Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

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

This is an interesting article.

But the European context underlying the attacks at Brussels Airport and the downtown Maelbeek subway station — one of alienated, underemployed and ghettoized Muslims as well as subpar security differs dramatically from anything found in the United States.

To begin with, consider the Muslim minority communities of North America and Europe. In the United States, Muslim communities are mostly comprised of reasonably well-off families from numerous Muslim majority countries. Income and education levels are roughly those of average Americans — the only sizeable asterisk on that statement is the impoverished refugees who have come from Somalia.

By contrast, Europe’s Muslim communities were seeded by poor peasants who came as guest workers for the burgeoning industries of the postwar period. They were expected to return home. Instead, they stayed even as their industries faded — think of Britain’s rust belt in the Midlands — and grew in numbers due to family unification and comparatively high fertility.

They came poor and, to a large extent, have stayed poor, with little access to higher education and much higher unemployment rates than the non-Muslim populations. And this is in countries already plagued by high unemployment. They tend to be concentrated in rundown urban neighborhoods that look more like the places they and their forbears hail from — with their satellite dishes and drying laundry — than the surrounding neighborhoods.

It's almost as if, in countries that are 90% white and don't have diversity as a value, minorities have trouble integrating, are cut off from economic advancement, and are more susceptible to radicalization!

Here's another fun quote:

Much could still go wrong, especially if the U.S. presidential campaign continues to demonize American Muslims, who are the first line of defense against extremism — and whose trust in U.S. law enforcement is invaluable — will likely continue for months to come.

American Muslims in every mosque are tasked with reporting potential radicals and suspected terror plots. They cooperate voluntarily with American law enforcement, because we're not constantly threatening to pass laws banning their religious practice, so they can trust our law enforcement agencies to protect them.

Admittedly we just fucked this up really hard, but hey, it was working pretty well up till now!

 

[Htown]

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?

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[archangelmorph]

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?


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.

How does it help them though?

If they can no longer leave their oppressive household/family to seek help, support and guidance, because leaving the house without a burka would stir up the wraith of said household/family, and leaving the house with a burka would put them in jail.. What exactly does this solve?

You're only doing these things:

1. Increasing social isolation of these women to the confines of their households
2. Increasing resentment from these women towards the secular state they now reside
3. Decreasing any sense of motivation towards social integration within the wider geographic community at large (by basically sending a clear message that they aren't "accepted" because they associate their sense of identity with something you make crystal clear you abhor)

What kind of motivation do these women have, to want to reach out to the wider society, and shake off the shackles of their heritage, faith, and by definition, such a huge part of their identity from birth, when there's no part of this message that communicates that they wouldn't be entirely rejected by it?

This isn't a solution at all and further entrenches social division...

It would be similar to banning football in the UK for the working class, and naively assuming that doing so would automagically make them turn a corner and take an interest in horse-riding instead...

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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

True. A common argument to say that ISIS aren't "real Muslims" is that their primary victims are, in fact, other Muslims.

Plus I just don't believe this at all. There's no evidence that radicalization is caused by stifling their religious "freedoms". It could very well be the opposite. See this:

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!

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

.

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.

Uhh, what? Yes, they should. It sucks that they are forced out of their homes, but that doesn't mean we should allow people to do as they please just because they are refugees. If it was legal in their home country to mutilate the genitals of young girls, and they can't do it anymore, then too bad.

 

[onepiecefan]

Same. The niqab is a symbol of oppression, full stop.

Posts like this annoy me tbh, how is it in your mind an absolute symbol of oppression?

While people may/may not be comfortable about women wearing full veils, banning it isn't going to solve anything. You can't ban people from wearing certain clothes, people are rightly free to dress how they want, and just because some people are uncomfortable doesn't really matter. You could probably find just as many people unconformable/against women being dressed half-naked for example. Creating laws banning people from wearing certain clothes is just silly.

 

[pigeon]

Don't be ridiculous.

The really fun part is that, even though that argument is incredibly dumb, I've already argued against it.

Here's a question to ask the people supporting this: presumably you believe that a lot of burka-wearing women would rather just quit wearing it, right? Why do you think they don't just voluntarily stop?

If the answer is that they're worried about the consequences of doing so, wouldn't it be better policy to work on insulating them from those consequences so that they can make their own choices?

Or is the issue less about actually letting people who want to quit wearing the burka do so and more about just making sure Muslims know their religious practices are unwelcome?

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

See, doesn't it feel better to just let it all out and be honest about it?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Don't be ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about what they said? These practices are more extreme than the burka, sure, but the burka is still harmful and oppressive.

