Current Events > Denmark fines first woman $156 for violating 'burqa ban'

(+) Yeah! (+)

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

I'm not a fan of organized religion, especially islam, but this is bullshit. People approving of this are absolute fools. In no way is a right being taken away from the people something to celebrate.

It is when the practice does nothing but oppress women.

Please. You might as well be telling me guns are for nothing but killing people. >_>

I mean, they are? Do you think guna have a purpose OTHER than killing something?

Defense, sport or simply hobby. Take your pick.

3 shitty examples and they dont even help your case. And you havent explained why banning burqas is bad yet, which is whay we are actually discussing here.
---

Now finish the job and deport her
---

CIA_Agent posted...

Now finish the job and deport her

Agree, but unironically, assuming shes not a permanent legal citizen
---

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

I'm not a fan of organized religion, especially islam, but this is bullshit. People approving of this are absolute fools. In no way is a right being taken away from the people something to celebrate.

It is when the practice does nothing but oppress women.

Please. You might as well be telling me guns are for nothing but killing people. >_>

I mean, they are? Do you think guna have a purpose OTHER than killing something?

Defense, sport or simply hobby. Take your pick.

3 shitty examples and they dont even help your case. And you havent explained why banning burqas is bad yet, which is whay we are actually discussing here.

You only say they're shitty examples because you're already anti-gun. I explained why banning burqas is bad alright. It's taking away a right from the people. The government shouldn't tell it's citizens what they can't wear.
---

Don't wanna take off your face hiding headgear? Stay home.
---

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

I'm not a fan of organized religion, especially islam, but this is bullshit. People approving of this are absolute fools. In no way is a right being taken away from the people something to celebrate.

It is when the practice does nothing but oppress women.

Please. You might as well be telling me guns are for nothing but killing people. >_>

I mean, they are? Do you think guna have a purpose OTHER than killing something?

Defense, sport or simply hobby. Take your pick.

3 shitty examples and they dont even help your case. And you havent explained why banning burqas is bad yet, which is whay we are actually discussing here.

You only say they're shitty examples because you're already anti-gun. I explained why banning burqas is bad alright. It's taking away a right from the people. The government shouldn't tell it's citizens what they can't wear.

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception. And oppressive practices are not tolerated in the free world. Banning them is just a small step towards a better future.
---

---

Cultural differences
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception.

I have never heard of a law stating you can not wear a helmet while driving. If that law actually exists, it's not a good one. It existing or not, you example would be false equivalency anyway. Motorcycle helmets aren't banned in public places.
---

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception.

I have never heard of a law stating you can not wear a helmet while driving. If that law actually exists, it's not a good one. It existing or not, you example would be false equivalency anyway. Motorcycle helmets aren't banned in public places.

you can't run around town wearing a ski mask and looking like a criminal usually
---

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception.

I have never heard of a law stating you can not wear a helmet while driving. If that law actually exists, it's not a good one. It existing or not, you example would be false equivalency anyway. Motorcycle helmets aren't banned in public places.

You cant wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank either. You cant wear thongs in areas where enclosed shoes are required, etc. You are missing the point anyway, but youre likely doing it on purpose now.
---

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception.

I have never heard of a law stating you can not wear a helmet while driving. If that law actually exists, it's not a good one. It existing or not, you example would be false equivalency anyway. Motorcycle helmets aren't banned in public places.

There are laws about face coverings though. Why should a personal choice like religion make you exempt from public safety laws?

Freedom from religion is part of religious freedom. Everyone doesn't practice your religion, so keep it to yourself.
---

You can't wear Leatherman gear in a Christian bakery, either
---

HylianFox posted...

You can't wear Leatherman gear in a Christian bakery, either

lol
---

catboy0_0 posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Yes they should. You cant wear a motorcycle helmet while driving for example. Burqas shouldnt be an exception.

