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.

Its always the same argument. Shariah law and what that is deemed to be by the person who is interpreting it. That's why it varies so much across different Muslim Countries. Need less to say Shariah law doesn't exist in Denmark or any other European country. Its common law in these Countries and long so i hope it remains.

 

People should respect the laws of the Country that they live in. Whether born there or an immigrant. The Danish government who are legally elected by the people of Denmark saw fit to introduce this law as a security measure to protect every citizen. This is due to 100's of incidents across the Middle East and other places of persons both male and female dressed in a Burkha blowing up a crowded market or an other type of public place.  

 

It makes sense to me given the times that we are living in. 

16 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

You said it was not forced, which in most English usage is the same thing as free choice.

 

Your one liners are really getting tedious. If you don't have sufficient interest to do some research to make up for your evident lack of experience, how can you seriously debate anything?

You're taking my comment out of context. There, a oneliner without insults.

11 minutes 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.

We're talking common areas here, not private property as in banks. It is tolerated in the USA.

43 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

These people protesting are Danish citizens. 

Doesn't matter and I bet many of them are the "naturalized" section type. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. This is an example of the entitled belligerence that is swamping/paralyzing societies in the western world. Is it OK to wear a US confederate soldier's hat or jacket and just walk around because I want to without expecting any blow-back? Yeah, right.

Those Muslim outfits have the same symbolism in reverse and show off/sum up everything that is wrong with that religion in an "in your face way" despite these women having been brainwashed in thinking it is all fine and dandy. It is simply not compatible with western values and culture. Like I said, you know where the airports are if you want Sharia law and all this Islamic religious BS. Go to Iran or Saudi as you will be much happier there than living with the infidel. 

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Radical. Extremist. Fundamental.

 

These types of Islam (or any religion/sect) is the enemy of Liberalism.

 

Do these '70s Iranians look like scary, extremist Muslims?

Problem being is that they can be easily converted...…….and you never know who is going to turn and when.

17 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Doesn't matter and I bet many of them are the "naturalized" section type. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. This is an example of the entitled belligerence that is swamping/paralyzing societies in the western world. Is it OK to wear a US confederate soldier's hat or jacket and just walk around because I want to without expecting any blow-back? Yeah, right.

Those Muslim outfits have the same symbolism in reverse and show off/sum up everything that is wrong with that religion in an "in your face way" despite these women having been brainwashed in thinking it is all fine and dandy. It is simply not compatible with western values and culture. Like I said, you know where the airports are if you want Sharia law and all this Islamic religious BS. Go to Iran or Saudi as you will be much happier there than living with the infidel. 

This is an example of citizens protesting a law that takes away their right to choose. 

 

I fully support their right to do so and their feelings about this law. 

 

Oh, and if you read the story you will see some of those citizens quoted were born Danish. 

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.
 

And how many have been convicted for this disgusting practice in UK?




None!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

This is an example of citizens protesting a law that takes away their right to choose. 

 

I fully support their right to do so and their feelings about this law. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would guess that the majority of the Danish public disagrees on this particular one as otherwise the law would never have been past. As for laws taking away people's "right to choose"...happens all the time on many things and there isn't the bleating on those that this one gets, and this is a very minor one. 

9 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would guess that the majority of the Danish public disagrees on this particular one as otherwise the law would never have been past. As for laws taking away people's "right to choose"...happens all the time on many things and there isn't the bleating this one gets, and this is a very minor one. 

Not for those concerned.

 

They are having a right to choose how to dress taken away by the state. 

 

They have every right to protest such an egregious action. 

 

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Doesn't sound correct how can anyone pass through UK border control without showing their face if wearing a burka.

 

It is a requirement that Border Force Officers always establish the nationality and identity of all passengers.  Officers are requested that passengers wearing veils or other face coverings ask to remove the covering in order that they may be identified as the rightful holder of their passport or travel document

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-how-to-treat-women-wearing-clothing-that-covers-their-face

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

Quote

Not for those concerned.

