Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, cb6dba said:


I don't like it, it is still gender specific clothing/job etc. Should also be dragged in to the 21st century.

 

 

Oh no gender specific clothing...

 

a646c45633cfab95a2aaf727480883aba7de652148fb3601db61853a62d3b3da.jpg

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, zeino said:

And atheists? Can they benefit from all holidays or are there no holidays for them because atheism is no religion? Then can we wear this bracelet or is it philosophy? Or I am an atheist who likes Danish Lutheran philosophy and its idealism?  What if I just have no philosophy and don't even think it's political? 

No holidays for them. There are only two non religious holidays in Germany (in all states): German Reunification Day and New Year.

 

Atheists can take vacation, but subject to approval of the employer.

 

I know a lot of people, who say they are Katolisch or Evangelisch, but they do not attend church. I would call them atheists, they are just as secular as me, but formally identify with the religion.

1

Share this post


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

Oh no gender specific clothing...

 

a646c45633cfab95a2aaf727480883aba7de652148fb3601db61853a62d3b3da.jpg

They are, they make the girls sit at the back based on some backward cultural ideological grounds based on, as they say, a fairy tale.

Then again, who knows, maybe unicorns also exist.. 

0

Share this post


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

 

So how many religions wear head scarves?

No idea, this isn't about headscarves in particular, it is about religious and political symbols.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And philosophical - to nicely cover the relatively obscure stuff. 

 

0

Share this post


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

The question has always been, partly, whether that offense should take precedence over personal autonomy in religious dress.  I admit I find your accusation that I am taking the "narrow view" rather strange, because I have always drawn attention to the large-scale, broad issues: social outcomes, personal rights, ethical questions, etc.  What is more narrow than appealing to the tendency of individuals to be offended by what other people wear, as you are?  That's the narrowest concern of all!

 

 

This doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with anything I never said.  If a mosque chooses not to segregate men and women -- Alevite Muslim congregations don't -- that does not hurt anyone, at least not in any way that the law should care.  That's right and proper.  I never argued otherwise!  Forcing the mosque to desegregate genders through outside interference in the practices of a private religious congregation is another matter.  But a mosque choosing not to segregate is its own choice -- which some take, depending on sectarian variety.

Am I offended?

You are misquoting me, I have said you are narrow in your approach in that we should accept Islamic practices even if they are illegal, we should make exceptions. Once your idea are applied to other area, they do not work. marrow as in only applying them to a very 'narrow' part of society.

Thanks for posting the comment about segregation, it will save me digging it up later when someone asks for the post. 
If a law says something is illegal, it should not matter who is doing it. That is the base of the system, the what, not the who is the focus. 
 

If religion is private, then you should have no issue with this judgement, a work place is not private, it is communal. Problem solved, symbolism removed, headscarves along with swastikas and crucifixes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, yourkeau said:

Besorgte do not give a shit about women and the least thing they support is women liberation. They view a woman more or less like a car, so discussion about hijab or burqa is equal to discussion if we should ban red and yellow cars because this is against our tradition.

 

Any suggestion that a woman can have her own personality and wishes is here dismissed, those who carefully suggest that a woman can actually choose to wear anything, are labeled as fanatics.

 These besorgte, are they Muslims?

Coz the view on women you described is typical for the muslim countries.

 

Or are you, once again, throwing labels here and there without even thinking what they mean.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Krieg said:

I bet if all Muslim women wore a beanie instead of a hijab we wouldn't be discussing this.

Right, we would be discussing beanie instead.

What is your point?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftist extremists don't think- they just parrot what they're told. They also spend a lot of time trying to convince themselves and others that those who disagree with them are such bad people that their viewpoints can't even be considered, and that's assuming the rare instances when those viewpoints aren't deliberately misrepresented. This leads to a lot of serious reality distortion, with devastating consequences, albeit usually not for the cluess indoctrinated leftist extremists.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, punkinside said:

Fuck me this goes round and round in circles. I can only attach myself to whoever it is that's saying that prohibiting some garment is equally as bad as forcing its use. 

 

And one more thing, since people want to ban this in public:

Plain-Hijabs.jpg

 

 

Does that mean I won't be subjected to any more of this as well?

 

329B2BA800000578-3511984-image-a-1_14591

 

Cause nuns give me the heebie jeebies. I say good riddance.

 

Typical! A hijabed woman with a lot of make-up, trying to make herself both sexually attractive and unattractive at the same time. :D

 

At least the nun is consistent.

5

Share this post


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

 

 These besorgte, are they Muslims?

Coz the view on women you described is typical for the muslim countries.

 

Or are you, once again, throwing labels here and there without even thinking what they mean.

That's up to you. If you think that women are free here in Europe, I am not convincing you otherwise: I am, after all, not a woman.

 

But one thing to point out: Muslim women also think they are free.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, klubbnika said:

 

Typical! A hijabed woman with a lot of make-up, trying to make herself both sexually attractive and unattractive at the same time. :D

 

At least the nun is consistent.

