Sri Lanka bans all face coverings for 'public protection' after bomb attacks

[Omaha Steve]

Source: CNN

By Theresa Waldrop,

(CNN)Any face covering that "hinders the identification of individuals in a way that threatens national security" is now banned in Sri Lanka, according to a statement from the country's President.

The move follows a series of bombings on Easter Sunday that killed more than 250 people and wounded at least 500 in Sri Lankan churches and hotels.

" (President Maithripala Sirisena) has made this decision to strengthen national security as well as to not inconvenience any demographic group so as to create a peaceful and harmonious society in Sri Lanka," said the presidential statement, which was released Sunday.

The ban took effect Monday, and applies to anything covering the face, which could include burqas, niqabs and helmets or masks.


Sri Lankan security personal patrol in Colombo on April 23, 2019, two days after bomb attacks at churches and hotels left more than 250 people dead.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/asia/sri-lanka-face-coverings-ban/index.html

[moreland01]

1. No more Helmets?

I feel for the motorcyclists.

[oldsoftie]

2. Helmets can have clear face guards. Problem solved!

[LiberalLovinLug]

3. Its time liberals get on board

Its very frustrating to sit and watch us shoot ourselves in the foot on this issue. We do ourselves no favors by going out of our way to protest for the "right" of men, who are ensconced in a religious cult, which elevates them into a dominant position, to force women to cover themselves in public.

Why liberals cannot manage to separate freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, with national security, is just one more avenue for conservative Republicans to attack and criticize. I mean..Christians don't demand such archaic requirements! And they can paint Democrats as choosing to baby the dangerous and sexist cultures of "ferners" over the national security of the country.

[SunSeeker]

4. Faces coverings do not represent freedom of expression/religion to me.

They represent oppression of women. It literally erased the woman's identity. No man, not even the most pious, wears face coverings for religious reasons.

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Well I wish there were more that saw the duplicity in thinking we can have our cake and eat it too

Even the whole Obama era of being extra extra careful as to not use the word Islamic when describing ISIS. The Islamic religion is central to their ideology and their excuses to create a patriarchal strict authoritarian society.

Hey, if some very orthodox fundamentalist terrorist group used the Christian religion, and Bible verses to justify some evil deeds, bombing children etc... I'd have no hesitation in calling them Christian Terrorists. But in our never ending quest to offend no one, we end up on the other side. And the Republicans are then able to point and say how weak on terror we are and use our fickleness on the topic to win against us.

I think many liberals can't separate the concept of freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and acceptance of the "other, with actual dangerous and backwards practices, because they are done by that "other". One reason is we are arrogant to cling the rocks on top of the one hill that Republicans are never going to climb, acceptance of the "other". Of all colours of people. All cultures....to the point of including any and all religious practices, no matter how draconian.

I think we'd get a lot of Independent voters if we learned how to separate the two.

[jcmaine72]

9. I disagree In this instance.

I can make the distinction between people who do bad things and innocent, law-abiding people who are merely practicing their religious traditions. Laws like this lump the innocent and the guilty together by blaming an entire culture for the bestial acts of a few.

This is nothing by an attempt by the Sri Lankan government to deflect attention away from their incompetent handling of the intelligence they received prior to the attacks. If they had acted on that intelligence the attacks just may have been thwarted. All this and laws like it accomplish is to satisfy the inevitable urge for revenge following a terrorist attack.

[emmaverybo]

20. A good argument

[Ron Obvious]

6. Complete agreement n/t

[Blue_Tires]

10. "Christians don't demand such archaic requirements..."

Signed, the Amish, the Mennonites, etc..

As long as women have an honest, legit choice of whether or not to wear the stuff, it we should have a hands-off policy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

11. They do not require face coverings in those communties

That is what conflicts with national security concerns.

And as someone who's heritage is the Mennonite fundamentalist Christian community, and got out, I know very well how religion works when you are brought up from a baby to believe in the all powerful God that demands that the man be in charge. And that they, as women, are decedents of Eve, the original sinner (can't trust a woman), and so she must be covered and subservient to "protect" her from worldly temptations.

So I admit I am biased against all forms of organized religion because of what I grew up with. And watching how very decent people, like my parents, are swept up into the "rules" here on Earth, because their real life begins after they die.

There was a poll taken in majority Muslim countries, which showed that a majority still believed that any apostate, anyone that leaves Islam, deserves to be put to death. To me religion is a disease, used by those who have the position, and charisma, to control and profit from. The cult of Trump is not too far removed from any organized religion.

So to me, any action that forces one of those cults to face their "rules" and have to defend them to the world is a good thing.

[Blue_Tires]

12. Fair enough... Point taken.

Since you have first-hand experience in all this and I don't, I'll defer to your analysis on the matter.

[MicaelS]

13. You have to remember that many on the Left view ALL Muslims as underdogs.

The Left has always prided itself on being the champion of the underdog. As such anything that smacks of telling underdogs what to do is viewed as "oppression". No matter how oppressive to their women the men might be, we are still not supposed to lecture them on their behavior.

[LanternWaste]

14. Even should that lecture deny face coverings for one gender, regardless of choice.

"we are still not supposed to lecture them on their behavior..."

Even should that lecture deny face coverings for one gender, regardless of choice.

[MicaelS]

16. They should be told...

"No one may cover their face or order another face covered for any reason in any public area at any time for any reason. No exception for region, belief or weather may apply."

