do not want anybody to undress. We want women to wear the socially acceptable clothing: open face as postulated by our culture and open hair as postulated by our esthetics. If they do not like our culture or our society, there are different countries with different cultures where they can wear what they want.

Mhm, strange, one of the standards i learned about the western society is freedom of expression, not enforcement of open hair. You just want to oppress people and thinly veil your reasoning by being against oppression. If you'd just admit you want to stick it up to islam, i could have more respect for your opinion.

[Acidz]

Symbol politics and a cheap way for politicians to mobilize sheeple for their cause. In Holland certain politicians have been arguing for a similar ban since 2005 - and getting massive media attention for it. The stupid thing is, according to estimations, there are only around 100 women in the country regularly wearing a niqab or burqa.....

[Machismo]

We do not want anybody to undress. We want women to wear the socially acceptable clothing: open face as postulated by our culture and open hair as postulated by our esthetics. If they do not like our culture or our society, there are different countries with different cultures where they can wear what they want.

Well, how very authoritarian of you. Maybe you should have fashion police to enforce your rules. Whilst you are at it, you may as well institute the thought police. We all know that's where you want it to lead.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

People picking what they wear is nothing like slavery.

[lummiuster]

No, that's a shit reason. You should be seeing a therapist if you need to wear a mask.

I don't want you to see my face and I dont need to give you any reason. That is called freedom. If you hate a religion so much that you would be ready to give up freedom to oppress them more, then you should see a therapist.

[Machismo]

I don't want you to see my face and I dont need to give you any reason. That is called freedom. If you hate a religion so much that you would be ready to give up freedom to oppress them more, then you should see a therapist.

You put it quite well.

[LMuhlen]

I think female clothes are a symbol of oppression in the west, where the patriarchal society of un-self-controllable rapists needed women to be discrete as to not drag attention from males other than their rightful owne... I mean, husbands.

Now that we are aiming at being an equal genders society, this symbol of oppression needs to be undone. Women clothing should be forbidden altogether, women must be forced to make good use of the right to walk naked everywhere, showing that they don't need to hide their bodies in order to keep males from going crazy. Women wearing any clothes in public will be fined.

[Deleted]

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?

And the mosque aswell? Don't be ridiculous. A building is a building. People can do whatever they want in their privacy. Not, in public spaces though. They aren't their alone. The burka is synonym with violation of woman rights. It is not something that is seen in a good light in the west.

Regardless there's security reasons you obviously choose not to address. People are identified by their face. Citizens can't be allowed to hide their face. Otherwise they all can and anyone can commit any sort of crime unpunished. The end line is this: Special treatment: NO! Muslims don't get to have special treatment at the risk of everyone's safety.

- - - Updated - - -

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

It is when said thing is a symbol of human rights abuse.

What next? Let's have murderers carry the murder weapon on their back? It's their freedom right? No, you don't know what freedom is. Your "freedom" can not put others at risk. Sorry, just no. This will keep moving on. It cannot be legal to have citizens not identifiable. Especially when that is a religious symbol being forced onto others.

[Azadina]

And the mosque aswell? Don't be ridiculous. A building is a building. People can do whatever they want in their privacy. Not, in public spaces though. They aren't their alone. The burka is synonym with violation of woman rights. It is not something that is seen in a good light in the west.

Regardless there's security reasons you obviously choose not to address. People are identified by their face. Citizens can't be allowed to hide their face. Otherwise they all can and anyone can commit any sort of crime unpunished. The end line is this: Special treatment: NO! Muslims don't get to have special treatment at the risk of everyone's safety.

The churches are in public space, that's why I can see it every time I walk to the store. Why are such symbols of religion forced on me?

Haven't even seen mosques.

Maybe we should have some GAYS shove their flags on your face 24/7. I'm sure you'd love that. Hypocrisy without limits.

You mean like religious shove their churches in my face 24/7? Talk about hypocrisy here. You've so far excused one of them, but not the other.

[Deleted]

The churches are in public space, that's why I can see it every time I walk to the store. Why are such symbols of religion forced on me?

Haven't even seen mosques.
You mean like religious shove their churches in my face 24/7? Talk about hypocrisy here. You've so far excused one of them, but not the other.

At this point i think you're just taking the piss... so yeah... run along.

[Azadina]

At this point i think you're just taking the piss... so yeah... run along.

Indeed, at your blatant hypocrisy, that you are incapable of even seeing, but sure love projecting on others.

Why do you like sharia of any sort?

[Deleted]

Indeed, at your blatant hypocrisy, that you are incapable of even seeing, but sure love projecting on others.

Why do you like sharia of any sort?

You don't even address the important security issue. Too bad it doesn't fit your agenda. Special treatment: No. Feel free to keep talking about freedom like someone who doesn't understand it. It won't make a difference.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Are you serious?

YES! There is a huge difference. I can see the face of the women on the left. The one on the right could be a guy for all i can tell.

This illustrates the security problem perfectly.

[ButterBeast]

i've seen a person in a burka like 4 times in my lifetime in denmark. It's such a non issue, it's just to score points with the people who hate immigrants crowd tbh.