Burka in Germany: Interior minister calls for curbs

[Gerald]

The German Interior Minister, Thomas de Maiziere, has called for a partial ban on the burka, a day after saying a full ban might not be constitutional.
He said the burka did not fit in with Germany's open society and showing the face was essential to social cohesion.
"We call on everyone to show their face," he said.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37130050


Well,this full veil is one thing, more country will intend.:hmmm:



Note: 19-08-16

[STEED]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/BIJHI/not-this-one-again/image.gif?w=400&c=1

[Aktungbby]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37130050


Well,this full veil is one thing, more country will intend.:hmmm:



Note: 19-08-16
Considering the 20th century with Nacht und Nebel" Teutonic Night and Fog; ironic how this 'thinly veiled' argument :O: amounts to a refreshing 180 turn of 'open society' perspective.:hmmm: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007465 (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007465) Of course even Germany might make an exception for a beau Sabreur likely to bring home the bronze bacon with a saber::arrgh!:http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/08/APTOPIX-Rio-Olympics-_Horo1-e1470703771810-635x357.jpg (http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/08/APTOPIX-Rio-Olympics-_Horo1-e1470703771810.jpg) <A moment she’ll never forget. Ibtihaj Muhammad, first to wear a hajib at the Olympics, won her first Olympic medal at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Saturday, August 13...Women can wear what they want! Anything else is an ISIS dress-code thing...what were against supposedly:hmmm: https://www.rt.com/news/355794-burqas-beards-celebration-manbij/ (https://www.rt.com/news/355794-burqas-beards-celebration-manbij/)

[Skybird]

This is the by far most competent and well-thought out comment on the problem that I have read in German since many years. The author, Birgit Kelle, is a controversial figure here in Germany - especially feminists and political correctness Nazis hate her like the plague, but I have learned to carefully listen when she takes the word or writes about an issue. This women is really smart, and fearless, and minds no numerical superiority of her enemies. I have learned to have quite some respect for her. Her thinking is logical and her reason is straight.

To my surprise I learned she is against a Burkha ban, a ban that before I had supported and demanded, but since it is Birgit Kelle, I read it nevertheless - and she convinced me in the first run. Her arguments are correct, and strong. Shame on me that it did not come to my mind all by myself - I was a lazy, uncaring thinker there.

Basically she argues that this debate is just about the tip of the iceberg of problems only, allowing easy distraction from the huge ocean of suppression of and violence against women in Muslim households that nobody cares to mention, to address, and to tackle.

http://www.focus.de/politik/experten/bkelle/burkaverbot-warum-wir-es-ertragen-muessen-dass-frauen-sich-selbst-schaden_id_5834191.html

As I told you, it is in German.

P.S. Personally I dislike the view of burkhas in public, and the sight makes me aggressive. I ignore them and treat them as empty air, and reject any social interaction even if they would address me directly, which has happened once. In official and state institutions, burkhas however must be banned, they are a sign for refusing integration and of religious discrimination of women, and a state labelling itself as "secular" cannot tolerate being represented by such - hm, persons? Neuters? Whatever it is under a burkha. But politicians act quite cowardly here, even the law now has been dramatically watered down. The debate gets also abused by Islamophobe lobbies using it as a weapon to test Western socieity once again ion how far they can be opushed back to bow to Muslims special demands.

The books to read on this matter, the role of women in Islam, are both by Hans-Peter Raddatz: Allahs Schleier. Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen, and Allahs Frauen. Djihad zwischen Schariah und Demokratie. - Islamophiles will not like it one bit. I know them both, of course. They drowned in the flood we had two year ago, however...

[Gerald]

But I am happy to take the advice of the rapporteur on this point.

[Oberon]

I can see the temptation but it's a step down a slippery slope, but I think out of all the traditional Islamic garb, the Burqa is the most problematic one because of its all covering appearance. In short it's a bit of a security risk, much in the same way that you can't wear a motorcycle helmet into a petrol station kiosk or shopping store.
Something like a Hijab or Khimar is a much better alternative, and if you are going to ban the Burqa then women should be encouraged to use them as an alternative if at all possible. However, it's a problematic situation as it stands on civil liberties, is this another situation where a society is giving up liberty for security? :hmmm:

[mapuc]

Here is a real life story

This was told by a former security person who had been working at some Airport as some kind of security

A person entered the gate and the authorities asked this person to show that she was the person in the picture. She refuse and said according to the law of Islam she couldn't

Then she was taken to some room where there was two female police officer and again she refused. They called an Iman who said, she had to, as long there are not male person in the room.

I can't remember all of it, only that it was a man.

Markus

[Skybird]

@Oberon,
And there you already have gone into the trap. The Burkha is not the issue - the mindset behind it making women wearing it, the sexual repression at home pushing them into that role - that is the problem. Where are your mentioned civil liberties there? Equality of men and women, in your societies at least? Equality before the law? No child marriages? Do you think this sexual discrimination comes to an end just because Burkhas get banned - or replaced with a Hijab or an al-Amira? ;)

Like I say so often, the mindset, the content, the attitude of Islam is the problem. And that does not get tackled by banning certain clothing, or replacing clothing, or issuing a paper with an official stamp on it. The mindset stays to be there, in this case based on both patriarchalic cultural tradition as well as religious demands of Islamic ideology.

[Betonov]

It's fair.
I'm guessing laws in Germany are similar to ours and a biker has to remove a helmet when entering a public place like a store or gas station, I have to remove sunglasses, people are not allowed wearing masks inside stores during Karneval....

This is just the German minister telling there will be no special privilige on account of religion.

[Oberon]

It would certainly help if some kind of religious authority could put down a hard rule about when a woman with a Burqa could be checked for ID purposes. If there were no men present would probably be a good rule of thumb to use, after all, the Burqa is designed to place a shield between a woman and a man of sexual age. So if a heterosexual woman or two were to be present then it should be fine to remove the Burqa for a security check.

[Skybird]

It would certainly help if some kind of religious authority could put down a hard rule about when a woman with a Burqa could be checked for ID purposes. If there were no men present would probably be a good rule of thumb to use, after all, the Burqa is designed to place a shield between a woman and a man of sexual age.
The law of our Western lands have to be the standard and rule here. The only one.

No special deals, no parallel laws, no relgiously motivated parallel justice.

If they want it like you described, they have to leave and go back to any of those many countries where their ways are not only not controversial, but are in conformity with local cultural habits and laws. I care little for what they do in Saudi Arabia or Iran. But Saudi or Iranian rules used for legislation in Western nations - that is something I do not tolerate. "My house, my rules. You comply, or you leave. Period."

[Onkel Neal]

I can see the temptation but it's a step down a slippery slope, but I think out of all the traditional Islamic garb, the Burqa is the most problematic one because of its all covering appearance. In short it's a bit of a security risk, much in the same way that you can't wear a motorcycle helmet into a petrol station kiosk or shopping store.
Something like a Hijab or Khimar is a much better alternative, and if you are going to ban the Burqa then women should be encouraged to use them as an alternative if at all possible. However, it's a problematic situation as it stands on civil liberties, is this another situation where a society is giving up liberty for security? :hmmm:


Are you sure one cannot wear their MC helmet in a petrol station? Maybe it's different in the Uk but here we do it all the time. Of course, not for crazy religious reasons, but just to save time taking it off and on.