I have never heard of a law stating you can not wear a helmet while driving. If that law actually exists, it's not a good one. It existing or not, you example would be false equivalency anyway. Motorcycle helmets aren't banned in public places.

you can't run around town wearing a ski mask and looking like a criminal usually

You can wear a ski mask if you have a legitimate reason to, be it weather or what have you. Even if you don't, it's unlikely you'd be fined for wearing one unless it obvious you're up to no good. Like wise, those wearing a burqa do so for a legitimate reason.

Rika_Furude posted...

You cant wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank either. You cant wear thongs in areas where enclosed shoes are required, etc. You are missing the point anyway, but youre likely doing it on purpose now.

A bank is not a public place. Places requiring enclosed shoes are not public places. I'm not missing the point at all. You agree with the burqa ban because you don't like Islam and it's tie to terrorism. That's all fine and dandy, but banning a piece of cloth is not going to stop any terror threats. All it's doing is taking away a right. >_>
---

FaultyGourry posted...

You can wear a ski mask if you have a legitimate reason to, be it weather or what have you. Even if you don't, it's unlikely you'd be fined for wearing one unless it obvious you're up to no good. Like wise, those wearing a burqa do so for a legitimate reason.

Denmark decided it's a security issue for people to cover their faces in public. Do you live in Denmark or know anything about them? I doubt it.
---

You are still dodging the question. How is the ban bad? It will only have a positive effect. Explain how this is a negative action.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

There are laws about face coverings though. Why should a personal choice like religion make you exempt from public safety laws?

Face covering laws are a joke that are barely enforced. If they weren't any time Antifa shows up somewhere or the KKK had a rally just about every one of them would have been arrested by now. You could go out right now with a covered face and at most you'd be stopped and questioned as to why. If you have a legitimate response, nothing would happen.

Freedom from religion is part of religious freedom. Everyone doesn't practice your religion, so keep it to yourself.

There is no such thing as freedom from religion. At all. Even the separation of church and state only stops the government from upholding one religion over another. Everyone holds their own beliefs. If you don't like someone else's, you don't engage them, not ban their religious items.
---

Good. I don't go to Saudi Arabia and shit on their culture.
---

FaultyGourry posted...

Everyone holds their own beliefs. If you don't like someone else's, you don't engage them, not ban their religious items.

sometimes religious items are weapons. how do you feel about that
---

import lots of immigrants from a radically different culture

introduce laws to force conformity with the cultural hegemon that directly contradict their customs

a conspiracy theorist might ask if the mass immigration project in europe is a deliberate ploy to introduce more authoritarian laws
---

catboy0_0 posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Everyone holds their own beliefs. If you don't like someone else's, you don't engage them, not ban their religious items.

sometimes religious items are weapons. how do you feel about that

Ninja star of David
---

southcoast09 posted...

It has begun.

I gotta watch the Mortal Kombat movie again..

I wouldn't support this in the US, but I understand completely why Denmark has felt the need to do this.
---

Religion is stupid anyways
---

catboy0_0 posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

You can wear a ski mask if you have a legitimate reason to, be it weather or what have you. Even if you don't, it's unlikely you'd be fined for wearing one unless it obvious you're up to no good. Like wise, those wearing a burqa do so for a legitimate reason.

Denmark decided it's a security issue for people to cover their faces in public. Do you live in Denmark or know anything about them? I doubt it.

Oh, so we're not allowed to criticizes laws of another country. Guess we better not talk shit about the fucked up laws they have in certain middle eastern countries.

Rika_Furude posted...

You are still dodging the question. How is the ban bad? It will only have a positive effect. Explain how this is a negative action.

I've told you twice now. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question was dodged. Freedom of speech and expression is paramount. Allowing the government to take certain parts of that away no longer makes it a freedom. Now let's turn that around. How is the ban good? What exactly does it accomplish other than taking away a right?
---

FaultyGourry posted...

How is the ban good? What exactly does it accomplish other than taking away a right?

you're not going to like the answer to that
---

SuperMedz3 posted...

catboy0_0 posted...

FaultyGourry posted...

