Germany bans muslim teen from wearing niqab

[Deleted]

I don't mind people thinking it's rude, people not wanting to talk to people covering their face for cultural reasons etc. But you shouldn't make anything illegal for cultural reasons.

It is not only culture, we want to see peoples faces for a reason. It really helps with communicating and if it is disturbing a class in anyway i think it is more then reasonable to not allow it.
And why should you not make anything illegal for cultural reasons? I did not know this was a rule, i think it is very reasonable to limit some things that clash with our culture. Like keeping your parents after they have died is a cultural thing in some places, but i would not like to see that happening here.

- - - Updated - - -

But the OP made it more than that, by also pushing to ban hijabs and other religious wear. He's not pushing the issue for face coverings (which is still ridiculous), he's pushing it out of bigotry.

- - - Updated - - -



It's nice to know you have such a hatred of freedom.

It was about a niqab, not a nijab. And you where addressing me, not OP, that was not what i was on about.

[Allatar]

Most of Europe are not Christian countries, think Ireland is, and maybe Spain from the top of my head, and Poland?? But most countries are secular.

Italy too. Plus you also have the opposite end of the spectrum as well with France which has very specific laws separating the church and the state, is a completely secular country and the public wearing of full face veils is illegal.

[Sama-81]

Yes it is. It is a denial of individual liberty.

You can argue whether it is a good or bad thing, but it is still oppressive, a denial of individual liberty.

It is nonsenical bullshit to pretend a restriction on individual liberty is somehow acts in opposition to oppression.

While you have a point, your example also perfectly illustrates how arguing that a ban on niqabs in schools is oppressive due to it denying individual liberties, means absolutely nothing what-so-ever in practice and is a complete non-argument in the case of a specific article of clothing, since the concept is already in use, allowed and has incredibly strong popular support (as can readily be seen in whether or not people should be allowed to be naked in school). The only angle there is rather how much problems that will arise due to a lack of a ban, and their importance in relation to the "infraction" of individual liberty. At least here we have already experienced concrete and one-sided issues, at least on university level, so the proposition of a ban is highly understandable, whether it would go through or not.

[Deleted]

Italy too. Plus you also have the opposite end of the spectrum as well with France which has very specific laws separating the church and the state, is a completely secular country and the public wearing of full face veils is illegal.

Exactly, there is a pretty broad spectrum, but it is in no way "an all Christian culture" by any means. This is what Themius was hinting at trying to build a strawman.

[Machismo]

You are making a strawman out of my position.
My position is that a refugee is Obliged, to assimilate - That means if the new country feels like banning cultural practices, of any kind, that they hold dear it's:
Tough luck, life ain't fair.
The receiving state has zero obligation, and the refugee zero rights to maintain their fucking culture - It says so in the fucking Geneva convention.

Like I said, you clearly have an aversion to freedom. The existence of a law is never a justification for it. Should we have simply said "tough titty" to slaves? Hell no.

[tankbug]

Well no - You are entitled to asylum.
That means you are entitled to continue being alive, and to be treated just like everyone else there.
If you don't like that, tough luck, life ain't fair.

You would never raise your voice against draconian laws, which only purpose, from your point of view, is to force you to let go all of what you know and belive in ? Again, I'm not saying you will not attempt to live with it.

[Machismo]

It is not only culture, we want to see peoples faces for a reason. It really helps with communicating and if it is disturbing a class in anyway i think it is more then reasonable to not allow it.
And why should you not make anything illegal for cultural reasons? I did not know this was a rule, i think it is very reasonable to limit some things that clash with our culture. Like keeping your parents after they have died is a cultural thing in some places, but i would not like to see that happening here.

- - - Updated - - -



It was about a niqab, not a nijab. And you where addressing me, not OP, that was not what i was on about.

The OP made it about hijabs. Restricting any action which does not create a victim is a net reduction in freedom. The justifications for such laws are weak.

