Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[AeneasBK]

Well thank goodness. Pretty much every terrorist attack in the last 15 years was commited by someone wearing a niqab, so this makes perfect sense.

Just like we banned balaclavas and created the Irish Peace Process. Banning clothing works.

[Gangresnake]

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.

I do actually. So I'm gonna ask you again :

Where do you draw the line ?
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, and so will be used by the religion to enforce THEIR OWN culture assimilation

[Machismo]

No, i would like more freedom.
Like the freedom not to pay the highest taxes in the whole world.

And I would support your desire to lower taxes.. However, forcing someone else to assimilate is a reduction n freedom when the actions they are doing are not harmful. Wearing a niqab causes zero harm.

People don't owe refugees a thing. There's no reason to give them the world and support them... just let them... be.

[Kaganfindel]

Security and freedom concerns aside, the instructor has to be able to positively identify the student if there are attendance requirements or mandatory performance reviews for advancement. She's free to wear whatever she likes, but if her choices make her ineligible for attendance or credit in a college course, that's not anyone else's problem to solve.

[Deleted]

All those things also apply.

yeah, but they are clearly flawed in that they paint a certain picture designed to cast this is issue into a certain light, and not the real one.

[Deleted]

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.

You are the one being absurd, you draw an arbitrary line somewhere and yell freedom. Its funny how people who scream freedom most often are the same people who have no idea how to handle said freedom.

[Machismo]

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.

He wants to force assimilation, that is a restriction of freedom. It's not that difficult. As long as an action causes no harm, then restricting it reduces the total possible freedom.

[Deleted]

And I would support your desire to lower taxes.. However, forcing someone else to assimilate is a reduction n freedom when the actions they are doing are not harmful. Wearing a niqab causes zero harm.

Actually it does, permitting it hurts women who are forced to wear it, and women who are penalised for not wearing it, and women being treated worse for not wearing it.
All of it relates to a certain set of sexual values that do no work in the western world.
The easiest way to end it, is to simply, End it.

People don't owe refugees a thing. There's no reason to give them the world and support them... just let them... be.

Yeah you may want to read up on the Geneva treaty, they don't think that.

[Machismo]

I do actually. So I'm gonna ask you again :

Where do you draw the line ?
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, and so will be used by the religion to enforce THEIR OWN culture assimilation

I also don't support forcing people to wear a niqab. People should be free to wear what they want. One form of oppression in one location does not justify the oppression of another somewhere else. They are both bad.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, but they are clearly flawed in that they paint a certain picture designed to cast this is issue into a certain light, and not the real one.

But slavery was culturally acceptable in both the United States and Europe for a very long time. They used profit, and a belief in the inferiority of blacks (and even the Irish) to justify it. Hell, they used the Bible, as well.

[Deleted]

. Banning clothing works.

You do get that religious clothing and practices are banned to prevent violence in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland?

[Deleted]

He wants to force assimilation, that is a restriction of freedom. It's not that difficult. As long as an action causes no harm, then restricting it reduces the total possible freedom.

Having to show your face is not restricting freedom as far as i am concerned. Concealing your face causes unrest, hence, you can't conceal your face, not even for religious practices. Just like you can't wear a knife as a Sikh on an air plane, that is not restricting his religious freedoms or any other freedoms, that is making sure the rest is safe.

[Machismo]

You are the one being absurd, you draw an arbitrary line somewhere and yell freedom. Its funny how people who scream freedom most often are the same people who have no idea how to handle said freedom.

The line I'm drawing is not arbitrary at all. The only actions which should be restricted, are those that actually cause harm.

[lonely zergling]

I also don't support forcing people to wear a niqab. People should be free to wear what they want. One form of oppression in one location does not justify the oppression of another somewhere else. They are both bad.

I support a ban of full body veils but only in public. Wearing it in private rooms doesnt cause harm to others. A complete ban would be oppression. Ofcourse forcing someone to wear it should be illegal anyway.

[Deleted]

But slavery was culturally acceptable in both the United States and Europe for a very long time. They used profit, and a belief in the inferiority of blacks (and even the Irish) to justify it. Hell, they used the Bible, as well.

Yeah some people was not deemed full people.
Those "some people" was not a homogeneous group of black people.

[Machismo]

Actually it does, permitting it hurts women who are forced to wear it, and women who are penalised for not wearing it, and women being treated worse for not wearing it.
All of it relates to a certain set of sexual values that do no work in the western world.
The easiest way to end it, is to simply, End it.

Yeah you may want to read up on the Geneva treaty, they don't think that.

I do not support forcing women to wear it, either. Logical consistency is a wonderful thing.

[Kathandira]

About time that someone disallows these things. Now if we only could extend it to burqas and hijabs and other kind of religious wear too it would be most excellent.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160822/musl...veil-in-school

An 18-year-old student at a night school in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, has been told by a court that she cannot attend her classes while wearing a niqab.

The teenager had taken her school to court after they told her she would not be able to attend classes so long as she continued to wear the conservative Islamic clothing, which leaves the whole body covered except for a slit for the eyes.

The young woman failed to turn up for the court appointment due to the huge media attention it had gained, leading the judge to uphold the school’s decision, the Neue Osnabrücke Zeitung reports.

I agree with this. If you cannot identify her, how do you know it is really her attending each class?

Though I disagree with extending it to hijabs. You can see the person's face with those, so there should be no identity issues.

[Machismo]

Having to show your face is not restricting freedom as far as i am concerned. Concealing your face causes unrest, hence, you can't conceal your face, not even for religious practices. Just like you can't wear a knife as a Sikh on an air plane, that is not restricting his religious freedoms or any other freedoms, that is making sure the rest is safe.

Yes it is a restriction of freedom. If you are forced to do it, then you are not free to do something else. And since wearing a niqab does not cause any harm whatsoever, forcing someone to not wear one is a reduction in the most possible freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

I support a ban of full body veils but only in public. Wearing it in private rooms doesnt cause harm to others. A complete ban would be oppression. Ofcourse forcing someone to wear it should be illegal anyway.

But forcing them to not wear it, even in public, is also an unnecessary restriction of freedom. Does wearing a face covering in public cause actual harm?

[Deleted]

The line I'm drawing is not arbitrary at all. The only actions which should be restricted, are those that actually cause harm.

It is arbitrary because you have not defined harm, and you can't define harm. Different things are harmful to different people because every person has it own sets of value's.

[Gangresnake]

I also don't support forcing people to wear a niqab. People should be free to wear what they want. One form of oppression in one location does not justify the oppression of another somewhere else. They are both bad.

"They're both bad" doesnt mean anything. You have to pick :
-Ban the niqab, therefore banning a religious clothing of a specific religions and reducing the right of said religious people.
-Dont ban the niqab, therefore allowing the radicals to parade their women (willingly most of the times) in religious clothing to push away the other non-muslims and enforcing their own cultural assimilation, therefore reducing the rights of non-religious people.

What's it's gonna be ? You cant just hop in a discussion and say "I'm for freedom". That doesnt mean anything, everyone's for freedom, you just have to pick which one.

[AeneasBK]

You do get that religious clothing and practices are banned to prevent violence in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland?

Yes that was precisely what I was suggesting (?).

EDIT: Although I'd challenge your use of "are" and not "were"...