Denmark's Burqa Ban Has Gone Into Effect

[appalachiablue]

Source: Newsweek

10 hrs. ago.

Women in Denmark will no longer be allowed to wear a burqa or niqab in what is being called the "Burqa Ban," leading hundreds of people to take the streets of Copenhagen in protest.

The law, which was passed in May, has taken effect on Wednesday and forbids any type of garment that covers the face. However, the new legislation stipulates that people are allowed to use face coverings in certain situations, such as wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle or protection from cold weather.

The ban doesn't affect those who wear headscarves, turbans or Jewish skull caps.

The "Party Rebels," a Denmark-based activist group, had announced that they would be holding Wednesday's demonstration, CBS News reported. People who attended the burqa ban protest in Copenhagen would not be penalized for wearing burqas, but Benny Ochkenholdt, a police spokesperson, told local media that if someone is caught wearing a burqa to or from the protest, they may have to face fines, The Independent reported.

If the law is broken, offenders may face a fine of 1000 kroner ($157). If they're caught again, a fine of 10,000 kroner ($1,565) or a jail sentence of up to six months may be enforced...Read More...

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/denmarks-burqa-ban-has-gone-into-effect/ar-BBLmZJr

---

The law also says that if someone forces another person to wear face covering clothing, they may also be punished with a fine or up to two years in prison. "All women should be free to dress as they please & to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs.".."If this law was intended to protect women's rights it fails abjectly," Filippou continued, "Instead, the law criminalizes women for their clothing choice- making a mockery of freedoms Denmark purports to uphold."
Marcus Knuth, Liberal Party member said that the clothes worn by some women in the Muslim religion are "strongly oppressive." Denmark joins Austria, Belgium & France in instituting a nationwide ban. The German state of Bavaria, Bulgaria & the Netherlands have placed some restrictions on the use of face veils in public.

[msongs]

1. so all the men who are forced to wear them will have to take them off? nt

[TomVilmer]

10. Police woman and burka woman hugs under the demonstration

Link to tweet

[FreepFryer]

176. That is what tolerance looks like. (n/t)

[appalachiablue]

2. Protests over new Burqa Ban in Denmark:

[pnwmom]

3. Like men, they can wear hats, turbans and scarves. Like men, they can't cover their faces,

leaving only slots for the eyes.

Meh.

[demosincebirth]

5. Let bare their faces like the rest of the women

[Orsino]

19. Unlike men, they can't wear certain garments dictated by religious law or custom.

I see good intentions here, but it still comes down to telling women what they can wear rather than punishing those who would enforce a dress code.

[Squinch]

26. The burqa is cultural. It is not required by any religion.

[Orsino]

51. Unless someone feels that it is. Then it is. n/t

[Squinch]

77. And what if I go a step further? What if I FEEL - and this is actually

much better supported in a religious doctrine, though it is a different religion - that we should allow men to beat their wives with sticks, as long as the stick is no wider than their thumb?

That is at odds with what we have established as the rights of our citizens. It's in the bible, but it is immaterial whether one feels its ok or not. It is inhumane, it infringes on the rights of its subjects and we don't allow it.

The burqa is in the same category.

[Merlot]

82. Perfect analogy.

It is inhumane, it infringes on the rights of its subjects and we don't allow it.

[Nay]

101. What Squinch said.

[Orsino]

121. See, you're still talking about the burqa as something forced onto women.

It often is, perhaps overwhelmingly so, and this is the problem the law allegedly addresses, but women who want to cover their faces are being denied what they feel is either a religious or cultural (or both) practice. If you are concerned for the victims of oppression, I recommend punishing oppressors instead of their victims.

[Squinch]

122. What if a woman truly believes her religion says her husband should

beat her with a stick, and she wants him to be allowed to? What if, according to her understanding of her religion, we are oppressing her by not allowing her husband to correct her wrongdoings?

We still don't allow it by law, and if it happened in public he would be arrested. We have always had legal standards of behavior toward each other that violate sime people's individual beliefs. Why must we make an exception for this barbaric and non religious custom?

[Orsino]

124. There are already laws to deal with violence, domestic or otherwise.

They tend not to punish the victims, at least not directly.

[Squinch]

125. That's a non-sequitur.

[Orsino]

358. Hardly.

You'll just have to decide whether you want your law to punish the victim or the perp.

[Squinch]

359. Unlike most who opine about this, I actually know women who are forced to wear a burka. I

know who I want my law to benefit and who I want it to punish.

Do you?

[Orsino]

361. So you do not want burka wearers punished?

That I would agree with.

[treestar]

307. That would be an assault

And we would never make an exception for a religion. The Supreme Court held that Rastafarians cannot smoke pot so long as it is illegal for everyone.

The burqua ban would not fly here though. It would have to be neutrally termed. No face coverings for anyone.

There is a case about the Amish that is a hard case of bad law, allowing them to avoid truancy laws. That one could be invoked to argue exceptions but was written to be narrowly tailored to avoid different rules for different religions.

[Squinch]

316. The Danish law is a "no face coverings for anyone" law.

[TomVilmer]

4. This law is punishing the wearer, not any oppressors

Sorry for what my country are doing - you all know that feeling...

This is a video from another demonstration. I was naked inside, if the police should chose to take of my burqa!

[lunasun]

61. Thanks for your post and video

[Doreen]

6. This is sad.

Probably the most noticeable thing will be that a lot fewer Muslim women will be allowed out of the house. Denmark and others who follow this have more than likely imprisoned these women. Well, I guess it will be out of sight and out of mind so they will not even notice it.

[pnwmom]

7. That hasn't happened in France or other countries that have done this. n/t

[TomVilmer]

8. The actual number in Danmark is less than 200 women...

... and one of the Danish women supporting the possibility of wearing a burka is divorced.

[Merlot]

86. Good, I want it out of sight.

Certain things should not be tolerated in society.

[christx30]

132. They could always move to a country

where this odious cultural practice is accepted, and even required. They, and their families moved to the West for many reasons. Jobs, relative peace, getting away from parts of the oppressive culture. Denmark is free to make any law they want in their country. They are free to set terms for emigration into their culture. This is a new requirement of entry and residence. It’s up to these women and families to decide if it’s a bridge too far, or if it’s something they can live with.

[treestar]

306. We are not free to make any law we want

We are bound by the constitution. Lucky for Denmark they don’t have that limit. Except where else could it lead?

[treestar]

310. How would that happen?

In Denmark, she is allowed out of the house. He can’t keep her in by law. If he hurts her, she can put him in jail. Deportation could happen too. People have to stand up for themselves. If they won’t, it is not our fault.

[7962]

9. Good for Denmark. Push back on these repressives and their attempts to normalize it.

A head covering doesnt need to mask your entire face.
I hope other countries follow. I'm tired of this constant ownership of women by these backwards ass rules, made up by men and not in the religion

[Merlot]

13. Agree 100% - Made up by men, not religion

It's not a "choice" if women face beatings for not wearing it.

[rollin74]

79. +1

[bitterross]

315. Agree. It isn't a choice.

I don't believe it is a choice if women face punishment of any kind for not wearing it.

I don't believe it is a choice if women have been indoctrinated since they were small girls that it is the only way and the holy way.

[SunSeeker]

23. +1

[frogmarch]

35. +1

[WhoWoodaKnew]

115. I agree. These religions that make women 2nd class citizens make me vomit.

[RelativelyJones]

229. +1

[mr_liberal]

11. Theyd turn the country into a theocracy w sharia law if they could.

They want their rights but they wouldn't respect other people's rights.

[Chemisse]

12. I have mixed feelings, but sure would like to see the burqa gone forever.

Seeing a couple walking around in the supermarket, with the woman's face fully covered except the eyes, is as offensive to me as seeing the husband leading her around on a leash.

I understand that these women are protesting an assault on their traditions. But some traditions aren't worth holding onto. On the other hand, that should be their choice.

It may not be fair to them, but I am glad it's being done.

[SharonClark]

14. Seeing a woman in a burqa walking behind a man

is as shocking as seeing a naked slave in chains walking behind the slave holder would be.

[marybourg]

15. Especially a man comfortably dressed

in shorts, tee shirt and flip-flops.

[skypilot]

18. Oh my god...

...I was going to post that exact thing. The juxtaposition of a woman in a burka and a man dressed as you described just bugs the living shit out of me.

