We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A Danish law that took effect on August 1, 2018 bans the wearing of any garment in a public place that hides the face unless it is for a recognized purpose. Four other European countries have passed national legislation against full-face coverings in public, while an additional five countries have national partial bans. Examining legal and feminist debates, this chapter highlights the fundamental conflict between religious rights and equality rights in Denmark that forms the background to these debates. I argue that the burqa ban is an expression of superficial politics, as it hides the stakes in this underlying conflict. Both politicians and public debates displace the conflict between religion and equality onto an issue that affects only an extremely tiny group of women. In the process, they misrepresent the nature of this conflict. Both at the superficial and the fundamental levels, it is not only women's individual rights, but also the principles of gender equality and opposition to sexist oppression which lose out.
INTRODUCTION
A Danish law that took effect on August 1, 2018 bans the wearing of any garment in a public place that hides the face, unless it is for a recognized purpose. The purpose of the law, according to the Danish Ministry of Justice, is to protect respect for community, the values and coherence in Danish society, and to ensure appropriate social interaction and co-existence. Recognized purposes for exemption include covering one's face because of the cold, wearing costumes for festivals, wearing masks and helmets for sports, security reasons, or health reasons. Danish public authorities like the police must always make a concrete judgment about whether a face covering prevents one from seeing and interpreting another person's facial expression. Examples of face covering that violate the law are burqas, niqābs and ski masks. The Ministry of Justice also specifies measures that are to be taken if there is suspicion of negative social control and it notes the possibility of referring women to crisis centers. It is estimated that between 150 and 200 women in Denmark wear a burqa or niqāb .
The internet has the potential to overcome geographic limitations for smoking cessation interventions, but further telehealth-based studies of utility are required.
Aims
To investigate the efficacy of an internet-based version of a quit smoking approach using a personalised video to create a simulated teachable moment.
Methods
Smokers within Australia were recruited through a dedicated website. After consent, eligible subjects, aged ≥30 years with a non-smoking partner, uploaded pictures of themselves, their partner and family, to be inserted into a video depicting the subject having a heart attack due to smoking, with consequences to them and their family. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) began prior to the quit attempt. The video was shown during two videoconference counselling sessions, with follow-up phone calls and text messaging support. Smoking status at 6 months by self-report (primary endpoint) was verified by partner/proxy and salivary cotinine (NicAlert™).
Results/Findings
Seventy seven smokers were screened, of whom 50 were eligible, and 17 of these (34%) were enrolled; 11 men and 6 women, aged 41.5 ± 6.9 years, daily cigarette consumption 20.8 ± 8.9, Heaviness of Smoking Index score 3.7 ± 1.7. Participants reported feeling personally involved with the video (5.9 ± 1.1), which felt real (5.8 ± 1.1) and emotionally moving (5.6 ± 1.5) [7-point Likert Scale]. A similar video response was reported by the four participants (24%), who due to bandwidth limitations, watched the video after the counselling session instead of during it. Non-smoking rates at 6 months were 65% (11/17) by self-report with proxy confirmation, and 47% (8/17) by self-report with biologic confirmation. Three non-smokers by self-report could not provide a valid NicAlert™ result due to current NRT use. One participant who by self-report smoked once in the prior 14-days was assessed as a non-smoker by both proxy and NicAlert™.
Conclusions
This pilot study demonstrates efficacy for an internet-based version of a quit smoking program based on creating a simulated teachable moment. The findings provide support for further research into this technique, with the internet enabling greater reach than face-to-face.