Denmark's Niqab Ban vs. Amnesty International

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I'm understanding you to be agreeing that Islamic culture is such that an Islamic woman might not be allowed to be in public without a mask, is that one of your claims? Then are you saying that the way to care for these women is to allow the misogyny to persist in the privacy of their homes? Do I understand you so far?

No, you don’t understand me.

I wasn’t accepting your claim; I was exploring its implications if it was true. Basically, it’s awful either way:

- if your claim is wrong, then obviously it’s not a proper basis for public policy.
- if your claim is right, then your position shows horrible disregard for a vulnerable group of women who you claim are being mistreated as we speak.

So which is it: is your position merely paranoid or actually monstrous?

 

[Revoltingest]

While it's not absolute proof, it does seem like a common sense set of dots to connect:

The origins of women wearing masks in Islamic cultures has to do with men owning women -->
Misogyny is rampant in Islamic cultures -->
Some Muslim immigrants insist on bringing the misogynistic wearing of masks with them -->

It seems very likely that often this means misogyny and coercion behind closed doors.

I'mj sure coercion in Denmark is possible.
But laws should be based more upon prevalence than on mere possibility.

 

[icehorse]

No, you don’t understand me.

I wasn’t accepting your claim; I was exploring its implications if it was true. Basically, it’s awful either way:

- if your claim is wrong, then obviously it’s not a proper basis for public policy.
- if your claim is right, then your position shows horrible disregard for a vulnerable group of women who you claim are being mistreated as we speak.

So which is it: is your position merely paranoid or actually monstrous?

Respectfully: please stop with the strawman arguments and the false dilemmas, okay?

I believe that throughout the world, Muslim women are subjected to a lot of violent misogyny and coercion. I believe that such practices are often imported when Muslims immigrate to the West.

I do NOT believe that the most compassionate way to help these immigrants is to allow such coercion to continue in Western societies. Domestic abuse is in no way unique to Islam. While I think the authorities can do far better in their handling of domestic abuse, they already have procedures in place. If they suspect a woman is unable to leave her house, they already have ways to address those concerns.

 

[icehorse]

I'm coercion in Denmark is possible.
But laws should be based more upon prevalence than on mere possibility.

There are several reasons for this law.

 

[David T]

Actually I think I support banning these veils and burqas.

In fact they are not required by islam at all. They are a piece of traditional Middle Eastern culture, bound up with an antiquated view of women as the sexual property of their menfolk. Hiding the faces of women in public isolates them from society and inhibits their freedom. It's a tough call to prohibit a cultural practice in a free society but I tend to think it is justifiable, given that European society should not tolerate women being held in subjugation to men.

One of our Labour MPs, Jack Straw, had a consituency with a large muslim immigrant population. He used to require women constituents visiting him in his MP's office to remove veils and burqas, saying he would not hold a conversation with someone if he could not see their face. I think that is fair enough.

I am totally in favor banning all forced head covering. I live in a state that forces me to wear head covering it is so oppressive. It is imposed by the illuminati. Or insurance companies same thing. This is the oregon PCC motorcycling class they say it means portland community college class I know it really means Politically Correct Cult.

Now I say we should have the right to not wear head coverings. Would I not wear head coverings? I am not stupid, God would throw an elk in front of me if I didn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Respectfully: please stop with the strawman arguments and the false dilemmas, okay?

No straw men. I do think I’m accurately representing your position.

I believe that throughout the world, Muslim women are subjected to a lot of violent misogyny and coercion. I believe that such practices are often imported when Muslims immigrate to the West.

I do NOT believe that the most compassionate way to help these immigrants is to allow such coercion to continue in Western societies. Domestic abuse is in no way unique to Islam. While I think the authorities can do far better in their handling of domestic abuse, they already have procedures in place. If they suspect a woman is unable to leave her house, they already have ways to address those concerns.

Ways besides a niqab ban, you mean?

So the niqab ban is unnecessary to addres that particular issue?

 

[stvdv]

Denmark's parliament recently voted to ban the wearing of burkas and niqabs in public - hooray! Denmark is the sixth European country to pass such a measure. Amnesty International thinks this is a bad idea.
Denmark: Face veil ban a discriminatory violation of women’s rights
I think Amnesty International's stance on Islam is incoherent.

Just yesterday I voted "winner" for a Muslim explaining on RF "It's very simple, the Koran teaches that every Muslim just has to follow the rules of the country it's in".

Amnesty International should study Koran a little IMHO.

 

[icehorse]

No straw men. I do think I’m accurately representing your position.

you're not.

Ways besides a niqab ban, you mean?

(In reference to the authorities means of responding to domestic abuse):

Yes of course. AS I ALREADY SAID, such abuse is not unique to Islam. The authorities already have policies and procedures in place to combat domestic abuse. Of course we could probably improve those procedures, but that's a topic for a different thread I believe.

So the niqab ban is unnecessary to addres that particular issue?

IMO the bans would help with the domestic abuse issue, but it's also meant to defend the cultures of the host countries and to make public places safer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you're not.

Then point out where I'm wrong. I'm making a sincere attempt to represent your position faithfully.

(In reference to the authorities means of responding to domestic abuse):

Yes of course. AS I ALREADY SAID, such abuse is not unique to Islam. The authorities already have policies and procedures in place to combat domestic abuse. Of course we could probably improve those procedures, but that's a topic for a different thread I believe.



IMO the bans would help with the domestic abuse issue, but it's also meant to defend the cultures of the host countries and to make public places safer.

How would a niqab ban help? Step through the logic.