Now, for any private business, they can restrict whatever they like. Freedom is awesome.

[Algoma0]

It is not only culture, we want to see peoples faces for a reason. It really helps with communicating and if it is disturbing a class in anyway i think it is more then reasonable to not allow it.
And why should you not make anything illegal for cultural reasons? I did not know this was a rule, i think it is very reasonable to limit some things that clash with our culture. Like keeping your parents after they have died is a cultural thing in some places, but i would not like to see that happening here.

I agree that making niqab's illegal in school is defendable. I don't think "it's not our culture" is a valid argument in that defense. Nothing should be legal because it is "in our culture" and vice-versa.

[lonely zergling]

Yeah you said that and everyone ignored because it is fucking stupid. Professions and public institutions have dress codes-for pragmatic reasons, exceptions are always made for reasons of personal faith and religous freedom.

Exceptions because of religion/faith are racist and discriminatory.

Btw. you wont ever see a woman with niqab who just casually walks into a bank for obvious reasons .

[Sama-81]

Like I said, you clearly have an aversion to freedom. The existence of a law is never a justification for it. Should we have simply said "tough titty" to slaves? Hell no.

Surely you understand how utterly ridiculous your argument becomes, when you mix the individual laws of countries and how they choose to handle assimilation, with slavery and the breaking of human rights? The difference of the two concepts is objectively enormous, no matter the individual stance. You might feel that both boils down to "freedom is freedom", but that is, in that case, merely a personal opinion with no more substance nor merit than the opposite position holds.

[Deleted]

The OP made it about hijabs. Restricting any action which does not create a victim is a net reduction in freedom. The justifications for such laws are weak.

Now, for any private business, they can restrict whatever they like. Freedom is awesome.

The OP article is about niqabs, and i was going on about that, you just tried to swoop in and yell "freedom" for some reason. Luckily is not everyone so blinded by the word "freedom" as some posters here.
Next time when you go to a bank for something, please go and wear a helmet or a rubber mask while visiting the bank. There are reasons why we want to see peoples face, even in "freedomland".

[Dundebuns]

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.

I don't see how it will alienate muslims as they're still allowed to freely practice their religion, have allowances to pray 5 times a day and wear head scarves. I like head scarves. They can be quite fashionable and pretty. I think allowing people to walk around in a full body veil will cause more mistrust and animosity, because we aren't used to such clothing because it is not part of our culture.

This may be a bit strawman, but what do you think of the opposite, of women not being allowed to wear anything even remotely revealing in an Islamic country?

[Deleted]

The only angle there is rather how much problems that will arise due to a lack of a ban, and their importance in relation to the "infraction" of individual liberty.

It won't have any practical impact on terrorism. It will however feed a sense of persecution and victimhood amongst muslims likely resulting in more terror attacks, which will be followed by far right violence feeding a cycle of violence. I see no upside. Plus you'll set an unfavourable precedent where Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses, Orthodox Jews won't be able to wear their silly hats, over an issue of no practical importance.

No one cared about this issue till it became a stick to beat muslims with.

[Deleted]

I agree that making niqab's illegal in school is defendable. I don't think "it's not our culture" is a valid argument in that defense. Nothing should be legal because it is "in our culture" and vice-versa.

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.

[lonely zergling]

It won't have any practical impact on terrorism. It will however feed a sense of persecution and victimhood amongst muslims likely resulting in more terror attacks, which will be followed by far right violence feeding a cycle of violence. I see no upside. Plus you'll set an unfavourable precedent where Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses, Orthodox Jews won't be able to wear their silly hats, over an issue of no practical importance.

No one cared about this issue till it became a stick to beat muslims with.

A full body veil (niqab/burqa) is the same as a christian cross or a jewish kippah or even a moslem hijab now?

[Deleted]

I don't see how it will alienate muslims as they're still allowed to freely practice their religion, have allowances to pray 5 times a day and wear head scarves. I like head scarves. They can be quite fashionable and pretty. I think allowing people to walk around in a full body veil will cause more mistrust and animosity, because we aren't used to such clothing because it is not part of our culture.

