Support NeoGAF

[Lois_Lane]

As someone who is from a muslim country and moved away to get away from this shit, I disagree completely.

Why?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I have only data from the UK and Germany but I wouldn't be surprised if most European countries supported a burqa ban. France and Belgium already have it in place.



And no, this is not because Europe is some fortress of 'national extremism', it's because Europe has an actual problem of radical Islam as opposed to the US.

This might sound crazy

But maybe our relative lack of radicalized Muslims has something to do with us not passing laws designed to antagonize them?

Not to hold up America as a shining city on a hill because we just elected fucking Trump.

 

[ienjoyrawfish]

She's a populist. Pre-Summer 2015 she claimed the same things, just to get votes. Now she's swinging a bit to the right, because it's the trend. But migration politics that actually make sense? Never.

If she's a populist, she's a pretty poor one.

I've encountered very few "everyday" people (on both ends of the political spectrum) who don't dislike her for one reason or another.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

we're talking about clothing, not human sacrifice

This isn't simply wearing a blue shirt instead of a green shirt, this is rooted in the oppression of women.

 

[Chumley]

I am genuinely shocked by how much people wave away extremist, oppressive and intolerant things because they see it as freedom of religion.

Same. It's disgusting.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Isn't this more about security and stuff and about not allowing anyone to conceal their identity in public? Doesn't this apply to everyone as a default? If that is the case then there should be no exemptions because of religion. Am I totally off base here?

No, not really. It's a transparent attempt at appealing to Islamophobic fuck-wits ahead of the upcoming elections in Germany that Merkel is probably going to lose anyway because people hate her for letting in too many Muslims and refugees and so this is a very obvious attempt by her at trying to get on those people's good-sides, but it's not going to work because they hate them even being here and Merkel having let them in than getting throwaway "victories" like this.

To deny that's what's at the heart of this and it has nothing to do with the refugee situation in Germany and the divisiveness and tremendously mixed feelings regarding that and trying to throw a bone the way of people who hate all "the browns and terrorists" being let in is basically just sticking your fingers in your ears.

 

[Htown]

This isn't simply wearing a blue shirt instead of a green shirt, this is rooted in the oppression of women.

so stop women from being oppressed by limitations on what they can wear, by handing down government limitations on what they can wear

smart

 

[pigeon]

I am genuinely shocked by how much people wave away extremist, oppressive and intolerant things because they see it as freedom of religion.

I think it is clearly an oppressive practice and that, as I said in the post you responded to, we should make every effort to make sure that people who are oppressed by it have the opportunity to escape that oppression.

If women genuinely want to wear them, I don't believe it is fighting oppression to prevent them from doing so. I am not so arrogant as to assume that if people disagree with me they must be brainwashed.

 

[Raonak]

This is fucking stupid. they're trying to fight a religion which restricts clothing choices..... by legally restricting clothing choices -_-

If you want to ban covering of faces, then do it across the board. Targetting specific groups is going to do nothing but build resentment.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

so stop women from being oppressed by limitations on what they can wear, by handing down government limitations on what they can wear

smart

No easy solution to this my friend

 

[Morrigan Stark]

we're talking about clothing, not human sacrifice

Clothing that is used in the systematic oppression and dehumanization of women, which starts at a very young age too. Come on, you know this isn't any random, arbitrary piece of clothing.

If you want to ban covering of faces, then do it across the board. Targetting specific groups is going to do nothing but build resentment.

I'd be OK with this.

 

[HellforLeather]

I get it, but won't this just piss off a particularly fundamentalist group of Muslims who who live in Germany?

Should society walk on egg shells to prevent upsetting religious fundamentalists?

 

[ClosingADoor]

This might sound crazy

But maybe our relative lack of radicalized Muslims has something to do with us not passing laws designed to antagonize them?

Not to hold up America as a shining city on a hill because we just elected fucking Trump.

No, it has to do with the location of the US, their immigration policies and the different countries their Muslim communities originate from.

And Europe has in no way passed laws to antagonize Muslims. What laws are you referring to there?

I think it is clearly an oppressive practice and that, as I said in the post you responded to, we should make every effort to make sure that people who are oppressed by it have the opportunity to escape that oppression.

If women genuinely want to wear them, I don't believe it is fighting oppression to prevent them from doing so. I am not so arrogant as to assume that if people disagree with me they must be brainwashed.

