Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[Wagar]

Was it Australia's PM that said the famous line like "Don't like it, Go back to your country, Dont expect the place your fleeing too to change so it resembles where you ran from ".I'm all for equality and understanding but in the same respect i am tired of how everything must not offend the Religious....Like come on. They had there time in the spot light to run things and demand people listen to them, just so happens to be referred to as the dark ages....wasted time.

[Aggrophobic]

Not comparable at all.

To burqas and hijabs? Sure they are.
They are all religious symbols.

[Deleted]

Most people disagree with actual freedom, so I'm fine with most people disagreeing with me.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm using the words that you guys are providing for me. Just because you find something to be "weird" does not justify banning it. You are basing it off of emotion.

No you are not, you are making up words. Words like "offended", i asked you before, and you started on some rant on how you deemed it to be offended and that therefore it was offended, and not the words i used.

[Gangresnake]

Or.. you could also oppose the arrest of people kissing in Dubai.

The western equivalent would be the arrest of people who fuck and marry 5 years old and I'm afraid we already hinder that religious freedom by forbidding it.

[Machismo]

No you are not, you are making up words. Words like "offended", i asked you before, and you started on some rant on how you deemed it to be offended and that therefore it was offended, and not the words i used.

You asked, and I told you to use the dictionary definition of the word. It's not a difficult concept. If you like, I can copy/paste the definitions for you.

[lonely zergling]

To burqas and hijabs? Sure they are.
They are all religious symbols.

I would put hijab, kippah and cross in the religious symbols category. And burqa and niqab in "cultural" oppression tools.

[Machismo]

The western equivalent would be the arrest of people who fuck and marry 5 years old and I'm afraid we already hinder that religious freedom by forbidding it.

No, one is a consensual act, the other is not. I have no problem hindering a religious "freedom" that causes actual harm. That's why human sacrifices are not allowed. I would have no problem with voluntary sacrifice.

[Deleted]

You asked, and I told you to use the dictionary definition of the word. It's not a difficult concept. If you like, I can copy/paste the definitions for you.

No that was something else, that was about harm, and you started with the dictionary definition of harm while i was clearly talking about what constitutes as harm. That other time you where on how i was "offended" or some shit, while i was talking about someone being upset. And then you throw with the dictionary definitions, it is laughable.

[Algoma0]

That really depends on why it is part of the culture, take riding on the left side of the road, its very much a cultural thing, but it would clash with almost all other cultures. As it is with this, i do not think that being able to see someone's face is too much to ask.

Edit,

To draw back on my previous example with the "keeping the parents after death". This could be done in a safe way that would not effect the neighbours in any way, but it would alarm them and probably upset them. Should this person be able to keep his parents after they have died just because it is his culture? The only reason not to is because it really doesn't fit in our culture and is likely to upset people. That is why something that is clashing with a culture are often things that upset people.

Culture should have no impact on laws. "Because of anyone's culture" should not be an argument to make things legal or illegal. That's my whole point.

The only reason I'm bringing this up is this:
Some people argue that wearing a niqab to anything should be legal, because it is "their culture".
Some people argue that wearing a niqab to anything should be illegal, because it is "their culture - and not ours, and they should integrate more!"
I just think that both arguments are not reasonable in any way.

[Machismo]

No that was something else, that was about harm, and you started with the dictionary definition of harm while i was clearly talking about what constitutes as harm. That other time you where on how i was "offended" or some shit, while i was talking about someone being upset. And then you throw with the dictionary definitions, it is laughable.

Like I said, if you don't know what a word means, feel free to look it up. If you want to try and declare an alternative definition, feel free to do so.

Does some stranger wearing a niqab "harm" you?

[Puremallace]

Those things are a massive security risk. You can hide explosives under them. Good job Germany. Wish they would ban them in the US

[Machismo]

Those things are a massive security risk. You can hide explosives under them. Good job Germany. Wish they would ban them in the US

You can hide explosives in a pickup truck. We should also ban those, since they are a massive security risk.

[AeneasBK]

You can hide explosives under them.

Well thank goodness you can't do that with any other item of clothing or this would sound ridiculous.

[Aggrophobic]

I would put hijab, kippah and cross in the religious symbols category. And burqa and niqab in "cultural" oppression tools.

