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

[My Thai Life]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

My point regarding secular ME of the 20th century was in response to a comment that all Muslims, BY NATURE are violent, radical, extremists.

I don't remember seeing that comment.

 

[mikebike]

22 minutes ago, vogie said:

Bristolboy posted the link yesterday.

Yeah... a few more pages of reading before I saw it!!

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

You said this before in a reply, but I can only repeat that having lived in the Rawai area for 12 years, I've only seen a burka a couple of times.

 

Normally I'd put it down to my being unobservant - but a burka stands out like a sore thumb!

2 on a motorbike yesterday coming from the market.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not really....

 

I'm not at all keen about the way it's possible to 'keep track of us 24/7' (reminds me too much of '1984') - but that's an entirely different discussion IMO.

It is not a different discussion if people claim to be against wearing a burka due to security issues.

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, giddyup said:

The subject is the burka, and it's possible misuse, not whether border control was doing it's job, and I'm not sure if that legislation was in place in 2006, and the fact remains that it was the burka that allowed this lowlife to escape.

The subject is the burka, so when you use this particular example of a criminal escaping using one to bolster your position it is appropriate and logical to question the circumstances.

 

I'd also question whether the burka is the only disguise which has been successfully used in this manner, and whether there was any payment indicating an inside helper...

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

The offense would not have been possible without the burka, put any spin on it you like, the fact remains. I guess you blame the bartender for allowing the drunk driver to get behind the wheel? Everyone is at fault except the actual perpetrator.

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!!

Edited August 3, 2018 by mikebike

[duanebigsby]

23 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Never mind how one looks on it - wearing a full, face-covering burqa is contradictory to the secular 'norms' of western countries.

The wearing of a cross is also contradictory to secular norms but the practice isn't banned.

 

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

You said this before in a reply, but I can only repeat that having lived in the Rawai area for 12 years, I've only seen a burka a couple of times.

 

Normally I'd put it down to my being unobservant - but a burka stands out like a sore thumb!

 

Just now, stevenl said:

2 on a motorbike yesterday coming from the market.

Again, I can only say that your 'experience' of living in Rawai is entirely different to my experience!

[VocalNeal]

4 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

The wearing of a cross is also contradictory to secular norms but the practice isn't banned.

 

Agreed but a cross doesn't hide the identity of the wearer. Easy really just make benefit collection a personal matter and the claimant must be pass a facial recognition test.

 

Make access to public buildings based on facial recognition. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by VocalNeal

[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.