This may be a bit strawman, but what do you think of the opposite, of women not being allowed to wear anything even remotely revealing in an Islamic country?

On an aesthetic level I agree with you. Though, many western muslims do it it is pure haram-an attractive arab girl with a colourful headscarf and her highlights visible is certainly going to attract male attention. No bad thing obviously, but it kind of defeats the object of the whole excercise.

I'm opposed unequivocally to restrictions on dress in muslim or any other countries. If people want to walk around naked that would be fine with me as long as they don't wave their junk in my face.

- - - Updated - - -

A full body veil (niqab/burqa) is the same as a christian cross or a jewish kippah or even a moslem hijab now?

Orthodox Jews look way weirder to me than most muslims do. What is to stop Muslims dressing up as Jews and putting bombs under their hats?

The cross has been banned by some corporations. Unless their are health and safety issues (eg necklace being caught in machinery) I find that oppressive. This veil ban will encourage this.

[Wildtree]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Germany is breaking her First Amendment rights.

We have no amendments.
We've articles.
And the Articles corresponding this circumstance were posted...
Article 2 and 4.

In summary of those 2 articles, one can describe German life based on its legal principle just fine and easy..
You have every personal right you can possibly imagine, incl human rights anchored in the constitution.
BUT..
Your personal right and space ends at the very doorstep of mine. Where my rights begin, where my space begins, your personal rights are obsolete.
Consequently... You have a right to freedom of religion. But you don't have a right to shove it into my face. It's your problem to figure out how to do that.

Further more, to this case at hand now, is the existence of criminal code that's to be considered.
Germany has, what's called "Vermummungsverbot" laws. Means, it prohibits people from wearing any form of face coverings.Now, that intentionally only applies to demonstrations/protests, to serve for identification of possible criminals who aren't just demonstrating..
But the principle of that law, and its intentions, are applicable to such case as the one at hand.
Imo, for all the country needs would be to fine tune that disguise law, and expand its text.
I'm afraid however - otherwise we wouldn't be Germans - that the whole thing drags on and on, and we end up with another 200 pages codes and legislation about when, how, and why to wear or not, a niqab.

[lonely zergling]

Orthodox Jews look way weirder to me than most muslims do. What is to stop Muslims dressing up as Jews and putting bombs under their hats?

The cross has been banned by some corporations. Unless their are health and safety issues (eg necklace being caught in machinery) I find that oppressive. This veil ban will encourage this.

First what you think looks weirder is irrelevant. Not much space under a kippah btw its a small piece of cloth.

Corporations should have the right to set the dress code, if the dress code says no religious symbols then its ok, you are free to work for another company. There even is a case of a muslim woman working at christian hospital where they banned her from wearing a Hijab at work. Deal with it.

[Sama-81]

It won't have any practical impact on terrorism. It will however feed a sense of persecution and victimhood amongst muslims likely resulting in more terror attacks, which will be followed by far right violence feeding a cycle of violence. I see no upside. Plus you'll set an unfavourable precedent where Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses, Orthodox Jews won't be able to wear their silly hats, over an issue of no practical importance.

No one cared about this issue till it became a stick to beat muslims with.

With experienced issues, I was rather talking about the difficulty to identify the wearer, something that has already been used for example to cheat on university exams. Which not only make the issue completely dissimilar to for example wearing crosses, but is also what started the whole banning debate in the first place, at least in my circles (perhaps less so in general). One also ought to acknowledge that banning face-covering garments would not cause much outrage, as those particular garments are quite rare indeed (at least here), and aren't more religiously accurate in regards to muslims than more veil-like garments are. Far too small a matter to cause much outrage nor give credence to the far right, in other words.

[primalmatter]

Its a decent start but they really should be doing more to make Islam feel as unwelcome as possible.