Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Row over Denmark court veil ban


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

Danish diplomats to Muslim countries are preparing themselves for another wave of anti-Danish protests after the government announced it would bar judges from wearing headscarves and similar religious or political symbols in courtrooms.

Although the ban will include crucifixes, Jewish skull caps and turbans as well as headscarves, the move is seen as being largely aimed at Muslim judges.

It comes after pressure from the Danish People's Party (DPP), known for its anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Earlier this month, the party produced a widely published poster showing a female judge wearing an all-encompassing burka.

The accompanying text argues that a Muslim headscarf is more than just a feather-light piece of clothing. Rather, it suggests, it is a symbol of submission and tyranny.

The final line of text reads: "Give us Denmark back."

Critics have argued that the burka imagery is misleading as the head covering is already banned from Danish courtrooms.

More of the article here: Link

---------------------------------------------------

Seems reasonable to get that stuff out of the court room. Judges are suppose to be a neutral force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 17
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Demian

    5

  • Stardrive

    3

  • EtuMalku

    3

  • eqgumby

    2

I agree. Religion have nothing to do with the administration of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well in muslum countrys they make the tourists wear veils, so Denmark should do what it wants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want something funny in all of this then it's that the Danish People's Party actually described themselves as an anti Muslim party last week I think it was because of this case. Just in case there were Danes who didn't know where they stood.

I personally don't get the ban of religious symbols worn by judges in a courtroom. It was made out to be needed so they appear without bias, but that's all it is, appearence. Taking the cross of a Christian doesn't make him/her less of a Christian nor does the removal of a burka make anyone less of a Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find frustrating is that some (not all) immigrants leave their own countries and expect their new country to adopt their way of life, instead of the immigrants adopting their new home's culture. You are the one moving, you make allowances. I wouldn't move to another country and expect everyone to change, so either stay in your original country, or expect to assimilate. That doesn't mean that you forget your heritage, beliefs or religion, it means to accept that your new country have different way, and you have to understand that and respect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this same article in another forum and I am getting persecuted for it, if any of you want to help me out there I would appreciate it, there seems to be no talking to these folks. They are so anti American and pro Islamic, there is nothing I can say or prove that agrees with them.

I hope this is not breaking any rules of this forum by posting this, my intention is not draw anyone away from this forum.

http://www.allbeliefs.com/search.php?searchid=115466

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this same article in another forum and I am getting persecuted for it, if any of you want to help me out there I would appreciate it, there seems to be no talking to these folks. They are so anti American and pro Islamic, there is nothing I can say or prove that agrees with them.

I hope this is not breaking any rules of this forum by posting this, my intention is not draw anyone away from this forum.

http://www.allbeliefs.com/search.php?searchid=115466

I clicked on the link and it came up with an error message. But no, there's no debating with the hive-mind. They all think their doo-doo doesnt stink and they can do no wrong. And of course, the source of all their woes is America. That in itself is an exercise in buck-passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually looked at their posts. They are all Muslims, so I am not shocked. Plain and simple, I personally don't care if they wear a head-scarf as a judge, or a yarmulke or even a cross, as long as I am not being judged by their religious standards.

Now, IF the rules state that a certain thing, like a simple black robe be worn, with no adornments, that may be a separate issue.

As far as their "modesty" argument goes, I think that's a sham. I don't want a modest judge, I want one that will follow the law. And a full burkha worn by a judge would be as absurd as a judge wearing liederhosen or some other cultural costume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understood things (rather dimly), the entire thrust of the Koran and the Hadiths is to push for political dominance over the entire world. (in the name of Allah, who created - and owns - the world).

The symbology and social etiquets that spin off from these texts (such as Sharia law) are all geared towards such dominance. When a mosque has a minaret, and broadcasts the Call to Prayer, it is a symbol of the dominance of Islam over that neighbourhood.

Hence a simple headscarf can have far more significance in the context of a courtroom than might first meet the eye. In addition, it is of little use bemoaning that "immigrant cultures should adapt to the indiginous culture or go back home"... Islam is a evangelical... indeed imperialistic.. religion. It does not seek to "fit in" or "integrate", but to dominate and subvert whatever community it finds itself in.

Recall the dichotomy of "Dar al Salaam" vs "Dar al Harb". All muslims are in one or the other state whenever or wherever their feet touch the ground. The two states are binary and mutualy exclusive. You are in one or the other.

Dar el Salaam means "land of peace".. and refers to any nation that has a muslim government organised on theocratic lines, and implementing the Sharia.

Dar el Harb .. well... you might think it means "land of the unbeliever" or somesuch.

No.

It means "Land of WAR".

And "Islam" translates as "submit" or "surrender".

NOW do you understand ?

Meow Purr.

