Angela Merkel wants to ban the burka?

[LordKiran]

Try wearing a ski mask in places she is allowed to wear a burka. Try wearing one walking into a bank, or just generally on the street in the middle of the summer. You are likely to be arrested. She isn't.

That has nothing to do with the law. There's no law that forbids you from wearing a ski mask. You shouldn't conflate the law with how those around you would hypothetically react to something.

I don't care what the Sikh's religion says. That is and should be irrelevant. If there is a valid safety concern about carrying knives to the point that I am told I may not, then he also may not. This is very simple. No special rules because people have imaginary friends.

Because there's no reason that a Kirpan has to be a functional weapon.

In the court rooms I work in there are signs outside that clearly state no headwear allowed except for religious headwear. That is a special right granted because of imaginary friends. That is "freedom" of religion, and it needs to stop.

But then there's nothing in the rule of law that expressly forbids the wearing of hats inside a court room. Now if you wanted to extend the protections against the judgements of individual judges to wear a cap inside a court room then that's your business.

Can I hold up traffic and get in people's way because I want to sing a song0? Hold up official meetings because I insist on reciting a poem before every sitting that explicitly excludes those who don't believe what I do?

Is there a specific incident you're referring to? Because as far as I am aware it is illegal for anyone to hold up traffic, even during public demonstrations.

Why not? They are both deviations from a social norm. There is nothing inherently wrong with being naked, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being fully covered.

What people choose to wear may change from place to place, but the requirement to wear clothing in public is universal across the civilized(And not-so-civilized) world. Public nudity is reviled just as much in Japan as it is in England. Apples and oranges mate.

It does no such thing. What it does do is create special rights for different groups of people because of the imaginary friends they have. And the examples go on and on and on. Why should a jew in prison have a right to a kosher meal or a muslim a right to a halal meal? Do the rest of us get to have special meals just because we want them or are deluded into thinking we need them when we don't?

I'd first ask why prison should have to be a miserable place for people paying their dept to society if not for individual people's concepts of "Justice." Should we take TVs and other such luxery ammeneties(Chips, ramen noodle packets, ect.) out of our prisons because you're there to be miserable? I don't know if you've ever been to prison but minor concessions like Halal meals and televisions do not magically make prison a desirable place to be (Unless you're homeless.) But then there I am going off message. So no, while kosher food are not bare necessities, the idea that prisoners should only ever be afforded the bare necessities isn't something I can honestly agree with.

Why shouldn't churches pay property taxes like everybody else?

churches are considered charity organizations and should be able to do their work without having to concern themselves with overhead. This is especially important in an evangelical america where churches may not have a larger organizational or funding structure to fall back on.

Why should televangelists asking gullible seniors for money so easily escape fraud charges?

Because we don't live in a perfect world where people always behave responsibly with the freedoms and liberties they are afforded. It doesn't mean they shouldn't still be there. This is like asking why we should have a well-fare system when you know one guy who cheats by claiming his dead wife's check.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with telling women how to dress and what they can and cannot wear? I seriously don't get it.

Why not forbid men from wearing briefs? Beards? Man buns? Pornstaches? Kilts? At least two of these could be cited as pertaining to security but seriously, WTF???

Because the burqa is a symbol of Islamic oppression. Furthermore, it's basically a statement that Muslim men are animals, not humans.

The point is some women choose to wear it. The Burqa pre dates Islam.
Forcing women to wear a Burqa is just as bad as forcing them not to wear one. The choice should be theirs

 

[whichphilosophy]

The only thing that is of concern is people wearing masks or full facial coverings and this is on the grounds of security in our current environment. There is a case that a woman may wish to cover her face completely which I would have agreed to before but I think security issues should prevail. It would apply really outdoors. In some societies appearing nude is normal. It won't work today as our societies have gotten sensitive about nudity. Besides in the modern environment men will get it caught in car doors or something. Also it's too cold to go around with nothing on in some countries as there could be a danger of frostbite or something.