[Oberon]

@Oberon,
And there you already have gone into the trap. The Burkha is not the issue - the mindset behind it making women wearing it, the sexual repression at home pushing them into that role - that is the problem. Where are your mentioned civil liberties there? Equality of men and women, in your societies at least? Equality before the law? No child marriages? Do you think this sexual discrimination comes to an end just because Burkhas get banned - or replaced with a Hijab or an al-Amira? ;)

Like I say so often, the mindset, the content, the attitude of Islam is the problem. And that does not get tackled by banning certain clothing, or replacing clothing, or issuing a paper with an official stamp on it. The mindset stays to be there, in this case based on both patriarchalic cultural tradition as well as religious demands of Islamic ideology.

But is that what is being debated here? Or is it for security reasons?
If it is not for security reasons then is it the matter of the state to decide what takes place in someones household? Start with the Burqa because its a symbol of oppression, but then what about subversive attitudes on the internet? People who call for the downfall of governments on internet forums perhaps?
Oh, you may say strawman and say I'm shifting the arguement, that's fair enough, I see where you're coming from and yes I agree there is a definite problem in Islam with how women are treated. However, this is something that is changing over time, just as how women have been treated in other religions has changed over time. If this were not the case then we would not be seeing women allowed the vote in Saudi Arabia, or women councillors elected, Germany wouldn't have Fatmire Alushi either. So progress is being made, and these things take time. Islam has only just really reached the modern world in the late 20th century, since our industrial need for oil has dragged them into our industrial world, and so there's a lot of culture shock there and trying to enforce western values on a non-western society is going to be problematic.
However, within western nations, certainly if a Muslim man breaks western law by mistreating a Muslim woman then he should be tried and convicted for it. The law is the law and trying to wiggle around it by bringing in religion shouldn't be permitted.
That being said, there are plenty of Muslim women who were the Burqa not out of oppression but because they want to, now you can argue that this is some form of Stockholm syndrome within the religion, but these are not the only religious group who enforce certain rules on their women, and in many cases the women are only too happy to abide by those rules. So if a woman wants to wear the Burqa....what do you do?

[Oberon]

Are you sure one cannot wear their MC helmet in a petrol station? Maybe it's different in the Uk but here we do it all the time. Of course, not for crazy religious reasons, but just to save time taking it off and on.

Oh, must be different in the UK then, they banned that a couple of decades ago because people were using them to block CCTV cameras while robbing petrol stations.

[Oberon]

The law of our Western lands have to be the standard and rule here. The only one.

No special deals, no parallel laws, no relgiously motivated parallel justice.

If they want it like you described, they have to leave and go back to any of those many countries where their ways are not only not controversial, but are in conformity with local cultural habits and laws. I care little for what they do in Saudi Arabia or Iran. But Saudi or Iranian rules used for legislation in Western nations - that is something I do not tolerate. "My house, my rules. You comply, or you leave. Period."

It's not a case of bending a European rule to follow an Islamic one, it's a case of making it smoother for those enforcing European rules by proving that both can be used at the same time.
For example, if a woman is arrested, she has the right to be strip-searched by a female police officer. Now this has got nothing to do with religion but common decency. I see no reason why a similar case cannot be made for Burqa wearers and female security officers. If a prominant religious figure says that this is so, then it becomes easier for security officers who don't need to keep calling in the local Imam every time a woman refuses to take her Burqa off. That's the carrot approach.
Of course, you can do the stick approach and just arrest them for obstruction, but I think you'd have a lot of full womens prisons which are hotbeds for extremist recruitment by the end of it. Another time where rash reactionary methods end up creating a bigger problem than the one they were trying to solve.

[Von Due]

Just saying: Bans on hijabs and burkas is not only a European thing, Chad and other countries in Africa has had bans going for some time now after a number of deadly attacks. Security is the arguement in all cases.

Interestingly enough, one Egyptian religious scholar named Mohammad Tantawi has stated that there is nothing in Islam that commands women to cover their faces, hair or entire bodies. Egypt is also interesting in that among the upper class, there is a sentiment against hijabs and the like. One can ask whether this scholar is of the upper class or the lower classes. Iran on the other hand, saw women wearing veils centuries before there was a thing called Islam. Point of this is, the arguement that they have to wear it because religion dictates it is in reality a flawed arguement and if a nation bans it, one can not use religion as an arguement against the ban. Security is a valid arguement for a ban.

[Oberon]

Just saying: Bans on hijabs and burkas is not only a European thing, Chad and other countries in Africa has had bans going for some time now after a number of deadly attacks. Security is the arguement in all cases.

Interestingly enough, one Egyptian religious scholar named Mohammad Tantawi has stated that there is nothing in Islam that commands women to cover their faces, hair or entire bodies. Egypt is also interesting in that among the upper class, there is a sentiment against hijabs and the like. One can ask whether this scholar is of the upper class or the lower classes. Iran on the other hand, saw women wearing veils centuries before there was a thing called Islam. Point of this is, the arguement that they have to wear it because religion dictates it is in reality a flawed arguement and if a nation bans it, one can not use religion as an arguement against the ban. Security is a valid arguement for a ban.

Makes sense. Still, it is one of those situations where you have to think about liberty vs security and how the two co-exist...indeed, if they can co-exist. :hmmm:

[Von Due]

Makes sense. Still, it is one of those situations where you have to think about liberty vs security and how the two co-exist...indeed, if they can co-exist. :hmmm:

And here lies the real conflict. Same thing with encryption. It makes our bank transactions over the internet safe, it gives us privacy online, and it protects terrorists, drug/arms runners, paedophiles etc. This conflict goes back decades.

[Oberon]

And here lies the real conflict. Same thing with encryption. It makes our bank transactions over the internet safe, it gives us privacy online, and it protects terrorists, drug/arms runners, paedophiles etc. This conflict goes back decades.

Eyup, I know some people have baulked at the number of CCTV cameras which have sprung up across London, at the invasion of privacy that such cameras represent, and yet those cameras have definitely been used to apprehend criminals and act as evidence in criminal prosecutions.
I just can't help but think of the words of Ben Franklin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html) though.

[Von Due]

Eyup, I know some people have baulked at the number of CCTV cameras which have sprung up across London, at the invasion of privacy that such cameras represent, and yet those cameras have definitely been used to apprehend criminals and act as evidence in criminal prosecutions.
I just can't help but think of the words of Ben Franklin (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html) though.

It is a tough problem and definitely one that is out of my league to find a solution to. I would like to say yes to both but the big prize goes to whoever can come up with a scheme that satisfies both camps. As of now, that scheme is well in the realm of neverland it seems.

[eddie]

Oberon, I think the Burkini's should definitely be restricted:D The photo will show why!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/three-more-towns-in-france-to-join-burkini-ban/ar-BBvHZVX

[Onkel Neal]

Oh, must be different in the UK then, they banned that a couple of decades ago because people were using them to block CCTV cameras while robbing petrol stations.

