Tuesday May 20, 2008, 3:42 pm
Thanks Ben.

Tuesday May 20, 2008, 5:09 pm
Hmmmm. I'm surprised to learn that this is an issue in Denmark. Thank you, Ben, for the article ~ I'll be following up on this.

Tuesday May 20, 2008, 8:15 pm

I hope they hold there ground. I think it is a necessary and brilliant law.
Thanks Ben.

Wednesday May 21, 2008, 1:00 am
The accompanying text argues that a Muslim headscarf is more than just a feather-light piece of clothing. Rather, it suggests, it is a symbol of submission and tyranny.


This kinda hurts, thanks Ben for the article

Wednesday May 21, 2008, 11:41 am
Personally, I love veiling. Then again, I use the "dupatta" from Pakistan and they can be either extremely light and airy or heavy (for winter, and it gets COLD there!!). I don't see what their problem is if a woman chooses to have some self respect for herself and cover. If they do this, then they had better ban all things that go on the head as well. Hats, caps, berets, you name it. If they're going to take one basic religious right, they better take all rights that allow a person to put something on their own head or not.

Wednesday May 21, 2008, 11:03 pm
Danish government announced it would bar (judges) from wearing headscarves (and) similar religious or political symbols in courtrooms.

This is about Judges, the courtroom, where the appearance of politics or religion might influence critical decisions.
Many jobs tell you what to wear.
Why not the high paying jobs as well? (o:
This is a powerful position. No thanks, I just want black & white in this situation. TY

I don't want to see my Judge expressing his political or religious beliefs when I am being Judged.

Thursday May 22, 2008, 2:14 pm
This subject is an ethical minefield.
Shannon,I partially agree with you,and it is a matter of whether,a woman "freely chooses".The difficulty is that within any culture,there are hhuugggee,social pressures,to conform.
This is magnified a zillion fold with issues like arranged marriages,and resistance to that,particularly from a woman has resulted in so-called "honour killings".Other extreme practices include clitoral extraction",with women very much to the fore in the practice,as the patriarchal ideology seeps into the thinking of females,as well as males.
From my understanding of the Quoran,these practices (ie the veil.)were culturally specific to a period of history..and not meant to be a universal truth.Exactly the same as some biblical practices..
Unfortunately the Wahibbis,with their politically driven, extreme misunderstandings of Islam,took off in post-oilboom Saudi Arabia..where there is the money, and the political clout, to support their brand of Islam.This brand places women, as second class citizens at best..and is the sect that inspired Osama Bin Laden.There are other similar groupings,that have similar patriarchal politics.
Personally as someone who beleives in equality and personal liberty,I find this group facistic,and extremely right wing.They are the mirror image of the bogus Christians in the White House.
Many women have been attacked,and even killed for thir non-adherence to this dress code..and many are fighting hard for their human rights in Saudi,Iran,Iraq etc.
Here in the UK,I mix with a good few,moderate,intelligent Moslems,who are tolerant and very in tune with democracy and fairness.The more liberal women ive met ,tend to accept/reject the veil,based on their own reason and choice.Though,that is sadly not always the case.
I read a great book recently, called The Islamist,by a guy called Ed Husain,who was attracted to the extreme's of political Islam,but later rejected it as unspiritual and un Islamic..his insights are genuinely worth reading.
Anyway my point is,where does free choice end, and social pressure, or even extreme coercion begin?

Thursday May 22, 2008, 11:36 pm
in the US, you don't wear a hat into a courtroom out of respect for the place you are in- now, true, the old system said that a lady never had to remove her hat- this is from the days where womens hats were pinned to their hair. judges wear their 'uniform'- the black robe- so their appearance is singular and impartial. the judge is neutral, as is the clothing they wear. it seems only reasonable that this would apply elsewhere in the world as well.

Friday May 23, 2008, 4:29 pm
Ethical Minefield
so true

Quran only tells what should be covered for worship. So to put veil or headscarf on is mandatory only for 5 times a day for 5-10 minutes when one worships or goes to a mosque.

