Interesting that they say they are not aiming it towards any religion when clearly they are since it specifically bans burqas and niqabs. It would be so nice if people would stop telling women...
Interesting that they say they are not aiming it towards any religion when clearly they are since it specifically bans burqas and niqabs. It would be so nice if people would stop telling women what they can and cannot wear and exactly how much skin to show and not show.
I don't agree that women should be told to cover up, but it seems like a law banning women from doing so is just as bad as it removes their ability to make that choice for themselves altogether.
I also don't think it's a great way to encourage integration. if the state targets you, how would that make you feel about the state and the other people who support it?
I also don't think it's a great way to encourage integration. if the state targets you, how would that make you feel about the state and the other people who support it?
To play devil's advocate: even if this does create animosity, surely few things can be worse for integration than having women wear clothing that makes it impossible to even read the expressions...
To play devil's advocate: even if this does create animosity, surely few things can be worse for integration than having women wear clothing that makes it impossible to even read the expressions on their faces? Also, can't the argument be made that this is a lesser of two evils - yes, in some ways it strips people of their freedom for cultural expression, but surely the immense cultural pressure that some women from Muslim communities currently face to dress 'modestly' is a greater affront to their freedom?
I truly don't believe imposing specific restrictions on an individual is the better of two evils. they'll be under constant immense cultural pressure in their new homes to take off the niqab or...
I truly don't believe imposing specific restrictions on an individual is the better of two evils. they'll be under constant immense cultural pressure in their new homes to take off the niqab or burqa already as well as pressure from their family to keep it on. the state stepping in helps no one.
we also need to think of integration as a very long term thing. immigrants will never be totally integrated and culturally fluent but they can do extremely well. it's their kids who are going to be totally integrated and when a state makes decisions they should be considering them as well.
You summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty well. One thing I have learned recently from all of this is how deeply enshrined and influential Christianity is for Denmark. From their website:...
You summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty well.
One thing I have learned recently from all of this is how deeply enshrined and influential Christianity is for Denmark. From their website:
"Compared with most other countries in the world, Denmark’s societal institutions and popular mentality have been shaped by Christianity to an exceptional degree. It can be asserted that religion is more firmly entrenched in Danish society than in many other countries."
That's surprising to hear. It's good to keep in mind though that not all of those Nordic countries are exactly the same. I'm much more used to reading headlines about places like Iceland where...
That's surprising to hear. It's good to keep in mind though that not all of those Nordic countries are exactly the same. I'm much more used to reading headlines about places like Iceland where articles talk more about how almost no younger people consider themselves religious.
It's bullshit. Denmark is quite conservative when it comes to foreigners which is why they say that, but Denmark also has among the lowest church attendance of any country in the world, and most...
It's bullshit. Denmark is quite conservative when it comes to foreigners which is why they say that, but Denmark also has among the lowest church attendance of any country in the world, and most of the Danes I've known are hardly religious. It used to have a significant role, but we're talking like 80+ years ago, versus for example Ireland or the United States today which do have the church as legitimately powerful political and cultural forces. They could also be referring to Denmark having a state religion, which is true compared to most other western countries, but you can easily opt out and practice any religion you like.
They do not specifically ban burkas and niqabs, they ban garments that cover peoples faces. While this effectively bans burkas and niqabs without banning anything else, it allows them to hide...
They do not specifically ban burkas and niqabs, they ban garments that cover peoples faces. While this effectively bans burkas and niqabs without banning anything else, it allows them to hide behind some pretense of (I am assuming here, I am not from denmark) security something like that.
I just reread the article more carefully and you are right. I think the picture of the woman in the burka with a no symbol, the ban being referred to as a burka ban, and a Danish politician...
I just reread the article more carefully and you are right. I think the picture of the woman in the burka with a no symbol, the ban being referred to as a burka ban, and a Danish politician tweeting, "Today, the Danish Parliament approved a law banning burqa and niqab. Congratulations #Denmark!" threw me off. I agree that it is just a pretense though. I'm sure the random white dude wearing a scarf around his face with a tuque on is not going to get stopped.