Searching for weapons may increase; not just in airports but hotels malls and even some shops. This happens in countries like the Philippines

The prioritization of security over one's personal liberties is how democracies become autocracies. It is also the prioritization used to justify communist witch hunts and Japanese internment camps.

I'd quote Ben Franklin here but that's beneath me.

This is a valid point which you raised and will cause concern. However this is just restricted to being some one can identify people. If someone went to the bank with a stocking over their head, I am sure this will not be treated as a fashionista statement but a cause for alarm.
The danger is of course if this extends beyond the very clear requirement to clearly be able to be sure that if necessary it will be possible to identify people. It does hit on the other issue of the right to privacy. Some people don't like being tracked on GPS or visible everywhere they go due to cameras everywhere (as in London).

 

[whichphilosophy]

Religion in the western world is not compulsory. There is nothing to be 'freed from.'

Notice I said law AND religion. Law is not the only compulsion. Islam in practice does compel women to cover up. And in some Muslim nations the law does as well.

I find it amusing that you're speaking of giving woman the freedom to wear what they want as a justification for taking away their freedom to wear what they want. (Because again, religion and the optional rules within are a choice.)

I am? I am saying they should have as much legal right as anyone else about what they wear. I am also saying their religion is wrong for forcing them to wear the coverings. Are you having difficulty over criticizing religion?

Jihadists and the Saudi factions compel women to be almost out of sight but Islam does not. It just talks about women covering their breasts and dressing modestly.
Not all women in the Muslim world wear Burqas, scarves or veils though some countries do enforce this in varying degrees.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That has nothing to do with the law. There's no law that forbids you from wearing a ski mask. You shouldn't conflate the law with how those around you would hypothetically react to something.

I don't care what the Sikh's religion says. That is and should be irrelevant. If there is a valid safety concern about carrying knives to the point that I am told I may not, then he also may not. This is very simple. No special rules because people have imaginary friends.

Because there's no reason that a Kirpan has to be a functional weapon.

In the court rooms I work in there are signs outside that clearly state no headwear allowed except for religious headwear. That is a special right granted because of imaginary friends. That is "freedom" of religion, and it needs to stop.

But then there's nothing in the rule of law that expressly forbids the wearing of hats inside a court room. Now if you wanted to extend the protections against the judgements of individual judges to wear a cap inside a court room then that's your business.

Can I hold up traffic and get in people's way because I want to sing a song0? Hold up official meetings because I insist on reciting a poem before every sitting that explicitly excludes those who don't believe what I do?

Is there a specific incident you're referring to? Because as far as I am aware it is illegal for anyone to hold up traffic, even during public demonstrations.

Why not? They are both deviations from a social norm. There is nothing inherently wrong with being naked, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being fully covered.

What people choose to wear may change from place to place, but the requirement to wear clothing in public is universal across the civilized(And not-so-civilized) world. Public nudity is reviled just as much in Japan as it is in England. Apples and oranges mate.

It does no such thing. What it does do is create special rights for different groups of people because of the imaginary friends they have. And the examples go on and on and on. Why should a jew in prison have a right to a kosher meal or a muslim a right to a halal meal? Do the rest of us get to have special meals just because we want them or are deluded into thinking we need them when we don't?

I'd first ask why prison should have to be a miserable place for people paying their dept to society if not for individual people's concepts of "Justice." Should we take TVs and other such luxery ammeneties(Chips, ramen noodle packets, ect.) out of our prisons because you're there to be miserable? I don't know if you've ever been to prison but minor concessions like Halal meals and televisions do not magically make prison a desirable place to be (Unless you're homeless.) But then there I am going off message. So no, while kosher food are not bare necessities, the idea that prisoners should only ever be afforded the bare necessities isn't something I can honestly agree with.

Why shouldn't churches pay property taxes like everybody else?

churches are considered charity organizations and should be able to do their work without having to concern themselves with overhead. This is especially important in an evangelical america where churches may not have a larger organizational or funding structure to fall back on.

Why should televangelists asking gullible seniors for money so easily escape fraud charges?