It is the men dominated societies who made it mandatory 24/7 for their females centuries ago.

Friday May 23, 2008, 5:28 pm
Anna,I hear what you are saying,though i reckon that as long as you can see someone's face,(for identification)then it is okey to wear religious headdress..
Personally,I see no religious reason why a woman should be publically veiled..but just because I feel that the woman has been conditioned/misled etc,I would still support her right to wear it.
One of my problem's with the more oppressive shades of religion is that they have a power/political dimension,which is rarely substantiated by the original prophett's.
I'm not a Christian,but I think I live closer to Jesus's message ( even with all my hedonism,and human faults),than the murderous scum of the Bush government.

Friday May 23, 2008, 6:01 pm
ben trhis is a very interesting post and issue and without a doubt an ethical minefield BUT THEN AGAIN IT IS NOT. IF WE SEPERATE religion and state if we are to include all forms of religious dress in a court of law in a position of a judge in any religion.for wiomen, for modesty or for men very intersting problem if we are to cater to a cultural adjunct subscribed to in a particular time and not intrinsic to the religion? THere is without a doubt many issues . the highest ethics must be served here and truly it is important not only for denmark but for other countries. meanwhile honour killings have increased in these countries women need protection and i hope care 2 members that are muslim that are women help their sisters in this regards
www.stophonourkillings.com

Friday May 23, 2008, 8:02 pm
Sophia,It is awful to here that honour killings have increased in some countries.Here in Britain,there was a recent high profile case,of a murdered woman,who had not followed her parent's wishes re marriage.
Generally I feel that we have to be wary of cultural relativism..ie accepting brutal practices because,they are practiced in other countries/cultures.This leads to acceptance of many abuses of human rights.
There are as Sophia points out,many women who are suffering brutality and murder.I would also add that gay people,have suffered horribly too in the same countries.This can't be condoned ,ignored ,or reasoned away on any level.
I think that we have to make a stand on universal human rights..and stand up against abuse,wherever it arises.
Lastly here ,I do find the veil issue difficult,particularly as a secularist.Ideally,I would like people,to be able to make their own choice...even if I disagree.The problem for me is,that free choice is often an illusion,and it is non-existant in some countries.
As for the headwear,Sophia,maybe if everyone was at liberty to wear a hat in court(within certain guidelines),then it would stop veil wearing, being an adjunct to the principle.Allowing exceptions to such rules,does create resentment,and a messy set of laws too.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:12 am
I agree with you statement Rob L:"Personally,I see no religious reason why a woman should be publically veiled..but just because I feel that the woman has been conditioned/misled etc,I would still support her right to wear it.And, This subject is an ethical minefield." My own feeling on the matter is the same. But I do also believe it's not right to tell or force someone not to be able to wear a article of clothing that respresents there religious belief. What is next them telling a Jewish person they cant wear there yarmulkes(cloth head caps). Or a Christian they cant were a cross around there neck. I do not think the Danish goverment should be doing this. It's just plain wrong.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 6:14 pm
A sad day for Denmark. I am ashamed of my ancestors. They have become narrow minded bigots. Nothing is wrong with a person openly wearing a symbol that has meaning for them. It is about respect and tollerance for diversity.

If a judge does not wear a symbolic object, that would not mean they are any less neutral in their decisions. If they have professional integrity, their decisions will reflect that. If not, there are other avenues for appeal.

Denmark wants everyone to be the same. Where will this intollerance stop?

Saturday May 24, 2008, 6:23 pm
Maya they were and not all bad people...Keep your chin up...

Big Gorilly Hugs

Saturday May 24, 2008, 6:38 pm
P.S.

I did not find the Danish cartoon incident acceptable either.

Racism and other forms of descrimination come in so many clever disguises. If it came to us openly, we would outright reject it. It takes people over through subtlety and as one thing is deemed acceptable, then the next step is taken.

I really feel this is the beginning of a major downturn for human rights in Denmark.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 8:04 am
If you think it should be ok for a judge display religious symbols, then what would you say to a judge wearing a swastika ?

Besides how can it be racism to reject an ideology like islam ?

I don' care whether the mohammedan is an arab, a chinese or a dane, so how can my rejection of islam be racist ?

Sunday May 25, 2008, 7:48 pm
On the question of Judge-Wear,it has to express neutrality and objectivity..even if judges sometimes don't.
I don't beleive ,that the same has to apply to religious symbols,worn by defendants or other citizen's involved in court proceedings.
Carl,I am not personally religious,but do beleive, that people should have the right, to express their religion ,in a way that does not compromise the rights of others. I accept that rejection of a religion,is different to racism,though some racists,do use attacks on religion to make disguised racist attacks.
The neo-nazi British National Party here in the UK,are quite clever at attacking Muslims,when they really mean Pakistani's .This doesn't mean though,that we shouldn't clearly oppose oppressive elements of any religion..ie forced marriages,or attacks on gays.We can never shy from that,if we want to safeguard human rights.

Monday May 26, 2008, 9:57 am
Many people associate the veil, the burka, etc with extremist Islam fundamentalism, the repression of women and the absence of women's rights.
Wearing the veil sends a message, a negative one. Not that "this woman is protecting her reputation" or "this woman is religious" but rather "this woman is a party to an archaic patriarchal system that represses her rights and those of her sisters" !

A 24-yr-old Afghan student has been in prison since October, tortured into 'confessing,' & sentenced to death for downloading a women's rights report from a website. He had a 5-minute trial, with no lawyer to defend him, so great is the power of intimidation of Islamic fundamentalists in the country. There is some hope that President Karzai may free him:

End to Afghan Prison Nightmare for Death-Penalty Student Convicted of Downloading Women's Rights Report ?
http://www.care2.com/news/member/597720583/754746

I am really against Islamic totalitarianism !

Monday May 26, 2008, 12:12 pm
Jill,I am as against Islamic extremism too.It is anethma to my belief in equality,fairness,justice and human rights.I don't beleive all veil wearers are extremists though..If we were to judge all Christians by the murderer Bush,the swindler Swaggart the gay hating,but repressed gay preacher Haggard,and all of the dumb,misled Christian right..then we would come to the conclusion that Christians are twisted,hippocritical,murdering worshippers of money.
Islam like Christianity has been used politically..so that the original meaning has become subsumed beneath the social and political.
The Saudi's have been supporting the worst of these..The Wahhibi sect..
I would rather,that human development took us beyond religion,and I will argue passionately from my secular-humanist viewpoint..but I have to accept people's rights to harmlessly display ,their devotion to their superstition..(i'm joking re that last word,honest).
Ive never experienced a spiritual connection with God,but I know good,inteligent people who have.I'd say it's down to psychology,they'd say it's spiritual...etc
Anyway,where do you stop with this ban?skull caps?crucifixes?,turbans?

Monday May 26, 2008, 12:17 pm
Annyway what I should have added Jill, is that, I would gladly join in the campaign and fight, against facist type behaviour,whatever mask it's perpetrators wear.

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 6:54 am

Thanks for your answer, Rob.

I agree with you that it is as mistaken to judge Christianity by George W as it is to judge Islam by the fundamentalists, who have a political agenda. Are we to consider veil-wearing Muslims as fundamentalists, who support that agenda, or simply as pious women?

I mean there are muslim woman who do not wear a veil and who feel that their devotion to their faith is nonetheless strong & sincere.

The problem of the veil is that it has become political. The politics of the fundamentalists for whom church and state are one and the same; those who want to legislate social and private behavior; those who want eradicate civil & human rights and to impose their dogma & rules on others.

Just like the religious right !

Wednesday May 28, 2008, 5:31 am
rob they are all banned for judges and most state employees in denmark.....those that work for the state must remain secular in appearance ..and i say good ........