– the Danish people’s party hovedrystende proposal to ban public employees in the state, regions and municipalities, to wear religious headgear at their jobs were today voted down in the Parliament with 84 to 22.

the Proposal was also a hole in the head, and showed quite clearly that the continued blurring of DF.

the nation – 17. jan. 2019 – at. 16:10 Will not be operated by the scarf-girl: Now will the Supermarket do not have Bjarne as a customer

so begins Sikandar, who is folketingskandidat of the Alternatives and diligent debater here on the nation! (see r.ex Racist debate: Pia scolded the wrong(538 comments) and Message to Joachim B.: Love (725 comments), a letter to the editor about the vote on religious headgear, which took place in the parliament today. He rejoices in the outcome and could well think that the question also came up for a vote on her.dk. You can vote below – Sikandars letter continues as follows:

– Martin Henriksen, who was the proposer, had still not understood that both direct and indirect discrimination continues to contravene Section 70’s on the prohibition of discrimination.

– No one should be deprived of access to civil and political rights, pga. their religion. Is it hard to get into the head, then the promises I would like the veil for Martin henriksen’s and DF:

– Are you fat, thin or hindu – so polishes we like your window. You have the hijab, skullcap, fez or turban, you are still welcome in the ‘Danland’.

– In our whole brave world use religious people of different religious clothing, suit, hat, feather, scarf, jewelry or otherwise. It seemed I is great.

– I will not store the ”dangerous symbols” away, but let them be a natural part of everyday life. With the visible turban and skullcap both in Skørping and in Nørrebro, our grafts will grow up with the knowledge of the different symbols and religions and the tolerance of the society, they are lucky that they live in, showing every simple.

– In the hovedrystende proposals was, ‘..that it is not reasonable for citizens to meet with public servants, who wear distinctive religious symbols.’

the Ban would apply to both christians, jews, muslims, sikhs, but at the same time would be ‘christianity’s special status in society to be preserved’.

– the Hand on the head, with or without the hat, so groping DF in the blind, as they went with the reverse burka.

– If not public employees shall act in a religious clothing, so what about public servants, the priests in the dress and collar, which has konfirmandundervisning, muslim fængselsimamer in robe or a nun with the veil, who runs the charity for the government grants?

– Should a Shikh throw 8 metres turban, every time he met in his public job, and jewish and muslim members of the parliament put the kippa and the hijab, every time they enter into the Palace.

– It was again a ommer Henriksen – both you and we can put our ‘hat’, just as we will, says He, but what are you thinking?