Danish ban on the burqa comes into effect today

First of all the legislation concerning the ban started because of a riot caused by young leftist protesters protesting capitalism or something in which they were all wearing baclavas which made it difficult for the police to catch/prosecute them.

Second you are allowed to have you faced covered for logical reasons such as winter, halloween or a festival. See here the indiginous costumes of one of the small Danish islands: www.google.se/search?q=fan%C3%B8+folkedragt&oq=fan%C3%B8+folke&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4118j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Thirdly: Considering the very very unappealing racist views I have heard from muslim females wearing a veil about women (also non-muslims) not wearing veils, I shudder to think what kind of things a burqa wearing woman say about those of us who are not so modestly dressed. ( And yes, I am sure they are not all like that but those who are, are encouraging violence and sexual assualt against women).

Fourthly: Can we please drop the "white saviour complex"?

What's telling is that the press are essentially selling a piece of legislation are doing so in a way that fans flames of islamophobia. They clearly know about public opinion and have picked that angle deliberately.

The relationship between the press and the polticians is closer and more blatant. It is a small, small country. And the politicians pushing the law through had no qualms about selling it this way, either.

It IS purely dogwhistling for a DF-supporting, xenophobic and racist population. Anyone claiming otherwise from outside of Denmark needs to justify why on earth they think they know better.

Kids often take themselves and younger siblings to school. Maybe some of the kids will be tasked with going to the shop, or opening the door to online deliveries. Or dad's cousin's mate will come back from the shop he works in with supplies.

Will many women really be forced to stay at home? Who’s going to take the kids to and from school and do all the shopping? Are a load of men going to take this on?

I could not find the exact Danish legislation but searches indicate it is a ban on face coverings or masking not a ban on the burqa or religious garments. The proposed law contains exemptions for garments such as motor cycle helmets or cold weather garments.
That is quite different to 'ban the burqua' (although it is obvious who the targets are). It amuses me that apparnetly fake beards are also banned as part of this law so we shall see if anyone gets fined being in fancy dress.

What's telling is that the press are essentially selling a piece of legislation are doing so in a way that fans flames of islamophobia. They clearly know about public opinion and have picked that angle deliberately.

The only thing I do like in the law is that forcing someone to cover up is a criminal offence and can be prosecuted.

From Huffington Post and reported in many other sites.

The ban also prohibits balaclavas, false beards and other masks that obscure the face, according to Amnesty International. It doesn’t apply to headscarves, turbans or the kippah, the Jewish skullcap. Face coverings worn for a “recognizable purpose,” such as during cold weather or motorcycle rides, are also exempt.

Thanks.

Are you saying the ban on the burqa is not actually a ban on the burqu and the OP lied in the title?

I could not find the exact Danish legislation but searches indicate it is a ban on face coverings or masking not a ban on the burqa or religious garments. The proposed law contains exemptions for garments such as motor cycle helmets or cold weather garments. That would not be necessary if it was simply burqas which were banned.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said nothing whatsoever about the OP. The OP has described it as it is reported in the popular press.

LassWiADelicateAir

Are you saying the ban on the burqa is not actually a ban on the burqu and the OP lied in the title?

I've come to the conclusion that looking at the Burka as clothing is a category error similar to calling the shackles of slavery jewellery or concentration camp tattoos body art. The Burka makes me think of Orwell - imagine the future 'a boot stamping on a human face forever'. Just imagine a world where everyone was obliged to cover their faces, only revealing them to immediate family. It's a method of control and subjugation and I want to see the back of it. No society which respects the rights of women has ever demanded the obliteration of the female human face from public life.
However the problem is that making it law will increase the suffering of individual women, so I'm not entirely comfortable with banning it. I used to work in an area with high proportion of Pakistani Muslims and there were very few who wore the Burka, it has definitely increased. So it remains a bit of a dilemma.

Also, going into banks, still not a reason. These women are NOT committing bank robbery on any scale that needs discussion

No. Absolutely no. No one else is allowed to enter a bank with their face covered. There is no justification for one group claiming a special exemption.

I was more puzzled by government regulations targeting women who wear a particular garment
Laws against masking make perfect sense to me. Laws against a targeted segment of the population like this one seems to be is bad law

The law targets face coverings. It is not targeted at a particular segment of the population or a particular garment. Were Muslim men to adopt the same standards of modesty they would be prevented from covering their faces too.

LaSquirrel
I agree.
There are many things that need addressing. Banning an item of clothing on the grounds that 'we know what is best for you women folk and 'i don't like it when you wear X' isn't the answer.

For what it's worth, I do personally find it a little uncomfortable. But it's still not my place to tell another woman how to dress.

La Squirrel you may not feel uneasy which is great for you but many people do, why do you dismiss their responses?

A lack of facial recognition, eye contact, ability to interpret emotion, intention, etc are all part of every interaction and conveyed through face to face contact.

The removal of this basic instinctive ability to read others in public spaces is a natural response, and the inability to do so places others in a high alert psychological state.

Therefore I feel no one, except for certain activities and times, should be deliberately covering their face in public spaces.

