Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[Deleted]

We only have a rule against no clothes (or not enough), that is not even close to telling people what clothes to wear.

No that would be the Islamist.

It failed even more the moment it tried to compare it to the KKK.

The analogy was quite apt.

The KKK wears its clothes because they want to show everyone how much they hate blacks.

They are also religious you get that? -

Women wear a Burqa because it's traditional clothing for them,

Well i think they do it to show that they are not like those Kaffir untermenschen.

and yes, often because their husband tells them to.

Which is why the state should ban it.

And I will let you in on a little secret: Women that feel like they have to wear a burqa outside, aren't suddenly going to walk outside without one just because you guys pushed a ban. They will remain inside.

That is terrible - But what about the women who don't want to wear a burka and are now free not to wear a burka?

If you want women to stop wearing a Burqa you can only do that by showing them it's perfectly fine to not wear one.

I think that can quite easily be done by banning wearing the burka.

Banning it is just.. it's fucking retarded.

Yeah, only in your head.

It's also quite ironic to see the part of the political spectrum that is usually against government influence suddenly being totally okay with the government telling you what to wear.

It's also ironic that you fail to grasp your inherent double think here.
think about it, you are for banning some clothes too.

If integration apparently includes being forced to wear certain clothes than I cannot blame them for not wanting to integrate.

It helps if you understand what the hell you are talking about - they are NOT forced to wear certain clothing, they are banned from wearing a set of clothing.
Those are not the same thing.
As for integration, that's not optional - Read the refugee convention.

[Deleted]

A small number of women in a face veil is not a serious threat to security, not enough to justify restricting their liberty.

The security aspect to it, I don't care. It's a social and cultural issue. Also ethical, it seems to me.
We restrict liberty in countless ways already. I do not believe in the abolishment of laws that dictate public behaviour so I have no problems with this one either.
And it warms by heart that more and more Muslim thinkers are slowly coming out in the support of these bans.

The liberty argument is a diversion about the real issue here. Penetration of the most fanatical ''Islamic'' traditions in to our open society where they are poised to make claims on other issues, citing ''liberty'' (and seeing how driven some lefties are to permit the most extreme forms of religious ''liberties'', I see nothing that they - not talking about you - will stop at.).

Edit : take note that we are talking about Germany and Europe at large here. Not the US and it's norms.

[Wells]

People like https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Mohammad

Who try to stand up against the culture that almost had her killed or subjugated.

And her biggest adversaries are not only Islamist's , but the left. Who are to afraid to speak against Islam, cause then they might be
marked as a racist. Bashing her and labeling her is easier.

Why does she speak for "the left"?

[Deleted]

If you have the government making theological decisions where does that stop?

Except, it has nothing to do with theology in any way. Culture yes, religion, no. And no, no one has the "right" to wear face covering clothing, try going into a bank while wearing a helmet, or try taking an exam.
Its sooo easy to be "outraged" because "freedom", but it has nothing to do with it. This is about a normal clothing regulation, nothing against any religion.

[Zecora]

People like https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Mohammad

Who try to stand up against the culture that almost had her killed or subjugated.

And her biggest adversaries are not only Islamist's , but the left. Who are to afraid to speak against Islam, cause then they might be
marked as a racist. Bashing her and labeling her is easier.

Very cute how you dump "the left" in one big dumpster, as if somehow it is a monolithic single entety. Clever that, saves having to admit that there are as many views on the left as there is on the right, and as large a spectrum of people, good and bad.

[Jimusmc]

Germany doing it right. GG

[Wells]

The security aspect to it, I don't care. It's a social and cultural issue. Also ethical, it seems to me.
We restrict liberty in countless ways already. I do not believe in the abolishment of laws that dictate public behaviour so I have no problems with this one either.
And it warms by heart that more and more Muslim thinkers are slowly coming out in the support of these bans.

The liberty argument is a diversion about the real issue here. Penetration of the most fanatical ''Islamic'' traditions in to our open society where they are poised to make claims on other issues, citing ''liberty'' (and seeing how driven some lefties are to permit the most extreme forms of religious ''liberties'', I see nothing that they - not talking about you - will stop at.).

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to justify laws telling people what they're allowed to do down to details of clothing, because of fanatics. Look in the mirror buddy.