Oh wow! Yeah, that's not a thing over here, bandanas are the style here.

[Gerald]

^It looks like scuba diving without oxygen tanks.:hmmm:

[Skybird]

It's not a case of bending a European rule to follow an Islamic one, it's a case of making it smoother for those enforcing European rules by proving that both can be used at the same time.
For example, if a woman is arrested, she has the right to be strip-searched by a female police officer. Now this has got nothing to do with religion but common decency. I see no reason why a similar case cannot be made for Burqa wearers and female security officers. If a prominant religious figure says that this is so, then it becomes easier for security officers who don't need to keep calling in the local Imam every time a woman refuses to take her Burqa off. That's the carrot approach.
Of course, you can do the stick approach and just arrest them for obstruction, but I think you'd have a lot of full womens prisons which are hotbeds for extremist recruitment by the end of it. Another time where rash reactionary methods end up creating a bigger problem than the one they were trying to solve.

Searching a woman - how do you tell it is? - should not be depending on a husband or older brother or father allowing it, nor should it need any "religious authority" to allow it to make it what you call a "smoother" procedure. That is what its about as reason number one. An Imam has not to have any say in it, nor the family. The Imam has no rights over this women, the father has none, the brother has none. The women does not get owned by them, it is not their slave - by our rules, and it is our rules that rule here in our home countries, its not their rules, their rules do not count here, with us. Ewuality o men and women is to be defined and enforced by our laws, not by their backwardly worldviews - if they want to stay here. Nor do they have any claim to make that allows them to agree or to not agree that the law of the land gets applied only if they agree to it. Do we out a bank robber to court only when he agrees to it?= Do we quesiton a suspect only when he agrees to get arrested by the police? No, we apply the laws, period, with or without his agreement. The person wearing a burkha got to be searched? Fine, like any western women it should be done by a female police officer - and there is nothing to be claimed by Mr or Mrs Burkha beyond that. Compliance - nothing else. Agreement by Imam or family is not relevant, and should not be needed by law and police.

Its not only that the state or the police should not need an Imam's or a family's approval to apply the law. Its more about that you accept that Imams and fathers have possesional claims for that - supposed - woman in the burkha. You step right into that trap that the article by Birgit Kelle describes, and I summarised that point even if not translating the whole thing.

You already accept the claim for possession of women by men and religion by your suggestion to respect these men's views and make it a smoother experience for them - and you do not even realise that. - THAT is what its about as reason number two. And from an ethics point of view it is about the more important reason. Do we tolerate a slave holders claim for haviung the right to hold slaves, or not? You say we shall make it smooth a procedure to not upset his porecious slvery worldviews. I say we should not giv episs for whether he is upset or not. He complies with our rules, gives up slave holding, or he gets the boot kicked into you know where and flies back to where he cam eform in no time.

This, and nothing else.

---

No helmets in German banks for sure.

[Oberon]

Searching a woman - how do you tell it is? - should not be depending on a husband or older brother or father allowing it, nor should it need any "religious authority" to allow it to make it what you call a "smoother" procedure. That is what its about as reason number one. An Imam has not to have any say in it, nor the family. The Imam has no rights over this women, the father has none, the brother has none. The women does not get owned by them, it is not their slave - by our rules, and it is our rules that rule here in our home countries, its not their rules, their rules do not count here, with us. Ewuality o men and women is to be defined and enforced by our laws, not by their backwardly worldviews - if they want to stay here. Nor do they have any claim to make that allows them to agree or to not agree that the law of the land gets applied only if they agree to it. Do we out a bank robber to court only when he agrees to it?= Do we quesiton a suspect only when he agrees to get arrested by the police? No, we apply the laws, period, with or without his agreement. The person wearing a burkha got to be searched? Fine, like any western women it should be done by a female police officer - and there is nothing to be claimed by Mr or Mrs Burkha beyond that. Compliance - nothing else. Agreement by Imam or family is not relevant, and should not be needed by law and police.

Its not only that the state or the police should not need an Imam's or a family's approval to apply the law. Its more about that you accept that Imams and fathers have possesional claims for that - supposed - woman in the burkha. You step right into that trap that the article by Birgit Kelle describes, and I summarised that point even if not translating the whole thing.

You already accept the claim for possession of women by men and religion by your suggestion to respect these men's views and make it a smoother experience for them - and you do not even realise that. - THAT is what its about as reason number two. And from an ethics point of view it is about the more important reason. Do we tolerate a slave holders claim for haviung the right to hold slaves, or not? You say we shall make it smooth a procedure to not upset his porecious slvery worldviews. I say we should not giv episs for whether he is upset or not. He complies with our rules, gives up slave holding, or he gets the boot kicked into you know where and flies back to where he cam eform in no time.

This, and nothing else.

---

No helmets in German banks for sure.

http://i.imgur.com/dp9PquO.jpg

All of the above would be fine if people were robots, but we both know better than that. Besides, we also know the dangers of a completely subservient population who will comply with any rule or law that their government imposes on them without protest.
Now neither of us conflict on our belief that there should be no problem for 'Mrs Burqa' to be searched by a woman police officer, as mentioned by example in mapucs post, however where we clash is codifying this in Islamic law. Truth be told there would most likely be a high number of Salafists and Wahabists who would object to anyone but the husband of Mrs Burqa seeing her without the clothing on, but that's because there are conservatives and puritanists on both sides of the divide here, and quite honestly the last thing we in Europe should think of doing is pushing more people towards hardline Salafists, Wahabists and even Khawarijs.
I think you expect Islam to do in a few weeks what it took Christianity a few hundred years and God alone knows how many wars to do.

[mapuc]

Some years ago I read a Danish or was it a Swedish article about Nigeria planning on banning people wearing Niqab in public areas, It had something to do with several suicide bombings where the perpetrator had such clothes on them when they blew them self up and thereby killing many innocent.

Markus

[eddie]

^It looks like scuba diving without oxygen tanks.:hmmm:

That's what I thought too! Hard to believe a woman can swim in a bikini even in Tunisia where the picture was taken.

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/Mv30Oz3.jpg
Germany is being urged to ban the burqa

[Skybird]

I think you expect Islam to do in a few weeks what it took Christianity a few hundred years and God alone knows how many wars to do.


I am free of the illusion to expect Islam doing something to change itself. It won't, and it excels in that. Because as far as Western territories are concerned, thanks to endless Western relativisation and reality denying, it does not have to change. Since over two generations huge numbers, and ever growing numbers, of Muslim colonists are present in Europe. And things grew worse and worse and worse and worse with them. Other migrants groups usually do not give us troubles. Only these. Whereever you look, the integration of Muslim influx-communities has failed. In Britain. In France. In Netherlands. In Germany. In Sweden. Everywhere. And that has something to do with Islamic self-understanding, and oriental patriarchalism.

The question is not how much time we should give Islam. The question is how little time we have left to remain who we are and what we are. Altready now we are no longer the full owners of our house anymore. Already now we accept compromsies that we shouldn't, not at all.

