Denmark's Burqa ban goes into effect

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

A 28-year-old woman became the first person in Denmark fined for wearing a face veil under a controversial new law banning the garment in public, Danish media reported.

A fight erupted and cops were called when another woman tried to tear off her niqab Friday in a shopping center in Horsholm, a city near Copenhagen, police duty officer David Borchersen told the Ritzau news agency.

“During the fight her niqab came off, but by the time we arrived she had put it back on again,” Borchersen told Ritzau.

The woman was told she’d get a fine of 1,000 Danish kroner or about $155 and was told to take off the veil or leave the public. “She chose the latter,” Borchersen said.

 

Source

Please note that many of the demonstrators for this burqa ban have their faces covered.

 

In my opinion making a law against the burqa is law obviously xenophobic and smacks of religious intolerance on a continent where Adolph Hitler has been universally demonized for trying to exterminate entire ethnic groups.  This ban is wrong headed.

Edited August 6, 2018 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

I absolutely detest the burqa and all it represents. It's controversial even in Muslim majority countries.

I also understand the security concerns. Not just the terrorist threat, but also the safety of women wearing them.

As for the issue of civil liberties, is it a violation of such liberties to ban something that also violates them?

Ultimately it boils down to whether wearing a burqa in the first place was a matter of free choice or of forced choice.

My guess is that it was always the latter.

[Woodwose]

Good on Denmark! got to keep religion in check if we're going to advance as a species. The less confident religious/superstitious folk are of showing off their dress and iconography in public the better. Keep that stuff behind closed doors where it can quietly fade into obscurity. 

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Woodwose said:

Good on Denmark! got to keep religion in check if we're going to advance as a species. The less confident religious/superstitious folk are of showing off their dress and iconography in public the better. Keep that stuff behind closed doors where it can quietly fade into obscurity. 

So you agree with a law that decides what you may and may not wear?  Sure, sounds like progress.  They have a similar law in North Korea concerning acceptable hair styles.

[Woodwose]

Just now, OverSword said:

So you agree with a law that decides what you may and may not wear?  Sure, sounds like progress.  They have a similar law in North Korea concerning acceptable hair styles.

The rest of us already have laws pertaining to face coverings like motorcycle helmets, hoods and balaclavas. So yes, I do indeed support a move that brings EVERYONE in line with the law regardless of their imaginary friends. 

[+OverSword]

11 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I absolutely detest the burqa and all it represents. It's controversial even in Muslim majority countries.

I also understand the security concerns. Not just the terrorist threat, but also the safety of women wearing them.

As for the issue of civil liberties, is it a violation of such liberties to ban something that also violates them?

Ultimately it boils down to whether wearing a burqa in the first place was a matter of free choice or of forced choice.

My guess is that it was always the latter.

I don't know, I think that for at least some it is their own choice.  Here is something I found interesting.  I once watched a video of an attractive woman walking in NYC for a few hours in which she endured much comments about her beautiful appearance from random men while walking down the street.  After a few hours of that she put on a hijab and walked around and not one comment was made to her.  I can see how for some this may be something they would prefer.

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Woodwose said:

The rest of us already have laws pertaining to face coverings like motorcycle helmets, hoods and balaclavas. So yes, I do indeed support a move that brings EVERYONE in line with the law regardless of their imaginary friends. 

Do we?  I certainly don't. 

[GlitterRose]

5 minutes ago, Woodwose said:

The rest of us already have laws pertaining to face coverings like motorcycle helmets, hoods and balaclavas. So yes, I do indeed support a move that brings EVERYONE in line with the law regardless of their imaginary friends. 

I don't even think you can keep your sunglasses on when you go into a bank.

[GlitterRose]

Here's what I found about the US...

United States[edit]

There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia.^[1]

• New York State's anti-mask law was enacted in 1845, to provide for public safety after disputes between landlords and tenants.^[2]
• Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century when states and municipalities, passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.^[3][4]
• In the 21st century those laws have been applied to political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous – wearing Guy Fawkes masks.^[5][6][7][8]
• In some areas motorcyclists have been arrested using anti-masking laws.^[9]

These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech.^[10] That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe.^[2] Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennesee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad.^[10] An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.^[2]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws}

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, GlitterRose said:

I don't even think you can keep your sunglasses on when you go into a bank.