[Floyd R. Turbo]

21. Saw exactly that in Sydney several years ago. A woman in a burka pushing a stroller with a

little kid next to her as her male companion walked ahead wearing a tank top shorts and flip flops. It was well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

[FreepFryer]

16. My objection is neither about religion, nor racism. The state should not outlaw styles of dress.

It’s wrong. The state will not solve gender inequality, nor lessen religious tolerance, by acting against a cultural subgroup’s practice in this manner.

It’s bad policy.

[pnwmom]

17. It prevents people from being ID'd in public. I think the state has a valid interest.

If someone hits my car when I'm driving, I want to know who did it.

Also, what is to prevent a criminal from wearing one of those things to prevent identification?

[FreepFryer]

20. That arg falsely links Islam w crime. when ski masks are illegal, ur argument may make some sense.

Right now, it is far too selectively applied to be good policy, to say nothing of good law.

[SunSeeker]

22. It is illegal to walk around in public wearing a ski mask in Denmark, per this law.

It prohibits facial coverings regardless of gender. It does give an exception for coverings to protect from cold weather, but that applies to both genders, and would not allow people to wear ski masks on a normal day or while driving in an enclosed car that is protected from the elements.

[FreepFryer]

27. Imho that is extremely silly. What is the cutoff temperature? (n/t)

Thanks for that context, nonetheless!

[SunSeeker]

30. No, it is not silly at all. People only wear ski masks when skiing or when it's freezing. nt.

[FreepFryer]

31. It's silly (or perhaps just uncivil) to demand people keep visible faces. Paranoia is not policy. Nt

[SunSeeker]

34. It is not silly nor paranoid to require people show their faces when in public. nt

[FreepFryer]

36. Yes it is. You do not owe your face to others. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

37. Yes you do. Hiding your face is a security risk.

And burqas are oppressive not only to the women wearing them, but all women. It is an acceptance of women's inferior status.

[FreepFryer]

58. Many things are a security risk. This calculation is being made in part bc the affected population

Is already marginalized.

Add to that the vastly different success rates in machine-assisted surveillance of people of color, and you have a major social problem that Denmark and the defenders of this policy cannot dismiss without doing harm.

[pnwmom]

78. The affected population could be ANYONE. In the NW, we had a couple women walking around

in clothing like that for months.

They turned out to be Elizabeth Smart, the kidnapped teenager, and one of her kidnappers. They could require her to wear that clothing and know no one could identify her. And she was too terrified -- for 9 months -- to speak out.

But it would be much more likely to have an ordinary event, like a fender bender. How would I identify a person who hit me if they were under a burqa?

[FreepFryer]

80. It could be - but in this case it is those who wear the burqa who are affected.

How could you identify a person from an unfamiliar area who hit your car? Your assumption is that facial availability equates to identifiability - which as we have seen from the recent test of facial AI on members of Congress, it does along racially determined lines.

[pnwmom]

83. Why do you think they take drivers license photos? To identify the driver.

You need to both be able to see the person's face and to read the words on the card. Otherwise, how would you know the person wasn't driving with someone else's license?

[SunSeeker]

94. What is the "harm" of requiring people to show their face in public?

Again, this does not ban hijabs or turbans.

[jberryhill]

62. Precisely

China has a very sophisticated system for tracking the movement of people based on facial recognition.

I know a consultant who did work for the UK National Health Service to provide them with a system for automatically identifying patients who enter clinics, in order to detect fraud by persons who were not UK residents using the NHS.

The Chinese can automatically recognize and track everyone on any public street:



And the data can be sent to cops on the beat in real time:



Automated facial recognition and tracking is being deployed by many countries for just the purpose you mention - people who hide their faces are security risks. Hence, it must be made illegal to cover your face.

This is not at all about burqas. But cultural sentiments over clothing are being used to advance quite a different agenda entirely.

[FreepFryer]

68. The word "everyone" u use so casually in your post betrays the lack of depth of thinking.

It doesn’t recognize everyone. It misrecognizes some people - disproportionately those of color.

Until that consideration is central to the solution, this policy imperils people of color.

[jberryhill]

70. Since when does it matter if people of color are "imperiled"?

The surveillance state is not particularly concerned about false positives.

[FreepFryer]

71. You must be joking. Did you read this piece? A POC misidentified as a criminal is in peril.

Amazon's controversial facial recognition program, Rekognition, falsely identified 28 members of Congress during a test of the program by the American Civil Liberties Union, the civil rights group said Thursday.

In its test, the ACLU scanned photos of all members of Congress and had the system compare them with a public database of 25,000 mugshots.

The group used the default "confidence threshold" setting of 80 percent for Rekognition, meaning the test counted a face match at 80 percent certainty or more.

At that setting, the system misidentified 28 members of Congress, a disproportionate number of whom were people of color, tagging them instead as entirely different people who have been arrested for a crime.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/07/26/amazon-rekognition-misidentified-28-members-congress-aclu-test/843169002/

[EX500rider]

105. It's not too surprising when a machine set on 80% is wrong 20%+ of the time.

I notice they didn't do the test with it set on 95%+ because that wouldn't have helped the story now would it?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

325. Male legislators should not be mandating what women can & can't wear. Taliban & Danes do that.

THAT is oppressive.

If you are truly against oppression then stop telling women what they can and can't wear.

[SunSeeker]

346. Face coverings aren't clothes. They're masks. This law applies to both sexes.

Burqas are meant to obliterate a woman's identity, so that she does not "tempt" men. Burqas are horrifically sexist, misogynistic and debilitating.

They are also a security risk.

Danish women can still wear a hijab and any manor of clothing they like, so long as they doesn't cover their face with it. The same applies for men.

This is not "men telling women what to wear," this is a rational, progressive 40% female legislature passing a gender neutral law that protects its people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

326. Law also prevents LGBTQ from hiding faces when going into LGBTQ events. THAT'S oppressive too. . nt

[SunSeeker]

345. LGBTQ people should be protected, instead of having to hide their faces.

Denmark has allowed same sex marriage since 2012 and ended anti-sodomy laws for consenting adults in 1933. They're a ways ahead of us. Do you have any links for your suggestion that LGBTQ Danes feel oppressed by the face covering ban?

[jberryhill]

52. Given that European countries have more sophisticated surveillance...

Then, yes, you owe your face to the state to identify and track you.

The technology is very well advanced in China:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43751276

Chinese police have used facial recognition technology to locate and arrest a man who was among a crowd of 60,000 concert goers.

The suspect, who has been identified only as Mr Ao, was attending a concert by pop star Jacky Cheung in Nanchang city last weekend when he was caught.

Police said the 31-year-old, who was wanted for "economic crimes", was "shocked" when he was caught.

China has a huge surveillance network of over 170 million CCTV cameras.

-----

It's very clever the way they are using cultural sentiments to backdoor the requirement that people show their faces anytime they are in public.

[FreepFryer]

53. The existence of surveillance tech does not mean the people an obligation to submit to surveillance.

You’ve got that backwards.

[jberryhill]

55. Read what SunSeeker said

If you do not show your face in public, you are a security risk.

If you cannot be identified by facial recognition in public, then you are probably a criminal.

[FreepFryer]

59. Many things are a security risk, priorities of rights curtailed are based in cultural perceptions.

[leftynyc]

140. Too fucking bad

They're nothing but an attempt to disappear women and shouldn't be allowed in any civilized society. I don't even give a crap about the security aspect.

[treestar]

312. If they are skiing or it is freezing

That does not affect the undesirable nature of hiding your face. If hiding your face is bad for society because you can’t be identified, the temperature will not affect that.

[treestar]

311. Interesting point

Can one wear a burqua on a cold day to ward off cold? This is why this law does not solve everything the way it appears to. Once you make a law, a thousand questions arise

[pnwmom]

75. No, it doesn't link Islam to crime. It says ANYONE is as likely as anyone else

to hit my car or to commit a crime. Why should anyone be able to wear what is effectively a mask in public?

[FreepFryer]

76. sunglasses? Wide rimmed hats? Surgical masks? Eye patches? Where does it end?

Apparently, it starts with the burqa.