Foreigner comes to us - he follows our rules, our laws, and respects our values. What time is needed to understand that, eh? If you are guest in somebody elses house, you do not just go to the refrigerator and take and eat what you want - you ask, and you say "please". You do not demand, and you do not command, and you do not claim property rights.

As long as you do not think that it is your house.

You break a law? Needs none of your usual rhetoric strikes, Oberon, killerrobots and other pointless exaggerations: you break the law, you bear the consequences, like any other citizen must and should. If foreigners have a problem with that, they have to leave. What is so difficult in that? Its the most reasonable thing one could think. If that means trouble for them, then that may serve as an example for others to better respect our right to set the rules, and their need to integrate. They cam eto us, we did not come to them. If somebody comes here and misb ehaves or refuses to integrate, I send him bakc, and if he gets greeted in his real home by torture ore persuction or whatver, I do not care, I simply refuse to care - he should have thought about that before abusing the hospitality of mine.

I don't care. These people do not interest me one bit. They could drop dead right now, right in place - I don't care. I'm sick of being expected and demanded to always care for them. They are not mine, their demands and wishes must not be my command and not my responsibility, I do not belong to them, I am not their servant.

Its one and a half millenia that Muhammad haunted planet Earth. And since then, Islamic world got its head stuck in the azz of history, 15 centuries deep. No, the chiurches did not hold out their tyranny that long, and did not resist to the "onslaught" of reason and liberalism and humanism. It does not cpomoare, althogznb this copmarison always is tried again and again in an attenpt to relatise and make the West feel guilty and responsible for Islamic world'S ways and goings. Was Napoleon'S expeditionary corps in Egypt responsible for the primitive, impotent world they found and that had wasted the past many centuries before in stagnation all due to Islamic dogma that had brought all former Arab superiority in invention and knowledge to a grindign halt? Hardly. Blame that on Muhammad - and on him alone.

More time you want to give it for reform. Good luck with that. Beg your children (or children to be) for pardon. I rather expect a cactus starting to speak, than seeing Islam stopping to be Islam. Ands that is what "reformation" would need to be about.

[Oberon]

You break a law? Needs none of your usual rhetoric strikes, Oberon, killerrobots and other pointless exaggerations: you break the law, you bear the consequences, like any other citizen must and should.

And where have I said that they should be exempt from it? :hmmm:

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/CYTx4lZ.jpg
Angela Merkel seemed tired when she attended an election campaign last night.

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom - using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were "guests of Angela Merkel".

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/701556/German-Asylum-seekers-refuse-to-work-insisting-We-are-Merkel-s-GUESTS

Since we are on German soil, in part,so I post this. "Not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU"All ends up, totally screwed this law.:huh:


Note: 01:06, Fri, Aug 19, 2016 | UPDATED: 15:57, Fri, Aug 19, 2016

[Oberon]

You certainly know how to play to the audience. :yeah:

[Skybird]

http://i.imgur.com/CYTx4lZ.jpg
Angela Merkel seemed tired when she attended an election campaign last night.





http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/701556/German-Asylum-seekers-refuse-to-work-insisting-We-are-Merkel-s-GUESTS

Since we are on German soil, in part,so I post this.All ends up, totally screwed this law.:huh:


Note: 01:06, Fri, Aug 19, 2016 | UPDATED: 15:57, Fri, Aug 19, 2016

Business leaders, last year being enthusiastic about the stream of "highly qualified, motivated and cheap specialists and trained workers" :D - their own words - , first have become silent earlier this year, since some time now openly warn of that the experiences of the past 12 months showing to be a total disaster, because these emigrants being put into jobs and qualification courses, fail to meet the needed standards and demands, close to 90% of the people with whom they tried it, were failing with flying colours. They also have started to open more realistic fiscal calculations on what the costs for all this will be. The costs for Germany currently promise to outclass the gains by two digit factors. :haha:

Miracle oh miracle. Time of wonders. Wir schaffen das!

Also, polls and their authors sk with great amazement and perplexity why it comes that so many of these migrants share "homophobic" views, are antisemites, do not comply with values as expressed by Western law codes or the constitution, prefer opinions expressing that they are in favour of supressing women, and often voice opinions that pout them - so claim the media - in the same boat like right wing extremists or rightwing populists. Why are these people from a totally different, foreign culture with totally different value system and moral ethics so totally different than us Germans? Why can't they be just like we are?

The answer is simple, stupid: because Germany is not everywhere, even if that hurts megalomaniac German feelings. LOL

Germany - land of the dreaming clueless.:haha:

I start to take grim enjoyment from seeing Germany destroying itself. Its a form of justice, a causal link of cause and effect. And how could causality not be just? I have nothing at risk myself: no kids, no family. Why should I care? Maybe I have a better - one - life by leaning back and enjoying the show instead of trying to fight a battle that cannot be won.

[Oberon]

I start to take grim enjoyment from seeing Germany destroying itself. Its a form of justice, a causal link of cause and effect. And how could causality not be just? I have nothing at risk myself: no kids, no family. Why should I care? Maybe I have a better - one - life by leaning back and enjoying the show instead of trying to fight a battle that cannot be won.

I should probably start doing the same thing, just sit back and see where the river takes us. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Are you sure one cannot wear their MC helmet in a petrol station? Maybe it's different in the Uk but here we do it all the time. Of course, not for crazy religious reasons, but just to save time taking it off and on.

Even more so in a bank or building society and to be honest, bike riders (the law abiding ones) are happy to be compliant.

[Skybird]

And where have I said that they should be exempt from it? :hmmm:
When implying the law procedures should be changed for them in that way so that they find them less upsetting. Its not important whether they are upsetting by their standards. The question only is if they are upsetting by our standards, which they are not. No special deals for anyone, same standards for all.

[Jimbuna]

When implying the law procedures should be changed for them in that way so that they find them less upsetting. Its not important whether they are upsetting by their standards. The question only is if they are upsetting by our standards, which they are not. No special deals for anyone, same standards for all.

I tend to agree with you, especially the last sentence but here in the UK laws and exemptions have already been made in certain areas.

The link below will explain two of them:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban,_UK_Legislation_Regarding_its_use_by_Sikhs

[Skybird]

I do not care whether a Sikh wants to crack his skull open, he does damage only to himself, and I leave everyone the right to commit suicide or to take risks or to do somethign that I consider to be stupid - as long as he risks only himself, nobody else, and is not going his ways at anyone other's cost. So I would object to a law saying that a Sikh with a turban may only be searched by the police if for example the head of his family agrees to it, or his father, or a priest. He is not to be searched for no reason, I mean - the purpose when you do that is of public interest, often security, or crime-related investigations. For the same reason I find it unacceptable if Sikh boys are allowed to carry a knife at school while others are not allowed that becasue they are not Sikh. The abn on knifes must be vlaid for everybody. If S'ikhs see our laws colliding with their eligon, they have to make a choice: either our laws and staying here, or their elgion and having to leave. I cannot even understand why this is even being debated! Also, a religious background shall not be a valid excuse for bending laws or amending laws, tuning them in a way religion finds agreeable. Religion has to follow the law - not the other way around. At least if the description of a "secular" state should have any meaning.

