Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

The motives for wearing it are irrelevant to the question of rights and also the the social goals.  I hope I've always been clear on that. 

Please go to a Holocaust memorial and wear a Swastika and claim your reason for wearing it is irrelevant.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

Why don't they just say 'all women should shave their heads' - no need to ban the headscarf, it would maybe make it compulsory to cover a religions symbol..

 

It wouldn't change anything.  The women who believe in it are wearing it first and foremost as a ritual garment like a Sikh turban.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

Please go to a Holocaust memorial and wear a Swastika and claim your reason for wearing it is irrelevant.

 

...to the question of rights and social goals, as I said.  The reason is not irrelevant in other contexts, such as the meaning in a memorial.  I was being precise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

So it is fair..

Like forbidding shooting people. 

 

...which even then has contextual exceptions, like self-defense, authorization by the state, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

Please go to a Holocaust memorial and wear a Swastika and claim your reason for wearing it is irrelevant.

This is what criminal code thinks: your reason for propaganda of Nazism is irrelevant. The state prosecutor will, however, try to charge you with desecrating the memory of deceased (where again your motive is irrelevant), but most probably will not be able to prove that, so you will only be convicted for Nazism propaganda.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

Regarding rednecks not wearing hijab. And what is this?

index.jpeg.da0be8fdf65dab67b450281e0ae35

 

Umm, probably your stupidity? No clue. You tell me.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

 

45 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Then be accused of creating a parallel society and attacked from the other side. 

 

Lol, a Threat hidden in the argument. :lol: Either West conform to our demands, or get ready for parallel societies, (WHICH, BY THE WAY, ALREADY EXISTS) !! So, no cookies for this argument.

 

40061653~01.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The degree the female body is sexualized is normative. We think our norms are the most normal obviously. And we have ideologies developed around this. To me, the bras are the most offensive thing that can ever be imagined. Complete inequality, womens breasts represent something sexual and mens don't? Who decided that? (Men :) )

 

We have been and still are forced to wear this strange oppressive thing, which only got smaller during material shortage during war. For a while we were even deluded to think that it is good for health. Still to this day, it can be justified with sagging and all that, which creates agist hierarchies of beauty in regard to the feminine body. 

 

I have every right to decide what is what on my body. My swinging erotic organs for some are fat, glands, veins for me. 

 

Basically, in its most civilized form, I live in a world that hasn't come to terms with the natural and neutral existence of the female nipple.  The majority of alll genders would probably agree with each other that it's not a big deal. Same for menstruation blood. Motherhood is sacred but that blood carries so much shame with it - not in these backward societies, actually there isn't that problem there. Bodily hair is also culturally regualated. The modern world has an obsession even with women's armpits. 

 

So the norms OK. Wanting to live with our norms, OK. Other than that, why can't women decide what is liberatory for them really?  What is this assumption that bra supporters are more advanced in their attitude than headscarf wearers? The former doesn't even have any ideological grounding such as faith or whatever. In our world, most people have still not liberated themselves from the kingdom of blue and pink. Colours make us panic. 

 

Nakedness? The majority of the modern society would have difficulty going out without knickers or underwear. And that's not even naked. Dressed people feeling naked judging others' levels of feeling naked is a very funny world to me. 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Nonsense.  One of Mohammad's wife was a very successful business women.   Probably that was the main reason for which Mohammad married her, but I do not really know.

Being wealthy by marriage doesn't mean being independent.

She inhereted her wealth from her first husband and it was in a time when Islam did not exist.

 

If she divorced her first husband, do you think she would have got half of his wealth?

 

46 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Very good point.  Now the question is then who made it a "religious symbol"?  The Muslims or the the western world?

Muslims. They insist they need to wear it because of their religion.

 

46 minutes ago, Krieg said:

And you can see as well women wearing the hijab while wearing tight jeans and shirts.    Still people would say they are being oppressed and someone has to save them.

I am more wondering why they wear a hijab... They can as well ditch it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

So, you want the ban to apply in summer only? Good choice, go for it! But then automatically nudity ban will not be valid as well, so everyone can walk naked in summer.

 

Regarding rednecks not wearing hijab. And what is this?

index.jpeg.da0be8fdf65dab67b450281e0ae35

 

Ehum.... it is definitely not a hijab.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

Umm, probably your stupidity? No clue. You tell me.

Hahaha, good one! But I didn't mean the man on the photo. I meant the cap, this was just the first Google Images photo for illustration.

 

So, you don't like that cap to be banned? Then you are also against hijab ban. There are some exceptions for the church (like church bells) but otherwise the law is the law, it applies to everyone.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said: all of the proponents of taking action against Islamic women's ritual dress codes never tell us what it is supposed to accomplish, least of all in terms of the rights and well-being of the supposed principal beneficiaries.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

 

Lol, a Threat hidden in the argument. :lol: Either West conform to our demands, or get ready for parallel societies, (WHICH, BY THE WAY, ALREADY EXISTS) !! So, no cookies for this argument.

 

40061653~01.jpg

 

What threat?  It's merely a social phenomenon.  The very people who complain about hijab, niqab, etc, are the very people who also complain about parallel societies, while demanding policies that lead (whether you like it or not) to the parallel societies they complain about!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rohit_2543 said:

@Eupathic Impulse

Try wearing a Mohammed t-shirt in Molenbeek, and tell the sympathetic onlookers "it's just a piece of clothing".

 

Which has to do with what?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ECHR rights about the headscarf are always political. Perhaps this is not exactly a horrible thing in principle that rights are evaluated on such a basis because laws have to respond to the reality societies - as well as building them of course. They can neither be frozen, nor completely arbitrarily political. 

 

Research on headscarf and education shows that in one decade in one country banning this will be interpreted as a breach of human rights (Turkey, lots of compensation for headscarf wearers, refugee status for people who have no freedom of faith or something) but then in another country that has accepted them on refugee basis, the headscarf may be banned again. The law looks at when something becomes a "political" symbol that causes various interpretations. This is not hidden. 

 

Like 4 years ago, a woman was given compensation as she wasn't allowed to wear her cross in the workplace, this is everywhere now. 4 years later, different decision. One woman who once won compensation for the headscarf is not wearing it anymore. She said she cannot comment on that case now as she is not covered, but she defends others rights to wear what they want. 

 

If we associate this with values only, we will be surprised every decade or be obliged to revise values all the time, which is kind of funny in itself. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

What threat?  It's merely a social phenomenon.  The very people who complain about hijab, niqab, etc, are the very people who also complain about parallel societies, while demanding policies that lead (whether you like it or not) to the parallel societies they complain about!

Do Muslims want a mingled society or do they want a parallel society anyhow ?

Genuine question.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Keleth said:

Do Muslims want a mingled society or do they want a parallel society anyhow ?

Genuine question.

 

There's no universally applicable answer that applies to all Muslims.  Like all minority communities, there are some aspects of tradition and togetherness and heritage that Muslims in the West perceive as setting them apart, some need for community organization, and so on.  There are some members who really don't want to have much to do with the majority, and some members who go all in and almost completely culturally assimilate.   It varies by country and is partly dependent on whether the majority community demands full assimilation for acceptance in other areas or not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:
20 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

What threat?  It's merely a social phenomenon.  The very people who complain about hijab, niqab, etc, are the very people who also complain about parallel societies, while demanding policies that lead (whether you like it or not) to the parallel societies they complain about!

 

 

Parallel societies already exist. So where's your argument?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now