How is that similar to walking around covering your face outside?  Does this apply to people wrapping their nose and mouth with a scarf in the winter too?

[GlitterRose]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

How is that similar to walking around covering your face outside?  Does this apply to people wrapping their nose and mouth with a scarf in the winter too?

It's the same deal.

If a person can't be identified, then they could commit crimes, anonymously. 

We do have to be identifiable most of the time. 

I think there are even laws about people tinting windows on their cars for the same reason. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

29 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So you agree with a law that decides what you may and may not wear?  Sure, sounds like progress.  They have a similar law in North Korea concerning acceptable hair styles.

They also have laws in some Muslim countries that force women to wear a full body and face-covering veil, totally obliterating their identity and womanhood

— oh wait

Edited August 6, 2018 by Kittens Are Jerks
Grammatical correction.

[+OverSword]

You know, as a Libertarian I guess I value liberty above all else.  Many people believe sacrificing elements of liberty to mitigate their fear is OK.  I disagree.

[Woodwose]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

How is that similar to walking around covering your face outside?  Does this apply to people wrapping their nose and mouth with a scarf in the winter too?

I can't speak for the US but here in England there's no issue protecting your face from the cold with coverings, but once your indoors you have to remove anything obscuring your face. 

[GlitterRose]

It looks like the US has struggled with this subject, and not everyone has the same laws with regard to face covering. 

 

[+OverSword]

Just now, GlitterRose said:

It's the same deal.

If a person can't be identified, then they could commit crimes, anonymously.

That's weak.  Also that presumes guilt.  I support innocent until proven guilty.

[GlitterRose]

I think if you're talking liberty, the law would probably help Muslim women.

If we made it a law that they can't be covered head to toe, and at least have to show their faces, their men could not force them to wear the niqab. 

[GlitterRose]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's weak.  Also that presumes guilt.  I support innocent until proven guilty.

I'm just showing you that the US actually does have some laws about full face covering, and why. 

[Myles]

I am totally on board with this.  I know there are gray areas, but hiding your face is not something that I agree with.   Add in how it degrades women and I am against them. 

[GlitterRose]

It does make it easier to get away with criminal activity if there's no way to identify a person.

[GlitterRose]

It's a tough subject, that's for sure. And the US has obviously had difficulty sorting it.

That said, I don't think it's freedom for the women who wear them. 

They wear them because they have to. 

If they tell you it's because they want to, that's probably because their men are making them say so. 

I do not think that ultimately, niqab = freedom. 

I'm just never going to agree that it does.

[acute]

Surely, for fairness, we should allow motorcycle helmets (and other face coverings) in banks and similar situations, or ban face coverings altogether.

Edited August 6, 2018 by acute

[GlitterRose]

It's one thing to expect the right to be modest, if you so choose.

Wear the rest of the tent, or use the hair covering and modest clothing. Wear a swimsuit that they'd wear in the 1800s. That's fine. 

It's another thing, entirely, to expect the "right" to never be identifiable, 24/7. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by GlitterRose

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, Myles said:

I am totally on board with this.  I know there are gray areas, but hiding your face is not something that I agree with.   Add in how it degrades women and I am against them. 

Would you be against someone who's ears nose lips, and hair have been burned off in a fire, or someone like the elephant man, or a leper, from covering their face in public if it made them more comfortable to do so?

[Kittens Are Jerks]

18 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

It looks like the US has struggled with this subject, and not everyone has the same laws with regard to face covering.

Here in Canada, Quebec passed a law that obliges women to unveil when riding public transit or receiving government services. The law does not specifically mention the burka as it also applies to masked protestors (and others). Quebec officials justified the law in terms of public safety.

Philippe Couillard, the premier of Quebec stated:

We are just saying that for reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face. We are in a free and democratic society. You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It’s as simple as that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/justin-trudeau-quebec-burqa-ban-niqab-new-law