In case of the burkha issue, it also is that state authorities should not do anything that indicates agreement with or even just pragmatic tolerating of claims for possession of women by men: no matter whether it is some Imam, father, brother - and this possessing of females and them getting pushed into a state of being owned, is what burkhas are really about. In Islamic culture, women should be locked away and hidden from public life, and the burkha is the way to make them mobile by making the prison of home around them mobile as well. The prison moves with them.

As I said above, due to that article by Birgit Kelle I do no longer think we should enforce a ban of the burkha except in some circumstances, but that we should go deeper and look at what really happens wo women at home, behind locked doors, and what their role is in a clan'S understanding or the understanding of Islamic ideology and scripture. The burkha should be tolerated - but not greeted or welcomned, and we must not be forced to maintain social itneracitons with families where men hold women as lifestock, we must be allowed to ignore them without beigj called "racist" for that. But this we should tolerate in silence only as lonhg as the burkha or headscarf orf whatevber it is is worn by ADULT females - but we should ban even headscarfs worn by little girls, because it is a perversion. The covering of hair and skin is meant to not arouse "men" (if you dare to call male apes as men who already are in danger to be provoked to sexually assault a female already because they see some hair of hers...), and if we demand this even from little girls, we sexualise even the smallest of girls and agree that they are sexual objects that need to be stopped form provoking all men around. This is a perversion of the most upsetting kind. We have laws that - hopefully - protect little girls from getting raped by some pedophile dirtbag. We should not tolerate perverted means and habits that turn all reason and logic into absurdity and turn men into possible "victims" of little girls sexually provoking them. Forcing little girls already to wear a smybol of sexual - and pedophile!! - discrimination and supression of females by patriarchalic orthodoxy is not different form having them walking down the street in satin stockings, blakc negliges and silk lingerie - both ways turn them into sexual objects, both turns them into a sexual threat to adult men form which certain bigott carricatures of weak "manlings" with no power to resist their drives need to be protected.

The potential victim of abuse and supression - girls, women - get implied to be the perpetrator and the active villain committing the crime. How could it get any more absurd - and cynical?

The hypocrisy practiced by Muslim culture here, is stinking to heaven. Now the law on girls in Turkey, you have read about it in the news. Such hypocrisy stinks to heaven. A turkish newspaper today had the headline of that Sweden - a loud critic of that law - is the global capital of rape. Actually, Sweden has seen a steep climb, an explosion of rape crimes in past years indeed. What the Erdoghanistas forgot to mention is that the absolutely overwhelming majority of this exposion of rapes is beign committed by Muslim migrant men the Swedes were naive enough to let in in huge numbers over the past years. Before thy had come, rape was a crime almost unknown in Sweden, it played no significant role in past crime statistics.

[Schroeder]

^Totally agree.:/\\!!

[Oberon]

When implying the law procedures should be changed for them in that way so that they find them less upsetting. Its not important whether they are upsetting by their standards. The question only is if they are upsetting by our standards, which they are not. No special deals for anyone, same standards for all.

And where did I say that?
All I said was that it would be helpful if an Imam or some such religious leader in a high position could make it clarified that if a female officer is present then a woman can remove her Burqa without getting into trouble with Allah.
I did not say that procedures should change, nor did I say that the law should change.
For this, I get two pages of lectures on the evils of Islam...as always. :hmmm:

[Wolferz]

The only issue I have is the burkini.:haha:

[Oberon]

The only issue I have is the burkini.:haha:

Not a fan of wetsuits either then I take it? :hmmm:

[mapuc]

Sorry I was wrong it wasn't Nigeria who was planning on banning Niqab, it was Senegal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34854939

Markus

[August]

Are you sure one cannot wear their MC helmet in a petrol station? Maybe it's different in the Uk but here we do it all the time. Of course, not for crazy religious reasons, but just to save time taking it off and on.

I have a feeling they're talking about this:
http://www.thunderpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/02ShoeiMultitec.jpg

While you're talking about this:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZn5T5mjlIEF4QHGdRgUKUqnyyxLliJ AAjF2tqD25geCtJ_Bio

[Oberon]

Ah yes, the latter would probably be acceptable to wear in a shop or something...but not so sure if it would be road legal. In the UK you'd be more likely to see the latter sort of helmet on people riding pushbikes rather than riding mopeds or motorcycles. Not sure if that's a law thing or just that they're not sold so much any more. :hmmm:

[Schroeder]

I have a feeling they're talking about this:
http://www.thunderpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/02ShoeiMultitec.jpg


This one would be acceptable in Germany too. I never take my helmet off when paying at a gas station and mine is pretty much like this one. Would be too much of a hassle to take my glasses off, then remove the helmet, remove the balaclava, remove the ear plugs, go in to pay, return, put in the ear plugs, put on the balaclava, put on the helmet, put on the glasses...:dead:

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/1pmgPaP.jpg
A Muslim woman wears a burkini on a beach in Marseille earlier this month.

I told a close friend I was planning to write about the several French seaside resorts that have banned the burkini, backed by the prime minister, Manuel Valls, and Germany’s proposed partial ban on wearing the burqa in public places. This comes with the gathering strength of mainstream feeling in both countries that they need to affirm their secular values and identity, not least to close down opportunities for the extreme right.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/20/muslims-liberal-society-uk-france-shared-values


We jump over to the neighbor, in this topic.I will not be surprised that there may be a general ban in the EU or in other states.


Note: Sunday 21 August 2016

[Betonov]

I have a feeling they're talking about this:
http://www.thunderpress.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/02ShoeiMultitec.jpg

While you're talking about this:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZn5T5mjlIEF4QHGdRgUKUqnyyxLliJ AAjF2tqD25geCtJ_Bio

Exactly.
Anything that hides our face whether a helmet or karneval mask needs to be taken off in a public place.

The second one is allowed in a public place, burt it's not allowed on a motorbike.

[Commander Wallace]

My thoughts have always been that if foreigners enter a country to work and live, they should adopt the customs of that host country. This would include at least making some effort to learn the language. This doesn't mean these foreigners should abandon their ethnic heritage and customs but rather practice their customs in private.

We have always had a saying here, " When in Rome, do as they do "

( added ) It's certainly not realistic, reasonable or fair to expect the host country to adopt or adapt to whatever customs they brought with them.



I know if I visited the U.K, I would make every effort to learn their language :O:

[Skybird]

France’s liberal traditions won’t be helped by the burkini ban

Maybe, maybe not. But it is a relief to the eye not needing to see this alienating, foreign dress code that sticks out and tells everybody that the wearer of it has little intention to fit in or to integrate. If you want to live in a foreign place and want to get along with the natives, you better learn to live by their habits and ways and rules. Instead insisting on dress codes whose rules base on a medieval mindset and are explicitly standing out from the crowd, is not helpful, but illustrates what it really is about: to use the power to force the other into falling back, and to enforce one's own ways instead.The whole thing is about enforcing more and more Muslim ways and rules of living in a country that has never been Muslim except during those dark years when it in parts was occupied by military invaders.

If the tolerant tolerate the intolerant, than the intolerant will destroy the tolerant, and with them tolerance. Tolerance needs limits, else it destroys itself.