 

They are having a right to choose how to dress taken away by the state. 

 

They have every right to protest such an egregious action. 

 

They have the right to protest but not to break the law. However, I believe people should follow the law despite it might be inconvenient to them. Quite honestly, there are many laws I would rather not follow but I do follow them as I'm not some perp...it's tough titties and it sucks but that's how it is, just have to deal with it. Although, as an aside, it is unlikely that we will agree on this one, but fair enough...good exchange of posts. 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Making it up as you go.

 

I did not say it was their free choice, I said I have not made up my mind regarding this. What I did say is they have the right to protest, and that judging citizenship based on religion, ethnicity and/or colour is simply wrong.

A right they wouldn't enjoy in most muslim countries. Funny how they are happy to cherry pick all the parts of a western democracy that suits them.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

If you want to lower yourself to the level of those countries, feel free.

 

I won't.

Do you seriously think I would even think about going there?

Your answer does mean you agree with my statement about carrying a bible there though. 

Last time I saw one was in a bedside table in a hotel.

59 minutes ago, stevenl said:

2006 article, border patrol has changed since.

 

That is all you guys can come up with?

We'll never know how many escaped justice using this method.

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

his is an example of citizens protesting a law that takes away their right to choose. 

 

The law does not take away their right to chose- they can wear what ever they want except something that covers their face.  It is a security issue. Terrorists want to move about freely under the guise of freedom of religion .  Do I want to give up all freedom of choice and rights? Of course not.  This is not about religious freedom . You don't yell fire in a theatre full of people. It is against the law for obvious reasons.  For security reasons when trying use an airport- one must be 'screened' .  In today's World - one cannot walk around with face covered.

It has nothing to do with religion- it has everything to do with life and possible death.

 

In my opinion I think that all those who are for Muslim immigration  in the uk and other European countries are the equivalent of what the French called "collabo" (colaborators) during the second world war and should be treated as such traitors. A fair punishment imo would be first, them being gang raped by their Muslim collaborators before hanging them all in public.

14 minutes ago, giddyup said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

OK I did a search based upon your claim the individual murdered two police, but in fact murdered one, so didn't pick up the case. Alleged he avoided border control facial ID checking. If factual, Border Control, in this instance, were not utilising border control legislated procedures. from your linked article...

 

Under the 1971 Immigration Act, travellers can be asked to lift the veil at passport control, with the option of using a private room with a female official present.

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The law does not take away their right to chose- they can wear what ever they want except something that covers their face.  It is a security issue. Terrorists want to move about freely under the guise of freedom of religion .  Do I want to give up all freedom of choice and rights? Of course not.  This is not about religious freedom . You don't yell fire in a theatre full of people. It is against the law for obvious reasons.  For security reasons when trying use an airport- one must be 'screened' .  In today's World - one cannot walk around with face covered.

It has nothing to do with religion- it has everything to do with life and possible death.

 

If the law bans wearing a veil in public then it is taking away a right to choose what to wear. 

 

Their are policies for security screening in place in areas where concerns exist. 

 

This story is not about security.

 

It is about a state taking away the rights of its citizens to choose what they wear in public. 

 

I fully support those protesting such a law. 

1 hour ago, fasteddie said:

And that has exactly what to do with the original inane statement?

It's based on the belief that once a certain % of the population inany country is reached by muslims they start to demand their adopted country should start putting their medieval laws into force.

Even the ones who maybe disagree won't argue because any statement against it would cause them problems from their 'own' people.

The UK and EU left medieval times a long way back but by being PC and in my mind stupid will end up going back there.

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

OK I did a search based upon your claim the individual murdered two police, but in fact murdered one, so didn't pick up the case. Alleged he avoided border control facial ID checking. If factual, Border Control, in this instance, were not utilising border control legislated procedures. 

