Burqa ban in Denmark and it's backfiring spectacularly

[RavenSky]

They can wear their religious bags all they want, just not in public.

You do realize that "in public" is the only place they wear them, right?

- - - Updated - - -

I think intolerance to religion in principle is good.

In action, in humans, it gets ugly and criminal.

Well said

 

[ruby sparks]

There are also partial analogies to things like banning FGM and foot-binding.

I disagree in that FGM and foot-binding are permanently physically harmful. A burqa is just hot and ugly.

Further, bans against FGM have not worked either.

 The world's first known campaign against FGM took place in Egypt in the 1920s.[8] FGM prevalence in Egypt in 1995 was still at least as high as Somalia's 2013 world record (98%)...

Because of the clear harm to the victim, I do think laws should remain (or be strengthened) against FGM, foot-binding, etc; but I don't see how this argument can be applied to clothing.

I take the point about negative or unintended consequences, such as women not going out in public etc, and I partly take the general point about bans not working, if slightly less so. In a nutshell, if there are better ways to reduce the repressive/coercive side of such things, I'd switch to advocating those ways instead.

I would slightly disagree with you about the burqa being just hot and ugly, because I would be concerned about harm generally, not necessarily just physical harm.

The partial analogy I had in mind was in terms of being wary of not doing anything or being laissez faire because of (in some cases arguably too much) cultural tolerance.

 

[Jayjay]

Last week wearing a Burqa has become illegal in Denmark. For mysterious reasons. Could it possible be racism?

Anyhoo... An Algerian businessman has gone out and said that he'll pay for all the burqa fines. Which he has done. So that didn't go so well.

http://cphpost.dk/news/wealthy-french-algerian-businessman-to-pay-all-danish-burqa-fines.html

Is he doing it because he's a Muslim? Nope. He does it because he's for freedom of expression.

I also find the idea of a fashion police for freedom rediculous. Well done Rashid.

The next play by the Danish politicians is to threaten to raise the punishment for wearing a burqa to two years in jail. Presumably because freedom, somehow.

All I see here is an opportunity for some patriotic dane to make a lot of money to the Danish government. But he'd probably have to do it in secret to avoid Nekkaz from refusing to pay the bill.

 

[RavenSky]

I take the point about negative or unintended consequences, such as women not going out in public etc, and I partly take the general point about bans not working, if slightly less so. If there are better ways to reduce the repressive/coercive side of such things, I'd switch to advocating those ways instead.

Ironically, this is where Zoidberg's open marketplace of ideas is the best defense... along with a strongly liberal government.

As people move from repressive religious countries to places like Denmark, the trend is towards more freedom - even within the religious groups themselves. As that happens, use of burqas and niqabs will give way to hijabs or no veil/headscarf at all.

I would slightly disagree with you about the burqa being just hot and ugly, because I would be concerned about harm generally, not necessarily just physical harm.

In what way?

The partial analogy I had in mind was in terms of being wary of not doing anything or being laissez faire because of (in some cases arguably too much) cultural tolerance.

I agree, but I don't think cultural tolerance is the issue. I do think it is entirely possible to go so far in the opposite direction as to give too much respect for customs and religious practices that deserve no respect.

I don't care at all what people want to voluntarily wear, but I do think the idea of religiously &/or patriarchally imposed clothing choices is an idea not worthy of respect even as we tolerate it (as opposed to attempting to ban it)

 

[barbos]

Last week wearing a Burqa has become illegal in Denmark. For mysterious reasons. Could it possible be racism?

Anyhoo... An Algerian businessman has gone out and said that he'll pay for all the burqa fines. Which he has done. So that didn't go so well.

http://cphpost.dk/news/wealthy-french-algerian-businessman-to-pay-all-danish-burqa-fines.html

Is he doing it because he's a Muslim? Nope. He does it because he's for freedom of expression.

I also find the idea of a fashion police for freedom rediculous. Well done Rashid.

The next play by the Danish politicians is to threaten to raise the punishment for wearing a burqa to two years in jail. Presumably because freedom, somehow.

All I see here is an opportunity for some patriotic dane to make a lot of money to the Danish government.

Exactly what I said.