[pnwmom]

85. None of those things completely obscure the face except for the eyes, like a ski mask

or a burqa.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

333. Really? You write face recognition software?

[pnwmom]

335. I see mouths and noses.

Those people aren't equivalent to this:

https://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/mangalore-college-bans-burqa-class/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

334. White woman fashion A-OKAY but muslim woman can't make their own choices?

[pnwmom]

336. How is that comparable to this?

https://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/mangalore-college-bans-burqa-class/

[Merlot]

89. All those things are a voluntary choice.

The burqua is a reqirement designed specifically to oppress women.

[FreepFryer]

92. Until the woman herself rejects the burqa, your assumption of her opinions is sexist. (n/t)

[pnwmom]

324. Is it sexist to recognize that many women are oppressed by men? n/t

[FreepFryer]

329. Not at all, that's a tragic reality around the world. Limiting their choices isnt how to redress it

Muslim women’s voices should - and must - be heard. Equal self-determination is the goal, and banning clothing does little to further this goal... without their voices being central, such a ban merely validates Islamophobic fears.

[pnwmom]

330. I'm not saying we should ban their clothing. Just ALL face masks, whether it's a man or a woman

wearing the thing.

[FreepFryer]

331. Appreciate your thoughtfulness,

yet being decidedly anti-facial recognition tech, I disagree with that as well... such a requirement implies the individual owes ones face to public scrutiny, and I don’t believe one does.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

338. Of course not. But is sexist for male legislators to oppress women's choices.

By all means legislate public service campaigns to publicize rights and toll-free numbers for help against abuse, etc.

If you want to legislate against oppression do it that way, not by reducing women's choices.

[pnwmom]

344. This is not reducing women's choices AS WOMEN. It is saying that all PEOPLE

in public, men and women, should not be wearing masks that cover their whole faces (except for their eyes).

[metalbot]

106. Wait a minute

I'm assuming then that you support the notion that we should be requiring identification to do something important like voting then, correct? Because, to use your argument, if someone is going to vote, I sure want to know that they are eligible to vote. What's to prevent some felon from showing up at a polling station and voting in place of someone else that they know isn't going to go vote?

If you believe that, then you are consistent.

If you don't believe that, then I might ask why, and I suspect the answer would be "there's no real evidence that significant voter fraud exists, and requiring identification turns into voter suppression". So I might ask "hey, is there some problem with hit and run burqa drivers that I should know about?"

I'm not suggesting that this should be a basis for determining whether we should or shouldn't ban a burqa, but the "we need to ID people in public" seems about on par with the right's "voter ID" logic.

[pnwmom]

107. You are assuming wrong. There is an extremely low incidence of voter fraud, even in states

that don't have picture ID requirements. And even people who did fraudulently vote aren't putting other people at physical risk when they vote.

Unfortunately, there is a much higher risk of accidents occurring when ANYONE gets in a car. If I have to testify in court about an accident, I need to know who hit me.

[metalbot]

108. I'm confused

You argue (correctly) that voter fraud is rare, and therefore the state has no compelling reason to require ID.

And while you argue that "accidents are common so we need to be able to identify people", but that's like saying "voting is common, so we need to identify people".

Are you arguing that there is a high incidence of burqa wearing muslim women being misidentified in Denmark? Or that it's even happened once? Or are you hypothesizing about a thing that could happen in the future?

[pnwmom]

109. No. I'm saying that no one can be identified when they're wearing a face mask.

There have been women here in this country who wanted to have their driver's license photos taken while wearing their face obscuring veil, and I don't agree with that, either -- anymore than I think someone should take their driver's license photo while wearing a ski mask.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/us/lifting-veil-for-photo-id-goes-too-far-driver-says.html

A Muslim woman who says the state is violating her religious rights in demanding that she remove her veil for a driver's license photograph will be in court this week to try to regain her driving privileges.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revoked the license of the woman, Sultaana Freeman, in January after she refused to replace her photograph with one showing her face. Ms. Freeman, 34, a homemaker from Winter Park near Orlando says doing so would violate her religious beliefs, and she is suing the state in Orange County Circuit Court seeking reinstatement of her license. A hearing is set for Thursday to determine whether the state's demand is unconstitutional.

SNIP

In the context of Muslim women with fully covered faces, ''when law enforcement officers make traffic stops, they need to know whether the person who presented the I.D. is the same person and one quick way to do so is by matching the photo and the face,'' Mr. Sanchez said.


ON UPDATE:

The ruling by the judge who decided that the state had a compelling interest in requiring photos of faces on driver's licenses.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/frmnfl60603opn.pdf

[metalbot]

110. Obviously a police officer can identify a woman, as can the state

That was true in Denmark before the ban. The burqa wasn't some magical loophole that allowed people to not show up for court cases, pin their speeding tickets on someone else, or not return library books.

Are there _any_ incidents that you know of in Denmark in which the burqa has been used successfully to obfuscate justice in a way that will now be prevented by this law?

What is the compelling interest of the _state_ here if there is not a demonstrable problem?

The case that you are referencing merely addresses the right of the state to identify a woman on a drivers license. While this has nothing to do with the Denmark ban or the right to wear a burqa in public, it's an interesting choice of counter argument given that this was a case where the ACLU came out firmly on the side of the woman. They argued that she was being railroaded by a state that was attempting to punish muslims for 9/11. I happen to agree with you that the ACLU was wrong in this case. But using "you have to take off the veil to take your drivers license photo" as a rationale for "no burqas in public" seems like the equivalent to "you need to show you are 18 to register to vote, so why shouldn't you need an ID to vote?"

[pnwmom]

111. I suspect you are a male. You have never had the experience, as a woman,

of coming upon a woman completely covered up except for netting over her eyes, following behind her husband in Sears, up to the counter in the woman's clothing department, where he alone talks to the saleswoman -- while two sons run around, calling to each other in unaccented English (so they are not just tourists.)

Seeing a woman that subservient was revolting. There is NOTHING empowering about being forced to wear robes that completely obscure your identity; that make you a black ghost in public.

I do not believe that any woman -- not under pressure from other people -- would choose to wear an outfit that is hot, difficult to walk around in, that obscures the vision, and makes her invisible to even her closest relatives or friends. If two sisters crossed each other on the street they wouldn't even recognize each other -- that's how isolating the clothing can be.

I'm not interesting in debating this on a philosophical basis. It's a gut feeling that I didn't know I would have till I saw it in front of me. The man might as well have had a collar on her neck and a leash in his hand. That's how it hit me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

323. People can be ID'ed if needed. Otherwise go whole hog and embed a radio transmitter chip in arm. .nt

[pnwmom]

327. How? Rip a burqa off a woman who's hit me and refuses to show herself? Or a man under a ski mask?

In my state, if we get hit and the amount of damage is under a certain amount, we're not supposed to call the police to come. We're supposed to take their info, take pictures, call our insurers, and report it to the police.

So how do we do that if the person is hiding under a mask or a face veil?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

328. No, duh. Same way as in US.

If there is an accident, exchange insurance info and drivers license info. Photograph the license plate. You don't have to see their face or take a photo of them. I've taken photos of accident damage but never a photo of the driver.

If it is a hit-and-run it is out of your hands and is immediately a police matter. Hopefully you got a license plate number and a color plus description of the car. They will handle it like any other hit-and-run.

[pnwmom]

348. Of course you didn't take a photo of the driver. You could SEE s/he matched the driver's license.

But if you're involved in an accident with someone in a mask, how do you know that the person didn't use someone else's license if you can't see them? You wouldn't have to take a photo of the driver if you could see that s/he matched the photo on the license. But if the person was covered up, you wouldn't know.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

349. It doesn't matter.

The license rules.

[pnwmom]

350. Yeah, it does matter. If someone has hit me, it matters who that person was. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

351. The license is who that person is.

If the licensee gave their license to someone else, then the license owner is responsible and has an additional crime on their hands.

It will get sorted out. Easily. No big deal. And not anything you have to worry about.

[pnwmom]

353. Wrong. Licenses get stolen and/or used without permission. You can't know

that the person who presents a license is that person unless you can see them.