[Oberon]

You mustn't let someone else tell you what to wear, let us tell you what to wear. :rock:

[Schroeder]

While I'm for a Burka ban I don't see the problem with Burkinis as long as they leave the face bare. They actually are pretty much like the swimwear we used to have 150 years ago. A Burkini ban would actually also mean that diving suits are considered to be inappropriate.:hmm2:

[Von Due]

My thoughts have always been that if foreigners enter a country to work and live, they should adopt the customs of that host country. This would include at least making some effort to learn the language. This doesn't mean these foreigners should abandon their ethnic heritage and customs but rather practice their customs in private.

We have always had a saying here, " When in Rome, do as they do "

I know if I visited the U.K, I would make every effort to learn their language :O:

Reminds me of how the Chinese reportedly dealt with Mongolian invaders claiming Emperorship. They pretty much said "ok, fine, if that's what you want, go ahead but learn Chinese first and do as we do and we're fine. The current emperor might not like it but who is he to complain? We spent an absolute fortune teaching him Chinese and our customs".

[Skybird]

My thoughts have always been that if foreigners enter a country to work and live, they should adopt the customs of that host country. This would include at least making some effort to learn the language. This doesn't mean these foreigners should abandon their ethnic heritage and customs but rather practice their customs in private. :O:
Indeed. The Chinese in the United States have done like this a lot, and still seem to do so. Seems to work well. However, the private life and keeping ones ethnic heritage alive there still must be in conformity with the laws. That you practice child marriages in your private life or whip your wife in private, is not to be tolerated just because it gets done in the private sphere.

Obeying the law is the minimum standard for the private part of your life only. In public, even more is demanded than just that: here you better do not just follow the laws, when you are a foreigner in a foreign land, but also try to not alienate the native population, but fit into the everyday habits and rules of behaviour. The freedom you have in your private life is to no longer behave by the habits of the land you live - as long as this easing your allow for yourself does not violate the laws. It may be habit in your place of origin to rape children or to have several wives - in this new place you live in,. it is against the law.

Interestingly, the majority of those Muslim migrants in Germany that are successful, that found enterprises, that are well-educated, take much more care fo their children living by the principles I just outlined than ,many Germany even care to demand. And most of these indeed successful Muslim migrants share my assessments and views on Muslim migration.

Amongst their Muslim migrant peer group however they are a minority, the majority of Muslim migrants refused to integrate over the past 60 years. And its like that in France, in England, in Sweden, in Holland...

So much for me being principlally "anti-Migrant" or "racist", that is nonsense. I am anti Islamic ideology, and I am anti rejecting-to integrate.

[Skybird]

While I'm for a Burka ban I don't see the problem with Burkinis as long as they leave the face bare. They actually are pretty much like the swimwear we used to have 150 years ago.
Not "we" of the present, but our forefathers. And they had their rules of clothing formed up all by themselves, not impose don them by foreigners. Thats a very important difference.

And yes, I think those swimsuits bakc then looked hilarious, seen with my modern eyes. If I would have lived back then, I maybe would see it different. And if I were raised as a Muslim, I would pray to Allah. But I am Sky of the present, central Europe, 21st century. We living are the rulers of this place and present time. Not Arabs. Not medieval mindsets. Not generations who are long since dead.

[Skybird]

Reminds me of how the Chinese reportedly dealt with Mongolian invaders claiming Emperorship. They pretty much said "ok, fine, if that's what you want, go ahead but learn Chinese first and do as we do and we're fine. The current emperor might not like it but who is he to complain? We spent an absolute fortune teaching him Chinese and our customs".

The Mongolians at least knew how to deal with something like IS. When they were done with the order of the Assassins, the problem was as dead as dead can be, and never popped up again. And they did not take compromise as an excuse. That was the secret of their success in getting rid of this pest.

[Commander Wallace]

Indeed. The Chinese in the United States have done like this a lot, and still seem to do so. Seems to work well. However, the private life and keeping ones ethnic heritage alive there still must be in conformity with the laws. That you practice child marriages in your private life or whip your wife in private, is not to be tolerated just because it gets done in the private sphere.




I agree. Those customs practiced should be consistent with the established law of the host country.

[Oberon]

And they had their rules of clothing formed up all by themselves, not impose don them by foreigners. Thats a very important difference.

Exactly.

[Skybird]

More precisely, for our clever rhetoric hairsplitters:

And while they lived in their own home places, they had their rules of clothing formed up all by themselves, not imposed on them by foreigners coming from foreign countries and imposing their own dress code upon them. Thats a very important difference.

[Oberon]

So they're only allowed to wear Tracht, Lederhosen, and Gamsbart in Germany then? :hmmm:

And tell me, what if a woman wants to wear a Burka, what then?

[Schroeder]

And tell me, what if a woman wants to wear a Burka, what then?
Then she can move to an Islamic country with her family and do it.;)

[Oberon]

Then she can move to an Islamic country with her family and do it.;)

Right, so you're protesting against a foreign entity telling women what to wear by telling women what they can wear.

Good stuff. :up:

[Schroeder]

Right, so you're protesting against a foreign entity telling women what to wear by telling women what they can wear.

Good stuff. :up:
The consensus here is to not cover your entire face. That's the law. No exceptions because your imaginary friend told you otherwise. You don't like it you go someplace else.

Besides I'm protesting against a foreign entity trying to force us to change our laws and habits. I don't care for what they do in their own countries.

[Oberon]

The consensus here is to not cover your entire face. That's the law. No exceptions because your imaginary friend told you otherwise. You don't like it you go someplace else.

Besides I'm protesting against a foreign entity trying to force us to change our laws and habits. I don't care for what they do in their own countries.

But this thread isn't about a foreign entity trying to force you to change your laws, it's about freedom of religion and expression, let's not forget that this whole recent debate was sparked not by the banning of burqas at a bank or petrol station but at the beach!
Sure, some Muslims probably do want laws changed in their favour, what group doesn't? Some Christians oppose gay marriage, some atheists oppose...well, anything that could be construed as religious, and so on, but most are happy to just get on with it.
The only point I made in this thread which seems to have earnt me the German Inquisition (yet again) was that it would be useful, to everyone, if a leading Muslim authority would clarify the conditions in which a woman is fine to remove her burqa. From my understanding and mapucs example, having no men present during the process should be enough and that's easy enough to do since we already have rules regarding male officers not being allowed to search female suspects (and I'm guessing you didn't object to them when they were introduced?) So having this clarified would help lower the use or the power of objection on religious grounds. Rather than having to get an Imam in to explain it every time.
The conversation could go like this:
"Madam, please can you remove your burqa for ID purposes?"
"I cannot, it's haram."
"Actually madam, Imam Abdullah Abdullah states to it is not while no men are present, please go with my female colleague here and she will verify it."

Bam, religious excuse removed. Surely better that than:
"Alarm! Das ist ein burqa unt ist verboten!" *40 Stasi officers jump out of the woodwork and bundle her into a van*

Well...I think so anyway. :haha:

If there is a ban on the burqa then let it only be in the same places that have also banned full face motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, masks, hoodies and bandanas.

