Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[The Penguin]

You don't really beleive that, you're just using that reason to hide your bigotry.

Stop being intolerant of others views. Your not fooling anyone with your sad reliance on calling someone a bigot wrongly.

I fully believe hiding one's features is a significant security risk, and that is the keyword here. Security risk.

What does not apply is your childish and infantile need to rely on a person's ethnicity, out of some vain and frankly bigoted belief that evoking it gives you some moral high-ground, which for the record it does not. All it shows is that you have no argument and are a racist of the worst caliber, because all that you want to do is apply the person's skin color to this matter as surely as other bigots did in the Civil War era.

Stop evoking it where it doesn't apply and stop being a racist Bapestar. Your as bad as every other boy who cried wolf, or bigot in this case.

Make a real counter argument or get out.

[May90]

It's simple.

If it's a security risk you shouldn't be allowed to do it in public places. Don't like it, cope with it and comply. Or leave the Country.

Everything is security risk!

[dr2022]

Stop being intolerant of others views. Your not fooling anyone with your sad reliance on calling someone a bigot wrongly.

I fully believe hiding one's features is a significant security risk, and that is the keyword here. Security risk.

What does not apply is your childish and infantile need to rely on a person's ethnicity, out of some vain and frankly bigoted belief that evoking it gives you some moral high-ground, which for the record it does not. All it shows is that you have no argument and are a racist of the worst caliber, because all that you want to do is apply the person's skin color to this matter as surely as other bigots did in the Civil War era.

Stop evoking it where it doesn't apply and stop being a racist Bapestar. Your as bad as every other boy who cried wolf, or bigot in this case.

Make a real counter argument or get out.

So, should Halloween be banned then? you know, since people hide their identities at that time. Just because a potential problem might arsie from something doesn't it is a basis for a ban. Unwanted pregrancy and STD's are a potential risk from having sex. Should we ban sex then?

[lonely zergling]

So, should Halloween be banned then? you know, since people hide their identities at that time. Just because a potential problem might arsie from something doesn't it is a basis for a ban. Unwanted pregrancy and STD's are a potential risk from having sex. Should we ban sex then?

Halloween/Carnival costumes that conceal your face are already not allowed in many (most) stores (security risk, cant identify you if something bad happens) and you wont be allowed to sit in school with your face concealment on for very long as a dude without the "religion card" trust me .

[Tackhisis]

It is sad that it is an adult school; if she were a teenager, her schoolmates could beat some sense into her, at least. It would be ironic if that sack on her head would prevented her from identifying her attackers somehow :P

[Bapestar]

Stop being intolerant of others views. Your not fooling anyone with your sad reliance on calling someone a bigot wrongly.

I fully believe hiding one's features is a significant security risk, and that is the keyword here. Security risk.

What does not apply is your childish and infantile need to rely on a person's ethnicity, out of some vain and frankly bigoted belief that evoking it gives you some moral high-ground, which for the record it does not. All it shows is that you have no argument and are a racist of the worst caliber, because all that you want to do is apply the person's skin color to this matter as surely as other bigots did in the Civil War era.

Stop evoking it where it doesn't apply and stop being a racist Bapestar. Your as bad as every other boy who cried wolf, or bigot in this case.

Make a real counter argument or get out.

You may not be a bigot, but you are sounding like one. I don't think it gives me some moral high-ground at all. There is a flaw in your security risk argument, as pointed out by the other posters. If you actually beleive it is a security risk, then that means you should be against many other things as well.

[The Penguin]

So, should Halloween be banned then? you know, since people hide their identities at that time. Just because a potential problem might arsie from something doesn't it is a basis for a ban. Unwanted pregrancy and STD's are a potential risk from having sex. Should we ban sex then?

Halloween is Voluntary. Not above requirements for costumes when security is an issue, as some places do.

You may not be a bigot, but you are sounding like one. I don't think it gives me some moral high-ground at all. There is a flaw in your security risk argument, as pointed out by the other posters. If you actually beleive it is a security risk, then that means you should be against many other things as well.

Quite so. Hence the Halloween stance. Now if this was a demand to remove a head-scarf, Pentacle, Cross, <insert religious expression that is not completely enshrouding or conceals entire identity> or whatever have you I'd be very against it, because such things are not security risks. The Niqab however seems logical as it can poise a security risk. Someone else could even be taking the tests for said person on one day defeating the purpose of the schooling.

[willtron]

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

And national security and security of the people comes before religious expression, especially those of immigrants.

[Tackhisis]

promoting the violence against women because they wear stuff you don't like.

There is two ways of teaching people: by words and by beating. If a person does not realize that s/he should wear what normal people wear, and doesn't listen to words, there are not much alternatives left.

[Wells]

There is two ways of teaching people: by words and by beating. If a person does not realize that s/he should wear what normal people wear, and doesn't listen to words, there are not much alternatives left.

What the fuck is it to you what people wear?

[Wells]

kind of like your ilk when it comes to opinions.

derp

Approved clothing, or else he and his buddies will beat you up.

Its for their own good really.

[Deleted]

So where exactly do I want to beat you up for your opinion?

political violence is endemic on the left.

And really..
Is that the best response you can come up with?
Are you really going to defend a guy that just literally said to beat up people?

No the best response would be to say that you are for the same sort of restrictions on clothing, you are just targeting a different group.

[Wells]

political violence is endemic on the left.

Oh get off it. Every part of the political spectrum has people who will commit violence.

[Deleted]

Niqab is a Wahabi rag. There is no call in the Quran for women to cover their faces. It is not Islamic.

More than that, read this.