[LiberalLovinLug]

15. Good point

Yes, I think there is a knee jerk response to stand up for any minority. And it comes from a good place of course

And complicating things is that there is a history of "the church" standing up for indigenous people against repressive governments. Oscar Romero comes to mind. (Of course the bigger picture plan is to attract more to their religion)

I just think that for too long, the more liberal community, regarded religion either as an ally of liberal goals in at least giving sanctuary to revolutionary anti-dictatorial uprisings in third world countries. Or as a harmless, and declining aspect of society. And we fail to appreciate the harm that a perpetual brain-conditioning from a child on, can do, that your religion's rules are always right, and if it conflicts with the outside world's rules, then you always side with the former. So that basically negates almost every liberal-led advancement in society.

In fact many new immigrants who are fundamentalists, of any religion, are more likely to vote for the most conservative politician. One that believes in patriarchy, and protections of religious freedom and strict on law and order, anti-drug legalization, and anti-gay marriage etc... Just because WE stand up for them, does not mean they will help us at the polls.

[ancianita]

17. Your last sentence is correct. Liberals' attempts to keep freedoms for face-covered believers,

mostly don't get reciprocation from believers, except for whatever promotes their belief system. There is no enlightenment concept of reciprocity from those who believe in theocracy.

So standing up for a minority, in this case, is misguided.

I am against all believer dress codes in the U.S. because, while well meaning, they are not America's ideas of freedom, but misguidedly allow space for the symbolic practice of marking women.

In this country, I've never seen a minor child make a "free will" choice to be trained into religious life, even if their believer parents are liberal.

I have, however, seen many of them, once feeling independent of their families, opt out of their religious training. But only where the U.S. maintains visible choices about how one might live one's life.

No adult can convince me that a child, boy or girl, who sees women covered all around her/him, including her/his mother, is not subtlely groomed to make her/his "free choice." Any child exposed to food, language, dress, deference to boys and men, silent obedience from women, religion as law, is conditioned into the free choice to be that way. It's self reinforcing, isn't it.

[get the red out]

26. Excellent post

I have never been able to state those things so well, I am glad you have the eloquent words to do so.

[ancianita]

27. Thanks. Read the Koran 3 times, met with local Muslims and thought about this a long while.

[MicaelS]

18. Too may on the Left who are Atheists are "Hateful" Atheists.

It is not enough they do not believe, they also denigrate every one else's religion, faith or belief system in a truly nasty way. Thus they alienate people on the Left who are religious, as well as those who are not.

The ironic thing these modern "Hateful" Atheists seem to forget is that the Abolitionist and well as Civil Rights movements, were created by and driven by people of the Religious Left.

You really did not see this until the advent of Marxism.

[ancianita]

19. I reject your stereotype. Atheists are about the liberal "live and let live" stereotype, which

has the advantage of being more true than yours.

Atheists participated in the abolitiionist and civil rights movements.

The days of Stalin are over, as are the days of marxism, which is only political atheism.

It's believer wars that you see hate coming from.

[emmaverybo]

22. Atheists participated but much of the abolitionist and civil rights movement

was rooted in the church.

[ancianita]

25. There were more believers than atheists, obviously. Numbers don't equate with morality.

[Cartoonist]

29. All of the slavery movement was rooted in the Church

What are you trying to peddle? The Bible was used to justify slavery.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. "The Bible was used to justify slavery." And also to justify the end of slavery

Most abolitionists in the US and UK were, in fact, professed Christians.

Dislike of a group is no excuse for eliding history.

[emmaverybo]

32. Do your homework

Quakers for one. Far from the only Christian abolitionists though.
An easy search at Wikipedia under “Christian Abolitionists” will give you a very long list, consistent with other academically responsible sources. I understand that Wikipedia is not one, but this article condenses the subject. Quakers were known as anti-slavery.
The idea that spurred religious groups to an anti-slavery view was that slavery was a sin.
The umbrella church under which Reverend Wright’s church operated was an early abolitionist white church. Needless to say, black abolitionists were religious.
Look up Black theology movement while you are at it.
Also note much earlier Catholic Church condemnation of slavery.

[Cartoonist]

33. Here's some homework for you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218293032

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Some Christians supported slavery, granted. Were *all* contemporary Christians thus complicit?

Even the abolitionists?

[Cartoonist]

35. They weren't very influential

Their efforts were appreciated but the south more than ignored them. The Bible said it was 👌

[GulfCoast66]

24. I'm calling BS on this. I don't consider myself an Atheist.

As I grew up religious and while no longer believe in the god I was raised with cannot prove or disprove a god. I call myself a freethinker.

But until I have Atheist knocking on my door telling me that if I do not believe like them something bad is going to happen, conflating non-belief with beliefs is a nonstarter.

I bet no Atheist has ever told you that hell is in your future. Well, I hear that all the time. So excuse me if I take exception to calling Atheist hateful. Derided a belief seen as silly can’t touch the level of hate compared to condemning someone to an eternity in suffering. Not that liberal liberal Christians do so. But a whole lot of Christians do.

The fact is a great majority of liberals are religious. Cause a great majority of Americans are religious. But there is no denying that a great majority of the repressive forces in this Nation are based in religious folks. Evangelicals support Trump at over 80%.

I am fully aware of how many of the early progressive causes in this nation found a home in churches. But for ever church espousing those causes, there were 3 that considered them heretics.

Still do today. Just read what religious folks are saying about the young mayor from South Bend.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Well said!

[emmaverybo]

21. Excellent point

It is naive to misunderstand this.

[Coventina]

5. *GOOD* n/t

[yaesu]

7. So, they will be banning backpacks in public too? nt

[GulfCoast66]

23. Only worn over the face.

[PoliticAverse]

28. Anti-mask laws...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws

United States

There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

New York State's anti-mask law was enacted in 1845, to provide for public safety after disputes between landlords and tenants.
Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century when states and municipalities, passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.
In the 21st century those laws have been applied to political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous – wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
In some areas motorcyclists have been arrested using anti-masking laws.

These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech. That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe. Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennesee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad. An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.