The really fun part is that, even though that argument is incredibly dumb, I've already argued against it.

Your arguments have failed to be convincing, tbh.

Here's a question to ask the people supporting this: presumably you believe that a lot of burka-wearing women would rather just quit wearing it, right? Why do you think they don't just voluntarily stop?

This has been explained repeatedly. Afraid of consequences if they stop, or they have internalized the misogyny because they've been brainwashed since childhood.

If the answer is that they're worried about the consequences of doing so, wouldn't it be better policy to work on insulating them from those consequences so that they can make their own choices?

Sure, in an ideal world. But how, concretely, would you do that?

It's fine to be idealistic, but you need concrete solutions too.

Or is the issue less about actually letting people who want to quit wearing the burka do so and more about just making sure Muslims know their religious practices are unwelcome?

It can be both. I see no problem in finding a misogynistic practice unwelcome.

 

[darscot]

Fear mongering bullshit, no government should have a right to force you to wear or not wear a specific item of clothing. A private business, like the whole no shirt no shoes policy I have no issue with. The government is completely different, especially when they tie it to religion.

 

[Yamauchi]

This is truly a dimwitted move by Dear Leader Merkel. You can't combat salafism-wahabbism by banning clothing items.

 

[Replicant]

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.

Well then fuck that shit. You want to be barbarian and hurt/kill LGBTQ people because your shitty religion tells you that it's okay? Go the HELL away.

 

[Xando]

Don't be ridiculous.

Ah so that's ridiculous.

Would you in the name of religious freedom accept that christian and muslim children should be divided in school by faith and gender or is that ridiculous too?

 

[archangelmorph]

What is ridiculous about what they said? These practices are more extreme than the burka, sure, but the burka is still harmful and oppressive.

Harmful to who?

 

[pigeon]

Well then fuck that shit. You want to be barbarian and hurt/kill LGBTQ people because your shitty religion tells you that it's okay? Go the HELL away.

I am pretty fascinated by the continuing thread in all these arguments that if we don't ban the burka we will have to allow honor killing/FGM/killing gay people.

Like, you understand that at this moment, all those things are banned but the burka is still legal, right?

 

[Jacobi]

Harmful to who?

If you wonder who the burka is harmful to, you need to check your ability to feel compassion.

 

[Replicant]

I am pretty fascinated by the continuing thread in all these arguments that if we don't ban the burka we will have to allow honor killing/FGM/killing gay people.

Like, you understand that at this moment, all those things are banned but the burka is still legal, right?

I understand that perfectly well. But Burka is pretty much an extreme form of Islamic teaching just like the poor treatment of women and LGBTQ people. Unless we start combating these teachings one by one, nothing will ever change.

So tell me again why only women are required to cover up their entire body?

On that note, how are you supposed to integrate into society when you are covered up from head to toe and can't converse with other people? And let's face it, people will be uncomfortable either talking to someone whose face they can't see.

 

[pigeon]

Ah so that's ridiculous.

Would you in the name of religious freedom accept that christian and muslim children should be divided by faith and gender or is that ridiculous too?

Why stop there? Orthodox Jews expect men and women to be separate during religious practices and schools. Shouldn't Germany ban Orthodox Jews?

I mean, I guess I could see some political problems there.

 

[Yamauchi]

What is ridiculous about what they said? These practices are more extreme than the burka, sure, but the burka is still harmful and oppressive.

Edit:

 

[wsippel]

Try again.

I was talking about religious freedom, not 4 GG, which covers both religious freedom (4 Absatz 1) and practice (4 Absatz 2). 4(2) is generally considered broken, even by our constitutional court, and needs to be either clearly defined or outright removed.

 

[yanipheonu]

I don't think legislation is a particularly effective way of making positive change in fashion.

It's up to culture, for better or worse.

 

[Glass Rebel]

What is ridiculous about what they said? These practices are more extreme than the burka, sure, but the burka is still harmful and oppressive.

It's ridiculous because the two situations aren't comparable.

There are laws that act as deterrents against honour killings and they protect the victims and punish the offender.

Laws against niqabs and burkas wouldn't protect the victims but punish them.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Harmful to who?

Are you fucking serious?

I am pretty fascinated by the continuing thread in all these arguments that if we don't ban the burka we will have to allow honor killing/FGM/killing gay people.

No one is saying one thing leads to the other. They are saying the same reasons for banning FGM can be applied to ban the burkas.