[Skybird]

This is so tiresome.

Its like the victim of a violent attack shall not be allowed to defend itself by force because using force in selfdefence nevertheless still would mean to use force like the attacker and so the victim then would not be any better than the attacker.


Relativisations, more relativisations, and then more relativisations, until total self-paralysis and complete destruction of own identity. Some people are almost junkies, drunk of the idea of trying to dissolve the West by endlessly relativisng its standards and identity in foreign stuff. No more "me" should solve all conflicts with a resisting world.

But hey, its called progressive! Its called being non-phobic of anything! Well, I am a confessing totalitariaphobe, an uncurable progressophobe, and I am especially phobic to lack of even most elemental reason.

And somethign else, once again, has been repeated a million times by now, too: freedom of religious practice by the one also must mean freedom FROM religious practice for the other. Find a way to do your hobbies in a way that they do not pester others.

And even in the private sphere, religious practice must be consistent with the law, religion is no excuse to abuse or mistreat members of your household in private, or to mutilate children, or to torture animals, just because doing so "is your religion".

In Germany, there is a law, named "Vermummungsverbot". In the public sphere, hiding your face is forbidden. Period. Simply that. Since years. Originally meant against thugs of the political left and right turning violent during demonstrations, the law in princple covers what the Burkha and veil is about too: its just that politicians do not dare to enforce the implementation of this law, and the police is too weak.

When, like days ago, the attempt of a Berlin police patrol to arrest a juvenile 11 years old repeated high-intensity offender from a Muslim migrant family results in half the street three minutes later being up in arms and 70 and more men from up and down the streets ploushing the police back and threatening them with knifes and clubs and an emergencys alarm gets triggered that leads to two or three hundred policemen needing to drop into the place; when poliemen get ´thrats of murder and their families get harassed, when you see this exmaple reuslting in the dman mother of that little cutie beign given a platform by the media where she could complain in all length how lovely her little dardling is and that the polcie behaved so indecent and onpolite and did not pay rerspect tot heirn roecious Muslim snetuments and did not kneel before their feeling of honour - then you start to think twice about "enforcing the law".

But at least we get multiculturally enriched this way. Isn't that something? Even the loosers, the criminals and the scum of foreign countries that unload their unwanted garbage into our cities have rights, haven't they? They walk on two legs and open their mouth to demand, so they must be human, and humans are all equal, aren't they? They are all precious, they are all valuable to the higher cause,n'est-ce pas? Aren't we all equal, aren't we all the same, is the other not my own image I see in him? Shouldn't we all be our brother's guardian? How lovely...!

Phrasendrescherei.

In Switzerland, Arab tourist in the Tessin get told on entry that the local population has given itself a law by two-third-majority that burkha and face-covering stuff are forbidden in that Kanton, and that this law gets enforced onto foreigners as well. Just days ago I read a German article on it, where a Swiss speaker reports on the experiences they have with it. He said that Arab tourists understand this and comply without debating, and that the police has no serious issues with foreign tourists ignoring the law. No protests, no revolts, no files charged at the court - nothing. Make it clear what the rule is, leave only the option of compliance or leave, more is not needed.

Whats the big deal. Make it clear to everybody what the law is, and then end the discussion. End of sentence, period. Offenders and trespassers are made to face the consequences (in Belgium and France first women have been sentenced to signifcant cash penalties recently), and that's it. No endless tamtam. No en dless debate. No endless bongo-drumming. No endless consideraitons and imaginations and headaches and concerns and Whats and Idfs and Buts and We-cannots. Decide, do it, stick to it - done.


Endless relativisation and endless appealing against court decisions and endless worriyng for what the other, the foreign, the world, the little man behind that tree in Timbuktu might think of oneself - the pest of modern time. Or in brief: self-paralysis of suicidal proportions.

[Oberon]

In Germany, there is a law, named "Vermummungsverbot". In the public sphere, hiding your face is forbidden. Period. Simply that. Since years. Originally meant against thugs of the political left and right turning violent during demonstrations, the law in princple covers what the Burkha and veil is about too: its just that politicians do not dare to enforce the implementation of this law, and the police is too weak.



As far as I am aware, Muslim women do not spend their entire time in Germany protesting or in demonstrations, therefore I'm not so sure how Vermummungsverbot would apply to the average Islamic women doing her grocery shopping. :hmmm:
I've already said that if you're going to ban the Burqa then do it in places where identification is a requirement, but unless Germany has CCTV cameras everywhere requiring constant facial recognition then I don't think that a grocery shop or a restaurant is somewhere that you need to ban the burqa...and you certainly don't need to ban the 'burkini' which is no more restricting to identification than motorcycle leathers and a full face visor. Look at the picture in post #47 if you're able to bring yourself to, and tell me how that is harmful to public security whilst on the beach?

Sure, you may derogatise me, and compare me to a drug addict, but I refuse to believe that sacrificing freedoms for security is a good idea, no matter whose freedom it is...that's the thing about it, you don't get to choose whose freedom is better, you don't elevate one group of people over another just because they happen to believe in a certain religion, that's not how freedom works.
You're always campaigning against the government snooping on people, about how organisations infringe on your privacy and your freedoms. What makes your freedom any superior to a Muslim woman?

[Oberon]

Tell you what, forget it, just...forget it. You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and if the world collapses because of me then you can laugh and be happy in your victory, and if it doesn't collapse then we'll both be dead anyway eventually so what's the point?

[Schroeder]

Tell you what, forget it, just...forget it. You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and if the world collapses because of me then you can laugh and be happy in your victory, and if it doesn't collapse then we'll both be dead anyway eventually so what's the point?
The point is that our grandchildren will most likely pay the price for our foolishness if we keep doing what we're doing.:/\\!!

[Oberon]

The point is that our grandchildren will most likely pay the price for our foolishness if we keep doing what we're doing.:/\\!!

Well don't have any then.

[HunterICX]

The conversation could go like this:
"Madam, please can you remove your burqa for ID purposes?"
"I cannot, it's haram."
"Actually madam, Imam Abdullah Abdullah states to it is not while no men are present, please go with my female colleague here and she will verify it."

Bam, religious excuse removed. Surely better that than:
"Alarm! Das ist ein burqa unt ist verboten!" *40 Stasi officers jump out of the woodwork and bundle her into a van*

If a feminist does this, refusing to ID herself by mean of not showing her ID card in front of a male officer because she finds it's sexist she'll be jumped on by 40 stasi officers.

If there is a ban on the burqa then let it only be in the same places that have also banned full face motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, masks, hoodies and bandanas.

Your suggestion will tax the already streched out police force tight on a budget even more and more females will have to be recruited to cover the areas to have a ID confirmation right on the spot instead of making it a time consuming hassle.

As for banning them in places where helmets, masks, hoodies etc are banned that'll be classrooms, shops, hospitals, police stations, airports, gas stations, pubs/clubs/bars etc etc. That'll leave them their pretty much nothing but their own homes and the streets. They have a muslim approved alternative for that Burqa, it's called a Hijab.