Because we don't live in a perfect world where people always behave responsibly with the freedoms and liberties they are afforded. It doesn't mean they shouldn't still be there. This is like asking why we should have a well-fare system when you know one guy who cheats by claiming his dead wife's check.

There are anti-Mask laws in some US States, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and Russia. In the UK it is illegal to wear a mask when rioting. However it is also illegal to riot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM4gPMAU4Bs

So apparantly this is now happening. Not sure what the purpose of this is!

It may play to a certain demographic but it wont solve your migrant problem born completely of your decision to invite them all in without any sort of plan or thought for how to handle them all. If anything this will just piss them off even more.

The purpose is obvious: there is an election she needs to win. Her advisors are saying she needs to appear tougher on immigration or she may lose to the far right.

Yeah, exactly. The lowest hanging fruit on the racist agenda. While racist, not particularly racist.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The purpose is obvious: there is an election she needs to win. Her advisors are saying she needs to appear tougher on immigration or she may lose to the far right.

Yeah, exactly. The lowest hanging fruit on the racist agenda. While racist, not particularly racist.

Are you saying controlling illegal immigration is racist?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yeah, exactly. The lowest hanging fruit on the racist agenda. While racist, not particularly racist.

Are you saying controlling illegal immigration is racist?

I'm saying banning burkhas are.

 

[LordKiran]

The prioritization of security over one's personal liberties is how democracies become autocracies. It is also the prioritization used to justify communist witch hunts and Japanese internment camps.

I'd quote Ben Franklin here but that's beneath me.

This is a valid point which you raised and will cause concern. However this is just restricted to being some one can identify people. If someone went to the bank with a stocking over their head, I am sure this will not be treated as a fashionista statement but a cause for alarm.
The danger is of course if this extends beyond the very clear requirement to clearly be able to be sure that if necessary it will be possible to identify people. It does hit on the other issue of the right to privacy. Some people don't like being tracked on GPS or visible everywhere they go due to cameras everywhere (as in London).

The problem I have is that the logical conclusion here is to ban any kind of headware that conceals one's identity. Scarves? You're out. Sunglasses? Gone. Hoods of any kind? See yah.

What is specific to burkas that makes it necessary to legislate them so strictly that isn't specific to other forms of apparel which could be just as effective at hiding your face? (Other than burkas being predominantly worn by muslims of course. Because that would be rather prejudiced I must say.)

At the end of the day, the needless harm this does to a minority group is just a tertiary concern for me. The bigger concern is how this sort of thinking can serve as a vector that allows the state superfluous control over what I can and cannot wear.

That has nothing to do with the law. There's no law that forbids you from wearing a ski mask. You shouldn't conflate the law with how those around you would hypothetically react to something.


Because there's no reason that a Kirpan has to be a functional weapon.

In the court rooms I work in there are signs outside that clearly state no headwear allowed except for religious headwear. That is a special right granted because of imaginary friends. That is "freedom" of religion, and it needs to stop.

But then there's nothing in the rule of law that expressly forbids the wearing of hats inside a court room. Now if you wanted to extend the protections against the judgements of individual judges to wear a cap inside a court room then that's your business.

Can I hold up traffic and get in people's way because I want to sing a song0? Hold up official meetings because I insist on reciting a poem before every sitting that explicitly excludes those who don't believe what I do?

Is there a specific incident you're referring to? Because as far as I am aware it is illegal for anyone to hold up traffic, even during public demonstrations.

Why not? They are both deviations from a social norm. There is nothing inherently wrong with being naked, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with being fully covered.

What people choose to wear may change from place to place, but the requirement to wear clothing in public is universal across the civilized(And not-so-civilized) world. Public nudity is reviled just as much in Japan as it is in England. Apples and oranges mate.

It does no such thing. What it does do is create special rights for different groups of people because of the imaginary friends they have. And the examples go on and on and on. Why should a jew in prison have a right to a kosher meal or a muslim a right to a halal meal? Do the rest of us get to have special meals just because we want them or are deluded into thinking we need them when we don't?