In a perfect world you would be right, but that is not the case. I support a ban for this to prevent further normalization of an oppressive practice, and would support the other efforts you mention to help people who are stuck in an abusive situation also.

 

[HellforLeather]

This is fucking stupid. they're trying to fight a religion which restricts clothing choices..... by legally restricting clothing choices -_-

If you want to ban covering of faces, then do it across the board. Targetting specific groups is going to do nothing but build resentment.

I believe it is banned, but now its being extended to the hijab.

 

[Somnid]

Oh my god. The consequences for not wearing a niqab are so much worse. You're being intentionally obtuse at this point.

They could torture you and put you to death for not wearing it. You'd have to explain how this solves that though.

 

[Htown]

Clothing that is used in the systematic oppression and dehumanization of women, which starts at a very young age too. Come on, you know this isn't any random, arbitrary piece of clothing.

The government should not be in the business of legislating clothing because of its religious content.

Ever. Period. Full stop.

 

[Big Baybee]

so stop women from being oppressed by limitations on what they can wear, by handing down government limitations on what they can wear

smart

They are oppressing them for their own good!

Seriously though, this is not the right way to combat extremism. I don't know the right way, but it ain't this.

 

[Patrick S.]

Go to a gas station in France. You'll see stickers on the doors that say "forbidden to wear helmets, due to terrorism prevention". I was a bit surprised when I first saw one of those, because I had never before seen such an everyday reminder of how real the danger of terror is. Normally it was just something you see on the news, and here I was seing a measure that was in place that was the first thing people who work there see everyday first thing when they go through the door. I don't see a problem in authorities wanting to see your face when you are out in public. Veils prevent that. Men can potentially wear veils to disguise themselves. If it helps catch criminals, I'm all for it.

 

[Alcoremortis]

No, it wouldn't. Simply orient the law around forbidding covering the face in public places for safety reasons.

Seriously, why aren't they framing the law like this?

Concealing one's identity in a government building is a security risk. I doubt anyone would be having this discussion if the law were targeted at everyone equally.

 

[Kinyou]

This might sound crazy

But maybe our relative lack of radicalized Muslims has something to do with us not passing laws designed to antagonize them?

Not to hold up America as a shining city on a hill because we just elected fucking Trump.

Considering the amount of radical muslims in islamic countries I'll be going with "no"

 

[Xando]

I am genuinely shocked by how much people wave away extremist, oppressive and intolerant things because they see it as freedom of religion.

It's the typical postings you can see made by americans on Gaf. You'll get similar responses in threads about european laws against hate speech.

Just because women aren't allowed to hide their identity in public europeans are trying to destroy islam.
Meanwhile in this very thread you have multiple muslim posters actually supporting the idea.

 

[Biske]

I'm not sure anybody can win here.

I don't think you should teach people that they should go out side all covered up, but you can't change behavior by banning it.

Banning things that people want to do (or those who are forced to do), never works. Just forces people underground to continue that behavior.


Also creates a ready narrative of "they are against you" that fucks can play on.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The government should not be in the business of legislating clothing because of its religious content.

Ever. Period. Full stop.

I disagree, I think the government can step in when the clothing is used as a tool of oppression. A ban might not be the perfect solution, though, and we can certainly discuss the logistics. But shutting down the conversation by being reductive isn't helpful either.

(Comma. Period. Full Stop. Infinity plus one.)

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

I mean, I'm genuinely shocked by this thread. Freedom of religion really is dying in the west. Islamophobia is the order of the day. It's Trump's world now.

If you want people to stop wearing burkas, you should try to provide clear examples of the superiority of secular or moderate Islam or of other belief systems, and provide strong support systems for women who are afraid they will face backlash or lose support for choosing to abandon their religion, so that they have the freedom to do so. You should combine this with toleration of those who choose to continue to wear burkas or otherwise practice their religion, so that they cannot use examples of their repression to radicalize more moderate Muslims by showing that the west will not allow them to live in peace.

Once upon a time, that used to be how the marketplace of ideas worked! We used to be confident in our ability to accept people of all creeds and allow cosmopolitanism to bring them together and teach them to abandon their more reactionary positions. It seems that those days have ended, at least in Europe.