The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa —whether the garment covers "only" the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a "ban." To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another.

On the door of my bank in Washington, D.C., is a printed notice politely requesting me to remove any form of facial concealment before I enter the premises. The notice doesn't bore me or weary me by explaining its reasoning: A person barging through those doors with any sort of mask would incur the right and proper presumption of guilt. This presumption should operate in the rest of society. I would indignantly refuse to have any dealings with a nurse or doctor or teacher who hid his or her face, let alone a tax inspector or customs official. Where would we be without sayings like "What have you got to hide?" or "You dare not show your face"?

Ah, but the particular and special demand to consider the veil and the burqa as an exemption applies only to women. And it also applies only to religious practice (and, unless we foolishly pretend otherwise, only to one religious practice). This at once tells you all you need to know: Society is being asked to abandon an immemorial tradition of equality and openness in order to gratify one faith, one faith that has a very questionable record in respect of females.

Let me ask a simple question to the pseudoliberals who take a soft line on the veil and the burqa. What about the Ku Klux Klan? Notorious for its hooded style and its reactionary history, this gang is and always was dedicated to upholding Protestant and Anglo-Saxon purity. I do not deny the right of the KKK to take this faith-based view, which is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I might even go so far as to say that, at a rally protected by police, they could lawfully hide their nasty faces. But I am not going to have a hooded man or woman teach my children, or push their way into the bank ahead of me, or drive my taxi or bus, and there will never be a law that says I have to.

There are lesser objections to the covered face or the all-covering cloak. The latter has often been used by male criminals—not just religious terrorists but common thugs—to conceal themselves and make an escape. It has also been used to conceal horrible injuries inflicted on abused females. It is incompatible—because of its effect on peripheral vision—with activities such as driving a car or negotiating traffic. This removes it from the sphere of private decision-making and makes it a danger to others, as well as an offense to the ordinary democratic civility that depends on phrases like "Nice to see you."

It might be objected that in some Muslim societies women are not allowed to drive in the first place. But that would absolutely emphasize my second point. All the above criticisms would be valid if Muslim women were as passionately committed to wearing a burqa as a male Klansman is committed to donning a pointy-headed white shroud. But, in fact, we have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way. Mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honor-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing that is mandated by their menfolk. This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states? The burqa and the veil, surely, are the most aggressive sign of a refusal to integrate or accommodate. Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair, and I defy anybody to find any authority in the Quran for the concealment of the face.

Not that it would matter in the least if the Quran said otherwise. Religion is the worst possible excuse for any exception to the common law. Mormons may not have polygamous marriage, female circumcision is a federal crime in this country, and in some states Christian Scientists face prosecution if they neglect their children by denying them medical care. Do we dare lecture the French for declaring simply that all citizens and residents, whatever their confessional allegiance, must be able to recognize one another in the clearest sense of that universal term?

So it's really quite simple. My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine. Next but not least comes the right of women to show their faces, which easily trumps the right of their male relatives or their male imams to decide otherwise. The law must be decisively on the side of transparency. The French are striking a blow not just for liberty and equality and fraternity, but for sorority too.

Source.

[Azgraal]

Any sort of garment that covers your face and hides your identity has no place in a modern western society.

Your religious freedom < the security of everyone else around you.

- - - Updated - - -

Kek.
/10 char.

Thankfuly you always respond with such clear real words to back your position.

[Wells]

I think there are too many people placing security as inherently more valuable than (someone else's) personal liberty. There's a good chance personal bias is playing into this for a lot of people, but either way I don't see any security concern so great as to necessitate the infringement being presented.

[Deleted]

Just as telling people that they are not allowed to wear certain clothes has no place in a modern western society.

And it is not permissible to wear no clothing at all. We have, de facto, restrictions on how people can appear in the public.

I see nothing wrong and the article I linked explains it in a nice manner why banning these rags is fine.
They are not Islamic. And even if they were, I oppose any concealment of face in the public unless it is some sort of temporary public event (parade, festival etc.).

And I think Hitch's argument about the integration is entirely valid. By going so hard, so hard against what we think ought to happen in the public is as a matter of fact, demonstration of unwillingless to intergrate and eventually, hopefully assimilate.

[Deleted]

Oh get off it. Every part of the political spectrum has people who will commit violence.

yeah but the state, the media, and people in general seem to care more about the right's violence.
Which is why you have such silly instances as Trump being asked to denounce David Duke and the KKK by proxy - the KKK killed what 3-4000 people?
At the same time, the communist party of America supports Clinton - Communism, 90-95 million dead.
Or just take a look at the violence directed at trump supporters.
Find me a single beat up person at a Clinton rally.

[Flurryfang]

Makes sense. Its hard to make any connection to a person, if they are hiding their facial expressions with a headwear. This is the same reason why people arent allowed to wear hats, hoods or other head garments in puplic schools. It is hard for a teacher to establish a connection to a student if they are hiding behind clothes.

So this is a good thing. Also, YEAH! Daneman is banned! So happy to stop seeing his stuff being plastered up here

[Azgraal]

Just as telling people that they are not allowed to wear certain clothes has no place in a modern western society.

How many people in Germany have died because someone wore a Niqab?
Wait, I get it, it's about the feeling of security.
And we all know that feelings are just as important as facts!


The moment you felt the need to rush in and start yelling random stuff to draw away the attention from the fact that he just said people should be beaten up for not wearing the correct kind of clothing.

Try going to a bank or a public building and refuse to remove your bike helmet. See how that works out for you.

And don't even try to say riding apparel is not the same as religious beliefs, things are as important as we want them to be. That's why we "allow" these religions to cripple our humankind and future.