Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Conquistador said:

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.

 

It's really funny, I told you to consider me stupid and treat me as such, and you refused, saying you don't consider me stupid.  (All the while calling my ideas "not even half-baked".)  Now I, presumably the leftist extremist in question, judging by your rhetorical history, "don't think", but rather "parrot", ie, do something that the stupid person does.  So you've settled on me being stupid then?  I really rather prefer it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cb6dba So it's kind of hard to have a discussion on this point when it seems like we're using different definitions for things and assuming we mean the same thing, that they have the same implications, etc.  For me, one of the aims of having a legal system and laws is to be able to make socially-relevant distinctions in order to correct for unequal power between individuals and groups.  So of course the law and law-making process would (and does!) consider the characteristics of types of individuals and groups when making decisions about things -- how else can you protect real existing rights, in a real world, in which we are all capable of making different choices, having different wants and needs, etc?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Muslim must be difficult just like being Catholic. 

 

I have visited many Muslim countries and the addition to Islamic teaching is virtually ten per cent if that. all the men smoke and drink and often eat pork, women are openly unveiled and participate in activities that are supposedly non Islamic.

 

They come to Europe and suddenly their behaviours are all inversed. They become real practitioners of a religion that they did not follow in their own land.

 

Conversely go to any petrol station in Munich after dark, all the guys standing around, drinking beer and driving supped up cars are Muslim.

 

Look at the Innenstadt in Munich, all owned by Saudis,  and various other Muslims... there is no way these shops could ever make enough money to pay the rents but they've been there for over 15 years. All the spiele halls with no customers? WTF is going on?

 

 

3

Share this post


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

 

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

And what ritual would it be? To make oneself unattractive? :D

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

Look at the Innenstadt in Munich, all owned by Saudis,  and various other Muslims

 

Source?

 

I know a few Germans who own a lot of bit properties downtown.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

blah blah

 

 

But you're a bloke. How would you feel if you had to wear it every single day?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

Being Muslim must be difficult just like being Catholic. 

 

I have visited many Muslim countries and the addition to Islamic teaching is virtually ten per cent if that. all the men smoke and drink and often eat pork, women are openly unveiled and participate in activities that are supposedly non Islamic.

 

They come to Europe and suddenly their behaviours are all inversed. They become real practitioners of a religion that they did not follow in their own land.

 

Conversely go to any petrol station in Munich after dark, all the guys standing around, drinking beer and driving supped up cars are Muslim.

 

Look at the Innenstadt in Munich, all owned by Saudis,  and various other Muslims... there is no way these shops could ever make enough money to pay the rents but they've been there for over 15 years. All the spiele halls with no customers? WTF is going on?

 

 

Maybe this is tied to identity?

If religion is part of identity then it would make sense it would become of more major part of life away from the homeland so to speak.

 

Or maybe they think it protects then from the society they have chosen to live in?

 

My sister had something with her Nieces a while ago (younger sister of her husband's kids) where she had to ban stuff in the house. 
At present the kids are having an Alsa/Miana which one is the best problem. They were both wearing costumes (or something) and it came to blows.

Was the perfect example of religion to me, kids fighting over which character in a fairly tale is the best.

 

 

1

Share this post


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

And what ritual would it be? To make oneself unattractive? :D

 

Ritual in the sense that mixing fibers of certain types is forbidden for some varieties of Jews, ie, one's religious beliefs drive one to seek personal holiness by following a set of instructions.

0

Share this post


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

 

But you're a bloke. How would you feel if you had to wear it every single day?

 

What does that have to do with anything? I'm in favour of not wearing it if you don't want to.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

@cb6dba So it's kind of hard to have a discussion on this point when it seems like we're using different definitions for things and assuming we mean the same thing, that they have the same implications, etc.  For me, one of the aims of having a legal system and laws is to be able to make socially-relevant distinctions in order to correct for unequal power between individuals and groups.  So of course the law and law-making process would (and does!) consider the characteristics of types of individuals and groups when making decisions about things -- how else can you protect real existing rights, in a real world, in which we are all capable of making different choices, having different wants and needs, etc?

