Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[lucred]

If you are in a location where your identity must be confirmed, you cannot wear something that prevents the confirmation of your identity. This should be true pretty much anywhere... banks, schools, your workplace, etc. You should not be able to use religion as an excuse to get away with behavior that is against the rules. The teacher needs to know that the person being graded is the person taking the test, the teller need to know that the person withdrawing money is the person that owns the bank account etc.

[Deleted]

They don't wear it because of their religion

What gives you the authority to declare something not a part of their religion?

, they wear it as a uniform to show others they belong to a group that hates blacks.

Or they wear it to show their allegiance to their god - I'm trying to force you to be consistent in your principles.

Of course you would think that, that is exactly why I have you on ignore and why I should really learn to stop clicking that "show post" button.

Yeah you should read up on the Coptic Christians (in Egypt specifically), their women are effectively forced to wear Muslim garb, because if they don't, the majority population think its okay to rape, kidnap and forcibly convert them and 'marry' them.
So yeah, they wear it, so everyone knows they are not dirty heathens.

You do know that is how this thing came to be right? - If you wear the burka its wrong to do shit to you (because someone will make you pay for it) - If you don't, well, I think its called 'victim blaming'.

Banning it would only give them less freedom, not more.

Well no, because in practice they need to leave the home to do shit - Some men will be so 'religious' that they take over all chores, but most will just let them leave not wearing the Burka.

But I know you don't really give a fuck about it, just as long as you can "win" against Islam.

Yeah pretty much - Islam(ism) is mostly incompatible with the west, and if they don't want to change, well I think it should be made abundantly clear its our way or the highway.

But hey, less Muslims on the street. Isn't that exactly what you want?

No i want less fanatical death cultists in the west - I don't have a problem with Muslims who aren't.
Forcing your women folk to wear particular clothing is just a very good proxy for that shit.

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
Which article?

Article 34
naturalization
The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and
naturalization of refugees.

[Wells]

Well no, because in practice they need to leave the home to do shit - Some men will be so 'religious' that they take over all chores, but most will just let them leave not wearing the Burka.

You think that if you ban the burka the husbands who force their wives to wear them will just shrug and let them go without in public?

[Deleted]

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.

Finally. At least you are honest enough to acknowledge that bans of any kind when it comes to how people ought to behave and appear in the public spaces/places are wrong.
Thank fuck you are in the minority.

It has nothing to do with me, I rarely go outside of my countryside estate. It's a social and cultural issue. Legitimizing the most extreme standards in our relatively open societies will not lead it to becoming more open. Face covering rags will lead to excluded and self-isolated clusters. Honestly, have you ever read a single argument against burka and niqab? The authors I mentioned earlier would be a good start.

I don't. But it has been degraded and distorted by those who have little to no idea what liberty means and it's real life applications. A lot of people seem to confuse with it total permissiveness.

- - - Updated - - -

You think that if you ban the burka the husbands who force their wives to wear them will just shrug and let them go without in public?

I doubt it. But it will surely cause enough inconvinience to make them rethink it's usage. Those who won't never will. Well, fuck them.

On the other hand, it seems that your answer to combatting it is... enabling it.
Truly will liberate those poor souls who have to roleplay as Ringwraiths for the rest of their lives.

[Deleted]

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.


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


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.

And why is that? Why is it reasonable for one group to tell them what to wear because of security reasons, but not for others? As for the camera's, go and have a visit in London. Its not just in banks, camera's are everywhere there, and although i know that London is an extreme, the rest of the world is going there fast. Nobody really minds the camera's as long as they aren't in the showers/toilets. But they are in every store, every big building, government buildings and private buildings. Why do people not care that much about them? As long as they are not being filmed in inappropriate places they do not care because it keeps them relatively more safe then they would be without them.
The thing is, it is not inappropriate in any way to show your face, i would even argue that not showing your face is more inappropriate.

And how exactly do we know how much this happens? It is not like teachers could possibly check something like this without it becoming an incident because "he is targeting these kids because of religion".

So, you do not see any reason for people to ban something, except for when these people visit the banks, schools, private companies and government facilities? That is so incredibly arbitrary, either it should be okay for people to wear this everywhere, or it just doesn't fit in our society.

[Wells]

Finally. At least you are honest enough to acknowledge that bans of any kind when it comes to how people ought to behave and appear in the public spaces/places are wrong.

So long as their behavior doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

It has nothing to do with me, I rarely go outside of my countryside estate. It's a social and cultural issue. Legitimizing the most extreme standards in our relatively open societies will not lead it to becoming more open.

Its not an open society when you ban behaviors it doesn't approve of for no reason other than being different.

Face covering rags will lead to excluded and self-isolated clusters.

Cracking down on muslims will do it even faster.

I doubt it. But it will surely cause enough inconvinience to make them rethink it's usage. Those who won't never will. Well, fuck them.

Cracking down on the wives of abusive husbands to try to get the husbands to change is uniquely perverse.