Replicant used LGBT oppression as an argument to counter the insane logic proposed by Deserted Maniac Island, who said that we should respect all religious practices no matter what.

Like, you understand that at this moment, all those things are banned but the burka is still legal, right?

? Yes. And proponents of the burka bans argue that burkas should be banned, as well, even if they are not as extreme as things like FGM.

 

[Chumley]

Posts like this annoy me tbh, how is it in your mind an absolute symbol of oppression?

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/8189112

 

[KahooTs]

People should be allowed to wear what they choose, barring specific circumstances such as where identification is required and a person wishes to wear concealing clothing.

 

[His Majesty]

This is an interesting article.

It's almost as if, in countries that are 90% white and don't have diversity as a value, minorities have trouble integrating, are cut off from economic advancement, and are more susceptible to radicalization!

That's a rather faulty conclusion given that the facts are that the US has attracted muslims from well-off (presumable educated) families while Europe has attracted mainly uneducated poor guest workers and refugees which, over time, formed their own communities and largely failed to integrate within the local society.

 

[archangelmorph]

If you wonder who the burka is harmful to, you need to check your ability to feel compassion.

We're talking about the religious garb here, not the societal pressure around it though.

That I agree is harmful to the women it's forced onto.

However I would ask again, how do you think this ban solves that kind of harm for these women? Doesn't it harm them more? (i.e. pressure from both sides)

 

[darscot]

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/8189112

Why are you posting this, as an example of how stupid shit will not be tolerated by the court, even when the dim wit PM tries it.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

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?

Stoning is an absolutely awful practice. stoning is not strictly religious practices, it's are sadistic form of torture, and is not ubiquitous in Islamic culture. As I've stated before these practices are culturally specific, not every muslim is the same. All muslims I know absolutely condemn practices like FGM and stoning. But comparing the veil to stoning is very reductive, and to argue that refuges should magically forget their culture, and adhere to "Superior" Western culture is unrealistic.

I come from Saudi Arabia, I lived through oppression being a Shi'ite, and I can tell most of it was perpetuated by the government and not individual people. Western countries should stop supporting countries like Saudi Arabia, and tell them to better their laws and stop oppression.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Just make it illegal to obscure facial features in public, regardless of the article of clothing to do it. That is what should be at the core of this if it is truly about public safety, and I wouldn't be opposed to it on those grounds.

 

[Shredderi]

If there is and has been a law in place that prohibits EVERYONE from wearing clothing in public that conceals their identity, then why should religious clothing be an exemption? I haven't really seen anyone here against this address this directly. Merkel's personal motivations for doing this now are obvious but meaningless in the face of a broader question: why should this one thing be an exception?

 

[Jacobi]

We're talking about the religious garb here, not the societal pressure around it though.

That I agree is harmful to the women it's forced onto.

However I would ask again, how do you think this ban solves that kind of harm for these women? Doesn't it harm them more? (i.e. pressure from both sides)

They have the chance to feel how it is walking around with out the veil (maybe for the first time in their lives). Maybe they can convince their husband to lay it off. Or if they are single, lay it off in their own decision.

 

[darscot]

Just make it illegal to obscure facial features in public, regardless of the article of clothing to do it. That is what should be at the core of this if it is truly about public safety, and I wouldn't be opposed to it on those grounds.

So no more beard, moustaches, sunglasses, dust masks, scarfs, balaclavas, makeup that changes you natural skin tone? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Lev]

The ban is good so I have no qualms with it, but it would be smarter to just ban any kind of face wear that hides one's face, since that is the main reason for banning the burqa in the first place.

 

[Chumley]

Why are you posting this, as an example of how stupid shit will not be tolerated by the court, even when the dim wit PM tries it.

Oh, ok, so Raza - a Muslim woman - is advocating for stupid shit then. Gotcha.

It's hilarious that the most extreme liberals shit all over the very people they claim to be fighting for in the rush to pat themselves on the back.

 

[Nere]

Merkel trying to fish for votes.

 

[Jacobi]

So no more beard, moustaches, sunglasses, dust masks, scarfs, balaclavas, makeup that changes you natural skin tone? Where do you draw the line?

"Since 1985, according to § 17a Abs. 2 Versammlungsgesetz you may not disguise your identity in public meetings such as demonstrations so the police are able to identify you. This violation can be fined with imprisonment up to one year."

It's not exactly difficult to draw the line..

 

[timetokill]

So no more beard, moustaches, sunglasses, dust masks, scarfs, balaclavas, makeup that changes you natural skin tone? Where do you draw the line?