This whole article is sort of a terrifying exercise in successful thought control. Why? Because this law has nothing to do with womens’ rights and everything to do with cultural control by...
This whole article is sort of a terrifying exercise in successful thought control. Why? Because this law has nothing to do with womens’ rights and everything to do with cultural control by homogenization (regardless of gender), but by submitting a comment to the press that casts the bill as such, all subsequent commentary is about what is or isn’t liberating for Islamic women.
So I am not Danish, full disclosure, but I'm a little familiar with Danish politics. The People's Party (known as the DF) is the far right populist party there, like the AFD is in Germany or the...
So I am not Danish, full disclosure, but I'm a little familiar with Danish politics. The People's Party (known as the DF) is the far right populist party there, like the AFD is in Germany or the Donald Trump portion of the Republican party is. They have a little over 20% of the parliament, and since Denmark uses a multiparty system, this is a sizeable number of votes. Anti-immigrant sentiment is pretty strong there, so I wouldn't be surprised if even the left parties voted in favor of this. I don't think I know enough about Danish culture to give an answer on whether it is purely pretenses, but I know that was the case in Austria where they were quite open about it when they banned face coverings, so I wouldn't be surprised here too. It's a relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things method of appeasing the conservatives, which is why they're doing it.
Really at the heart of the issue is the Paradox of Tolerance. A society that is tolerant without limit will be seized by the intolerant. To remain tolerant, the society must be intolerant of...
Really at the heart of the issue is the Paradox of Tolerance. A society that is tolerant without limit will be seized by the intolerant. To remain tolerant, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
It's a real challenge I think when you're dealing with something like the burqa, that is an outward symbol of repression, whilst being respectful of the freedoms of women who are a product of the culture that gave rise to the symbol in the first place, and choose to participate by wearing it.
I don't think a ban strikes an appropriate balance between respecting individual liberty and limiting societal tolerance of intolerance.
My position on this is conflicted. Each country has values and culture that it aims to uphold and that's primarily what I see here. I accept that the burqa/niqab are from a different culture to...
My position on this is conflicted. Each country has values and culture that it aims to uphold and that's primarily what I see here.
I accept that the burqa/niqab are from a different culture to mine and while I might think they're oppressive, a muslim woman may not (although many do). That doesn't change the fact that in western cultures people don't cover their faces and we dress within boundaries our cultures deem appropriate. We can't walk around naked or wearing a balaclava. I understand that neither of these would be for religious reasons, but the point stands - there is a status quo that the country is trying to protect.
However European countries should be an example of religious tolerance and acceptance of cultures, so banning a religious practise is shaky territory.
Interesting that they say they are not aiming it towards any religion when clearly they are since it specifically bans burqas and niqabs. It would be so nice if people would stop telling women what they can and cannot wear and exactly how much skin to show and not show.
I don't agree that women should be told to cover up, but it seems like a law banning women from doing so is just as bad as it removes their ability to make that choice for themselves altogether.
Agreed. Nobody should be forced to wear a burqa, but it is still a traditional / religious garment and should be respected as such.
I also don't think it's a great way to encourage integration. if the state targets you, how would that make you feel about the state and the other people who support it?
To play devil's advocate: even if this does create animosity, surely few things can be worse for integration than having women wear clothing that makes it impossible to even read the expressions on their faces? Also, can't the argument be made that this is a lesser of two evils - yes, in some ways it strips people of their freedom for cultural expression, but surely the immense cultural pressure that some women from Muslim communities currently face to dress 'modestly' is a greater affront to their freedom?
I truly don't believe imposing specific restrictions on an individual is the better of two evils. they'll be under constant immense cultural pressure in their new homes to take off the niqab or burqa already as well as pressure from their family to keep it on. the state stepping in helps no one.
we also need to think of integration as a very long term thing. immigrants will never be totally integrated and culturally fluent but they can do extremely well. it's their kids who are going to be totally integrated and when a state makes decisions they should be considering them as well.