.On the other hand, it seems that your answer to combatting it is... enabling it.

Nope, if a husband forces his wife to wear a face veil bring him up on domestic abuse charges. If a woman chooses to wear it then let her choose what she wears.

- - - Updated - - -

And why is that?

I answered that in the very first sentence of the post you quoted.

[Deleted]

And why is that?
-snipped-

The burqa ban is either global or it is not. It is inevitable that a woman who will be forced to take them off in banks, schools will inevitably come under the ''gaze of a male''.
Obviously that would nullify the purpose it supposedly has in the first place...

[Deleted]

So long as their behavior doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

Its not an open society when you ban behaviors it doesn't approve of for no reason other than being different.

Cracking down on muslims will do it even faster.


Cracking down on the wives of abusive husbands to try to get the husbands to change is uniquely perverse.

Nope, if a husband forces his wife to wear a face veil bring him up on domestic abuse charges. If a woman chooses to wear it then let her choose what she wears.

- - - Updated - - -



I answered that in the very first sentence of the post you quoted.

No you did no such thing, you said some platitude about how people wont accept camera's everywhere. But in reality, they do accept them everywhere, and for good reason. And if they really want to wear these clothings, nobody is saying that they can't wear them at home, just not in public. And forcing people to show their face in public just isn't a weird thing to ask in our society in this day of age.
Fact is, when you allow one of them "to dictate what they can and can not wear" because security reasons you can't claim that others that also have issues with security are wrong for having said security issues.

[Deleted]

So long as their behavior doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

Its not an open society when you ban behaviors it doesn't approve of for no reason other than being different.

Cracking down on muslims will do it even faster.


Cracking down on the wives of abusive husbands to try to get the husbands to change is uniquely perverse.

Nope, if a husband forces his wife to wear a face veil bring him up on domestic abuse charges. If a woman chooses to wear it then let her choose what she wears.

I answered that in the very first sentence of the post you quoted.

Once again, thank God we already have bans in place that some would claim infringe on their supposed liberties. I very much hope this stays this way forever. Burka and niqab in that list as well.

Its not an open society when you ban behaviors it doesn't approve of for no reason other than being different.

You do realize the implications of this stupidity?

Cracking down on muslims will do it even faster.

Oh please. Teeny tiny minority of Muslims wear those rags. Most of them don't even like them. Progressive and feminist muslims oppose them for obvious and good reasons.


Notice the pattern of Wahhabism and radical Islam there?
Sure, let's mainstream them here. Here to which people from those societies are trying to escape.

Cracking down on the wives of abusive husbands to try to get the husbands to change is uniquely perverse.

There is no other way around it. The choice is up to them. We set standards. And it this case, I think not including the most backward standards is a good thing. Get used to them or don't and pay the dues for not doing so.
Every society, has, does and will continue to do so. I don't care if you dislike it. That's the it works.

Nope, if a husband forces his wife to wear a face veil bring him up on domestic abuse charges. If a woman chooses to wear it then let her choose what she wears.

Yes, the woman who has been forced by her husband to wear it will come out and plead for help... sure.

Fuck this shit, I gotta prepare alts for Legion.
Bye.

[Deleted]

The burqa ban is either global or it is not. It is inevitable that a woman who will be forced to take them off in banks, schools will inevitably come under the ''gaze of a male''.
Obviously that would nullify the purpose it supposedly has in the first place...

What i find a better point is that it is just inconsistent as hell to claim that one person has valid security reasons but others with the same security reasons are somehow not valid. There is just no excuse to wear those things in the first place, it really doesn't fit in our society, the fact that even wells thinks its okay to ban them in certain places should be enough for anyone to understand this.

[Wells]

You do realize the implications of this stupidity?

This really sounds like debating in good faith.

Oh please. Teeny tiny minority of Muslims wear those rags. Most of them don't even like them. Progressive and feminist muslims oppose them for obvious and good reasons.

The number of people who share a particular brand of faith has no relevance in how acceptable it should be to infringe on such a practice. But if they are in fact such a small minority then surely society can handle them just fine right?

Yes, the woman who has been forced by her husband to wear it will come out and plead for help... sure.

Its more likely than the abusive letting up just because the state cracked down on face veils. If these women are being forced to wear a veil then all you're doing is criminalizing being a victim, and if they're not wearing face veils by force then stop telling women what they're allowed to wear in public maybe?

- - - Updated - - -

What i find a better point is that it is just inconsistent as hell to claim that one person has valid security reasons but others with the same security reasons are somehow not valid. There is just no excuse to wear those things in the first place, it really doesn't fit in our society, the fact that even wells thinks its okay to ban them in certain places should be enough for anyone to understand this.

Why? Different places have different security concerns, and a private organization banning face veils on their property isn't the same as the government banning them in public.

[Deleted]

This really sounds like debating in good faith.

