Burka in Germany: Interior minister calls for curbs - Page 3

Gerald · 08-19-16, 07:06 PM

Angela Merkel seemed tired when she attended an election campaign last night.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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/...erkel-s-GUESTS

Since we are on German soil, in part,so I post this.

Quote:

"Not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU"

All ends up, totally screwed this law.

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

Oberon · 08-19-16, 07:16 PM

You certainly know how to play to the audience.

Skybird · 08-20-16, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

Angela Merkel seemed tired when she attended an election campaign last night.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...erkel-s-GUESTS

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

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"

- 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.

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.

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 · 08-20-16, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Jimbuna · 08-20-16, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

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 · 08-20-16, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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 · 08-20-16, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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/T...s_use_by_Sikhs

Skybird · 08-20-16, 11:12 AM

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 · 08-20-16, 11:33 AM

^Totally agree.

Oberon · 08-20-16, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Wolferz · 08-20-16, 05:09 PM

The only issue I have is the burkini.

Oberon · 08-20-16, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz

The only issue I have is the burkini.

Not a fan of wetsuits either then I take it?

mapuc · 08-20-16, 05:36 PM

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 · 08-20-16, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

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:

While you're talking about this:

Oberon · 08-20-16, 06:21 PM

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.

08-20-16, 11:12 AM	#38
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,693 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-20-16 at 11:30 AM.

08-20-16, 11:33 AM	#39
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	^Totally agree. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

08-20-16, 05:09 PM	#41
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	The only issue I have is the burkini. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

08-19-16, 07:16 PM	#32
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	You certainly know how to play to the audience.

08-20-16, 05:36 PM	#43
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,545 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	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

08-20-16, 06:21 PM	#45
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.