But he'd probably have to do it in secret to avoid Nekkaz from refusing to pay the bill.

I understand the guy is on record saying it it's about fashion, not about religion.

 

[barbos]

Danes are extremely tolerant. It's the most tolerant country I've ever lived in. Because of this they expect tolerance from eachother. They don't give special privileges to anyone.

I like it. It's a very honest and upfront society. If they think something is silly, they will likely say it. Muslims who live here quickly learn that demanding respect for their silly beliefs will get them the opposite result. So they stop. And usually quickly become extremely liberal Muslims.

Denmark is probably a very difficult country if you're easily offended. Conservative and serious Muslims don't have it easy here. Nobody takes them seriously.

Both tolerant and upfront? That does not quite compute.

Why don't you apply some of that logic you're so great at

Tolerant means tolerating. It doesn't mean accepting or respecting. It also means they avoid telling eachother what to do. They give eachother a lot of freedom.

That does not compute at all. "Tolerant" DOES mean "accepting" and at least some respecting the right of other people to have beliefs.

 

[Jokodo]

Why don't you apply some of that logic you're so great at

Tolerant means tolerating. It doesn't mean accepting or respecting. It also means they avoid telling eachother what to do. They give eachother a lot of freedom.

That does not compute at all. "Tolerant" DOES mean "accepting" and at least some respecting the right of other people to have beliefs.

Latin tolerare means roughly "to cope".

 

[barbos]

Why don't you apply some of that logic you're so great at

Tolerant means tolerating. It doesn't mean accepting or respecting. It also means they avoid telling eachother what to do. They give eachother a lot of freedom.

That does not compute at all. "Tolerant" DOES mean "accepting" and at least some respecting the right of other people to have beliefs.

Latin tolerare means roughly "to cope".

We are not speaking Latin here.

 

[RavenSky]

Latin tolerare means roughly "to cope".

We are not speaking Latin here.

We are, however, speaking English:

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

No "respecting" required to tolerate

 

[ruby sparks]

In what way?

Non-physical harm. The sort that might result from being coerced for example.

Agree with the rest of what you say. Hey, maybe I'm wrong to come down on the side of a ban. I do flip flop a bit. Perhaps it's that I'm in favour of a ban in principle (which I think I am, for reasons given at the outset) but perhaps not in practice, if the desired outcomes aren't achieved or the overall outcome is negative on balance. I'm not necessarily saying I accept that that's the case. Maybe it works (or could/can/will work) in some ways but not in others. Nor am I saying that I agree with you that letting it happen 'naturally' under liberal government is necessarily the best way either, or that it would necessarily happen, or if so how long it would take, but I'd be open to it.

 

[untermensche]

I think intolerance to religion in principle is good.

In action, in humans, it gets ugly and criminal.

Danes are extremely tolerant. It's the most tolerant country I've ever lived in. Because of this they expect tolerance from eachother. They don't give special privileges to anyone.

I like it. It's a very honest and upfront society. If they think something is silly, they will likely say it. Muslims who live here quickly learn that demanding respect for their silly beliefs will get them the opposite result. So they stop. And usually quickly become extremely liberal Muslims.

Denmark is probably a very difficult country if you're easily offended. Conservative and serious Muslims don't have it easy here. Nobody takes them seriously.

How is it "tolerance" to care what another person believes?

It looks to me to be a current orthodoxy, not tolerance.

Laugh at others beliefs or get laughed at.

 

[Underseer]

Last week wearing a Burqa has become illegal in Denmark. For mysterious reasons. Could it possible be racism?

Anyhoo... An Algerian businessman has gone out and said that he'll pay for all the burqa fines. Which he has done. So that didn't go so well.

http://cphpost.dk/news/wealthy-french-algerian-businessman-to-pay-all-danish-burqa-fines.html

Is he doing it because he's a Muslim? Nope. He does it because he's for freedom of expression.

I also find the idea of a fashion police for freedom rediculous. Well done Rashid.

The next play by the Danish politicians is to threaten to raise the punishment for wearing a burqa to two years in jail. Presumably because freedom, somehow.

I agree completely with you.