People should be left to do and live as they like unless you can demonstrate a serious secular threat to letting them do so. Child abuse? Direct risk to life and limb? Great, pass a law. Woman wearing something you don't like? Fuuuuucccckk oooooofff.

- - - Updated - - -

Except, it has nothing to do with theology in any way. Culture yes, religion, no. And no, no one has the "right" to wear face covering clothing, try going into a bank while wearing a helmet, or try taking an exam.
Its sooo easy to be "outraged" because "freedom", but it has nothing to do with it. This is about a normal clothing regulation, nothing against any religion.

I have no problem with a bank deciding as a matter of policy to not allow face coverings. I don't see how the existence of banks justifies greater bans on face veils.

[Deleted]

And no, no one has the "right" to wear face covering clothing, try going into a bank while wearing a helmet, or try taking an exam.

Exactly. The ban, it seems to me, is almost a necessity as they will try to abolish those rules under the guise of ''liberty'' and ''freedom of religion''.

This destruction of standards will not stop. You take one brick out, the entire structures collapses. Surely weakens, at the very least. And in that opening, some of the most vile, alien and foreign standards will try to take place.

[Wells]

Exactly. The ban, it seems to me, is almost a necessity as they will try to abolish those rules under the guise of ''liberty'' and ''freedom of religion''.

This destruction of standards will not stop. You take one brick out, the entire structures collapses. Surely weakens, at the very least. And in that opening, some of the most vile, alien and foreign standards will try to take place.

Is your society so frail that letting people dress as they like weakens its foundations?

[Deleted]

The foundations for Trump's campaign in white nationalism are pretty damn obvious.

No he is not.
He is a nativist, and as the majority of people are white, those positions are similar.
You may want to read up on his speeches about immigration not benefiting black people.

Why the media and the general public should be more concerned about it than communists endorsing Clinton is obvious to anyone without an agenda to push.

Even if its true, and Trump tomorrow said 'I'm the white identitarian candidate' - What's the fucking problem?
- You may want to have a look at the democratic party platform if identitarian politics is a problem for you.

[Fojos]

Why does she speak for "the left"?

You clearly don't read before you answer. She's being attacked by the left because she is fighting against honor culture (because your parasitic kind refuses to accept that honor culture is part of the arab world, not the western culture).

[Fojos]

Very cute how you dump "the left" in one big dumpster, as if somehow it is a monolithic single entety. Clever that, saves having to admit that there are as many views on the left as there is on the right, and as large a spectrum of people, good and bad.

You are right. The problem is a huge majority on the left has been abducted by these nutcases - or rather - their agenda. An agenda where lesbian feminists stand and scream "WE ARE HIZBOLLAH!!!" just to defend Islam when these monsters would execute the feminists.

[Wells]

You clearly don't read before you answer. She's being attacked by the left because she is fighting against honor culture (because your parasitic kind refuses to accept that honor culture is part of the arab world, not the western culture).

Oh, "parasitic", that's a good incentive to not ignore you.

[Deleted]

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to justify laws telling people what they're allowed to do down to details of clothing, because of fanatics. Look in the mirror buddy.

People should be left to do and live as they like unless you can demonstrate a serious secular threat to letting them do so. Child abuse? Direct risk to life and limb? Great, pass a law. Woman wearing something you don't like? Fuuuuucccckk oooooofff.

Grasping at straws. I have not said a word about banning everything down to clothing. Just niqab and burka. Which goes against everything we hold as common sense and more than that in the West.

We already dictate what we can wear and where. I see nothing wrong with including those rags in those lists.
And it is very good that more and more countries in Europe are seeking to ban these foreign rags, totally alien to our cultures.
So I guess - you fuuuuucccckk oooooofff?!

It is amazing how seemingly ''all for the liberty of everyone!'' Westerns are going so hard against whatever little is left of progressive work done by Muslim feminists such as Qasim Amin and Huda Shaarawi.
You seek to legitimize and mainstream the most oppresive, backwards norms. Amazing. Just amazing.

[Wells]

Grasping at straws. I have not said a word about banning everything down to clothing. Just niqab and burka. Which goes against everything we hold as common sense and more than that in the West.

We already dictate what we can wear and where. I see nothing wrong with including those rags in those lists.
And it is very good that more and more countries in Europe are seeking to ban these foreign rags, totally alien to our cultures.
So I guess - you fuuuuucccckk oooooofff?!