Or that the person under the burqa isn't wearing it to purposely hide their identity, rather than for religious reasons.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/montgomery/man-in-burqa-robs-md-bank.html

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/08/man_wearing_burqa_robs_us_bank.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/la-grange/chi-atm-technician-dresses-in-burqa-and-walks-out-into-the-waiting-arms-of-the-fbi-with-168174-in-cash-20140815-story.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/burkas-worn-by-robbers-in-500k-toronto-jewelry-store-heist-1.2840489

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Northeast-Philadelphia-FBI-Burqa-Bank-Robberies-314662301.html

[Bernardo de La Paz]

354. Snore. Let the police handle stolen licenses. Don't try it yourself. Gosh. . . . nt

[pnwmom]

355. I have to laugh at all the MEN defending women's "right" to wear those oppressive garments,

that are not required by the Koran or by Muslim religious leaders, and are even banned from the Grand Mosque.

They are hot, they are stuffy, they restrict vision, and they put women at risk of tripping. They prevent two sisters or best friends from even identifying each other on the street, unless they are accompanied by other identifiable people.

The point of them is to isolate women and to keep them from taking their full place in society. I applaud Denmark and the other countries that have banned them.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/raheel-raza/niqab-burka-ban-canada_b_8189112.html

As a Muslim mother who never saw a niqab when I was growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, I am astonished to see Canada's judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada's values of gender equality.

I write this as a Muslim Canadian who does not have any specific political leanings.

But in the 25 years I have called Canada home, I have seen a steady rise of Muslim women being strangled in the pernicious black tent that is passed off to naïve and guilt-ridden white, mainstream Canadians as an essential Islamic practice.

The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam.

They're the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia.

Now I learn I have not only to fight the medieval, theocratic adherents of my faith for a safe space for myself, I have to battle the Federal Court of Canada as well, which has come out on the side of these face masks.

SNIP

https://torontosun.com/2013/09/17/west-should-ban-niqab/wcm/40f1438a-2124-4691-962d-a268164f5b5e

At the core of the cases involving both the accused “D” in Britain and complainant “NS” in Canada, is the women’s claim that masking their face is their religious obligation and as such a fundamental right.

Nothing could be further from reality, though no non-Muslim has as yet had the courage to call the bluff of Islamists who employ the niqab (and burka) as a political symbol, a sort of a middle finger to the West.

As the Muslim Canadian Congress said in 2009, “there is no requirement in the Qur’an for Muslim women to cover their faces. Invoking religious freedom to conceal one’s identity and promote a political ideology is disingenuous.”

No less an authority than Egypt’s late Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, dean of al-Azhar university, stated the niqab was merely a cultural tradition and that it had no connection to Islam or the Qur’an.

If there is any doubt about the religiosity of the niqab and burka, one should take a look at the holiest place for Muslims, the grand mosque in Mecca, the Ka’aba.

For more than 1,400 years, Muslim men and women have prayed in what we believe is the House of God, and for all those centuries, female visitors have been explicitly prohibited from covering their faces.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

356. Of course it is not required. We know that. Duh. :eyes: . . . nt

[Orsino]

57. The mask ban here in Georgia resulted from domestic terror.

That state should outlaw styles of dress...when there is a demonstrable threat that the ban substantially addresses.

I think the burqa ban's punishments are misdirected at best, but there will probably also be some benefit, eventually, to the oppressed.

[FreepFryer]

72. Hopefully the oppressed are willing to continue to pay for the delay with their lives and freedom.

[Merlot]

84. If "a cultural subgroup's practice" is cruel and inhumain it should be ruled against

I don't think young children should see women being degraded and sujected to this treatment.

It's not a "sytle of dress" if wearing it isn't optional. And in some countries, not wearing it can mean beatings and death.

[Doreen]

102. I agree.

It kind of reminds me of when I was in junior high. The school tried to forbid boys from wearing shorts. Now, this was in the 80's when girls were wearing mini skirts ( short ones at that ) so the next day all of the boys came to school in mini skirts. They were allowed to wear shorts after that again.

How would women here feel if all of a sudden we were not allowed to wear pants? Yeah, I know that sounds ridiculous but everything starts somewhere.

[HeiressofBickworth]

308. Been there; done that

In high school in the 60's, we were not allowed to wear pants to school. I also remember a time when employers forbid women employees from wearing pantsuits. I remember being told in an employment interview in the early 70's that pants were not allowed for women employees - and this was a law firm! We aren't talking jeans here but nice suits with pants, not skirts. There was no justification given for the rule.

None of this, however, is in the same category as a burqa or other face-covering item which can be a public security issue as others have said in this thread.

[Coventina]

24. Hooray! I hope similar bans are enacted across the western world.

I have never, ever, seen a man in a thawb in any western country.
But I see men in tshirts and shorts and flip flops while their women are completely shrouded.

It's hypocrisy and misogyny, not religion.

[SunSeeker]

38. Exactly. nt

[Maxheader]

25. Like totally unfair...Xenophobic , Reminds me of the rabid antiabortion freaks in americu..

Pompous, self righteous people...presumptuous thinking they know whats best for other people.

[leftynyc]

141. Tough

No children in any civilized society should have to look at women that are being disappeared. It's a horrible message. Don't like it? There are plenty of countries where they can move to where misogyny is all the rage.

[Coventina]

144. +1

Suddenly, tolerating intolerance is A-OK!

(Actually, not suddenly. There's been a pro-misogyny group here for a while)

[leftynyc]

145. Hey Coventina

These types of threads bring out all kinds of people who are okay with misogyny....one poster even wont condemn FGM. Disgusting.

[Coventina]

146. I know. Thoroughly disgusting.

And then, to turn around and say that those of us who are against such practices are racists.

Talk about classic projection!!

[leftynyc]

147. They can call me a racist all day long

Anyone who wont condemn the obvious misogyny is not someone whose opinion matters to me.

[Coventina]

148. Agree 100%

[DonCoquixote]

28. the fact they do not tell the difference between a niqab and burja is ignorance

a niqab is a bloody HEADSCARF

just like this lady in Portugal who is not a religious nut: madonna
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5876353/Madonna-channels-Queen-Hilda-Ogden-rocks-headscarf-wears-sheer-negligee.html

a burka is a full body covering, a shroud, not something that someone would wear and say "Hey Madonna looked good in that!"

or audrey hepburn:
http://www.womancomment.com/muzyka/moon-river-lunnaya-reka-klassika-romantiki


Denmark, do not let yourself get infected with the same Islamophobia that put Trump in office here, you should know better.

[JCMach1]

29. Unless the immigrant is from KSA, this is a repressive

Misogynistic affectation.

Not Koranic... Literally shoved down the throat of women around the Muslim world by Saudi trained clerics and their followers...

While I think education is better, outlawing this is not a bad thing.

[SunSeeker]

32. A nijab that does not cover the face is not banned. nt

[FreepFryer]

33. +1. Americans know that racism as foundation of policy is bad. Refusing to cop to it is worse. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

39. It has nothing to do with race. nt

[FreepFryer]

40. So some say. But the claim strains credulity. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

42. It bans face coverings regardless of race.

Wearing a face covering is not an immutable characteristic of race.

[FreepFryer]

43. You seem personally invested in negating disagreeing opinions on this. But you can't.

It’s a bad policy and it makes the Danes look very bad. They will regret this when the fog of fear lifts.

[SunSeeker]

44. I am not "negating opinions," I am correcting your mistatement of facts. nt

[FreepFryer]

45. You are not the people of Denmark. That's not your place. You are one individual. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

47. So now you're telling me what "my place" is? You see no irony here?

I think it is time we moved into the 21st Century and treat women as the equals they are.

[FreepFryer]

49. You are one person, and your job is not to naysay everyone else here with opinion claimed as facts.

[SunSeeker]

95. I am not "naysaying everyone else here."

What opinion am I claiming as fact?

[FreepFryer]

96. Your posts declare the intent and effect of the policy as having nothing to do with race. Opinion.

Not fact.

You cannot speak to the mindset of this law, as you are one person.

Such a statement is polemic.

[SunSeeker]

104. Nope, the law does not mention religion or race. Fact. nt

[FreepFryer]

113. A law need not acknowledge it is racist in order to be racist. I'm surprised you tried this argument

As it’s patent foolishness to suggest that because a law doesn’t mention race it cannot be racist.

[SunSeeker]

117. What is racist about not allowing face coverings in public? nt

[FreepFryer]

119. Potentially, many things. Perhaps you should stop talking and start thinking. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

127. You can't answer because it's not. Nor are bans on female genital mutilation.

These are acts that harm women, not immutable physical characteristics like race or sex.