Fair enough.
Every post the OP makes is about how arabs/muslims are the scourge of our age and everything they do is wrong though.
It would not matter if they skipped their religious symbols or even converted to some other religion. he'd find something to hate on anyway.

[Belize]

Also any religious symbols like a cross or a Kippah, yeah?

Not the same. If they want to wear Hijab that's fine.

They can wear a fucking colander on their heads if they want.

[Sarange]

it is a pathetic attempt to court support from xenophobes. It can't possibly have any impact on terrorism because it is not commonly used as a method to disguise explosives and even if it were, other methods could replace it quite easily.

More likely it will help alienate muslims and increase the chance of a terrorist attack.

do tell what "other methods" could replace it as easily?

[Chemii]

No, I'm using the words that you guys are providing for me. Just because you find something to be "weird" does not justify banning it. You are basing it off of emotion.

This all started because you were going on about freedom, yet you accepted that this is an oppressive practice in order to keep women under control and don't agree with it. If they are told to wear it, it's not a choice - the power or right to act is defined as freedom. By banning the garment, sure it's an exercise of control (like I should be aloud to walk around naked if I want to) but I have to say you are being a little naive, almost Utopian to keep arguing about this nonsense for so long.

Maybe fear is not a great reason to enforce a law and the only way to get rid of fear is through education. Sadly if you educate people on Islam and these stupid practices, you will not promote any sort of reasoning, as it will simply highlight how ridiculous the clothing is in a modern world. Women are equal to men, period. No book of rules based on some unicorn riding deity who splits moons with his balls is going to convince anyone of anything.

[Deleted]

Culture should have no impact on laws. "Because of anyone's culture" should not be an argument to make things legal or illegal. That's my whole point.

The only reason I'm bringing this up is this:
Some people argue that wearing a niqab to anything should be legal, because it is "their culture".
Some people argue that wearing a niqab to anything should be illegal, because it is "their culture - and not ours, and they should integrate more!"
I just think that both arguments are not reasonable in any way.

So you would be okay with your neighbours keeping their parents in the basement?
The thing im getting at is, although it might not be upsetting to you or me that someone is wearing a tent, that isn't to say that it can upset other people because of the culture clash that it is in this case. This is mostly because off the fact that it hides the face, that is the problem.

Culture isn't just "what people do" but it also consists of norms and value's, what we as a peoples deem to be "right". When something goes against this, even if it is just a group within this culture, the debate will follow until there is a consensus. Culture is what makes laws, it is because of our culture that we deem things to be inappropriate and make law to prevent this. This means that our law is a reflection of our culture, we only write things into law that are important enough for us to do so.

So, i think the "our culture" point is actually a great point, but, as you have pointed out to often used in the wrong way. It should not be about what is "their culture" but it should be about what we want to see in our culture.

[Machismo]

This all started because you were going on about freedom, yet you accepted that this is an oppressive practice in order to keep women under control and don't agree with it. If they are told to wear it, it's not a choice - the power or right to act is defined as freedom. By banning the garment, sure it's an exercise of control (like I should be aloud to walk around naked if I want to) but I have to say you are being a little naive, almost Utopian to keep arguing about this nonsense for so long.

Maybe fear is not a great reason to enforce a law and the only way to get rid of fear is through education. Sadly if you educate people on Islam and these stupid practices, you will not promote any sort of reasoning, as it will simply highlight how ridiculous the clothing is in a modern world. Women are equal to men, period. No book of rules based on some unicorn riding deity who splits moons with his balls is going to convince anyone of anything.

Then educate people, I'm all for it. Education is by far the best means to solve oppression. That, and recognition that everyone deserves freedom.

Supporting one form of oppression to counter another form of oppression... is still oppression. That's how we ended up justifying locking up a bunch of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Yes, I support freedom, and that means allowing things that I may not like to exist. So long as an action does not cause harm, then I see no reason to restrict it. I am just as opposed to forcing women to wear it, as I am forcing them to not wear it.

[Deleted]

Like I said, if you don't know what a word means, feel free to look it up. If you want to try and declare an alternative definition, feel free to do so.

Does some stranger wearing a niqab "harm" you?

Again, you not understanding the difference between what "harm" means and what can be seen as harmful is totally on you, and your governments educational system.