I'd first ask why prison should have to be a miserable place for people paying their dept to society if not for individual people's concepts of "Justice." Should we take TVs and other such luxery ammeneties(Chips, ramen noodle packets, ect.) out of our prisons because you're there to be miserable? I don't know if you've ever been to prison but minor concessions like Halal meals and televisions do not magically make prison a desirable place to be (Unless you're homeless.) But then there I am going off message. So no, while kosher food are not bare necessities, the idea that prisoners should only ever be afforded the bare necessities isn't something I can honestly agree with.

Why shouldn't churches pay property taxes like everybody else?

churches are considered charity organizations and should be able to do their work without having to concern themselves with overhead. This is especially important in an evangelical america where churches may not have a larger organizational or funding structure to fall back on.

Why should televangelists asking gullible seniors for money so easily escape fraud charges?

Because we don't live in a perfect world where people always behave responsibly with the freedoms and liberties they are afforded. It doesn't mean they shouldn't still be there. This is like asking why we should have a well-fare system when you know one guy who cheats by claiming his dead wife's check.

There are anti-Mask laws in some US States, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and Russia. In the UK it is illegal to wear a mask when rioting. However it is also illegal to riot.

And to be perfectly honest I disagree with the existence of such laws. I mean if someone is going to rob a liquor store, they're probably not too concerned over what state law says in regard to ski masks.

 

[barbos]

And to be perfectly honest I disagree with the existence of such laws. I mean if someone is going to rob a liquor store, they're probably not too concerned over what state law says in regard to ski masks.

Well, these laws do make security easier, they can start shooting at you way before you start demanding money in the bank.

 

[Jayjay]

Are you saying controlling illegal immigration is racist?

I'm saying banning burkhas are.

How come the choice to wear or not wear a burqa is an individual choice that has nothing to do with race, religion or creed, but banning them is somehow racist (nevermind that Islam is not a race)?

 

[barbos]

So Angela Merkel wants to win again. Is she in any danger of losing?

 

[Warpoet]

This shit again?

It's a fucking piece of cloth. Get over it. I get tired of seeing security dredged up as an excuse to justify this nonsense when it's obviously not about that. It's about showing Muslims who's boss. Apparently even Angela "cultural suicide" Merkel will pander to xenophobes if it improves her chances of getting elected.

 

[barbos]

This shit again?

It's a fucking piece of cloth. Get over it. I get tired of seeing security dredged up as an excuse to justify this nonsense when it's obviously not about that. It's about showing Muslims who's boss. Apparently even Angela "cultural suicide" Merkel will pander to xenophobes if it improves her chances of getting elected.

In many countries laws against face masks predate islamic terrorism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm saying banning burkhas are.

How come the choice to wear or not wear a burqa is an individual choice that has nothing to do with race, religion or creed, but banning them is somehow racist (nevermind that Islam is not a race)?

Here's a clip from Richard Dawkins' tv series where he talks with a guy who accuses the west of dressing our women like whores. This is about three minutes in. Richard Dawkins retorts "We don't dress our women. They dress themselves"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248

Banning burkhas is taking away women's rights to dress themselves. I'm sorry but that violates everything I hold sacred. To paraphrase Voltaire.. I'd be willing to go to war to protect women's rights to dress themselves. I find this ban abhorrent and a violation of women's rights. It's progressiveness going backwards IMHO.

On the racism. General rules that will only negatively impact a minority isn't general rules at all. No matter how generally they are formulated. Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist. If the situations was the reverse you could bet yourself that we'd be banning some bullshit associated with Christianity instead. There's zero rational thought behind this. It's just run-of-the-mill racist bullshit.

I can give another example that might shine some light on it. When marijuana was outlawed in USA it wasn't for public health reasons. It was outlawed because only Mexicans smoked weed and they wanted the illegal alien Mexican farmhands to go home. Outlawing the weed gave society another tool by which to harass them. This was for racist reasons. Today it's gone so much time that we can all accept this. It's now a sordid bit of American history.