What "race" do these bans negatively impact? Are you really arguing that banning these two misogynistic, backwards, debilitating cultural practices has a negative impact on a particular race?

[FreepFryer]

128. Your error? "misogynistic, backwards, debilitating cultural practices" is opinion, not fact (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

129. You really think burqas and FGM are not misogynistic, backwards, debilitating cultural practices?

[FreepFryer]

130. I try not to make absolutist value judgments about other cultural practices than mine. It's racist.

...

[Fix The Stupid]

134. Defending FGM on DU!! - who would have thought this day would come? n/t

[Coventina]

137. Yep, I think that might be a new low.

Although there are a surprising number of misogynists on DU.

[SunSeeker]

136. How is it racist? Are we not allowed to stop backwards practices that debilitate women?

[Coventina]

138. Foot binding! It's a beautiful, cultural tradition! How dare we criticize it!

[leftynyc]

142. You are no liberal

Anyone who can defend FGM in the belief that not condemning such a disgusting, repulsive, misogynist practice is making a "value judgement" has no place here. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

[FreepFryer]

149. You're thoroughly incorrect. And you are also entitled to your opinion, as am I. Cheers!

it is only when you are hated by both extremes that you know you are centered.

http://www.themuslimpost.com/the-burqa-or-the-bikini/

[Coventina]

152. Hahahahaha! That's hilarious! Yes, the west forces women to wear bikinis.

You are adorable!

[FreepFryer]

154. LOL, the bad logic in your post is what is laughable. Are all women wearing burqa forced? NO. (n/t)

[Coventina]

156. If they want to live in the west, then they should adopt western dress.

Why is it OK for the men to do so and not the women?

It's hypocrisy and misogyny.

[FreepFryer]

157. So you are in favor of forced assimilation? But see no problem conflating FGM and the burqa?

I submit your views are not objective, they are culturally biased.

[Coventina]

159. Nope. If it was a cultural issue, then all Muslim men would continue to wear the thawb.

They don't.

FGM and the burqa are all part of the oppression of women, period.

[FreepFryer]

162. Yup. But your use of the word "all" in that comment is pure stupidity and racist absolutism.

[Coventina]

164. No, it's merely holding the men to the same standard as the women.

Equality.

[FreepFryer]

165. No, it's holding another culture to your personal (not even your culture's) standards. Xenophobia.

[Coventina]

168. No, if they want to wear the burqa in the land in which it developed, fine.

Just don't emigrate to another culture and expect to behave by the same rules.

It doesn't work that way.

[FreepFryer]

169. No, emigration doesn't work that way, unless it is to a totalitarian state. Freedom of expression

Means freedom to choose.

[Coventina]

172. No, there is no such thing as being able to express yourself however you want.

We have all kinds of limits on personal expression.

[FreepFryer]

174. Wearing a burqa is a form of expression. It is, and should be, tolerated in many societies.

Unfortunately, racists think they can make such decisions for others.

[Coventina]

177. It's cute that you think I would care about what you call me.

People who want to see women disappeared are misogynists.

[FreepFryer]

179. It's super cute that you think you can demand an entire society of people abandon their practices

Without asking their opinions - and not admit that is the conduct of a racist.

[Coventina]

181. "Entire society of people"? No, just that Muslim women enjoy the same rights as their men.

I am a feminist.

[FreepFryer]

183. Feminists listen to women and ask them their values. White saviors speak for them without listening

[Coventina]

185. Again with the assumptions.

My Muslim students, both genders, tell me that the burqa's time has gone.

[FreepFryer]

186. i don't believe you. (n/t)

[Coventina]

188. That's your choice, of course.

It matter not one iota to me.

[FreepFryer]

190. It sure seems to matter to you, as you have been attacking my opinions as if they threaten you.

If it didn’t matter to you, I doubt you would have tied yourself up in such logical knots.

[Coventina]

192. Haha! Threatened by you?

No, I'm standing up to those who want to erase women.

They are cruel, hateful, and backward.

[FreepFryer]

194. Real feminism requires real work. The burqa is not shorthand for male oppression, and outlawing it

Will not itself liberate women.

Listen to the women, and let them decide their own practices.

To make simplistic, blanket statements as you have repeatedly done is a sign of intellectual laziness, and assuages nothing but racist outrage.

[Coventina]

197. Again, assumptions piled on assumptions.

I have listened, I have studied, I have decades of experience.

My Muslim friends and students agree with me.

I'll take their word over yours.

[FreepFryer]

198. No assumptions, just your racist words.

If you want to liberate, work for them to have choices - don’t presume the right to ban their cultural expression because of your own beliefs.

That’s racist.

[Coventina]

201. No Muslim has ever come to me asking me to protect the burqa.

None, zero.

Therefore, I am not working against their beliefs.

And anyway, as I said before, I am not doing anything against the burqa, other than speaking against it.

I have, actually, defended the wearing of the headscarf at my school (that does not cover the face).

But, just go on making your assumptions and projecting your feelings on me.
I am not harmed by it, just mildly amused.

[FreepFryer]

203. Okay, it's been fun but you aren't being honest so I'm done feeding you. See post 200.

[Coventina]

206. Right back atcha, pal.

[FreepFryer]

207. Ah, assumptions. If you only knew how dumb that was to say. (n/t)

[Coventina]

209. Oh dear, and here I thought you were done with me!

[FreepFryer]

210. Lol. Last word much? (n/t)

[Coventina]

212. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I never said that I was done, that was you!

[FreepFryer]

214. LOL! Your shift is probably coming to an end by now. Have a great day! (n/t)

[Coventina]

218. My shift? I'm not a shift worker.

Actually, I'm on vacation.

And thanks, I am having a great day!

[FreepFryer]

220. The idea of you spending a precious vacation day arguing racist trash is what's really funny.

[Coventina]

222. You're amusing, what can I say?

You never once address any of the issues of hypocrisy and misogyny.

You just resort to calling me a racist, as if that's going to shut me up.

[EX500rider]

225. Islam is a religion, not a race.

[GulfCoast66]

332. I am proudly culturally biased against misogynistic cultures.

And there are young girls who see FMG as a part of their culture. Their moms, aunts and all the women they know had it done to be accepted in their culture it is required. Fuck that shit.

Same with the Burka. Same with polygamy for Mormons.

What next? Defending Christian bakers who do not want to make wedding cakes for gay couples? Because hey, it’s their culture?

[EX500rider]

224. "I try not to make absolutist value judgments about other cultural practices than mine. It's racist"

So Inca & Mayan sacrifice OK by you then? I mean it's a cultural practice other then yours, so no judgement can be made,right?

[FreepFryer]

232. Dishonestly omitting "absolute" when quoting me and equating human sacrifice to burqa...

...means your argument is doubly full of shit.

[EX500rider]

235. I quoted you quite correctly.

And sacrifice and the burqa are just matters of degree in human erasing. Sacrifice being worse doesn't mean burqa's are good.

[FreepFryer]

237. Your post is Dishonest. U omitted the word absolutist from my quote, and that's dishonest. (n/t)

[EX500rider]

239. Maybe you need glasses?

Here's what I put into quotation marks:
"I try not to make absolutist value judgments about other cultural practices than mine. It's racist"
Seems all there to me.

[FreepFryer]

240. No, paraphrasing me u said NO judgment can be made, a dishonest contradiction of my point. (Nt)

[EX500rider]

241. Well I for sure can be absolutest in my condemnation of certain cultural practices..

...like human sacrifice, FGM, Burqas, ect.

[FreepFryer]

242. Awesome! Enjoy (n/t)

[christx30]

347. There are things that are just wrong

no matter what culture they're from. Here's an easy one: Arresting, imprisoning, and executing rape victims for adultery. Can you at least concede that that cultural practice is wrong?

[FreepFryer]

46. And your opinion is not a fact. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

48. No, but the assertion that a nijab would be banned is an incorrect statement of fact.

As is the suggestion that this law is based on race.

[FreepFryer]

50. I didn't say a nijab would be. And laws are based on many factors... this one clearly reflects race.

[SunSeeker]

97. You agreed with a post of pictures of black women wearing hair covering...

...wrongly implying such hair coverings would be banned, when they are clearly not. And black women are not targeted by this law, nor is any race.

