Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[AwkwardSquirtle]

Are there recorded incidents of people actually wearing niqabs to help their terrorist activities? I certainly don't remember any. I get the argument in theory, but if most terrorism occurs without the aid of a niqab, is banning it going to help all that much?

[Deleted]

The comparison is fine. People want to cite the existence of a law as a justification for it

Yeah - nope.

[Bollocks]

Personally I dont like the niqab, but to yall saying that is a security risk let me present you this and we don't make a fuss over it.

[Machismo]

Cool, I'm going to walk into a bank with a skimask on, I am sure that will work out great for me.

Once again, that is a private entity. I have no problem if a private entity wants to ban anything they like on their property.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear, this again... No this is not how gay marriage got banned, that was religion, not culture. Also slavery wasn't "a cultural thing" but rather an economic system, and how on earth do you fit "native Americans" into this?
Fact of the matter is, when your culture causes unrest to the culture that you are staying in, then they are within their rights to not allow it. Just like you are not allowed to keep your parents in your basement after they have died, while it is perfectly acceptable in other places on this earth.
The mere fact that they are upsetting a local culture is enough to disallow cultural practices.

Being offended is a grounds to take away someone's freedoms?

This is how we end up with hundreds of thousands of laws... because everyone gets offended, and wants to ban shit.

[Chemii]

You can paint it up any way you want but Islam is not a religion of peace, so any of it's practised rituals should be dealt with accordingly. Regardless, the fact that terrorists use such garments to give them anonymity means they should be banned, period.

Realistically its about time people stopped dancing around the issue for fear of being called a racist and accept religion has no place in a modern society.

[Deleted]

Which clearly shows you have an aversion to freedom.

No, saying X is within the powers of Y, does not mean i suggest that Y do X.

You want to force assimilation of culture onto others.

No, i want to deport them.
I'm in favour of ending the refugee convention.

It's one thing to ban the practice of an action that creates actual harm.

The 'sharia' patrols harms me.

It's a completely different beast when you want to restrict it in order to force them to be more like you.

No, see, its part of the deal, they get asylum, and in return, They fucking assimilate.
And to be clear, it hurts me when they cling to their bullshit instead of integrating, because Turkish people who integrate in Germany (consider themselves German) are not living on welfare, but Turks who don't, overwhelmingly do.

[Gangresnake]

No, slavery was allowed to thrive in the United States, because it was profitable, and people believed black people were inferior, and did not deserve freedom.

It was also profitable in france, and people also believed that black people were inferior, and the state (Napoleon as a fact, a dictator) still unequivocally stated that it will never be allowed on french soil.

Anyway, the original subject is the Niqab, which you defend because it's a religious freedom.
Do you know what's another religious freedom in the quran ? Owning slaves. So what's it's gonna be now ? Are you for or against it ?

[lonely zergling]

Lol. Walking with a Ski-mask is obvious, walking with a niqab is normal, since people see it as a religious thing. + This is protected by law the ski mask thing is not. If you go with a ski-mask to a bank, nothing will happen, as I often don't get my motorcycle helmet out and I just walk in to the ATM inside the bank. Stop crying about it man, honestly.

Not allowed to cover your face in banks. Doesnt matter if you cover it with a niqab or a cat. Just not allowed. They can force you to leave (they will). You can call them and set up a meeting where a female worker undresses your niqab to see your face in a seperate room though if you want to make something as simple as a bank visit so ridiculous complicated.

You will even get shit on at gasstations .

[Deleted]

No, slavery was allowed to thrive in the United States, because it was profitable, and people believed black people were inferior, and did not deserve freedom.

There were Irish slaves too.

[Deleted]

Once again, that is a private entity. I have no problem if a private entity wants to ban anything they like on their property.

- - - Updated - - -



Being offended is a grounds to take away someone's freedoms?

This is how we end up with hundreds of thousands of laws... because everyone gets offended, and wants to ban shit.

Where do you get this "offended" from?? I never said such a thing.

[Machismo]

There were Irish slaves too.

Like I said, slavery was a part of the culture.

[Karon]

Its called freedom of religion which is in fact implemented into country law. I need to say more?

There are also laws that forbid you to mask yourself in public.

[Northy]

Niqab's are a problem because there is no way of checking who someone is. For all we know its all grown men with bomb girdles or 3 dwarfs stacked on top of eachother. Headscarfs, caps, etc. are fine.

Or someone much smarter than her taking her tests. Cheating seems way to easy with the quilts Muslims seem inclined to drape themselves in.

[Machismo]

No, saying X is within the powers of Y, does not mean i suggest that Y do X.

No, i want to deport them.
I'm in favour of ending the refugee convention.

The 'sharia' patrols harms me.
No, see, its part of the deal, they get asylum, and in return, They fucking assimilate.
And to be clear, it hurts me when they cling to their bullshit instead of integrating, because Turkish people who integrate in Germany (consider themselves German) are not living on welfare, but Turks who don't, overwhelmingly do.

EVERYTHING you say points to my initial claim that you have a strong aversion to freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

It was also profitable in france, and people also believed that black people were inferior, and the state (Napoleon as a fact, a dictator) still unequivocally stated that it will never be allowed on french soil.

Anyway, the original subject is the Niqab, which you defend because it's a religious freedom.
Do you know what's another religious freedom in the quran ? Owning slaves. So what's it's gonna be now ? Are you for or against it ?

I'm in support of freedom, freedom for everyone. Slavery is a reduction in one man's freedom, just as banning a victimless action is to another. The second an action causes harm to another, only then should it be restricted.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do you get this "offended" from?? I never said such a thing.

When you speak of forcing someone to assimilate into a culture, and basing laws on culture, the non-compliance is where the people become "offended."

[Deleted]

Like I said, slavery was a part of the culture.

Maybe you should amend your post then, instead of saying:

because it was profitable, and people believed black people were inferior, and did not deserve freedom.

[Gangresnake]

I'm in support of freedom, freedom for everyone. Slavery is a reduction in one man's freedom, just as banning a victimless action is to another. The second an action causes harm to another, only then should it be restricted.

So you're AGAINST the religious freedom of having slaves. So you're against freedom ?

Where do you draw the lines exactly ? Because the Niqab can also be the reduction of one man (or woman) freedom. Especially when enforced massively in some areas where all the women who dont wear it will be regarded as impure and unworthy.

[Deleted]

EVERYTHING you say points to my initial claim that you have a strong aversion to freedom.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm in support of freedom, freedom for everyone. Slavery is a reduction in one man's freedom, just as banning a victimless action is to another. The second an action causes harm to another, only then should it be restricted.

- - - Updated - - -



When you speak of forcing someone to assimilate into a culture, and basing laws on culture, the non-compliance is where the people become "offended."

Eeuh no everything you say points to you not being able to understand what he is saying.

And no, being upset is not the same as being offended. You are a native speaker so you should know this. It has nothing to do with offending anything.

[Machismo]

Maybe you should amend your post then, instead of saying:

All those things also apply.

[Deleted]

EVERYTHING you say points to my initial claim that you have a strong aversion to freedom.

No, i would like more freedom.
Like the freedom not to pay the highest taxes in the whole world.
The freedom to walk around with a T-shirt saying: God is a delusion.
I would go on, but you are not getting my point as is.

[Machismo]

So you're AGAINST the religious freedom of having slaves. So you're against freedom ?

It's a cute attempt, but you are being absurd. I support freedom, and that means freedom for everyone. The most possible freedom can be achieved, only when the only restrictions are those against an action which creates actual harm.

You don't seem to understand the difference between freedom and oppression.