Everyone holds their own beliefs. If you don't like someone else's, you don't engage them, not ban their religious items.

sometimes religious items are weapons. how do you feel about that

Ninja star of David

I smirked. Good jorb. :p
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

On 24 October 2006, the Eastern High Court of Denmark upheld the earlier ruling of the Copenhagen City Court that the wearing of a kirpan by a Sikh was illegal, becoming the first country in the world to pass such a ruling. Ripudaman Singh, who now works as a scientist, was earlier convicted by the City Court of breaking the law by publicly carrying a knife. He was sentenced to a 3,000 kroner fine or six days' imprisonment. Though the High Court quashed this sentence, it held that the carrying of a kirpan by a Sikh broke the law. The judge stated that "after all the information about the accused, the reason for the accused to possess a knife and the other circumstances of the case, such exceptional extenuating circumstances are found, that the punishment should be dropped, cf. Penal Code 83, 2nd period."

Danish law allows carrying of knives (longer than 6 centimeters and non-foldable) in public places if it is for any purpose recognized as valid, including work-related, recreation, etc. The High Court did not find religion to be a valid reason for carrying a knife. It stated that "for these reasons, as stated by the City Court, it is agreed that the circumstance of the accused carrying the knife as a Sikh, cannot be regarded as a similarly recognisable purpose, included in the decision for the exceptions in weapon law 4, par. 1, 1st period, second part."[15]
---

Rika_Furude posted...

How is the ban bad? It will only have a positive effect. Explain how this is a negative action.

I feel like I've had this discussion with you before, but essentially the ban punishes women who have done nothing wrong, and aren't a threat in any way.
The ban risks shutting a portion of women out of public spaces, since they might not be allowed by their husbands to leave the house without burqa or niqab. I can see no real positive effect other than "there will be less scary-looking Muslims in the streets".
---

maybe the people of Denmark choose to not live in fear because of a sexist religious practice
---

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

How is the ban bad? It will only have a positive effect. Explain how this is a negative action.

I feel like I've had this discussion with you before, but essentially the ban punishes women who have done nothing wrong, and aren't a threat in any way.
The ban risks shutting a portion of women out of public spaces, since they might not be allowed by their husbands to leave the house without burqa or niqab. I can see no real positive effect other than "there will be less scary-looking Muslims in the streets".

Its not punishing anyone other than those who try to oppress women. There is a short-term effect on women who think they want to wear it, but they would never have wanted to wear it if they wern't conditioned to by a patriarchal culture.
---

good.

hopefully all western countries implement a similar ban
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Its not punishing anyone other than those who try to oppress women. There is a short-term effect on women who think they want to wear it, but they would never have wanted to wear it if they wern't conditioned to by a patriarchal culture.

No, there's literally nothing about this law that punishes anyone who tries to oppress a woman. That's like passing a law making it illegal to be bullied, and then claiming it punishes the bullies. The affected are the oppressed women who aren't allowed to show their face in public. Now they're not just oppressed by their husbands but also by the law. Double oppression.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Its not punishing anyone other than those who try to oppress women. There is a short-term effect on women who think they want to wear it, but they would never have wanted to wear it if they wern't conditioned to by a patriarchal culture.

No, there's literally nothing about this law that punishes anyone who tries to oppress a woman. That's like passing a law making it illegal to be bullied, and then claiming it punishes the bullies. The affected are the oppressed women who aren't allowed to show their face in public. Now they're not just oppressed by their husbands but also by the law. Double oppression.

Its a step in the right direction towards stamping out that oppressive culture. And for your bullying reference, it's like banning bullying and then giving someone a fine for trying to get people to bully them. They aren't allowed to show their face in public? Don't bring that culture here, and even if they do we don't have to tolerate it.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Its a step in the right direction towards stamping out that oppressive culture. And for your bullying reference, it's like banning bullying and then giving someone a fine for trying to get people to bully them. They aren't allowed to show their face in public? Don't bring that culture here, and even if they do we don't have to tolerate it.