I guess freedom was nice while it lasted.

People in the West don't make the distinction between cultural traits and religious traits. If you go to Saudi Arabian mall, most women would be wearing the Hijab, having most of their showing. Their abaya (A long garment that goes over clothes) are decorated and custom made. Women are on average go more educated than men in Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying there isn't oppression in Saudi Arabia, but things have been improving. Generally the culture has moved to be more "progressive," but the government is horrible and like to pander to Wahhabi clerics.

While in Afghanistan, women are deeply oppressed, and it culturally very different than Saudi Arabia. But in people's mind Muslim is ubiquitously practiced.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

You think those who don't have a choice are going to benefit from this? more than likely their families will just trap them inside the house to avoid 'shame'.

And what would you do about it? Doing nothing is morally wrong, a failure of the nation to protect and uphold the rights of it's citizens, and also bad on a pragmatic level. It lead to more extremism over time, countries like turkey and SA will see to that. And as a reaction to it, the far-right will grow more powerful.

 

[KingK]

The women forced to wear a burka (and yes, it's unarguably a symbol of oppression), aren't suddenly going to be free to wear what they so choose. They're going to be forced to be locked inside their homes.

Nothing is being fixed here.

Yeah, I agree. Not a fan of this shit as it doesn't solve anything, and further isolates and divides people.

Tell that to the right wing fascists that will control Germany unless Merkel takes steps to the right. Or to the millions of newly arrived migrants that would have to live under the rule of said fascists.

But I can also see this point. Merkel earned a lot of goodwill from me with standing up for the refugees while the rest of Europe shit the bed. After Brexit and Trump, I can't blame her for being worried about her right flank. I still can't support it though. Hopefully SDP opposes.

 

[Nezumi]

Seriously, why aren't they framing the law like this?

Concealing one's identity in a government building is a security risk. I doubt anyone would be having this discussion if the law were targeted at everyone equally.

Pretty sure that it already IS the law for everyone else...

 

[Quotient]

The government should not be in the business of legislating clothing because of its religious content.

Ever. Period. Full stop.

I hate the hijab and other head dress but I agree with this statement.

 

[John Kowalski]

The government should not be in the business of legislating clothing because of its religious content.

Ever. Period. Full stop.

The government has in its interest the lawful treatment of its citizens according to rights it believes inalienable, and the right to freedom from sexist discrimination is something that all governments should ensure its citizens can enjoy.

 

[pigeon]

And what would you do about it? Doing nothing is morally wrong, a failure of the nation to protect and uphold the rights of it's citizens, and also bad on a pragmatic level. It lead to more extremism over time, countries like turkey and SA will see to that. And as a reaction to it, the far-right will grow more powerful.

This seems crazy. Muslims don't get radicalized by being allowed to practice their religion. They get radicalized by laws that prevent them from practicing their religion. Islamic terrorists have even said so! ISIL's whole goal is to use terrorism to scare Western governments into crackdowns, convincing moderate Muslims in America and Europe that their religious practice is in danger so that they leave for Islamic republics and terrorist organizations instead. This plays right into their hands.

 

[KingSnake]

Burka is a symbol of radical Islam and oppression. It could be banned on this basis alone. And yet it isn't.

The ban will probably refer to covering the face in general in certain situations (ban that already exists as mentioned in this thread).

 

[pigeon]

The government has in its interest the lawful treatment of its citizens according to rights it believes inalienable, and the right to freedom from sexist discrimination is something that all governments should ensure its citizens can enjoy.

Does the Catholic Church exist in Germany? As I understand it, they've practiced sexist discrimination for the last two thousand years. I assume Germany will mandate allowing women into the priesthood any day now?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This seems crazy. Muslims don't get radicalized by being allowed to practice their religion. They get radicalized by laws that prevent them from practicing their religion.

Maybe they should have religious practices that are not in conflict with the laws of the land they emigrate to, then.

Does the Catholic Church exist in Germany? As I understand it, they've practiced sexist discrimination for the last two thousand years. I assume Germany will mandate allowing women into the priesthood any day now?

We can only hope. I'd be fine with that.

That said, being refused admission into the priesthood of your sect isn't exactly oppression. Being taught to cover yourself to avoid arousing the men around you since childhood, is. Got any more false equivalences?

