A crime or a right? Some Danish Muslims defy face veil ban

[dick dasterdly]

As another poster pointed out, there is no 'good' reason for wearing a burka.

Edited August 3, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Snow Leopard said:

They came from another country outside of their own. Either new, first, second, third or whatever generation that's my point here.  

So by your enlightened definition the only citizens of Canada, the USA, heck all of North and South America are the native peoples?

 

That'll surprise a number of I love my country 'murcia #1 types!! 5555555!!

[giddyup]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Yes, the offense would have been possible without a burka. Do you honestly believe no-one has ever evaded airport security wearing a disguise other than a burka?

 

Ban wigs and facial surgery!!

Let's just say the burka made evading capture a breeze. A stick on mustache doesn't quite cut it. If it was acceptable to have just worn a brown paper bag over his head (holes for eyes) I guess that would have worked as well.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

@Bristolboy. So you've read one book (so you say), but no practical experience of Islam inside or outside of the UK.

 

Here's some research you could do ... google

 

"honour killings UK"

 

"female genital mutilation FGM UK"

 

 

 

What? I thought your readings and quotes were coming, "from books by acknowledged scholars, all muslim, not propagandists" not lowly old Google!! 55555!

[duanebigsby]

22 hours ago, overherebc said:

They want everyone to be forced into their way.

I think you'll find that they just want the right to their own way.

[overherebc]

3 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

I think you'll find that they just want the right to their own way.

Let them go home and they can have it all they like.

[duanebigsby]

22 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

So called "honour killings" (where daughters are murdered by parents or other family) are common in the UK; it's a Pakistani muslim speciality. Google it if you don't believe me, you will find numerous legal cases.

 

Cutting the clitorises off very young girls and babies (also known as Female Genital Mutilation) is a north African muslim speciality. It's also common in the UK. Google it if you don't believe me, you will find numerous legal cases.

 

I don't know if 12 honour killings per year in the UK is common but it is 12 too many.

FGM is also a North and East African Christian specialy.

[jvs]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Of course.

 

It is a patently stupid question though.

 

Bluespunk's point was that citizens are allowed to protest "rules" (which most of us call "laws") which they do not believe in.

 

You may find it surprising that other Danish citizens protest "rules" as well...

 

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/80000-citizens-are-protesting-against-a-new-educational-law-by-the-danish-government-2017-1/

Not the same at all,rules/laws affecting safety and security are entirely different from what you mention.

Some one as smart as you think you are can surely see that?

Edited August 3, 2018 by jvs

[overherebc]

As far as I am concerned all religions are for control of the masses by a few who only want that feeling of power and of course to line their pockets at the sheeples expense.

Some religions teach and believe that other religions are an insult to their religion and imaginary sky god so the believers of other religions must be converted or if they can't or won't be converted they must be put to death.

Wonderful world isn't it?

If anyone at my dinner table wants to thank their god for the food on the table I usually say why? it was my money and my effort that put it on the table.

[duanebigsby]

21 hours ago, Thaidream said:

There is nothing in the  Quran that indicates anyone has to cover their entire body in such garb.  They are using their own personal interpretation and the teachings of some radical Imams to justify their garb.

 

It is a security issue.  You don't walk into a bank in America wearing face covering and in light of radicals threatening people's lives- the complete face needs to be shown in public.  You want to cover your body  fully at home- your business.   In today's climate of terrorism- it should be banned. Period!!  If any European country allows this- they are fools. It won't be tolerated in America.

It is tolerated in America.

A Muslim woman is free to wear whatever she likes in public. Even a bank. You can't wear a mask but Muslims in veils are assumed to be just that and not criminals.

[DILLIGAD]

It is tolerated in America.
A Muslim woman is free to wear whatever she likes in public. Even a bank. You can't wear a mask but Muslims in veils are assumed to be just that and not criminals.

You know what ‘assuming’ makes you?

If she(he) is in a veil, how do you know that they are Muslim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[duanebigsby]

1 minute ago, DILLIGAD said:

You know what ‘assuming’ makes you?

If she(he) is in a veil, how do you know that they are Muslim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said that from the bank's point of view women in veils are assumed to be wearing religious clothing as opposed to being a criminal. 

Very few banks have refused service to women in veils.

It makes headlines when it happens.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

You're right Duane if you take the countr as a whole. But certain areas of the UK there is a clear muslim majority, they are not very liberal areas.

Where have I heard that before...

 

Oh yeah, I was chatting with my Thai neighbour the other day and he was saying, "you know Mike, in certain areas of Thailand farang are a clear majority, and they are not very respectful."

 

Didn't get his point; don't get yours either.

[giddyup]

44 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

I think you'll find that they just want the right to their own way.

 

[duanebigsby]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

 If you support the wearing of the burka, you support the reasons behind wearing it.

No one is saying that.

They are just saying they believe the women have the right to protest the Danish gov't not giving them the freedom to choose what they wear. It's a stupid ban to implement as only 250-300 women in Denmark actually wear a hijab.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

The government is elected by the people, if the Danish population disagrees with their governments decision, they can voice their opposition, as with any democracy.

Which is exactly what the native-born Muslim Danish women are doing. Duh.

 

Being elected by the people does NOT guarantee that they are enacting the will of the people every time they draft a law. If fact most reliable sources indicate that this govt decision was preceded by significant leverage from the far-right party.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, duanebigsby said:

No one is saying that.

They are just saying they believe the women have the right to protest the Danish gov't not giving them the freedom to choose what they wear. It's a stupid ban to implement as only 250-300 women in Denmark actually wear a hijab.