[FreepFryer]

99. That's your opinion, and I never made no such assertion that such coverings would be banned.

You are exuding opinions and calling them facts.

[SunSeeker]

103. No, you typed "+1" which means you agree with everything in the post. A fact.

I'm not "exuding" anything.

[FreepFryer]

112. I can agree with the post without agreeing with your interpretation of the post. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

118. Do you understand this law does not ban hair coverings as pictured in that post you agree with? nt

[FreepFryer]

131. Do you understand how to let others have opinions with which you disagree? Like, wearing burqas? nt

[SunSeeker]

135. So you don't want to answer? Why are you deflecting with insults? nt

[FreepFryer]

150. I'm not defl3cting. Why are you attacking those with whom you disagree? Difference of opinion

Is a liberal tradition. Stop trying to command monolithic adherence to your views. The world is not as simplistic as your arguments.

[SunSeeker]

202. I see all you have is insults. nt

[FreepFryer]

204. Then you aren't looking. See post 200. Ciao! (N/t)

[SunSeeker]

227. See my reponse.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2125813

[Merlot]

90. Racism bad. Sexism ok?

[FreepFryer]

91. Sexism super bad. If women do not voluntarily abandon the hijab, assuming they want to is sexist. nt

[samir.g]

64. Niqab covers the face

I agree this is bad, bigoted law, just trying to be accurate.

[samir.g]

66. Today they ban niqab, tomorrow they ban hijab

Don't think they won't go there. This is an assault on Islam.

[Fix The Stupid]

73. Can you show me where...

Can you show me where in the holy book it states that women must be dressed like this?

Thanks

[Fix The Stupid]

120. "crickets"...

Yeah..that's what I thought...

[Coventina]

139. Off course *crickets* Because they got nothin'

It's misogyny, but for some weird reason they can't admit it.

I wonder why?

[pnwmom]

88. No the distinction is clear. What is banned are ski masks and other coverings

that obscure the whole face except for the eyes.

Here are niqabs.

http://www.houseofjilbab.com/shop/niqab-xxl-tasnim-collections/

[GulfCoast66]

98. Lots of religions have tenets/rules that need attacking

Or at least should not be allowed.

I think this fits the bill.

[leftynyc]

143. There's been a law on the books in NYC

since the klan days that you can't cover your face. Your religion has nothing to do with that law. Anything that forces women to cover their face is misogynist and has no place in civilized society. Children shouldn't ever have to see women being treated like cattle.

[pnwmom]

87. Wrong. Both of them fully obscure the face, except for the eyes. The only difference

is that the niquab doesn't go down to the ankles, like the burqa.

Here are niqabs:

http://www.houseofjilbab.com/shop/niqab-xxl-tasnim-collections/

[Mosby]

93. a niqab is a face covering

It's usually worn with an abaya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb

The ban probably covers some types of chadors as well.

[Devil Child]

41. Victory for secularism over religious opression, brave move by Denmark n/t

[jberryhill]

54. Also a victory for automated facial recognition surveillance

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43751276

Very soon, in much of the developed world, your every movement is going to be tracked.

[FreepFryer]

60. And people of color r vastly misrecognized by this tech (predominantly written/trained by non POCs)

Facial Recognition Is Accurate, if You’re a White Guy

By Steve Lohr
Feb. 9, 2018

Facial recognition technology is improving by leaps and bounds. Some commercial software can now tell the gender of a person in a photograph.

When the person in the photo is a white man, the software is right 99 percent of the time.

But the darker the skin, the more errors arise — up to nearly 35 percent for images of darker skinned women, according to a new study that breaks fresh ground by measuring how the technology works on people of different races and gender.

These disparate results, calculated by Joy Buolamwini, a researcher at the M.I.T. Media Lab, show how some of the biases in the real world can seep into artificial intelligence, the computer systems that inform facial recognition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html

[jberryhill]

63. Too bad

These "burqa bans" get overwhelming support by disguising the actual agenda. Look at how DUers cheer it on.

[FreepFryer]

65. DUers and straight up racist bullshitter trolls. (n/t)

[jberryhill]

67. Well, yes

Persons with odd combinations of beliefs, if you pay attention.

[FreepFryer]

69. Yes indeed. And Americans are indeed paying attention. (n/t)

[Devil Child]

74. My support for this "burqa ban" does not equal support for facial recognition surveillance

I'm sure total facial recognition is a bonus for some proponents though.

[jberryhill]

100. Support for Jill Stein does not equal support for Trump either

But wrapping one agenda in an appealing package is always a good strategy.

People have been wearing face coverings for religious/cultural reasons throughout history, and not limited to Islam either. It has also been common among Christian religious orders over the ages, etc..

Suddenly, with the development of automated facial recognition technology, it has become an imperative to do something about "oppressive face coverings".

My shoes are wet, so it must be raining.

You can say all day, "I support the eradication of mosquitos, but not the extinction of organisms which depend on mosquito larvae", but that is simply wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both.

If someone covers their face in public, it does no harm to me. It does no harm to you. It does no harm to anyone else generally. Ergo, why it becomes an issue of the state is beyond me.

Furthermore, hypotheticals about "what if that person then mugs you" are not relevant to face covering per se. Likewise arguments about "but they are being forced to do so by someone else" are also not relevant since (a) that is a separate issue for which there are resources for victims of spousal abuse, and (b) in a free society such a person has the choice to remove themselves from such relationships. That they choose not to do so for their own reasons (peer pressure, social isolation, etc.), are their reasons. Again, there are resources to help them if they avail themselves of them. In a free society, we operate from the assumption that people's religious and social choices are theirs to make, and we do not generally make those choices on their behalf.

But what such laws do is to remove MY ability to opt-out of public automated facial recognition systems which are more common than people realize. So we've gone from a situation in which my liberty is not compromised by someone else's garments, to a situation where my liberty not to be subject to automated recognition IS compromised.

And yet, it gets overwhelming support, such as the "face covering is a public safety issue" point raised elsewhere in this thread.

[FreepFryer]

116. Excellent post. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. (n/t)

[saidsimplesimon]

56. "When in Rome..."

This is a subject I would rather not comment on, yet, I must. As a western woman, I view the Burqa as a sick male dominated, religious mandate that diminishes the equal status of women. Are men required to wear black layers of clothing in the desert heat, or is that torture reserved for women only?

[rollin74]

81. good for Denmark

[GulfCoast66]

114. The irony is that the people on DU outraged about this ban as somehow oppressive

Are in essence defending an expression of a culture that treats women as little more than property.

Lots of young girls are not opposed to FGM since it is a part of their culture and to be accepted by their family and society it is expected of them. But no one on DU would defend that practice. And I get it. Mutilation is a whole order worse than the burka. But both are symptomatic of a culture that treats women as property. Same with forced marrage. Or polygamy to bring Mormans into the discussion. There are lots of cultural and religious practices that have no place in an enlightened society.

There are Christian bakers who don’t want to make wedding cakes for gay couples. That should be illegal as welll to bring Christianity into the discussion.

And I guess when in school I totally missed the part about the Muslim Race. I was always taught it was one of the 3 major monotheistic religions. Hell, there are Afghans as light skinned as me.

[Snellius]

123. +1 Freedom and tolerance give no right to tolerate oppression of others

European countries especially, given their experience with Nazi occupation, understand that freedom of expression does not extend to those who deny that freedom to others. Some forms of expression are not just words or symbols or styles of dress but acts of hate.

[Sunlei]

126. Ferengi are similar oppressive. woman are nude,not allowed in public or to own businesses.

On the positive side at least this religion clothes their females & they aren't a global "government religion" (yet)
ferengi rules of acquisition
108, A woman wearing clothes is like a man without any profits.

[obamanut2012]

133. Good -- it should be illegal here, too

The Koran just says that women AND MEN should cover their head. The burqa, like FGM, is a barbaric, misogynistic cultural edict against women, and not even based on Islam in any way.

[FreepFryer]

151. let her decide.

[Coventina]

153. I'll take false equivalency for $500, Alex.

[FreepFryer]

155. Sorry, that category has been done to death by those of you declaring this a one sided issue.

[Coventina]

158. It is one-sided. Against the women.

The very fact that this is about how women dress shows that it is all about hypocrisy and misogyny.

Muslim men adopt western dress in the west.

Until they all start wearing thawbs, I call them hypocrites and sexist oppressors.