 

Typical argument about women who wear the headscarf but represent just one bit of progress. If they are purists, they are X.Y,Z. If they are progressive, they are P,Q,I. Just a couple of pages ago, burkha was bad and headscarf was OK, but now makeup is bad. Shall women now ask us plus theoretical hubbies about how progressive can they be? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

That's the demise of a hate object. When they progress, we become Islamic purists :) 

 

Women cannot be generalized to wear makeup to make themselves attractive to men. Every woman has the right to have a bond with her body. Lipstick is not for men only. This is also very anti-women and very similar to everything we criticize actually.

 

Likewise, nobody's headscarf or tight shirt or whatever exists for anyone else's evaluations of attractiveness. 

 

We must all liberate ourselves from these outdated ideas first. 

0

Share this post


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

That's up to you. If you think that women are free here in Europe, I am not convincing you otherwise: I am, after all, not a woman.

 

But one thing to point out: Muslim women also think they are free.

How do you know what they think?

You are neither woman, nor Muslim.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this photo tells more about women than commercial ads and comparisons with nuns. 

 

mark-rutte.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seriously, I think you are a very talented musician and a great photographer - if you are photographing those birds yourself. I also know that no matter how harsh the arguments here are, we are not very violent examples of our species :) 

 

If you haven't found out already, there were 4 cases - if I remember correctly- in 2013. The most famous one was Eweida versus British Airways. She worked in check-in and could not wear a cross although Muslims and Shiks could wear their religious symbols. This was because the British Airways banned symbols around the neck. The only exception to this was "mandatory scriptural requirement." She sued BA on the basis of discrimination but this time, it was this poor woman who couldn't prove that the cross was a requirement. The British court decided it was not mandatory for Christians. Tony Blair got involved but the result did not change.

 

The EU court did not interpret it on the basis of discrimination, and gave a much stronger verdict (IMO.) The British Airways defense (corporate image) was weighed against freedom of religion, and they decided that BA gave too much and unneccessary weight on corporate image in her case. That is, "the corporate image" idea was not considered "objective justification".  There is a test as such in workplce equality concepts and BA failed it. She was awarded 2 or 3 thousand euro - and her court expenses, which were tenfold. The whole battle took 7 years. 

 

In the same year, there were three other rulings about the cross I think. One ended favourably because ECHR decided again there was no reason why this woman could not wear the cross in her job - there wasn't any Islamic example to compare in her case. Another one, I think a nurse or someone was not given the same right because it boiled down to something related to treating or not treating homosexuals and the cross was considered within that context. 

 

I've kind of written this from the top of my head, which is pretty cloudy right now but there is an inclination sometimes in the ECHR to judge the weight whatever regulations are. 

 

With this new ruling - which is not final I think, they may appeal- the definition is so broad - philosophical, religious, political, we will see how that will work. Not all countries or companies write regulations very properly, so there are comedy cases sometimes. My own country had this broad ban for universities, they banned everything to have a standard. You couldn't see one single student managing to enter university doors because everyone was shouting, hey long hair is political, environmentalism is philosophical etc :) Of course it will not happen like that in work places but there may also be people suing for funny things. 

 

Altogether, the ECHR does not approach these judgments just in one way. There are changes in approaches depending on decades, countries etc. This makes decisions open to political interpretation but also, really, law cannot always be frozen because it too needs to respond to life. Arguments will go on :)

 

And now that I have written all this, I earn the right to hear more songs!  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

Am I offended?

 

Eh? I never said anything about you personally being offended as far as I can remember.

 

5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

You are misquoting me, I have said you are narrow in your approach in that we should accept Islamic practices even if they are illegal, we should make exceptions. Once your idea are applied to other area, they do not work. marrow as in only applying them to a very 'narrow' part of society.

 

 

Wearing a headscarf is not so far illegal.  I have a broad criterion: allowing people to practice religious dress requirements should be part of anti-discrimination policy in general.  I don't know what's "narrow" about that.

 

5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

 

Thanks for posting the comment about segregation, it will save me digging it up later when someone asks for the post. 

 

Who would be asking for the post?  And why would you need to dig it up?  I am stating the rather banal, common, and well-known and practiced idea that religious and cultural organizations should have broad autonomy in governing behaviour in their private events (prayers, cultural gatherings, etc). 

 

5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

If a law says something is illegal, it should not matter who is doing it. That is the base of the system, the what, not the who is the focus. 

 

I'm not sure what law we're talking about here, or what is supposed to be illegal?

 

The law in any case written to take into account context, and rightly so.  That context definitely includes who is doing something.  What one type of organization does may be governed by a different part of the law from another type of organization.  That is, again: banal and common, and quite correct.  That is a broad principle that touches in reality all kinds of different things.  And e.V. is different from a G.m.b.H, for example.  A cultural organization is different from a commercial enterprise.  And so on. Different laws, rights, etc, exist in each context.

 

5 hours ago, cb6dba said:

 

If religion is private, then you should have no issue with this judgement, a work place is not private, it is communal. Problem solved, symbolism removed, headscarves along with swastikas and crucifixes.

 

"Private" does not mean "hidden".  Religion is neither "public" nor "private" -- it is individual, in a liberal society, and as public or private as the individual in question wishes it to be, regardless of whether s/he is in a work place, in a coffee shop, at home, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, klubbnika said:

 

Typical! A hijabed woman with a lot of make-up, trying to make herself both sexually attractive and unattractive at the same time. :D

 

That is because, as I said, she is wearing it as a ritual garment, the unattractiveness is tertiary.

0

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