They have the right to protest because they live in a liberal country that allows them to do so, likewise Denmark has the right to ban it if they so choose. If they aren't happy with that decision then they are free to live in a country where the the hijab is accepted.

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Which is exactly what the native-born Muslim Danish women are doing. Duh.

 

Being elected by the people does NOT guarantee that they are enacting the will of the people every time they draft a law. If fact most reliable sources indicate that this govt decision was preceded by significant leverage from the far-right party.

Protest away, doesn't mean the law will be changed to cater to them.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Perhaps we see the burka as a form of oppression.

I believe we ALL see the burka as a form of oppression.

 

I personally don't believe in punishing the oppressed.

[giddyup]

Just now, mikebike said:

I believe we ALL see the burka as a form of oppression.

 

I personally don't believe in punishing the oppressed.

And I don't believe in allowing oppression to continue or validating it.

[stevenl]

51 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Let them go home and they can have it all they like.

Many of them are home.

 

Looks like many on here have a problem with that.

[Kinnock]

1 hour ago, duanebigsby said:

 

Religious majority? Seriously? The UK is 4.5% Muslim, hardly a majority.

4.5% active, devout Muslims who wear a uniform to separate themselves from other people vs 90% who put themselves down as Christian even though they only go to Church for weddings, plus a few who said they were 'Jedi' for a laugh.

[giddyup]

6 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

4.5% active, devout Muslims who wear a uniform to separate themselves from other people vs 90% who put themselves down as Christian even though they only go to Church for weddings, plus a few who said they were 'Jedi' for a laugh.

Christian can mean just having Christian values, has nothing to do with going to church.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

@Bristolboy

 

my reference to Dawkins was in response to your comment about scientists. I never suggested that Dawkins is an expert on Islam, though clearly he is far more expert than you.

 

He is an example of the British liberal intelligentsia which finds Islam illiberal. There are many others of course.

 

You seem to be driven by dogma, not facts or experience.

 

People like you do a great disservice to liberal muslims who are under siege both at home and in the UK/Europe.

 

Dawkins and other "new atheists" of his ilk, like Bill Maher and Sam Harris are not traditional "liberals" as you attempt to portray yourself.

 

Why do you believe that Richard Dawkins has ANY scholarly knowledge re Islam? His public speaking on the subject has been patently OPINION based on personal belief NOT factual research.

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Dawkins and other "new atheists" of his ilk, like Bill Maher and Sam Harris are not traditional "liberals" as you attempt to portray yourself.

 

Why do you believe that Richard Dawkins has ANY scholarly knowledge re Islam? His public speaking on the subject has been patently OPINION based on personal belief NOT factual research.

I preferred Christopher Hitchens, he demolished muslim clerics and scholars, and not with opinions.

Edited August 3, 2018 by giddyup

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

@ Simple1. I have not expressed any hatred towards muslims.

 

If I may say so, you are missing the point. Yes, there are liberal muslims. Anyone who reads news from any mainstream source (my major MSM sources are The Guardian and the BBC) knows that these liberal muslims are under threat in their own countries. Many of them are murdered, or live under cover. Others seek refuge in liberal countries like ours.

 

Islam is the enemy of liberalism.

So you have finally gotten to the point the rest of us started at:

 

You (finally) admit that there is such a thing as "liberal Muslims". That must lead to the conclusion that the "problem" is not "Islam" itself. The "problem" is rich, right-wing fundamentalist Muslims and the governments they have formed and the brainwashing and propaganda these sects and regimes have inflicted. I'm lookin' at you SA!!!

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Let's just say the burka made evading capture a breeze. A stick on mustache doesn't quite cut it. If it was acceptable to have just worn a brown paper bag over his head (holes for eyes) I guess that would have worked as well.

So having said that a brown paper bag would have worked just as well do you feel like revisiting your criticism of stevenl's point that the security personal were having a snooze? 

 

When someone walks up to security with their face covered and you don't ask to look underneath and compare the face within to a wanted criminals list you are a useless tool of a security agent. Nothing to do with the disguise being a burka.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, jvs said:

Not the same at all,rules/laws affecting safety and security are entirely different from what you mention.

Some one as smart as you think you are can surely see that?

Well thank-you!!

 

I am smart enough to see that this has little to nothing too do with security, other than it makes a handy talking point.

 

If you take a hard stand on outlawing winter scarves and balaclavas, over-sized sunglasses, full-faced motorcycle helmets, face masks like Asians wear, and possibly overgrown beards I will believe you are genuinely concerned about security.

 

BTW - are you also saying that not all laws and rules are equal? That somehow "security" laws are somehow more valid or carry more weight than other types of laws? I have honestly never heard anyone say that before. Why do you believe that "safety/security" laws are more important/valid than education laws? Really having a hard time wrapping my head around this concept.

Edited August 3, 2018 by mikebike

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, duanebigsby said:

I said that from the bank's point of view women in veils are assumed to be wearing religious clothing as opposed to being a criminal. 

Very few banks have refused service to women in veils.

It makes headlines when it happens.

Try getting in a bank in Italy in a full face 'bike helmet.

Same same not different.

[nontabury]

17 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So you have finally gotten to the point the rest of us started at:

 

You (finally) admit that there is such a thing as "liberal Muslims". That must lead to the conclusion that the "problem" is not "Islam" itself. The "problem" is rich, right-wing fundamentalist Muslims and the governments they have formed and the brainwashing and propaganda these sects and regimes have inflicted. I'm lookin' at you SA!!!

Interesting. Fairly similar to a person who has the same opinions on Muslim and Islam. Yet he’s been hounded by the extreme left.