[FreepFryer]

160. Some Muslim women adopt western dress in the West, and not all women who wear burqa are forced.

[Coventina]

161. If they want to wear the burqa, they should go to a country where that is the norm.

They have no business coming to a country that frowns on the erasure of their identities.

[FreepFryer]

163. That is a fundamentally racist statement. That isn't your decision to make. It's theirs.

[Coventina]

166. *BZZT* Culture is not race.

Cultural norms are enforced by the society.

It makes no sense to live in a country whose culture you are rejecting.

That's stupidity.

[FreepFryer]

167. A culture is neither rejected, nor adopted, wholesale. That is a foolish notion.

[Coventina]

170. The individual is one of the cornerstones of Western culture.

Erasing it is contrary to one of our bedrock values.

[FreepFryer]

171. Then why are you interfering with those individuals' right to choose their own mode of dress?

I would suggest you try for more logical consistency as you are really dropping this rhetorical ball, but your argument is bereft of any logic.

[Coventina]

173. "I" am not doing anything, other than applauding the Danes.

Erasing the identity of women is not freedom.

The burqa comes from a culture that treats women as chattel.

It has no place in Western society.

[FreepFryer]

175. Your spam posts here do exactly that. A burqa does not erase identity if a woman chooses it.

[Coventina]

178. Hilarious! Because I stand up for women I'm spamming?

And yes, a burqa's entire purpose is to keep women isolated and anonymous.

[FreepFryer]

180. That is the entire purpose of a burqa? Says you... a non-Arab, non-Muslim? Did you study Islam?

Your confidence is the confidence of the ignorant.

Standing up for women means letting them make their own decisions. White savior complex is a pathology.

[Coventina]

182. Yes, as a matter of fact I have studied Islam. I have Muslim students who tell me

I speak better about it than anyone they have ever heard.

You are making a ton of assumptions about me, with ignorant confidence.

Classic projection.

[FreepFryer]

184. Any educated educator would never freely use the absolutist language you do.

I submit your arguments speak very poorly about your ability to listen, learn, and educate others.

You seem only to be inter3sted in the latter.

[Coventina]

187. Again, projection.

Your opinion means nothing.

My students have consistently found me to be an advocate for them.

[FreepFryer]

189. Not projection. You used absolutist lterms inappropriate to the realities of cultural interaction.

Such terms are the province of the racist, not the intellectual.

[Coventina]

191. Cultural interaction is what I teach. I am well aware of what is oppressive and what is not.

The burqa is oppressive.

Not everything about every culture is OK.

[FreepFryer]

193. Nor is demanding all immigrants to a society assimilate in full, as u did above.

That was a major giveaway.

[Coventina]

195. I never said any such thing. I said the BURQA was not appropriate.

And gave the reason for that is that it erases the individuality of women, which is contrary to Western culture.

I never said anything about giving up every bit of culture, that's just a lie.

[FreepFryer]

196. Don't be dishonest. U said "If they want to live in the west, then they should adopt western dress"

own your racism.

[Coventina]

199. The Muslim men seem to be able to do it with no problem.

So it's clearly not an issue culturally for the MEN.

That is the hypocrisy and misogyny. Race has NOTHING to do with it, and you are being intellectually dishonest in trying to tie the two together.

[FreepFryer]

200. All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity

From the article (which it seems you may not have read):

“All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs,” Amnesty International’s Deputy Europe Director Fotis Filippou, told The Independent.

“If the intention of this law was to protect women’s rights it fails abjectly,” Filippou continued, “Instead, the law criminalizes women for their choice of clothing – making a mockery of the freedoms Denmark purports to uphold.”

That’s liberalism.

What you are spouting is racist trash.

[Coventina]

205. Tolerating intolerance is not liberal.

The burqa is an oppressive garment.

I'll keep saying it. I don't care if you think it's racist. It's not.

There is no "race" that requires the burqa.

[FreepFryer]

208. The it's you on one side of this argument, and me and Amnesty International on the other.

I’m super good with that.

[Coventina]

211. That's fine. Like I said, I care not what you think of me.

I care about my friends and my students, and the end of oppressive practices against women.

[FreepFryer]

213. I value the opinions of the world's human rights authorities over anecdotes deployed to racist ends

[Coventina]

215. If being anti-burqa is YOUR definition of racist, then there are a LOT of "racists" here on DU.

[FreepFryer]

217. And, thankfully, those racists are still the minority. The OP is clear...

All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs.

FULL. STOP.

[Coventina]

219. Then, the burqa, by definition, cannot be worn by women.

Because a burqa erases their identity.

[FreepFryer]

221. Says you. And since you are not a woman who wears one, it's not your call to make for them.

But I’ve said that before, as has the OP.

[Coventina]

223. And, as I've said before, I had nothing to do with this decision, I merely applaud it.

I am glad to see that Denmark is making a stand against the oppression of women.

[SunSeeker]

226. This does not criminalize clothing, it criminalizes covering your face.

Women can still dress however they like. They just can't cover their face in public.

Face coverings obliterate a woman's identity.

[FreepFryer]

234. Sunseeker, meet Coventina. You seem to disagree with each other about the legality of the burqa.

But alas, logical consistency seems less important to you than filibuster.

[SunSeeker]

245. No, women's equality is more important to me than the burqa. nt

[FreepFryer]

246. Me too. But I wouldn't presume to ban it outright, I would let Muslim women decide for themselves.

That’s equality.

[SunSeeker]

248. No, that's not equality, that is letting misogyny rule.

Banning facial coverings keeps a women's identity from being obliterated. It gives her the same status as men under that law. That is equality.

[FreepFryer]

249. Letting women decide for themselves is misogyny? You can't be serious with this trash. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

254. These practices do anything but let women decide for themselves.

Failure to abide by the practices results in shaming, ostracizing...and sometimes death. This is not much of a choice. But if face covering was illegal, the women would not be shamed if they showed their face. Their families would have not choice by to allow these women to have an identity in public.

[FreepFryer]

256. You are not the one to decide if another person has an identity or not based on their clothing.

[SunSeeker]

259. EVERY person has an identity. Even women. I did not decide that.

You keep misleadingly calling burqas "clothing," as if they are a dress. They are not a dress, or head scarf. It is a face covering designed to obliterate a woman's identity.

[FreepFryer]

260. You are not the one to decide if a person's identity is obliterated by their choice of covering.

"Even women'? WTF?!?!

And as i have already pointed out to you, Amnesty International disagrees with you on this ever-more-twisted opinion of yours that you keep foisting as fact.

[SunSeeker]

261. The very purpose of a burqa is to erase a woman's identity in public.

I am not the one who decided that.

[FreepFryer]

280. A non Muslim can assuredly tell Muslim women the purpose of the burqa? Nonsense. nt

[SunSeeker]

283. You can't hide from reality. nt

[FreepFryer]

284. And you can't deny reality. nt

[SunSeeker]

286. I never do. nt

[FreepFryer]

288. Except when you post opinion and call it fact, as all over this post. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

291. Wow. You really can't let this go.

[FreepFryer]

292. Wow, if you can resist responding, you may be right. Otherwise it's on u!

[GulfCoast66]

337. You keep saying racist. But we are not talking race here

Afghans look like me. As do many other people from cultures that require this bullshit from their property. Errr. I mean women.

At least make a fact based argument.

[FreepFryer]

339. Thank god you arrived to tell everyone what we were and weren't already talking about! nt

[GulfCoast66]

341. Your very welcome

But I this is my 4th dive into this thread. I notice that you choose not to respond to the others.

And that your response to this one did not even attempt to rebut my factual statement. Rather was just a snarky comment.

Now can you explain to me how it is racist to ban the burka considering the fact that many of the women forced to wear it are not people of color?

[FreepFryer]

216. The OP says it all...

All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs.

FULL. STOP.

[SunSeeker]

228. A burqa obliterates a woman's identity. It constrains women's freedom.

They can't safely see where they are going with some burqas, that only allow them to peep through a mesh.

It is medieval, backwards misogynistic abuse of women, right up there with foot binding and female genital mutilation. Just because some women want to be subjected to it because they were inculcated with these beliefs is no reason to allow it, any more than we should allow child marriage or human sacrifices just because they are a certain culture's belief.