I happen to think that burqas are a symbol of a patriarchal society that does not think of women as having any real agency, but it would be just as wrong to tell women they can't wear those things as certain Muslim-majority countries are to say that they have to wear those things. Women have had quite enough of men telling them what to wear and what not to wear in public. Enough is enough.

 

[Underseer]

There are also partial analogies to things like banning FGM and foot-binding.

I disagree in that FGM and foot-binding are permanently physically harmful. A burqa is just hot and ugly.

Further, bans against FGM have not worked either.

 The world's first known campaign against FGM took place in Egypt in the 1920s.[8] FGM prevalence in Egypt in 1995 was still at least as high as Somalia's 2013 world record (98%)...

Because of the clear harm to the victim, I do think laws should remain (or be strengthened) against FGM, foot-binding, etc; but I don't see how this argument can be applied to clothing.

I take the point about negative or unintended consequences, such as women not going out in public etc, and I partly take the general point about bans not working, if slightly less so. In a nutshell, if there are better ways to reduce the repressive/coercive side of such things, I'd switch to advocating those ways instead.

I would slightly disagree with you about the burqa being just hot and ugly, because I would be concerned about harm generally, not necessarily just physical harm.

The partial analogy I had in mind was in terms of being wary of not doing anything or being laissez faire because of (in some cases arguably too much) cultural tolerance.

Bottom line: the government has no business telling women that they have to wear something or are forbidden to wear something unless there is an identifiable benefit to society.

If you want to pass a law against people wearing scarves made of live foxes stapled together, I would support such a ban. If you want to pass a law requiring protective headgear at construction sites, I would support such a requirement. Want to require or ban burqas? Fuck off.

 

[sharon45]

Yes, they should have the right to punish themselves.

 

[Toni]

Last week wearing a Burqa has become illegal in Denmark. For mysterious reasons. Could it possible be racism?

Anyhoo... An Algerian businessman has gone out and said that he'll pay for all the burqa fines. Which he has done. So that didn't go so well.

http://cphpost.dk/news/wealthy-french-algerian-businessman-to-pay-all-danish-burqa-fines.html

Is he doing it because he's a Muslim? Nope. He does it because he's for freedom of expression.

I also find the idea of a fashion police for freedom rediculous. Well done Rashid.

The next play by the Danish politicians is to threaten to raise the punishment for wearing a burqa to two years in jail. Presumably because freedom, somehow.

I agree completely with you.

I happen to think that burqas are a symbol of a patriarchal society that does not think of women as having any real agency, but it would be just as wrong to tell women they can't wear those things as certain Muslim-majority countries are to say that they have to wear those things. Women have had quite enough of men telling them what to wear and what not to wear in public. Enough is enough.

No shit.

And by no shit I mean amen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think intolerance to religion in principle is good.

In action, in humans, it gets ugly and criminal.

Danes are extremely tolerant. It's the most tolerant country I've ever lived in. Because of this they expect tolerance from eachother. They don't give special privileges to anyone.

I like it. It's a very honest and upfront society. If they think something is silly, they will likely say it. Muslims who live here quickly learn that demanding respect for their silly beliefs will get them the opposite result. So they stop. And usually quickly become extremely liberal Muslims.

Denmark is probably a very difficult country if you're easily offended. Conservative and serious Muslims don't have it easy here. Nobody takes them seriously.

How is it "tolerance" to care what another person believes?

It looks to me to be a current orthodoxy, not tolerance.

Laugh at others beliefs or get laughed at.

We have a guy at work who's racist, who feels very free to express this over lunch. We have a Kurd at work who's a Muslim. He shares his opinions. They get on fine at work. They manage to pleasantly joke around with each other while getting the job done. I have not detected the slightest bit of tension between them. They even seem to like eachother.

That's how tolerance looks. You feel free to express whatever opinions you have, while setting those opinions aside when needed when those opinions get in the way of everyday life.

In Denmark humour is extremely important, and to be relaxed in social settings and the ability to put others at ease. As long as you say it in a joking tone, with a smile on your face, you can say what the fuck you want, always. It even has a name, "hygge".

