Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[Loren Pechtel]

We've already got laws that prevent force or threats against spouses or children. These laws protect against forceful burkha-wearing.

The only thing that a burkha ban adds is preventing women who freely want to wear them from wearing them. Which is idiotic.

The reality is abuse victims rarely go to the police.

Even if it's you-must-wear-a-burqa abuse.

 

[LordKiran]

Not in the west it doesn't. Now if a woman chooses to beholden herself to her cultural heritage then that is her business. It is not for the state to "Save her from her own choices."

In the areas with lots of radical Muslims she puts her safety at risk by not wearing the burqa.

Then the law should focus on protecting her from radical elements of a society, not restrict the civil liberties of all citizens in order to sideskip the issue.

 

[laughing dog]

We've already got laws that prevent force or threats against spouses or children. These laws protect against forceful burkha-wearing.

The only thing that a burkha ban adds is preventing women who freely want to wear them from wearing them. Which is idiotic.

The reality is abuse victims rarely go to the police.

Even if it's you-must-wear-a-burqa abuse.

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

 

[LordKiran]

The reality is abuse victims rarely go to the police.

Even if it's you-must-wear-a-burqa abuse.

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?

 

[laughing dog]

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?

Why stop there. According to LP, “Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans”. The state can and does put down animals for their misbehavior,

 

[whichphilosophy]

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?

Unless they are from the wealthy elite anyone from Saudi Arabia would not return to this "bastion of freedom". However the ban on a burqa is a somewhat asinine attempt at tilting windmills. There is a case to ban full or substantial face covering for security reasons.

 

[LordKiran]

Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?

Unless they are from the wealthy elite anyone from Saudi Arabia would not return to this "bastion of freedom". However the ban on a burqa is a somewhat asinine attempt at tilting windmills. There is a case to ban full or substantial face covering for security reasons.

Then be consistent with it.

 

[Toni]

The reality is abuse victims rarely go to the police.

Even if it's you-must-wear-a-burqa abuse.

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Well, they're just women. Not like they are real people or count for much anyway. Not outside of arousing and satisfying an erection an dealing with whatever consequences follow. Plus the usual cooking, cleaning, wiping up asses and noses and piss and vomit and shit. And cum.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unless they are from the wealthy elite anyone from Saudi Arabia would not return to this "bastion of freedom". However the ban on a burqa is a somewhat asinine attempt at tilting windmills. There is a case to ban full or substantial face covering for security reasons.

Then be consistent with it.

View attachment 8971

View attachment 8972

In some countries and US States they can be told to remove these. In the UK during a demonstration police would advise them to remove this because it is a face covering.

- - - Updated - - -

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Well, they're just women. Not like they are real people or count for much anyway. Not outside of arousing and satisfying an erection an dealing with whatever consequences follow. Plus the usual cooking, cleaning, wiping up asses and noses and piss and vomit and shit. And cum.

Where there are laws in the UK and US against face coverage it relates to men and women.

 

[LordKiran]

Then be consistent with it.

View attachment 8971

View attachment 8972

In some countries and US States they can be told to remove these. In the UK during a demonstration police would advise them to remove this because it is a face covering.

- - - Updated - - -

So your solution is to curtail the civil liberties of women in general and then place the women in these situations with the situation of either choosing to deal with sanctions from either radical Muslims or the civil authorities. Brilliant.

Well, they're just women. Not like they are real people or count for much anyway. Not outside of arousing and satisfying an erection an dealing with whatever consequences follow. Plus the usual cooking, cleaning, wiping up asses and noses and piss and vomit and shit. And cum.

Where there are laws in the UK and US against face coverage it relates to men and women.

Being told to remove something on a case-by-case basis is not the same thing as something being explicitly banned.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, you think that legislation telling women what they can and cannot wear....empowers them?

Seriously, dude.

It does not tell women what they can't wear, as much as it tells men what they can't force their wives or daughters to wear. And yes, that empowers women who are otherwise disadvantaged.

No, banning any article of clothing or symbol is telling the potential wearers of that clothing or symbol what they can or cannot wear. It is not limiting those who wish to force women to wear a burqa. It is forcing women to choose whether to be beaten or worse for not wearing a burqa or being arrested for wearing one.

Why would they beat them up for merely observing the law? Or knowingly send them to be arrested? Who's going to take care of the kids and do the shopping and the housework for them then? It makes no sense. The whole idea is that by removing the choice, the women who would already not want to be confined in the damn things get an excuse not to wear them - because it's the law.

^^^^ This. ^^^^

There's a surreal quality to the counterarguments people keep giving you. They simply systematically ignore the psychology of domestic violence. Of course the average abuser is going to react one way to "I'm not wearing it because of the police" and react a different way to "I'm not wearing it because I'm rebelling against your authority." Duh!