[FreepFryer]

231. Amnesty International disagrees with you. (n/t)

[RelativelyJones]

230. Danish culture does not allow the valuing of women as second class. FULL STOP

[FreepFryer]

233. Amnesty International disagrees with you. (n/t)

[RelativelyJones]

236. Then Amnesty Int'l needs to get a clue about the public erasure of women's identities

[FreepFryer]

238. Awesome! Let us know how your effort to educate the worlds foremost human rights org goes.

[SunSeeker]

243. Even Amnesty Intl gets some things wrong, assuming this person speaks for them.

Just like the ACLU gets some things wrong, like defending Nazi hate speech as if it were a First Amendment right.

[FreepFryer]

244. LOL. No way you could be wrong. It must be Amnesty International that is in error. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

247. "LOL"? I don't find subjugation of women all that amusing.

I support Amnesty International, and the ACLU. But no one is infallible.

[FreepFryer]

250. I find hilarious your inability to let a differing opinion stand without trying to negate it.

[SunSeeker]

251. You're projecting. nt

[FreepFryer]

252. Not in the slightest. Have a great day! (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

255. You have a great day too.

[FreepFryer]

257. Thanks! See ya.

[SunSeeker]

263. You will.

[FreepFryer]

265. Wow, issues much? :)

[SunSeeker]

266. You keep saying goodbye, but you keep posting.

Hence my response.

[FreepFryer]

267. You're projecting. Funny :) (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

269. You just keep making my point. nt

[FreepFryer]

275. And you keep making mine. I'm not the one shouting you down. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

277. Nope. No one is shouting you down.

You are the one trying to shout me down with your insults.

[FreepFryer]

282. Not in the least. Your opinions are not facts. Let others have their opinions. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

285. If you think my statements of fact are opinions, why are you so bothered by them?

Why do you keep posting replies to me? You can stop right now, but you won't. That's how bothered you are by my "opinion" apparently.

And yet you claim I am the one who won't let others have their opinions. You have been all over this thread posting snarky, insulting replies to people who support this law.

And yet you accuse me of trying to "shout down" people.

That is some major projection.

I am not going to let you bully me.

[FreepFryer]

287. I'm not bullying you.

You already said goodbye, but cannot resist spamming every comment I make.

[MicaelS]

253. Islam is the new darling of many on the Left.'

No matter how opressive the behaviour that many of it's adherents engage it, it is anathema to criticize them, or their religion.

This thread is evidence of that fact

[FreepFryer]

258. Islamophobia is not going to take hold on the Left as it has on the right...

...no matter how much of this bullshit is spewn.

[SunSeeker]

262. If burqa bans are Islamophobic, why did Morrocco, which is 99% Muslim, ban them?

Read up: http://theconversation.com/why-moroccos-burqa-ban-is-more-than-just-a-security-measure-72120

[FreepFryer]

264. That's a great article, that shows Muslims deciding their own policy, for themselves.

Unlike the Danes.

[SunSeeker]

268. So no one can govern Muslims?

[FreepFryer]

270. Says who? (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

271. You. You suggested that only a Muslim government should issue a burqa ban.

"...Muslims deciding their own policy, for themselves. Unlike the Danes."

You do realize Muslims in Denmark are in fact Danes, right?

[FreepFryer]

272. I did not. How many Muslims are in the Danish Parliament?

Just curious.

[SunSeeker]

273. Why is that relevant, unless you believe only Muslims should issue burqa bans? nt

[FreepFryer]

274. It matters if you value a diverse society of tolerance.

Apparently, you don't.

[SunSeeker]

276. You are the one who suggested a Muslim was not a Dane, not me. nt

[FreepFryer]

278. No, I said Morocco is not Denmark. Slow down and take a breath... you're slipping. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

279. No, I quoted you. You're the one slipping. nt

[FreepFryer]

281. Now you're just lying. I think you have been Trumped . (nt)

[SunSeeker]

289. No, I'm quoting you in this thread.

You were fine with the Morocco burqa ban because

"that shows Muslims deciding their own policy, for themselves.

Unlike the Danes."

[FreepFryer]

290. The Danes, whose parliament is WHAT % Muslim? You haven't answered.

You are being dishonest, and it isn’t working, sorry sunseeker!

[SunSeeker]

293. You're the one who suggests only Muslims should rule Muslims. nt

[FreepFryer]

294. LIE. I said no such thing. You are seriously slipping now. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

295. So why are you fine with the Morocco burqa ban, but not the Denmark burqa ban? nt

[FreepFryer]

296. Because Morocco's decision was made by people with cultural familiarity w the burqa.

Denmark’s was more likely made by people with as misguided and ignorant an opinion of the burqa and its meaning as yours.

[FreepFryer]

297. And I'm still waiting. What % of Danish Parliament is Muslim? (nt)

[SunSeeker]

298. So only Muslims can have "familiarity" with a Muslim custom?

That is offensive and wrong.

But you do admit that people with "cultural familiarity with the burqa" properly banned the burqa.

So obviously burqa bans are not inherently racist or Islamophobic.

[FreepFryer]

299. Anyone who had that familiarity wouldn't make the ignorant claims u have made. Still waiting. (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

300. Google it yourself. I'm not your research slave.

You're the one who is arguing Danes aren't Muslim.

[FreepFryer]

301. LIE. I never said that and repeating it won't make it so.

Still waiting. Give education a try, you might like it!

[SunSeeker]

302. If that's a lie, why are you fine with the Morocco burqa ban, but not Denmark's?

Never mind, you already said why:

...that shows Muslims deciding their own policy, for themselves.

Unlike the Danes.

Ooops.

[FreepFryer]

303. It's gratifying that you must resort to lies to continue your filibuster. Thanks for the laffs!

[SunSeeker]

309. Trump claims when people quote him they are lying.

[FreepFryer]

313. Not being a referendum, the Danish Parliament are the Danes of which I spoke.

Shame you need to ignore that - and misrepresent my argument by omitting context - just to continue this foolish, ignorant filibuster.

Dishonesty... Just like a Trumpist.

[FreepFryer]

314. Again, what % of the Danish Parliament are Muslim? (n/t)

[SunSeeker]

317. I did not ignore anything. You're fine with the Morocco burqa ban, but not the Danish one.

I quote you when you stated why you are fine with the Morocco legislation banning burqas, but not Denmark's legislature banning burqas:

..that shows Muslims deciding their own policy, for themselves.

Unlike the Danes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2126026

You can childishly emoji-slap me all you want, that won't change the facts.

[FreepFryer]

318. trumpists hate civics, and they despise context.

The Danish Parliament passes laws - the people vote on those put to a referendum.

Again, the context my use of 'Danes' in that quote was the Danish government. What % of the Danish Parliament are Muslim?

Don’t go down that road! We need you!

[SunSeeker]

319. Again, you suggest that unless the legislator is Muslim, they shouldn't vote to ban burquas.

That is wrong.

There are certainly Muslim legislators in Denmark, look them up. You are just deflecting. Or you don't know how to use Google. Which could explain a lot.

[FreepFryer]

320. Not what I said. Your posts seem willfully immune to understanding. (nt)

[SunSeeker]

321. Right back atcha. nt

[GulfCoast66]

343. Now you've gone completely down the worm hole!

So it’s totally cool if Muslim countries ban the burka because it is treating women as property but it is a problem if Atheist countries do it?

I can’t even fathom the thought process that leads you to this conclusion.

[Coventina]

304. Not only that, but doing so is "racist" somehow.

[jberryhill]

322. Lock 'em up

Women wearing these things should be arrested, fined, and locked up if they don’t pay.

That’ll teach ‘em.

[guillaumeb]

305. Islamophobia is alive and well,even in the "tolerant" West. eom

[FreepFryer]

340. The good news is 340 posts and only 8 recs shows in how little regard DUers hold racist policies.

[guillaumeb]

357. 8 is 8 too many in my opinion.

The various loopholes in these laws in every country where they are proposed show that the motivation is Islamophobia.

[McCamy Taylor]

342. "All women should be free to dress as they please" But what if I want to wear a Burqa?

I hate fashion police.

[christx30]

352. If you want to wear a burqa

move to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran. You’ll love it.

[NickB79]

360. How many here know women who wear a burka?

I know one woman who wears one.

She would fight tooth and nail to keep it, far more than her husband (he says he can take it or leave it, as he's not overly religious).