Edited by ships-cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understood things (rather dimly), the entire thrust of the Koran and the Hadiths is to push for political dominance over the entire world. (in the name of Allah, who created - and owns - the world).

The symbology and social etiquets that spin off from these texts (such as Sharia law) are all geared towards such dominance. When a mosque has a minaret, and broadcasts the Call to Prayer, it is a symbol of the dominance of Islam over that neighbourhood.

Hence a simple headscarf can have far more significance in the context of a courtroom than might first meet the eye. In addition, it is of little use bemoaning that "immigrant cultures should adapt to the indiginous culture or go back home"... Islam is a evangelical... indeed imperialistic.. religion. It does not seek to "fit in" or "integrate", but to dominate and subvert whatever community it finds itself in.

Recall the dichotomy of "Dar al Salaam" vs "Dar al Harb". All muslims are in one or the other state whenever or wherever their feet touch the ground. The two states are binary and mutualy exclusive. You are in one or the other.

Dar el Salaam means "land of peace".. and refers to any nation that has a muslim government organised on theocratic lines, and implementing the Sharia.

Dar el Harb .. well... you might think it means "land of the unbeliever" or somesuch.

No.

It means "Land of WAR".

And "Islam" translates as "submit" or "surrender".

NOW do you understand ?

Meow Purr.

Shame, isn't it?

I wonder if all the followers of Islam realize that's the perception so many have of them? Do they know it, and lie to people about this? It does seem like a religion bent on world domination through war or war-like behavior (what we call terrorism is really guerrilla warfare).

And so, that is what we think when we see a headscarf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Aside from appearance what is then the difference between a Muslim judge with a burka and one without? Has she become less religious by taking it off? Has her opinions changed? If she wanted to make a ruling based on sharia law then how is the lack of the burka stopping her?

Are you (you here being all those who think it shouldn't be allowed to show religious symbols in court as a judge) saying that beliefs are like a wallet, if you put on the wrong pants you're just sh** out of luck?

I'm all for separation of church and state. I don't think religion should be forced on anyone nor that any government should support a specific religion (although we do in Denmark). I don't however see the private decision of Christian wearing a cross or a Muslim a burka as either forcing their religion on me, even if they are judges.

The only issue I can see in this is that some people are afraid of going in front of a judge and seeing one of those big bad Muslims. Because we all know they'd just as soon blow you up as look at you. (That last was an attempt at sarcasm.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't get it. Aside from appearance what is then the difference between a Muslim judge with a burka and one without? Has she become less religious by taking it off? Has her opinions changed? If she wanted to make a ruling based on sharia law then how is the lack of the burka stopping her?

Are you (you here being all those who think it shouldn't be allowed to show religious symbols in court as a judge) saying that beliefs are like a wallet, if you put on the wrong pants you're just sh** out of luck?

I'm all for separation of church and state. I don't think religion should be forced on anyone nor that any government should support a specific religion (although we do in Denmark). I don't however see the private decision of Christian wearing a cross or a Muslim a burka as either forcing their religion on me, even if they are judges.

The only issue I can see in this is that some people are afraid of going in front of a judge and seeing one of those big bad Muslims. Because we all know they'd just as soon blow you up as look at you. (That last was an attempt at sarcasm.)

Well, I think it is a matter of the perception of the Judge, not to be seen as anything but a Judge in a court of law. Nothing to do with the Judge actually, more to do with keeping a neutral appearance for justice to be served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it is a matter of the perception of the Judge, not to be seen as anything but a Judge in a court of law. Nothing to do with the Judge actually, more to do with keeping a neutral appearance for justice to be served.

I get that but the judge is the one who does the judging so whatever anyone else thinks isn't very relevant. I doubt the judge is going to be influenced by his/her own appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this link will work

http://www.allbeliefs.com/

You guys would have done a better job of debating than I did, I wish you were there.

Thanks. I finally was able to navigate my way to the thread you started. Yep, you took a beatin son. But the 2 things that are at issue here are:

1. It's a headscarf at issue, not a full blown burka. The headscarf is a garment worn by women, it is not a religious symbol that is worn exclusively by muslim women.

2. the DPP has openly declared it is an anti-muslim entity whom pushed this into law. Therefore, the headscarf law is declared to be discriminitory by the female muslim population of Holland.

By the way, I didnt see anything anti-american on the thread, but that might be that I've got a tough hide from hanging out here...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. the DPP has openly declared it is an anti-muslim entity whom pushed this into law. Therefore, the headscarf law is declared to be discriminitory by the female muslim population of Holland.
Holland? They don't hold much sway in Denmark as of yet at least. Is there something we should be worried about here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holland? They don't hold much sway in Denmark as of yet at least. Is there something we should be worried about here?

Sorry bout that, I meant Denmark. My mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.