The number of people who share a particular brand of faith has no relevance in how acceptable it should be to infringe on such a practice. But if they are in fact such a small minority then surely society can handle them just fine right?


Its more likely than the abusive letting up just because the state cracked down on face veils. If these women are being forced to wear a veil then all you're doing is criminalizing being a victim, and if they're not wearing face veils by force then stop telling women what they're allowed to wear in public maybe?

- - - Updated - - -



Why? Different places have different security concerns, and a private organization banning face veils on their property isn't the same as the government banning them in public.

The fact that they need banning at all only confirms that they have no place in our society to begin with. And most security concerns are exactly the same, specially when it comes to hiding identity. This goes for all public buildings, including government ones.

[Wells]

The fact that they need banning at all only confirms that they have no place in our society to begin with. And most security concerns are exactly the same, specially when it comes to hiding identity. This goes for all public buildings, including government ones.

I never said they need banning. Do you really think a bank has the same security concerns as some random street corner?

[Deleted]

You think that if you ban the burka the husbands who force their wives to wear them will just shrug and let them go without in public?

well the alternative will then be to do every single chore - Always go to the store, always take the kids to their shit, always, always.

[Wells]

well the alternative will then be to do every single chore - Always go to the store, always take the kids to their shit, always, always.

Or older children will be required to do those things. Trying to ban a specific exercise in domestic abuse as a way to stop domestic abusers is pretty silly.

[Deleted]

I never said they need banning. Do you really think a bank has the same security concerns as some random street corner?

So they can wear them in banks?? Oh no, they could not according to your last post, so yes, the are banned in certain places.
And are you suggesting that covering your face isn't the same as covering your face? Because, that is the exact same problem

[Wells]

So they can wear them in banks?? Oh no, they could not according to your last post, so yes, the are banned in certain places.
And are you suggesting that covering your face isn't the same as covering your face? Because, that is the exact same problem

Am I being trolled? This feels like being trolled. Banks have increased security risks compared to the general public. As such greater restrictions on personal freedom within the grounds of a bank are justified. You can favor open carry gun laws in public without favoring allowing open carry in a bank for instance. There's no double standard there.

[Deleted]

Go ask them why they wear it.
No, you are making up stuff; that is what you are doing.

No, I'm trying to explain to you that you are being inconsistent.

Or you could just ask them why they wear it.
But I guess making things up is a better discussion-strategy for you people.

We know its a security thing - You know there is this picture that goes around:

You know what happened between that and today? - Simplistically its 'Islam' - But in practice that is not true, no what happened was the wars - several of them continuously for the last decades - this degenerated law and order, and Voila, The Burka returns - Because that is the point of the garb - To protect women.

Or the kids will do it.

Only if you have an old enough Boy -

7% of our citizens is Muslim, I'd say it's perfectly compatible with the West.

Have you read the Quran? - And anyway, i amended that to Islam(ism) later precisely to delineate what is acceptable (personal faith) and what is not, Islam as an ideology.

Our way?

Our way is that people can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't break any laws.
That's why we have people getting plastic surgery to look like a cat or lizard.
That's why we have people getting every inch of their body tattoo'd.
What you ment to say is "My way or the highway" and that is never ever going to happen.

The struggle against Islam-ism is beginning, and i doubt it will end.

That part tells us the government has to facilitate the options in order to assimilate/naturalise. It says nothing about forcing people to integrate.
But hey, you have trouble reading. Who ever knew?

No see silly, They are to be assimilated - that's what it says - which means you are allowed to Force them too.

Sigh, I am done with your bullshit.

Really read up on the Koptic christians.

[Stelio Kontos]

I understand not allowing them in schools, government buildings, or places where security needs to see peoples' faces like malls and arenas.

But trying to extend that to some weird demand that Muslim women must never where them anywhere is extreme. So to keep Muslim men from dictating how women dress, you'll have European men dictating how they dress instead?

I don't like niqabs or burqas, but if a woman wants to wear them, and it's in her home or out and about doing errands, that's her business, not anyone else's.

This issue brings out an ugly blend of anti-religious, anti-immigrant, and anti-women sentiments in some people.

In southern European countries traditionally women often wear headscarves akin to hijab when going to church. What's next, telling these women it's "not European culture" and they have to stop doing so after more than a thousand years?

[Deleted]

Am I being trolled? This feels like being trolled. Banks have increased security risks compared to the general public. As such greater restrictions on personal freedom within the grounds of a bank are justified. You can favor open carry gun laws in public without favoring allowing open carry in a bank for instance. There's no double standard there.

Its just a clear double standard, the problem the banks have with these things is that you can't see someone's face, that is it. That is exactly the same problem it is everywhere. When the police is to verify their identity its all fair game for them to order them to take it off, but that is okay because "reasons". Fact still remains, it just doesn't fit in our society, that is why it should be forbidden.
Its okay if you think that they should be able to wear them everywhere, but don't act as if its okay to ban them in some places but not in others while they ban them for the exact same reason.