So here's a basic question.
Which part is oppressive:
- Not showing your face in public,
or
- Forcing someone else to not show their face in public?
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

When you immigrate to a country you adapt to said country. You don't make the country adapt to you.

ahahaha, my sides!
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

VoightKent posted...

This is only gonna lead to more angry muslims, God European politicans are stupid.

When you immigrate to a country you adapt to said country. You don't make the country adapt to you.

This

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Its a step in the right direction towards stamping out that oppressive culture. And for your bullying reference, it's like banning bullying and then giving someone a fine for trying to get people to bully them. They aren't allowed to show their face in public? Don't bring that culture here, and even if they do we don't have to tolerate it.

So here's a basic question.
Which part is oppressive:
- Not showing your face in public,
or
- Forcing someone else to not show their face in public?

strawman
---

If the woman is wearing it because she is being made to wear it by her husband (being oppressed), then surely the husband now won't allow her out at all, thus oppressing her even more?

Won't this just lead to women being forced to not go out in public, making their lives worse?
---

Oatcakes posted...

If the woman is wearing it because she is being made to wear it by her husband (being oppressed), then surely the husband now won't allow her out at all, thus oppressing her even more?

Won't this just lead to women being forced to not go out in public, making their lives worse?

thats the mans and their cultures fault, not the fault of anyone trying to stamp out that culture.
---

I didn't say it wasn't, but surely the law shouldn't help them with their oppression?
---

Oatcakes posted...

I didn't say it wasn't, but surely the law shouldn't help them with their oppression?

why not?
---

Rika_Furude posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Its a step in the right direction towards stamping out that oppressive culture. And for your bullying reference, it's like banning bullying and then giving someone a fine for trying to get people to bully them. They aren't allowed to show their face in public? Don't bring that culture here, and even if they do we don't have to tolerate it.

So here's a basic question.
Which part is oppressive:
- Not showing your face in public,
or
- Forcing someone else to not show their face in public?

strawman

It's not a strawman. I'm trying to make sense of your analogy. Your analogy is comparing a ban on wearing of burqa/niqab to a ban on bullying. Do you think that's a good analogy?
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Oatcakes posted...

I didn't say it wasn't, but surely the law shouldn't help them with their oppression?

why not?

My post was based on the original point that "it's to help stop oppression". So surely this is contradictory if by stopping oppression you cause even more? (Indirectly)
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Oatcakes posted...

I didn't say it wasn't, but surely the law shouldn't help them with their oppression?

why not?

OK you're literally asking why the law shouldn't help men oppress women.
---

FaultyGourry posted...

I'm not a fan of organized religion, especially islam, but this is bullshit. People approving of this are absolute fools. In no way is a right being taken away from the people something to celebrate.

It's a literal symbol of oppression that has no place in the West. If you want to wear a burqa go back to countries that mandate it, we in the West will not tolerate this.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Its a step in the right direction towards stamping out that oppressive culture. And for your bullying reference, it's like banning bullying and then giving someone a fine for trying to get people to bully them. They aren't allowed to show their face in public? Don't bring that culture here, and even if they do we don't have to tolerate it.

So here's a basic question.
Which part is oppressive:
- Not showing your face in public,
or
- Forcing someone else to not show their face in public?

strawman

It's not a strawman. I'm trying to make sense of your analogy. Your analogy is comparing a ban on wearing of burqa/niqab to a ban on bullying. Do you think that's a good analogy?

I'm saying its a closer analogy than your comparison to being bullied
---

Oatcakes posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Oatcakes posted...

I didn't say it wasn't, but surely the law shouldn't help them with their oppression?

why not?

My post was based on the original point that "it's to help stop oppression". So surely this is contradictory if by stopping oppression you cause even more? (Indirectly)

It's caused by the people of that culture, not the people trying to stamp out that culture. That's like saying "banning unvaccinated children from going to public school just means more children don't get an education, and that's the governments fault".
---