Well, that explains a lot... Socially relevant distinctions... In other words, one rule for one group and one for another.

We had that in the UK in the past, it was very socially relevant but the focus group depended on the religion on the current reigning monarch. If they were Protestant, the Catholics were persecuted.

 

The law is not there to make exceptions based on the fact that a given group is small. They should obey the law like everyone else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Harold Beckwith said:

Well, that explains a lot... Socially relevant distinctions... In other words, one rule for one group and one for another.

We had that in the UK in the past, it was very socially relevant but the focus group depended on the religion on the current reigning monarch. If they were Protestant, the Catholics were persecuted.

 

The law is not there to make exceptions based on the fact that a given group is small. They should obey the law like everyone else.

 

Rather, to protect weaker individuals and groups from stronger individuals and groups, rather than to pretend that we are all born in a vacuum, without advantages and disadvantages that permit us to tread unjustly upon the rights and well-being of others.  That too is playing favorites, in reality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Rather, to protect weaker individuals and groups from stronger individuals and groups, rather than to pretend that we are all born in a vacuum, without advantages and disadvantages that permit us to tread unjustly upon the rights and well-being of others.  That too is playing favorites, in reality.

Depends what you mean by protect - it should never mean preferential treatment.

This ruling refers to all symbols, not just Islamic ones, I understand it also applies to political symbols.  
Under your reasoning, a Nazi symbol should be protected and allowed as it is used by a minority. 

The world is an unfair place, the law can try to provide an environment where people are treated equally under the law. It is not there to give smaller groups a leg up or provide an advantage to certain groups.

That is the role of social policy and programs. Even so, you cannot suddenly say 'ok, said group has a problem with fathers taking no part in their kids lives, so we pay just that group of fathers 1000 a month if they live at home'..

Life is life, people start with what they start with and they run with it. 

Religion is a choice unless that choice is taken away from you, in which case a person is being forced to follow it.

 All of which are a little bit further on that allowing firms to forbid religious and political symbols.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Ritual in the sense that mixing fibers of certain types is forbidden for some varieties of Jews, ie, one's religious beliefs drive one to seek personal holiness by following a set of instructions.

Typical nonsense you resort to when you are pushed into the corner and have no answer. :)

 

So she is following the ritual of making herself unattractive by wearing a hijab to cover her hair but at the same time nullifies the purpose of this ritual by wearing a lot of make-up in order to make herself attractive?

 

It's contradictive, to say least. The "instruction" is clear - make yourself non-desirable to men. Wearing make-up does not directly follow this instruction no matter how many hijabs she wears. It's like wearing a full faced veil but exposing your bare breasts instead.

2

Share this post


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

The world is an unfair place, the law can try to provide an environment where people are treated equally under the law.

 

Yes, that is the point, I think, just that the law when well written, allows minorities to continue with their legal activities in the face of objection from the majority.

 

Klubbnika, it was posted by someone way up thread, that for example in the West we mostly consider bums and boobs to be the areas traditionally covered as 'private' zones, in parts of (usually warmer!) regions perhaps just one of those areas is covered, or maybe complete nakedness is absolutely the norm, and in the middle east they have not only bums and boobs but also hair. It is absolutely not automatic that free flying boobs are attractive, so it is not as simple as 'making yourself less attractive', and the scarf framing the face is not altering the attractiveness of the lady in question, it is covering her hair in the way that most western women choose to cover their boobs in public.

 

Having said that, I do agree that there is something deeply strange about young women dressing 'provocatively' even by western standards and then adding a veil which says to me 'I am covering my assets to protect myself from the gaze of those who are not worthy to see my full splendour' but hey, it's their choice, and that is a precious thing to me, whether I understand it or not is utterly irrelevant. And they are probably wearing the veil because they know it's rather fetching....again, their faith, their clothing choice, their individual right. I do understand that some women are forced into clothing choices by men. This is true unfortunately across cultures. I understand some women are expected to wear high heels all day at work ...