It is amazing how seemingly ''all for the liberty of everyone!'' Westerns are going so hard against whatever little is left of progressive work done by Muslim feminists such as Qasim Amin and Huda Shaarawi.
You seek to legitimize and mainstream the most oppresive, backwards norms. Amazing. Just amazing.

No, I seek to mainstream letting adults, even adults you don't like, do what they want with their lives unless you can show that doing so presents a serious and fairly direct threat to someone else's liberty.

A woman wearing a face veil is no more a threat to your liberty than a woman in a bikini is a threat to the liberty of a man in the middle eat.

[Deleted]

Just so we're clear here, you're trying to justify laws telling people what they're allowed to do down to details of clothing, because of fanatics. Look in the mirror buddy.

People should be left to do and live as they like unless you can demonstrate a serious secular threat to letting them do so. Child abuse? Direct risk to life and limb? Great, pass a law. Woman wearing something you don't like? Fuuuuucccckk oooooofff.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no problem with a bank deciding as a matter of policy to not allow face coverings. I don't see how the existence of banks justifies greater bans on face veils.

So, its okay in banks? Are you implying that Muslim woman can't enter the bank then? I'm asking because it seems rather arbitrary that you can only tell those woman what to wear in certain places..
And what about schools? It seems to me that cheating becomes much more easy if no one can identify you during exams or road call.
And this is not even mentioning the fact that our western society has certain cultural rules that involve the shaking of hands and seeing each others face. I'm not saying that they should not be able to wear a scarf or anything like that, but, not showing your face is just a no no in western culture. And as this has nothing, at all, to do with religion but rather with culture, i see no problem at all to not allow something face covering in public places.

[Fojos]

Oh, "parasitic", that's a good incentive to not ignore you.

If you can give me an example of a marxist left not living on welfare or state somehow, sure, I might reconsider the position.

[Wells]

So, its okay in banks? Are you implying that Muslim woman can't enter the bank then? I'm asking because it seems rather arbitrary that you can only tell those woman what to wear in certain places..

In so far as they have security concerns in excess of the concerns of general society and are businesses that can set their own policies on their private property? Sure.

Just because something is reasonable for banks doesn't mean its reasonable for the rest of society. After all, no one has a problem with cameras in a bank, but if I tried to use that as a justification for cameras watching us everywhere you'd never go for it.

And what about schools? It seems to me that cheating becomes much more easy if no one can identify you during exams or road call.

Is this a thing that's actually happened? Lots of students pretending to be that girl in class who wears a nijab?

And this is not even mentioning the fact that our western society has certain cultural rules that involve the shaking of hands and seeing each others face. I'm not saying that they should not be able to wear a scarf or anything like that, but, not showing your face is just a no no in western culture. And as this has nothing, at all, to do with religion but rather with culture, i see no problem at all to not allow something face covering in public places.

All you've described here is something that is viewed as rude. I don't see any reason to think this is something that justifies a law telling these women what they can't wear.

[Deleted]

No, I seek to mainstream letting adults, even adults you don't like, do what they want with their lives unless you can show that doing so presents a serious and fairly direct threat to someone else's liberty.

A woman wearing a face veil is no more a threat to your liberty than a woman in a bikini is a threat to the liberty of a man in the middle eat.

We - in Europe - have already banned things (clothing and it's non/-useage) that are not a direct and serious threat to someone else's liberty. I don't see how you can differentiate between them and this ban which hopefully will remain in place. You sweep aside, completely ignore, the ethical and social implications of these two rags.

Once again, you ignore the other points I made. Not surprising. Liberty is same kind of one-note sound as cuck from the Trumpeteers these days.

[Wells]

We have already banned things (clothing and it's non/-useage) that are not a direct and serious theat to someone else's liberty. I don't see how you can differentiate between them and this ban which hopefully will remain in place.

Once again, you ignore the other points I made. Not surprising. Liberty is same kind of one-note sound as cuck from the Trumpeteers these days.

And I think those laws are wrong. I didn't ignore anything, I addressed the greater point, that you boil down to telling people what they're allowed to wear purely based on what you like people wearing. Let adults be adults.

Its fascinating though that you view "liberty" as equivalent to "cuck" in value though.