 

[icehorse]

Then point out where I'm wrong. I'm making a sincere attempt to represent your position faithfully.

This is from your post #41:

So which is it: is your position merely paranoid or actually monstrous?

To start, this is a false dilemma. You've decided that my post, on a complex topic, can be interpreted in one of only two ways. There are any number of other explanations.

I think that my position is realistic and ultimately compassionate. I think it's realistic that many niqab wearers in the world are coerced into doing so. That has to go double for burka wearers.

I think it's compassionate to outlaw the practice in a Western culture. In order to explain myself, I want to ask you a question or two:

1 - Are you thinking that an individual Muslim woman's life could go from good to bad because of such a ban? If so, there is some interesting logic to pursue there.

2 - Are you suggesting that for some Muslim women living in the West, the creation of a niqab ban would - in essence - put them under house arrest by their husband or other male family member?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Many Islamic authorities have declared the veil a tribal custom and not part of Islam, so one cannot compare it to a Sikh turban.

Comparing it to a balaclava assumes that people have the "right" to go round with their faces covered: very popular with criminals!

But the real point is that countries like Denmark have the right to make their own laws. No-one forced these Muslims to go to Denmark. It's a classic case of heads I win, tails you loose: they want the advantages of living in Europe without accepting the culture. If they don't like it, they can go home.

I wish the British government had the guts to join France and Denmark!

 

[Glaurung]

This ban also plays directly into the Muslim extremists hands. 'The West hates us' narrative is reinforced with the ban - 'look what they are making our women wear'

While I agree about the dubious productiveness of the ban and what it will actually accomplish, I take issue with this statement.

The west should not be cowed by Salafi (and ilk) zealotry. Muslims (within reason) should obviously be free to practice their faith. Nevertheless, they are not owed unlimited license to import the very repressiveness endemic to large parts of the Islamic world of which the burka and niqab are emblematic.

 

[Altfish]

While I agree about the dubious productiveness of the ban and what it will actually accomplish, I take issue with this statement.

The west should not be cowed by Salafi (and ilk) zealotry. Muslims (within reason) should obviously be free to practice their faith. Nevertheless, they are not owed unlimited license to import the very repressiveness endemic to large parts of the Islamic world of which the burka and niqab are emblematic.

So what about the Christian led abortion ban in Northern Ireland? Is that ok?

 

[stvdv]

So what about the Christian led abortion ban in Northern Ireland? Is that ok?

IMHO: Religious people misinterpret "Freedom of religion". This means you are personally free to personally do as you like". Nowhere it says in the Law that you are personally obliged to personally convert others [Yesterday I read it states to not manipulate etc]. Manipulation and freedom don't go well.

Freedom means you are free to do as you like. BUT what they are blind for it implies others are also free. Proselytizing is the opposite of Freedom. Because it is brainwashing and emotional blackmailing which is used to convert others. Brainwashing is known as "not done" to all clean-brain humans in a free country. Or am I the only one thinking this way?

So to answer your question is very simple. The christians are free to not abort. And they are free to shut up telling others "not to abort". For the rest the Christians need to educate themselves a little in regard to "giving respect" and be a little less of "demanding respect". IMHO this is not so Christian like, to demand so much of others. Too much pointing fingers at others forgetting Jesus advicing "who throws the first stone".

 

[Altfish]

IMHO: Religious people misinterpret "Freedom of religion". This means you are personally free to personally do as you like". Nowhere it says in the Law that you are personally obliged to personally convert others [Yesterday I read it states to not impose etc]. Which if you understand a little language is exactly the opposite.

Freedom means you are free to do as you like. BUT what they are blind for it implies others are also free. Proselytizing is the opposite of Freedom. Because it is brainwashing and emotional blackmailing which is used to convert others. Brainwashing is known as "not done" to all clean-brain humans in a free country. Or am I the only one thinking this way?

So to answer your question is very simple. The christians are free to not abort. And they are free to shut up telling others "not to abort". For the rest the Christians need to educate themselves a little in regard to "giving respect" and be a little less of "demanding respect". IMHO this is not so Christian like, to demand so much of others. Too much pointing fingers at others forgetting Jesus advicing "who throws the first stone".

So, using the same argument, shouldn't Muslims be free to wear the veil?

 

[Glaurung]

So what about the Christian led abortion ban in Northern Ireland? Is that ok?

It's not inconsistent to reject the importation of the most backward elements of certain Islamic cultures: burkas, niqabs, child brides, FGM, et cetera, whilst also defending the notion that unborn children have the right to life. The two issues are utterly unrelated.

 

[stvdv]

So, using the same argument, shouldn't Muslims be free to wear the veil?

You are more smart than I anticipated
Thanks for keeping me on my toes

I am lucky here though. The answer was just given by a Muslim 2 or 3 days ago on this forum

The answer is "no the Muslim should not be free to wear the veil".

 

[Altfish]

It's not inconsistent to reject the importation of the most backward elements of certain Islamic cultures: burkas, niqabs, child brides, FGM, et cetera, whilst also defending the notion that unborn children have the right to life. The two issues are utterly unrelated.

But I would call abortion rights and same sex marriage rights backward elements of Christian dogma

 

[Glaurung]

But I would call abortion rights and same sex marriage rights backward elements of Christian dogma

And I would retort that abortion rights are little more than legalized murder. Better to be backwards in your eyes than to embrace barbarity cloaked in progressive garb.

 

[Altfish]

And I would retort abortion rights as little more than legalized murder. Better to be backwards in your eyes than to embrace barbarity clocked in a progressive garb.

Well, that ends the discussion.