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

[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.

 

 

[mikebike]

54 minutes ago, giddyup said:

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.

Or, since they live in a liberal country they are also free to organize their own political faction and attempt to change the law(s)... but isn't that what some fear most - Muslims desiring and acquiring enough political clout to change laws in western democracies?

 

Ahhh - the joys of unintended consequences!!! LOL!!!

[mikebike]

57 minutes ago, giddyup said:

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

So how does punishing the oppressed achieve that?

[mikebike]

15 minutes ago, nontabury said:

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

 

 

No.

 

I am saying that Islam is the victim of right-wing fundamentalism.

 

Christianity, Hinduism, and (to a lesser extent) Buddhism are all feeling the pressure of right-wing fundamentalism.

 

To borrow a catch-phrase:

Right-wing fundamentalism is the enemy of everything.

[giddyup]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

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? 

No, I said if a paper bag had been acceptable it would have worked as well. However, whether security were snoozing or not, the burka was still used to manage his escape, suggesting that it's possible for it to be used in other crimes.

[giddyup]

58 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So how does punishing the oppressed achieve that?

 By removing their visible shackles.

[Snow Leopard]

3 hours 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.

I have worked in pretty much every Middle Eastern, North African and Sub Continent muslim country since 1980. To varying degrees. Some i lived and worked in for many years. Some for a few weeks only. 

 

The OP was about the Burkha. I totally disagree with the wearing of this oppressive garment in a Western European country because of the symbolism it denotes. A Hajab is worn in most of the generally decent muslim countries anyway. There is also the security point as well. 

 

In the Western European countries women have fought a long hard struggle for the vote, equal pay, equal rights, to be treated fairly, not beaten up by their husbands, etc, etc. The Burkha is the symbol of oppression. So use a Hajab instead and probably no decent person would object.

 

I have a good many friends who are muslim, I have worked with and shared rooms with many muslims over the years. I have no objection to their faith at all. In discussions in the later years i always quote this comment.

 

As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

The only way to sort out this current mess is for the good muslims to triumph over the evil and bad fundamentalist ones. No Western politician, person or army can solve it. It has to be done from within the religion itself and with the aim of moving the religion then to a more liberalistic and understanding one that fits into the 21st century not the 7th century. Many countries are doing this already. Many sorry to say are not. 

 

 

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, giddyup said:

 By removing their visible shackles.

I suggest you're projecting, read the OP.  In anycase how does banning the burqa in public places stop abuse  - it doesn't.

[Opl]

There are certain costs when an immigrant culture comes into contact with a mainstream culture. One group must incur the cost of integrating. And it should not be the host country.  

[giddyup]

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I suggest you're projecting, read the OP.  In anycase how does banning the burqa in public places stop abuse  - it doesn't.

It's a step in the right direction, the same as banning other medieval practices that are alien and unacceptable to western values. It also lets them become a part of mainstream society instead of remaining isolated. I'm not sure what business (other than muslim) would employ a burka wearing woman that had to deal with customers.   Certainly don't see any in the major department stores in Thailand, or my home country. It's our culture, why should we be ashamed or criticised  for protecting it. After all, it's this very culture that attracts muslims in the thousands searching for a better way of life.

Edited August 3, 2018 by giddyup

[dragula]

Down road of nana there many Kazakhstan girl, they all have hijab, 500 bht and chicken from 7/11, they wil do many things with  hijab on. same as the girl in nana but cheaper. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by dragula

[mikebike]

52 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said:

I have worked in pretty much every Middle Eastern, North African and Sub Continent muslim country since 1980. To varying degrees. Some i lived and worked in for many years. Some for a few weeks only. 

 

The OP was about the Burkha. I totally disagree with the wearing of this oppressive garment in a Western European country because of the symbolism it denotes. A Hajab is worn in most of the generally decent muslim countries anyway. There is also the security point as well. 

 

In the Western European countries women have fought a long hard struggle for the vote, equal pay, equal rights, to be treated fairly, not beaten up by their husbands, etc, etc. The Burkha is the symbol of oppression. So use a Hajab instead and probably no decent person would object.

 

I have a good many friends who are muslim, I have worked with and shared rooms with many muslims over the years. I have no objection to their faith at all. In discussions in the later years i always quote this comment.

 

As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

The only way to sort out this current mess is for the good muslims to triumph over the evil and bad fundamentalist ones. No Western politician, person or army can solve it. It has to be done from within the religion itself and with the aim of moving the religion then to a more liberalistic and understanding one that fits into the 21st century not the 7th century. Many countries are doing this already. Many sorry to say are not. 

 

 

Post of the thread!!!!

[KhunFred]

You will never change Islam with legalities. High numbers of fatalities sometimes work but sometimes not. This religion is unique in all the world.

[RocketDog]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:00 PM, Hayduke said:

 

There is no Islamic requirement for women to cover their face. However they are, according to religious teachings, expected to cover their head. Covering the face is tribalism and not religion. As such, secular governments are under no ‘freedom of religion’ obligation to allow it.

 

 

I agree.

 

It is a basic survival instinct to distrust people who cover themselves and their faces. Very much of our hard- wired human interaction is based on facial expressions and body language. The human face has so many muscles to display expression and our brains use these cues to communicate thoughts and emotion that is more real, deeper, and more spontaneous than speech. Without this primary input our lizard brain spontaneously fears and distrusts strangers.

 

This has nothing to do with religion.

If you want to be part of a society you must openly display yourself to others in order to interact with them in the most fundamental of human ways. Neither a smile nor a grimace can be seen through a veil. Humans fear what they can't understand or identify.

 

Masks have been used throughout human history to disguise action and intent.

From time immemorial covering something up means you are hiding something. If you are hiding something then you are distrusted.