As far as I am aware, Muslim women do not spend their entire time in Germany protesting or in demonstrations, therefore I'm not so sure how Vermummungsverbot would apply to the average Islamic women doing her grocery shopping. :hmmm:

It doesn't but a grocery shop may turn you down or require you to remove your mask, helmet, burqa etc etc. Plenty of armed robbery footage will do the talking as in each they have their face fully covered and no exception should be made imo.

I've already said that if you're going to ban the Burqa then do it in places where identification is a requirement, but unless Germany has CCTV cameras everywhere requiring constant facial recognition then I don't think that a grocery shop or a restaurant is somewhere that you need to ban the burqa...See the above.

and you certainly don't need to ban the 'burkini' which is no more restricting to identification than motorcycle leathers and a full face visor. Look at the picture in post #47 if you're able to bring yourself to, and tell me how that is harmful to public security whilst on the beach?
I don't agree with the Burkini ban either but the comparison to motorcycle gear is a bit silly as..the latter you don't swim with unless you wish to drown. :03:

Sure, you may derogatise me, and compare me to a drug addict, but I refuse to believe that sacrificing freedoms for security is a good idea, no matter whose freedom it is...that's the thing about it, you don't get to choose whose freedom is better, you don't elevate one group of people over another just because they happen to believe in a certain religion, that's not how freedom works.
You're always campaigning against the government snooping on people, about how organisations infringe on your privacy and your freedoms. What makes your freedom any superior to a Muslim woman?Where do you draw the line? If a Pickachu suit wearing person enters a shop and gets turned down or asked to show his face but he refuses because he believes he's a pokemon...and will only show it to a pokemon master should the society budge for that too? Because after all shouldn't his freedoms be the same?

No, because it isn't the same for all as I'm not allowed to keep my full face helmet on either so that's not fair because if I refuse as I tell them only a Motorcycle Police officer may ask me to ID myself I get fined, arrested or turned down for it.

They're not being held in our countries by force, if they don't like that they have to make some compromises to move freely in our society like everyone else has to then they're free to leave to a place where they don't have to.

and again I couldn't care less for whatever you wear on top or around your head as long your facial features are clearly visible.

[Schroeder]

Well don't have any then.
:o:o
That's the answer?
We should cease to exist in our own country so they can have their precious ways?:o
Please tell me I got that wrong.

[Skybird]

I like this blog, the guy really is smart: Gideon Böss.

In German only, I'm sorry: on "evil racists" and "good racists" and why glossing over Islam's unpleasant nature makes that "good racism":

http://boess.welt.de/2016/08/23/boese-rassisten-guterassisten-und-der-islam/

Spot on.

[Oberon]

Your suggestion will tax the already streched out police force tight on a budget even more and more females will have to be recruited to cover the areas to have a ID confirmation right on the spot instead of making it a time consuming hassle.

As for banning them in places where helmets, masks, hoodies etc are banned that'll be classrooms, shops, hospitals, police stations, airports, gas stations, pubs/clubs/bars etc etc. That'll leave them their pretty much nothing but their own homes and the streets. They have a muslim approved alternative for that Burqa, it's called a Hijab.



It doesn't but a grocery shop may turn you down or require you to remove your mask, helmet, burqa etc etc. Plenty of armed robbery footage will do the talking as in each they have their face fully covered and no exception should be made imo.

See the above.

I don't agree with the Burkini ban either but the comparison to motorcycle gear is a bit silly as..the latter you don't swim with unless you wish to drown. :03:

Where do you draw the line? If a Pickachu suit wearing person enters a shop and gets turned down or asked to show his face but he refuses because he believes he's a pokemon...and will only show it to a pokemon master should the society budge for that too? Because after all shouldn't his freedoms be the same?

No, because it isn't the same for all as I'm not allowed to keep my full face helmet on either so that's not fair because if I refuse as I tell them only a Motorcycle Police officer may ask me to ID myself I get fined, arrested or turned down for it.

They're not being held in our countries by force, if they don't like that they have to make some compromises to move freely in our society like everyone else has to then they're free to leave to a place where they don't have to.

and again I couldn't care less for whatever you wear on top or around your head as long your facial features are clearly visible.

Et tu Brute? :haha:

I see where you're coming from, and honestly if there is no problem with them wearing the hijab over the Burqa then that's a good compromise.
I just don't like the idea of restricting what people can and cannot do based on their choice of religion. Seems a slippery slope, and in the case of the Burkini, completely unwarranted since the face is uncovered so there's no security problem. There's no real difference between a standard wetsuit or drysuit and a Burkini, but I don't see any of the furore over either of those and I doubt wearing either would get you anything other than potentially a touch of heatstroke whilst on a French beach.

:o:o
That's the answer?
We should cease to exist in our own country so they can have their precious ways?:o
Please tell me I got that wrong.

Why not? According to the crowd we're all going down the drain anyway, if the Muslims don't get us then the EU will, if that doesn't get us then the next great Financial Crisis will, and if that doesn't get us then something else will. Might as well help the end along. :up:


Right, that's me sorted, you folks have fun. I'm done.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cUNsXlXK7HMUo/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/JGF7ctowtLGak/giphy.gif

[HunterICX]

Et tu Brute? :haha:

Ouch...that's harsh :D

I take issue in the fact that the clothing covers one's face while everyone else when getting ID'd or enters public areas likes shops is to show theirs and I think there shouldn't be an exception to the rule wether they be religious or not. Rules should apply to everyone as much ones freedoms do or else it's unfair.

I see where you're coming from, and honestly if there is no problem with them wearing the hijab over the Burqa then that's a good compromise.
I just don't like the idea of restricting what people can and cannot do based on their choice of religion.

AFAIK and according to my neighbour there shouldn't, but then again he's pretty non-Muslim Muslim as his wife isn't wearing one and he has little to say at home :haha:

Seems a slippery slope, and in the case of the Burkini, completely unwarranted since the face is uncovered so there's no security problem. There's no real difference between a standard wetsuit or drysuit and a Burkini, but I don't see any of the furore over either of those and I doubt wearing either would get you anything other than potentially a touch of heatstroke whilst on a French beach.

Agreed, as I've said I'm as well against the Burkini Ban as it's no different from more modest of swimming wear you see on the beach.


Right, that's me sorted, you folks have fun. I'm done.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cUNsXlXK7HMUo/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/JGF7ctowtLGak/giphy.gif

http://i.imgur.com/ljKKq2K.jpg?1

[Schroeder]

..in the case of the Burkini, completely unwarranted since the face is uncovered so there's no security problem.
Agreed. Darn, I just turned commie. Maybe Blitzkrieg was right and I'm just a left wing oddball after all.:O:


Why not? According to the crowd we're all going down the drain anyway, if the Muslims don't get us then the EU will, if that doesn't get us then the next great Financial Crisis will, and if that doesn't get us then something else will. Might as well help the end along. :up:
Maybe, maybe not. I just don't want to sit back and let it happen unopposed. Financial collapses can be overcome in time. We've done that in the twenties and we recovered from utter destruction during WWII. But I don't think we could recover easily from an Islamic take over.

Oh, and remember that ejection seats are bad for the spine...not that you should still have any intervertebral discs after your time with the Lolwaffles.:O: