Talk for Article "Suppression and freedom collide as Denmark bans the burqa"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    I’d like to hear more about why proponents of the measure think such a bill is necessary. The only comments (which I think should come earlier in the story) were: “The belief that face-covering garments suppress women was a main reason that politicians voted to pass the law…. Some proponents of the new law centered on concerns that Muslim women or girls were being forced to cover their face.” And the last statement was shown to be untrue. Is there nothing more to be said about why such a ban has been called for, other than anti-Muslim sentiment?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Bruce, the story is now published and I’d like to hear your thoughts if you have any on how the story is. Reasons for the ban are further to the top of the story.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Has any connection been demonstrated between these bans and the increasing use of facial recognition software by police & security forces?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Interesting. I’ll have a look.

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Not sure if this piece fits the spirit of “fact-based journalism”. Having quotes from experts or personalities on their forecast of the situation feels off-key for WikiTribune. I’d also say that pinning double and triple digit numbers to those impacted just marginalizes further a minority group disproportionately impacted by the law.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hey Patrick. I hear what you’re saying. The point of interviewing people associated/affected by the ban is to hear from people in Denmark to illustrate the situation surrounding the ban. What would you imagine a more WT way to cover it would be? What do you mean by “pinning double and triple digit numbers to those impacted just marginalizes further a minority group disproportionately impacted by the law”? I don’t think I quite see what you’re getting at.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        I don’t think quotes are bad – just that they can’t be the dominant source for the article.
        “pinning double and triple digit numbers to those impacted just marginalizes further a minority group disproportionately impacted by the law” – what I mean is that in a country whose population is counted in millions, counting those affected by the ban in the 10’s or 100’s is a technique of marginalization. It’s an indirect message of “well, this may not be great, but it’s only affecting 0.00001% of the people”

        My suggestion on a piece like this would be to pull up more strict analysis of the law. Maybe verbatim phrasing (maybe they have official legal translations?), and a deconstruction of how the law is or could be enforced, with a critical eye for it’s weaknesses and setbacks.

        I don’t think we need illustration of the situation – we need analysis of the situation. This is the mindset of my feedback of not being in the spirit of fact-based journalism. Feelings are important and should be considered, but they can be misguided and misleading.

        If the project and sense behind fact-based journalism is to get to objectivity, a more minimalist approach to illustration and a heavier hand on facts and analysis should (could?) be applied.

        Thanks for taking the time to hear my feedback.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “only 100 women in Austria and even less in Denmark (estimated 0.2 percent)” What does 0.2% refer to? 0.2% of Denmark’s population would be about 11,497 people. 0.2% of Muslim women?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hey Dan, yes it’s 0.2 percent of Muslim women in Denmark – see the study here https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2013.750834

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    “But the latest ban, by Denmark, will affect only an estimated 150 women.” If face coverings are banned the law would surely apply to everyone. Not just 150 people. Anyone may want to cover their face during cold weather in the Winter, for example.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Dan, the law allows people to cover their faces in cold weather, and when complying with other legal requirements such as the wearing of helmets. Here’s a link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/denmark-passes-law-banning-burqa-and-niqab

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us