 

[barbos]

Don't be naive, these women don't dress themselves. they are dressed by men, filthy disgusting islamist men.

 

[Jayjay]

How come the choice to wear or not wear a burqa is an individual choice that has nothing to do with race, religion or creed, but banning them is somehow racist (nevermind that Islam is not a race)?

Here's a clip from Richard Dawkins' tv series where he talks with a guy who accuses the west of dressing our women like whores. This is about three minutes in. Richard Dawkins retorts "We don't dress our women. They dress themselves"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248

Banning burkhas is taking away women's rights to dress themselves. I'm sorry but that violates everything I hold sacred. To paraphrase Voltaire.. I'd be willing to go to war to protect women's rights to dress themselves. I find this ban abhorrent and a violation of women's rights. It's progressiveness going backwards IMHO.

On the racism. General rules that will only negatively impact a minority isn't general rules at all. No matter how generally they are formulated. Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist. If the situations was the reverse you could bet yourself that we'd be banning some bullshit associated with Christianity instead. There's zero rational thought behind this. It's just run-of-the-mill racist bullshit.

I can give another example that might shine some light on it. When marijuana was outlawed in USA it wasn't for public health reasons. It was outlawed because only Mexicans smoked weed and they wanted the illegal alien Mexican farmhands to go home. Outlawing the weed gave society another tool by which to harass them. This was for racist reasons. Today it's gone so much time that we can all accept this. It's now a sordid bit of American history.

But you can't have it both ways. Either women (or men) who wear a burqa do so as an expression of an individual right, or they do it because it is mandated by their oppressive religion. If it's the former, then banning the burqa is not "racism", it's a limitation of an individual right whoever they may be. If you admit that it is done with a particular group in mind, a group that happens to have a habit of using the burqa as a tool for oppressing women, then that justifies it. It's better to have thousands of women free of that religious nonsense, even if it means inflicting a temporary minor hurt feelings to a couple of whiners who would want to wear the burqa out of their own free will.

I favor utilitarianism over individual rights: maximum good for maximum number of people. When that idiocy has been stamped out, the ban could be removed.

 

[Warpoet]

In many countries laws against face masks predate islamic terrorism.

The majority of those laws pertain to public demonstrations, where the police might need to identify someone, not to people going about their daily lives.

And besides, like I said, this is a dishonest smokescreen. Like the ludicrous "burkini ban" a few months ago, where facial concealment wasn't concerned, this isn't about security. It's about saying fuck you to Europe's Muslims.

 

[Warpoet]

Either women (or men) who wear a burqa do so as an expression of an individual right, or they do it because it is mandated by their oppressive religion.

Or maybe Muslims are individuals like you and I, and they all have their own different reasons for wearing a certain garment.

If you admit that it is done with a particular group in mind, a group that happens to have a habit of using the burqa as a tool for oppressing women, then that justifies it.

No it doesn't, because A) it's merely your belief that the women wearing it are being oppressed and B) there are already laws in Western countries against forcing people to wear things they don't want to. Banning the article itself is a stupid solution, since it's punishing people who are choosing to wear it of their own free will, and doing nothing to solve the underlying problem for any hypothetical cases where they aren't.

And that's without even wading into the incalculable dangers inherent in giving the government free rein to ban expressions of religious freedom, or any other form of free speech, merely because they think it doesn't serve the greater good. Nothing can go wrong there, now can it? But hey, don't let this kind of critical thinking or concern for civil liberties get in the way of your predictably overgeneralized, fuck 'em all logic.

 

[barbos]

In many countries laws against face masks predate islamic terrorism.

The majority of those laws pertain to public demonstrations, where the police might need to identify someone, not to people going about their daily lives.

And besides, like I said, this is a dishonest smokescreen. Like the ludicrous "burkini ban" a few months ago, where facial concealment wasn't concerned, this isn't about security. It's about saying fuck you to Europe's Muslims.

More like "Fuck your stupid religion based ideology". But If these muslims stop wearing these burkas during their stupid protests about their right to wear these stupid burkas I will be OK with that