 

[fromderinside]

When I see obvious demonstrations of religious belief I respond appropriately. First I say hello. Then I point to the religious sign and I say no. Then I say goodbye. Works all the time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Last week wearing a Burqa has become illegal in Denmark. For mysterious reasons. Could it possible be racism?

Anyhoo... An Algerian businessman has gone out and said that he'll pay for all the burqa fines. Which he has done. So that didn't go so well.

http://cphpost.dk/news/wealthy-french-algerian-businessman-to-pay-all-danish-burqa-fines.html

Is he doing it because he's a Muslim? Nope. He does it because he's for freedom of expression.

I also find the idea of a fashion police for freedom rediculous. Well done Rashid.

The next play by the Danish politicians is to threaten to raise the punishment for wearing a burqa to two years in jail. Presumably because freedom, somehow.

I agree completely with you.

I happen to think that burqas are a symbol of a patriarchal society that does not think of women as having any real agency, but it would be just as wrong to tell women they can't wear those things as certain Muslim-majority countries are to say that they have to wear those things. Women have had quite enough of men telling them what to wear and what not to wear in public. Enough is enough.

No shit.

And by no shit I mean amen.

Ok, so, I've done some reading around. There appear to be a variety of opinions on this (including, of course, some feminists in favour of bans, such as American muslim Mona Eltahawy). As to 'hard' or more objective data, that's thin on the ground, whether it's polls or attempts to measure success or failure in practice. But I would now say that at this point I'm shifting slightly against bans, mostly because they may, it seems, be counter-productive, but possibly also partly in principle.

This article/paper here (below) was, I thought, one of the best I came across, and its conclusions are anti-ban:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_in_Europe_but_rejected_in_the_United_States

So, in that light, where would those here, who are not in favour of outright bans, draw the line? What about, for example, giving evidences in court, or having a photo taken for a driver's licence (and being required to show your face if the traffic police request it)? Ditto for situations requiring a passport. I guess the latter may be resolved by having machines at ports or airports which use eye-recognition technology, and indeed everyone may soon have to use these (many already do, at airports at least) as it may be a better way to do checks.

That said, the giving evidence in court scenario may have to do with more than establishing identity. There are questions about demeanour, expression and body language being relevant to assessing evidences given.

Some countries have partial bans, involving not wearing a face-covering in public buildings. Then, slightly differently, what about someone in a burqa or niqab teaching children? Should that be allowed? I can see a potential/hypothetical conflict of interest if a parent objects. And then there's children, below a certain age. Is it ok to permit them to wear burqas and niqabs, given that it may not be as much of a personal choice for them (but something the parent's instigate)?

In other words, would those not favouring outright bans accept at least some restrictions, perhaps the ones I mentioned above, or others instead?

 

[untermensche]

How is it "tolerance" to care what another person believes?

It looks to me to be a current orthodoxy, not tolerance.

Laugh at others beliefs or get laughed at.

We have a guy at work who's racist, who feels very free to express this over lunch. We have a Kurd at work who's a Muslim. He shares his opinions. They get on fine at work. They manage to pleasantly joke around with each other while getting the job done. I have not detected the slightest bit of tension between them. They even seem to like eachother.

That's how tolerance looks. You feel free to express whatever opinions you have, while setting those opinions aside when needed when those opinions get in the way of everyday life.

In Denmark humour is extremely important, and to be relaxed in social settings and the ability to put others at ease. As long as you say it in a joking tone, with a smile on your face, you can say what the fuck you want, always. It even has a name, "hygge".

I know how tolerance looks.

I also know the recipe for conflict is intolerance.

Not necessarily in the lunchroom with educated professionals earning their money to survive.

Things like the burka have existed in many societies.

The Muslim world has been inflamed by violence since WWII.

The riches of oil have driven nations mad. And the strongest nations have used their power to create chaos within the Muslim world.

Supporting insane fundamentalist regimes in Saudi Arabia. Overturning democracy in Iran to put a dictator in power which led to a fundamentalist takeover.

The terrorist attack of Iraq which resulted in a powerful ISIS.

The list of things the US and Britain have done is extremely long.

And it has put religious fundamentalists in power all over the place. It is doing it now.

When you see a burka thank the US and British governments and their fervent support of dictators in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Trausti]