 

[KingK]

This seems crazy. Muslims don't get radicalized by being allowed to practice their religion. They get radicalized by laws that prevent them from practicing their religion. Islamic terrorists have even said so! ISIL's whole goal is to use terrorism to scare Western governments into crackdowns, convincing moderate Muslims in America and Europe that their religious practice is in danger so that they leave for Islamic republics and terrorist organizations instead. This plays right into their hands.

Yup, it doesn't help shit and only makes things worse. Boggles my mind how people can actually support this. I honestly expected better from Merkel, but I guess Brexit and Trump have her spooked.

 

[pigeon]

Maybe they should have religious practices that are not in conflict with the laws of the land they emigrate to, then.

Like I said, the purpose of this law is, as directly as possible, to force fundamentalist Muslims to give up their religion or leave Germany.

I don't disagree with that. I just think it's a sad moral failure on the part of Germany and those who support the law.

 

[wsippel]

I mean, I'm genuinely shocked by this thread. Freedom of religion really is dying in the west. Islamophobia is the order of the day. It's Trump's world now.

If you want people to stop wearing burkas, you should try to provide clear examples of the superiority of secular or moderate Islam or of other belief systems, and provide strong support systems for women who are afraid they will face backlash or lose support for choosing to abandon their religion, so that they have the freedom to do so. You should combine this with toleration of those who choose to continue to wear burkas or otherwise practice their religion, so that they cannot use examples of their repression to radicalize more moderate Muslims by showing that the west will not allow them to live in peace.

Once upon a time, that used to be how the marketplace of ideas worked! We used to be confident in our ability to accept people of all creeds and allow cosmopolitanism to bring them together and teach them to abandon their more reactionary positions. It seems that those days have ended, at least in Europe.

I guess freedom was nice while it lasted.

"Religious freedom" just means that you're free to believe in whatever you want. That's literally all it is, and nobody wants to change that. But it doesn't give you the right to do something or wear something, and it never did. Wearing religious or cultural garb is personal freedom, and personal freedom can, has been and will always be limited in some ways, usually to protect yourself or the public. We don't allow female genital mutilation either, and some people actually argue that this ban is limiting their religious freedom. Which usually shows that they don't even understand what "religious freedom" means in the first place, because, as stated above, it's just freedom to believe, not freedom to act.

 

[Htown]

Maybe they should have religious practices that are not in conflict with the laws of the land they emigrate to, then.

Kind of difficult when the land you emigrate to changes its laws under you after the fact.

You're basically on some "if you don't like it, go back to afghanistan" shit right now.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Same. It's disgusting.

Precisely. I don't hear anyone saying that the oppressive practice of polygamy should be allowed because some religions call for it. Allowing oppression to occur just because it is a religious sacrament is twisted.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Like I said, the purpose of this law is, as directly as possible, to force fundamentalist Muslims to give up their one barbaric religious custom or leave Germany.

Fixed.

They can still practice Islam. But they wouldn't be allowed to oppress their women while doing so. If that's not acceptable to them, then sure, they can leave Germany.

I don't disagree with that. I just think it's a sad moral failure on the part of Germany and those who support the law.

The moral failure is on the part of those who would oppress girls and women. Germany isn't obligated to coddle them.

Edit:

Kind of difficult when the land you emigrate to changes its laws under you after the fact.

You're basically on some "if you don't like it, go back to afghanistan" shit right now.

True, that law wasn't there before, perhaps as an oversight. That said, if there is no law on the books against female genital mutilation, and it's added afterwards and they said "fundies who don't like this, and want to persist in excising young girls, can just leave", I'd be totally OK with that too. Perhaps I should have said "don't have religious practices that are not in conflict with the laws and cultural values of the land they emigrate to".

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

Maybe they should have religious practices that are not in conflict with the laws of the land they emigrate to, then.

So refuges should just give up doing what they did for years? It's not like they wanted to lose their homes, and choose to move away from their homeland.

No matter how much your disagree with religious practices (And I disagree with many), they will exist, and it's very difficult for people to suddenly change, especially when they are refuges.

 

[pigeon]

"Religious freedom" just means that you're free to believe in whatever you want. That's literally all it is, and nobody wants to change this. But it doesn't give you the right to do something or wear something, and it never did.