You summed up my thoughts on the matter pretty well.
One thing I have learned recently from all of this is how deeply enshrined and influential Christianity is for Denmark. From their website:
"Compared with most other countries in the world, Denmark’s societal institutions and popular mentality have been shaped by Christianity to an exceptional degree. It can be asserted that religion is more firmly entrenched in Danish society than in many other countries."
http://denmark.dk/en/society/religion/
That's surprising to hear. It's good to keep in mind though that not all of those Nordic countries are exactly the same. I'm much more used to reading headlines about places like Iceland where articles talk more about how almost no younger people consider themselves religious.
It's bullshit. Denmark is quite conservative when it comes to foreigners which is why they say that, but Denmark also has among the lowest church attendance of any country in the world, and most of the Danes I've known are hardly religious. It used to have a significant role, but we're talking like 80+ years ago, versus for example Ireland or the United States today which do have the church as legitimately powerful political and cultural forces. They could also be referring to Denmark having a state religion, which is true compared to most other western countries, but you can easily opt out and practice any religion you like.
They do not specifically ban burkas and niqabs, they ban garments that cover peoples faces. While this effectively bans burkas and niqabs without banning anything else, it allows them to hide behind some pretense of (I am assuming here, I am not from denmark) security something like that.
I just reread the article more carefully and you are right. I think the picture of the woman in the burka with a no symbol, the ban being referred to as a burka ban, and a Danish politician tweeting, "Today, the Danish Parliament approved a law banning burqa and niqab. Congratulations #Denmark!" threw me off. I agree that it is just a pretense though. I'm sure the random white dude wearing a scarf around his face with a tuque on is not going to get stopped.
This whole article is sort of a terrifying exercise in successful thought control. Why? Because this law has nothing to do with womens’ rights and everything to do with cultural control by homogenization (regardless of gender), but by submitting a comment to the press that casts the bill as such, all subsequent commentary is about what is or isn’t liberating for Islamic women.
So I am not Danish, full disclosure, but I'm a little familiar with Danish politics. The People's Party (known as the DF) is the far right populist party there, like the AFD is in Germany or the Donald Trump portion of the Republican party is. They have a little over 20% of the parliament, and since Denmark uses a multiparty system, this is a sizeable number of votes. Anti-immigrant sentiment is pretty strong there, so I wouldn't be surprised if even the left parties voted in favor of this. I don't think I know enough about Danish culture to give an answer on whether it is purely pretenses, but I know that was the case in Austria where they were quite open about it when they banned face coverings, so I wouldn't be surprised here too. It's a relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things method of appeasing the conservatives, which is why they're doing it.
I'm curious how they're going to balance religious tolerance and egalitarianism.
Really at the heart of the issue is the Paradox of Tolerance. A society that is tolerant without limit will be seized by the intolerant. To remain tolerant, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
It's a real challenge I think when you're dealing with something like the burqa, that is an outward symbol of repression, whilst being respectful of the freedoms of women who are a product of the culture that gave rise to the symbol in the first place, and choose to participate by wearing it.
I don't think a ban strikes an appropriate balance between respecting individual liberty and limiting societal tolerance of intolerance.
My position on this is conflicted. Each country has values and culture that it aims to uphold and that's primarily what I see here.
I accept that the burqa/niqab are from a different culture to mine and while I might think they're oppressive, a muslim woman may not (although many do). That doesn't change the fact that in western cultures people don't cover their faces and we dress within boundaries our cultures deem appropriate. We can't walk around naked or wearing a balaclava. I understand that neither of these would be for religious reasons, but the point stands - there is a status quo that the country is trying to protect.
However European countries should be an example of religious tolerance and acceptance of cultures, so banning a religious practise is shaky territory.
I really don't know where to stand on this one.