 

If I have understood it correctly, the new law allows an employer to restrict clothing choices only if they directly affect the effectiveness of the job, which seems reasonable, and not just because some customer complained.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women wearing the hijab while wearing sexy clothes shows that there are more reasons to wear the hijab than the religious ones. I do not even understand why people here make a big deal about it when you can find numerous analogies in the western world. The first one to come to mind are bikini tops that are extremely small that only cover the nipple and do not have any functional reason to be there, they offer no support and it only covers a tiny small part of the breasts. Well the women wear it because you are supposed to wear something and at least covering the nipples is what it is considered the minimum requirement and because that's the one they like. Same thing.

1

Share this post


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

Typical nonsense you resort to when you are pushed into the corner and have no answer. :)

 

So she is following the ritual of making herself unattractive by wearing a hijab to cover her hair but at the same time nullifies the purpose of this ritual by wearing a lot of make-up in order to make herself attractive?

 

No. She is following the ritual of wearing a hijab.  All other reasons ("modesty", etc) that are given by serious practitioners are necessarily post hoc. The ritual purpose of wearing a hijab is to wear a hijab.  It is the ritual.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harold Beckwith said:

This ruling refers to all symbols, not just Islamic ones, I understand it also applies to political symbols.  
Under your reasoning, a Nazi symbol should be protected and allowed as it is used by a minority.

 

Not all symbols are the same, political or otherwise.  They cannot all be treated the same way.  The context matters.

 

3 hours ago, Harold Beckwith said:

The world is an unfair place, the law can try to provide an environment where people are treated equally under the law. It is not there to give smaller groups a leg up or provide an advantage to certain groups.

 

 

The disagreement here resides in what it means to be "treated equally under the law."  I suspect we may never agree on this point.  A juristic posture that assumes from the beginning that we are all starting from the same place and takes no account of social reality in advantages and disadvantages cannot lead to just outcomes.  You may disagree. We may have to agree to disagree.

 

3 hours ago, Harold Beckwith said:

 

That is the role of social policy and programs. Even so, you cannot suddenly say 'ok, said group has a problem with fathers taking no part in their kids lives, so we pay just that group of fathers 1000 a month if they live at home'..

 

Social policy is regulated by the law and is not easily separable therefrom.

 

3 hours ago, Harold Beckwith said:


Life is life, people start with what they start with and they run with it. 

 

Again, a philosophical position on which we are unlikely to agree.

 

3 hours ago, Harold Beckwith said:

Religion is a choice unless that choice is taken away from you, in which case a person is being forced to follow it.


 All of which are a little bit further on that allowing firms to forbid religious and political symbols.

 

The question is whether attempting to deny access to resources (jobs, opportunities) based on particular religious choices leads to good outcomes. 

0

Share this post


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

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 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. 

  

 

Quote
Quote

 

The thing that people fail to see is that a cross can be tucked away under a shirt if the work demands it.

A religious symbol that fails to do its required job if it isn't displayed to the people around, is actually more of 'making a statement'.

 

The usual comparison that follows is that of the Sikhs. Again, a flawed argument, because the Sikhs can (as in they are allowed to, without facing social repercussions) make do without their turbans. And second, Sikhs even with their turbans are more socially inclusive in any aspects. They have no problems with alcohol, pork etc etc. Their religion doesn't call upon them being the ultimate religion of all, hence have little to no extra demands to integrate themselves in a foreign culture.

 

By allowing all religious symbols to be banned is an even ground for all religions.

 

22 minutes ago, Krieg said:

Women wearing the hijab while wearing sexy clothes shows that there are more reasons to wear the hijab than the religious ones.

 

Such as...?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they bloody like it. I still do not understand why some of you do not get that.

Yes, some are forced to wear it, but some honestly like it.

Have you seen those small (neck) scarfs German guys like to wear? Most of us think they are pretty ridiculous and that no guy in his right mind would like something like that. Well, some Germans really like them, believe it or not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, topcat 1 said:

They come to Europe and suddenly their behaviours are all inversed. They become real practitioners of a religion that they did not follow in their own land.

And who is to blame for that?

 

A group of people, the name begins with BE and ends with TE.

 

If nobody gave a shit about their background, they would have never have done that.

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