 

Perhaps this not politically correct but it is intrinsically human, and will not change anytime soon.

 

Ok, so much for science and evolution. Those issues aside, if you dress like a bank robber it is natural for others to distrust you.

 

If infidels visit or live in Muslim countries they are simply jailed, deported, or worse for violating social norms. Why should Muslims living in other countries, citizens or not, expect to be treated differently?

 

Muslim history/belief is all about infiltrating, destabilizing, and eventually out-populating and reforming the societies of every country on the planet one step at a time.. This has been occurring for thousands of years., and according to Islam's infallible and eternally unchangeable holy book, will continue for all time.

 

Why would it not be feared now?

 

Finally, although I don't personally consider islam a religion, as hayduke pointed out, wearing a face covering is not addressed or required by their holy book.

 

It is disengenuos to argue that veils are an expression of religion. Wearing of veils is simply a personal clothing foible that separates you from your peers both literally and figuratively. Don't be surprised if it is if you find yourself isolated.

 

[DILLIGAD]

So many insisting Muslims must assimilate 100% into European culture. While many expats are fluent in Thai, most are not,  even after 30 years.
How many of us have dropped their faith to embrace Buddhism? How many now believe in animism and ghosts and spirits?
How many have decided to drive like Thais, pick our noses and zits in public? Immigrants can't be expected to adopt 100% the culture of the host country. People will always hang onto some beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.
 

Very true and how many will expect their ‘home’ laws and customs be adopt here in Thailand?
I am sorry, but your comparison with farangs in Thailand society bears no resemblance to your comparison of Muslims wishing to change Europe (for example) to fit with their ideals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[duanebigsby]

13 minutes ago, DILLIGAD said:

Very true and how many will expect their ‘home’ laws and customs be adopt here in Thailand?
I am sorry, but your comparison with farangs in Thailand society bears no resemblance to your comparison of Muslims wishing to change Europe (for example) to fit with their ideals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many farang in Thailand wish the country would change to reflect Western values. We see it everyday on TVF.

These Danish Muslims were simply expressing their disapproval of a law that limits basic freedom of religion.

They're not trying to change Denmark into a buqa wearing society, they just want the right to choose their own dress. 

[Opl]

"As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil"

" Europe is increasingly reaping the harvest of multicultural policies that have served to divide rather than unite. Not just with the growth of Islamism, either, but by engendering hostility to immigration and refugees — often towards my fellow Muslims. The Islamists thrive on this, the idea of Muslims being a society-within-a-society."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-right-to-ban-the-veil-is-good-news-for-everybody-including-muslims/

[RocketDog]

24 minutes ago, duanebigsby said:

So many insisting Muslims must assimilate 100% into European culture. While many expats are fluent in Thai, most are not,  even after 30 years.

How many of us have dropped their faith to embrace Buddhism? How many now believe in animism and ghosts and spirits?

How many have decided to drive like Thais, pick our noses and zits in public? Immigrants can't be expected to adopt 100% the culture of the host country. People will always hang onto some beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Agreeing partially.

But looking like a ninja or a bank robber is hardly a belief, it's simply a very poor choice of clothing when interacting with people who are neither.

 

Don't believe me? Put on a mask and/or a burqua and walk into a bank; I'd like to be there for that. Why should some people be allowed to openly defy identification, even as a human?

 

To be honest, a gorilla in a burqua and veil would look like a human but certainly should not be mistaken for one without risking serious consequences.

 

Not wearing concealing clothing is hardly considered a detriment such as the other examples you named.

 

Few people would advocate Muslims abandoning their belief system, but asking them to be identifiable as human is hardly a stretch. For the record however, abandoning Islam is a death sentence according to their holy book. Apostasy, along with so many other heinous offenses is punishable by death or dismemberment.

 

Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, regardless of how silly, fictitious, and unfounded they are. I know a Pastefarian guy who worships The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

My belief system states that all other belief systems are pathological conditions and I regularly wear a dead pig face over my head. But  I don't expect other people to embrace me for my belief, and I would never do it publicly.. Correctly so, most folks would assume me to be a complete Loony Tune and would shun me.

 

This I fully understand. Is it really that hard to grasp?

[The Old Bull]

Should have a garbage bin in every airport . If they don't want to put their masks in it they can get back on the plane.

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, RocketDog said:

Agreeing partially.

But looking like a ninja or a bank robber is hardly a belief, it's simply a very poor choice of clothing when interacting with people who are neither.

 

Don't believe me? Put on a mask and/or a burqua and walk into a bank; I'd like to be there for that. Why should some people be allowed to openly defy identification, even as a human?

 

To be honest, a gorilla in a burqua and veil would look like a human but certainly should not be mistaken for one without risking serious consequences.

 

Not wearing concealing clothing is hardly considered a detriment such as the other examples you named.

 

Few people would advocate Muslims abandoning their belief system, but asking them to be identifiable as human is hardly a stretch. For the record however, abandoning Islam is a death sentence according to their holy book. Apostasy, along with so many other heinous offenses is punishable by death or dismemberment.

 

Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, regardless of how silly, fictitious, and unfounded they are. I know a Pastefarian guy who worships The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

My belief system states that all other belief systems are pathological conditions and I regularly wear a dead pig face over my head. But  I don't expect other people to embrace me for my belief, and I would never do it publicly.. Correctly so, most folks would assume me to be a complete Loony Tune and would shun me.

 

This I fully understand. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Why do people keep on harping about about walking in to a bank, or airport for that matter, which is a completeky different kettle of fish, and not what this ban is about.

[ballpoint]

The nerve of these Muslim women.  Moving from their oppressive countries, where they're told what they can and can not wear, to the "free" West and expecting to be able to wear what they like.