What's even more surreal is how all these left-leaning niqab defenders seem, in their search for a case, to have magically morphed into libertarians. It would be interesting to find out whether the people who keep treating this as a "What right does the state have to override an adult's personal choice?" issue apply that same reasoning to other situations where the government steps in and runs people's lives for their own good. For example, there are those among us who think legislation telling poor people what they can and cannot charge for their labor empowers them. Do you think any of the niqab defenders you're arguing with would regard "Seriously, dude." as a refutation of the hypothesis that the minimum wage is good for the people it prohibits from working for less than $7.25? Do you think any of them would ever say "Did you just say that grown poor people are biologically and psychologically ill-equipped to make adult decisions about what to charge for their work?", or say "The notion that you're restricting people's freedoms to try and free them is no less laughable now then the first time it was said here. It is no business of yours or anyone else's to tell them what they can and cannot charge for their work, based on your personal assumption that $3.00/hour is forced upon them. Your speculation is just a pretext to restrict one's rights. It is not for the state to save them from their own choices."?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the areas with lots of radical Muslims she puts her safety at risk by not wearing the burqa.

Then the law should focus on protecting her from radical elements of a society, not restrict the civil liberties of all citizens in order to sideskip the issue.

When enough people want to commit crime the state has little chance of stopping it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hey what if their families decide to move back to Saudi Arabia or wherever they came from as a result of this? I mean if we've already established that the state has an interest in protecting people from their own decisions then does the state have a right to make sure the woman stays here?

Why stop there. According to LP, “Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans”. The state can and does put down animals for their misbehavior,

Nice job of avoiding actually addressing the issue. If you disagree with the analysis, explain what's wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless they are from the wealthy elite anyone from Saudi Arabia would not return to this "bastion of freedom". However the ban on a burqa is a somewhat asinine attempt at tilting windmills. There is a case to ban full or substantial face covering for security reasons.

Then be consistent with it.

View attachment 8971

View attachment 8972

Stuff like that isn't normally worn into buildings, though.

 

[LordKiran]

Then be consistent with it.

View attachment 8971

View attachment 8972

Stuff like that isn't normally worn into buildings, though.

But you wouldn't stop someone from doing so if they wished.

 

[none]

Stuff like that isn't normally worn into buildings, though.

But you wouldn't stop someone from doing so if they wished.

it is expected in the interest of good health and well being to dress appropriate for weather
I am late to the game, what exactly is the motivation for wearing the hijab?
what is the objective of wearing one? is it just a freedom of religion thing?

 

[LordKiran]

But you wouldn't stop someone from doing so if they wished.

it is expected in the interest of good health and well being to dress appropriate for weather
I am late to the game, what exactly is the motivation for wearing the hijab?
what is the objective of wearing one? is it just a freedom of religion thing?

My boyfriend has a jetblack zip up trench coat with a deep hood and partial face cover that he wears year round. And while he is just one person, it establishes that people can wear face or head concealing garments for a variety of reasons.

At any rate, my concern has less to do with enshrining religious freedom insomuch as it does, ensuring that the state does not have the authority to dictate clothing regulations on the populace. If we don't respect other people's rights to wear whatever they want then we can't expect the same treatment.

If we want to be generous then let's say that the divide is a matter of difference in priorities in governance. I prioritize personal liberty and the right for an individual to do as they please. Others might prioritize national security. others might prioritize cultural hegemony or supremacy. Still others may prioritize the notion that the state should protect people from one another even to the point of social engineering.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I say it again. Special rights should not exist on the basis of people having imaginary friends. Try going through airport security or walking up to a bank teller wearing the hoodie and mouth covering or ski mask. See how that goes for you. Now watch the Muslim women do it and claim it is their right under "freedom of religion"...

Go into the same place with a dagger on your hip. Make it a dull dagger (they wont know) to match Sikh guys. See how that goes for you.

Now walk into a courtroom passed those signs saying no head coverings allowed except for religious ones, and declare it just a suggestion and wear a baseball cap or ski mask while she walks in wearing a burka and he walks in wearing a turban. Watch in amazement as they are declared to be exercising religious freedom, and you are escorted out of the room by the bailiff.

"Religious Freedom" doesn't mean special rights based on imaginary friends? Really? Open your eyes... Explicit bans on burkas are unfair if others can cover their faces yes, but this needs to run both ways.... It was only a little while back that people were not even allowed to give testimony in court without swearing on a fucking bible.

 

[laughing dog]

Why stop there. According to LP, “Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans”. The state can and does put down animals for their misbehavior,

Nice job of avoiding actually addressing the issue. If you disagree with the analysis, explain what's wrong.

I did. As usual, you avoid the content.

 

[laughing dog]

They simply systematically ignore the psychology of domestic violence. ..

What is that "psychology"? That the abused somehow stand up to the abuser? What is surreal is that erst libertarians are jumping up and down on the "Oh, Islam makes me stain my panties, so let's curtail someone else's liberty".