Do want you want at home, but in public we should have an expectation that your behaviour is not making others fearful and uncomfortable.

Face covering obviously does for many; if not for you.

It's not about fear of crime, it's an instinctive response, to a removal of our reading of others in public spaces. Without that we are placed in high alert. You may not be, or may not care, many others legitimately do.

I do not see this phenomena and the increasing influence of Wahhabi mosques across Europe backed with Saudi money as a coincidence.

Neither do I, Pan, but therein lies the nub.

Saudi is changing. And quite dramatically. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is they no longer have the state finances to sustain their own set up in Saudi, never mind fund mosques and madrassas in Europe. Saudi clerics are being neutered; the flood of Wahhabi theology into Europe, I suspect, will come to an end.

I also have a suspicion that Saudi has been told to rein it in. And the country is in a very sticky place with Russian involvement in Syria and largely hostile neighbours around the Gulf; they need western support and that may now come with a demand to stop the flow of ultra conservative theology into Europe.

I have hope for the situation. Things can often change quickly. And I think they are doing. As I said earlier, I live in a region with a sizeable Muslim community and the numbers of niqabs I see is noticeably less than five years ago.

I agree LaSquirrel

On the grounds of "human interaction" etc, including "lip reading"(!!!), a big old bah humbug from me. As someone with fairly significant hearing difficulties that does rely on lipreading, I would still NOT expect another woman to be made uncomfortable for MY ease.

Also, going into banks, still not a reason. These women are NOT committing bank robbery on any scale that needs discussion. Or even any consideration. Hell, they are probably not even permitted to go to banks by their male owners.

There are a lot of bullshit reasons on this thread, most of them anti-woman tbh.

There is no call to restrict (Islamic/men's) clothing in the same way. This all falls back onto women, again. Women, Islamic women, are bearing the brunt of many covert/overt anti-Islamic sentiments (not necessarily this thread, but burqa bans are a sign of that more broadly).

A better way to approach the entire thing is to (financially) support women's centres. There is a Muslim women's drop-in centre on Whitechapel Road E1 - get these women out of the house and gathering with other women. But don't make a law that restricts women and potentially imprisons women in the home (where, even for Western women, is the most dangerous place for women).

I have a zero-victim mentality. Even if this restricts/imprisons a few hundred women rather than a thousand - that number is still far too many to throw under the bus.

There are other ways to help this community of women, but I don't believe such a ban is it.

I find them enormously offensive and I think a ban sends out a strong message that we don't tolerate women being hidden. You cannot take any part in our society if you have your face covered.

On the choice issue, the law removes our choice to do many things that we have deemed unacceptable you can't choose to get married under 16, choose to attack another person you're angry with, walk around without any clothes on etc.

That is not a women's issue, it's a human interaction issue.

Yes, it's a societal norm for faces to be uncovered In the UK, Europe, Australia, USA and many other places. I do think these conventions need to be honoured - as I honour them when I visit other countries and cultures.

Whether or not it's a free or coerced choice of women is not the issue here for me. What is important to me is not enabling abusive men to flout boundaries by dominance behaviours. As we know, if these boundaries aren't clearly demarked and enforced, these men will dominate by breaking them - anyway they can.

tl;dr - it's all about male dominance and entitlement enforcing cultural norms that are not in keeping with convention imo. There's no progress to be had from enforcing regressive dress norms.

To be honest, I think the wearing of the niqab may die out in Western Europe over the next few years. Not because of bans, but because it has become synonymous with the uniform of female Daesh units in Syria.

Sadly I think that is a very optimistic view. The wearing of the niqab and burka in Europe has increased massively over the last decade. I do not see this phenomena and the increasing influence of Wahhabi mosques across Europe backed with Saudi money as a coincidence.

Baby

I agree with you on the Women's issue

I disagree on the human interaction issue. I respect that you feel this way, but I don't.

I think your post helped clarify this for me.

People should be able to wear whatever they want and follow any religious practices, until it negatively impacts on others.

We can't walk down street in a thong because it would make the general public feel uncomfortable and wouldd cross a boundary of accepted norms which most agree with.

Covering of the face of anyone in public makes me feel fearful and feels dehumanising in a way that makes others very uncomfortable.

Removing of face to face interaction undermines safety and connections for every one.

I do not see why I should have this experience forced on me.

That is not a women's issue, it's a human interaction issue.

The women's issue is the treatment and views of women by a sect within Islam.

We need to separate them out and stop beating around the bush of where the threat to women actually lies.

I'm against any ban on types of clothing for adults, including face covering and nudity without sexual display, but support specific positive case law which require face showing or clothes wearing in particular circumstances. Also I support school dress codes. I think that's something we have in the UK as a rule and I'd like to keep it.

The nun's veil comparison is something I've heard brought up by Muslim women reporting that they wear hijab (not burqa or niqab) as a choice. I think it is a particularly dim comparison, partly from the obvious difference between a tiny number of adults choosing to profess monastic vows and something required of all women for sexual control, but also because it ignores the long history of anti-Catholicism and sexualised controversy about nun's veils in this country.