...the freedom of religion, conscience and the freedom of confessing one's religious or philosophical beliefs are inviolable. Uninfringed religious practice is guaranteed.

Try again.

 

[Kinyou]

This seems crazy. Muslims don't get radicalized by being allowed to practice their religion. They get radicalized by laws that prevent them from practicing their religion. Islamic terrorists have even said so! ISIL's whole goal is to use terrorism to scare Western governments into crackdowns, convincing moderate Muslims in America and Europe that their religious practice is in danger so that they leave for Islamic republics and terrorist organizations instead. This plays right into their hands.

Is that why radical islamists spend most of their time bombing other muslim countries? Radicals don't jut disappear if you let them practice their religion

 

[His Majesty]

I am genuinely shocked by how much people wave away extremist, oppressive and intolerant things because they see it as freedom of religion.

This nonchalant laissez-faire attitude is exactly what allowed extremism to flourish in Brussels and its surrounding areas. Ten years ago Hind Fraihi documented her experiences as she went undercover in Molenbeek. Salafist imams were free to spread their militant hate messages to the local youth and women were being told they would go to hell for not wearing a burqa.

Glad no one intervened for the sake of religious freedom!

This might sound crazy

But maybe our relative lack of radicalized Muslims has something to do with us not passing laws designed to antagonize them?

Not to hold up America as a shining city on a hill because we just elected fucking Trump.

Politico wrote an interesting piece on the differences between USA and Europe in regards to the problem of radicalization. Certainly worth a read.

 

[Glass Rebel]

No easy solution to this my friend

Uh, this law would be a (misguided) attempt at an easy solution. It's liberal Western arrogance at its finest. Let's not kid ourselves here: This law isn't to protect these women and it won't.

 

[John Kowalski]

Does the Catholic Church exist in Germany? As I understand it, they've practiced sexist discrimination for the last two thousand years. I assume Germany will mandate allowing women into the priesthood any day now?

They should. But nevertheless, it's disingenuous to consider it analogous because your example doesn't reflect the same severity of discrimination, and i don't think it's particularly wrong, nor do i think anyone would argue against the pragmatism of pursuing instances of discrimination that are more severe before work is done on those below it spectrum wise.

Otherwise it's to be noted that the discussion being had is being had under the pretense that this is an extension of laws regarding use of clothing that was already in place, so while i started posting in answer to stuff related to discrimination, this supposed law is making a pointed effort to remove itself from that discussion.

 

[Jacobi]

Pissing those Muslims off is the goal, because that's what the people of Germany want, apparently -- for them to give up their religious practices or leave Germany.

Honestly, who would want Burka women or their husbands in their country? It isn't really possible to communicate with those people at all.

BTW to all of those who didn't read the article (most users in this thread), this will only potentially ban full veils in "courtrooms, administrative buildings and schools, as well as while driving or attending demonstrations.", so not exactly everywhere.

This would be a good opportunity to show those women a different world and a progressive behaviour.

 

[KingSnake]

So refuges should just give up doing what they did for years? It's not like they wanted to lose their homes, and choose to move away from their homeland.

No matter how much your disagree with religious practices (And I disagree with many), they will exist, and it's very difficult for people to suddenly change, especially when they are refuges.

So you would allow people to punish other people by stoning for example just because that was the accepted religious practice in the country they are coming from?

 

[Shredderi]

It seems like this already does affect everyone else but for some reason has not been applied to certain religious practices specifically, so that's why they're specifically going with the religion/muslim angle now, because that is the last one to be addressed.

 

[Xando]

Like I said, the purpose of this law is, as directly as possible, to force fundamentalist Muslims to give up their religion or leave Germany.

I don't disagree with that. I just think it's a sad moral failure on the part of Germany and those who support the law.

So what you're saying is that germany and other countries should allow fundamentalists (christian or muslim) to allow honor killings or physically harming their families in the name of religious freedom because their religion permits them to do so?
When do you draw the line?

 

[VendettaRed07]

Public schools are the only place I feel government is within their right to have some sort of moderation of something of this sort. It's reasonable to assume that young children are not making the conscious choice to fully veil their entire face and body while in public. So allow kids to live a life away from their parents without that and if they make it to adulthood and still believe that it's something they want to wear on their own time then let them. It's gross government overreach to go any further beyond that; especially as far reaching as broad terms like "public spaces".