My mistake, one PC was killed, I believe the other was wounded. Irrelevant as to whether border control was doing their job or not, the fact is he used the burka to escape.

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If the law bans wearing a veil in public then it is taking away a right to choose what to wear. 

 

Their are policies for security screening in place in areas where concerns exist. 

 

This story is not about security.

 

It is about a state taking away the rights of its citizens to choose what they wear in public. 

 

I fully support those protesting such a law. 

Governments take away peoples rights all the time, usually for their own protection.  In this case the Danish government has decided that wearing a burka is unacceptable to the Danish way of life. I applaud them for making a stand.

2 minutes ago, overherebc said:

It's based on the belief that once a certain % of the population inany country is reached by muslims they start to demand their adopted country should start putting their medieval laws into force.

Even the ones who maybe disagree won't argue because any statement against it would cause them problems from their 'own' people.

The UK and EU left medieval times a long way back but by being PC and in my mind stupid will end up going back there.

How many of the 57 Islamic countries have law which enforces the wearing of a burka / niqab; indeed how many fully enforce Sharia criminal Law - very few.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I fully support those protesting such a law.

Do you support Public nudity?   Under your philosophy- a person can choose to wear clothes or not.

 

As part of a civilized society- a person has inalienable rights but also responsibilities.  If this issue came up 30 years ago and a person walked around in a burka covering their face- most people would not have cared.

 

Fast Forward-  Almost 3,000 people killed on 9-11.  Hundreds killed by terrorists in Europe.  Radical groups such as ISIS killing in the name of religion. It has been proven that radical terrorists have dressed in burkas with face coverings to move from place to place .  Until this scourge is wiped out-  no one should be allowed in public to walk around with their face covered.

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

How many of the 57 Islamic countries have law which enforces the wearing of a burka / niqab; indeed how many fully enforce Sharia criminal Law - very few.

Denmark has a law against wearing it so obey the law of the country you picked to live in.

Refuse to remove it at Imm' in the airport, don't get on the plane.

Refuse to remove it for the police at a licence check, hand over the car keys and walk home.

25 minutes ago, giddyup said:

A right they wouldn't enjoy in most muslim countries. Funny how they are happy to cherry pick all the parts of a western democracy that suits them.

I really don't get that people lower themselves and make these comparisons.

This is the rub with democracy...when the majority wants something that is not PC or liberal then somehow it's folly (but doesn't make it wrong). The will of the people might not be conducive to some but if you want majority rule then you have to accept that voting democratically might throw up some unanticipated results...look no further than recent referendums on Scotland and EU membership (not what certain sections were expecting and they are having big issues dealing with the result), not what the elite or liberal left wanted. If you want democracy then you have to be ready to accept majority decisions that you don't like...which is a quality that is being eroded in many western nations. Otherwise, you don't have democracy and have intolerant liberal or right wing fascism and it obviously exists on both sides of the politic spectrum. Right or wrong is a matter of opinion and subjective. Democracy just sorts out how many think each way but doesn't always come up with the "right" answer for everything which is why so many countries struggle with it's concept. 

The threat to democracy these days is that people are losing the ability or willingness to accept other opinion than their own blinkered one...little compromise or middle ground left and it's easy to see. Also, politicians have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to represent the people that voted for them or their constituents instead of themselves.

10 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Governments take away peoples rights all the time, usually for their own protection.  In this case the Danish government has decided that wearing a burka is unacceptable to the Danish way of life. I applaud them for making a stand.

And I condemn them for taking away their citizens right to choose. 

2 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Denmark has a law against wearing it so obey the law of the country you picked to live in.

Quoting me out of context. However, as the burka ban has been enacted in Denmark they should comply, but would restrict freedom of movement.I would guess the number of women wearing the burka in Denmark is fairly minimal,  perhaps a better approach would be to ban the wearing in designated areas.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I really don't get that people lower themselves and make these comparisons.

Lower themselves, surely you mean tell it like it is?