Question: are people in Germany allowed to generally walk around in public in ski masks?

I think there's a difference between something that is small (sunglasses, scarf) or something actually part of your body (beards, moustaches) and a garment designed to conceal your identity.

 

[archangelmorph]

If there is and has been a law in place that prohibits EVERYONE from wearing clothing in public that conceals their identity, then why should religious clothing be an exemption? I haven't really seen anyone here against this address this directly. Merkel's personal motivations for doing this now are obvious but meaningless in the face of a broader question: why should this one thing be an exception?

Is it an exemption?

Does such a ubiquitous law exist?

If it does then sure I have no problem with it existing in a fair and equal society, provided the enforcement is not disproportionately levied against Muslim women and scorn is not poured onto them as individuals, which is not what I've observed across subsets of the European communities over the past few years.

Discretion and compassion would have to be a necessary part of enforcement, otherwise you'd be unfairly criminalising muslim women, whom by your very own account are also victims here...

I have very little faith that that would be how it would play out though in reality, given the contemporary sentiments de jour...

 

[darscot]

Question: are people in Germany allowed to generally walk around in public in ski masks?

I'm Canadian and and I spent a few years in Germany and last time I checked when its cold you cover your skin. And its not a crime.

 

[His Majesty]

Just make it illegal to obscure facial features in public, regardless of the article of clothing to do it. That is what should be at the core of this if it is truly about public safety, and I wouldn't be opposed to it on those grounds.

This is already the case in France and Belgium and I assume the German government will take the same route. It's about more than safety though, otherwise Merkel could just have easily given a passionate speech about how balaclava's should be banned.

 

[Nezumi]

Question: are people in Germany allowed to generally walk around in public in ski masks?

I think there's a difference between something that is small (sunglasses, scarf) or something actually part of your body (beards, moustaches) and a garment designed to conceal your identity.

I think no, though I'm not sure. But you can bet your ass that if you would walk around in one people will call the cops on you pretty fast...

 

[Xando]

Question: are people in Germany allowed to generally walk around in public in ski masks?

I think there's a difference between something that is small (sunglasses, scarf) or something actually part of your body (beards, moustaches) and a garment designed to conceal your identity.

They aren't. Especially during this heightened security level if you start wearing a ski mask in public police will be on your ass within 5 minutes

 

[Glass Rebel]

Oh, ok, so Raza - a Muslim woman - is advocating for stupid shit then. Gotcha.

It's hilarious that the most extreme liberals shit all over the very people they claim to be fighting for in the rush to pat themselves on the back.

Just because she's a Muslim woman doesn't mean she can't be wrong about this. Banning niqabs and burkas would punish these women, not help them.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

Uhh, what? Yes, they should. It sucks that they are forced out of their homes, but that doesn't mean we should allow people to do as they please just because they are refugees. If it was legal in their home country to mutilate the genitals of young girls, and they can't do it anymore, then too bad.

Again people like you don't understand the difference between Muslims. For example FGM is not very common in most Muslim Majority countries, nor is it mentioned in the Quran, it's a mostly in North African tradition (That of course I find very disgusting). I don't understand comparing the veil to FGM anyway, these to are not connected in anyway. You're understanding of cultures that refuges come is problematic, because it assumes it's very dire, even though (I assume, correct me If I'm wrong) you are apart of that culture. Yes, there are many problematic aspects of the cultures of Afghanistan (And to a lesser extent Syria), but certain practices like the veil are not going away suddenly, it takes generations for culture change.

 

[archangelmorph]

They have the chance to feel how it is walking around with out the veil (maybe for the first time in their lives). Maybe they can convince their husband to lay it off. Or if they are single, lay it off in their own decision.

If they're single without social pressure there's nothing stopping them without the law...

Ergo one would expect that if they are wearing the garbs today within that social context, it's by choice...

Convincing their husband to "lay it off" is equally possible today without any law if that was their choice.

The point is, if they already had the social desire to and leverage to "persuade" their way out of an oppressed position then that would have already happened no?

 

[Jacobi]

I think no, though I'm not sure. But you can bet your ass that if you would walk around in one people will call the cops on you pretty fast...

I think you are allowed to walk around in one, but it's banned in demonstrations and probably while driving a car (blitzer). But everyone is confused about it here.

 

[ShironRedshift]

They have the chance to feel how it is walking around with out the veil (maybe for the first time in their lives). Maybe they can convince their husband to lay it off. Or if they are single, lay it off in their own decision.

If it's really that easy and that's how it would go, then why don't they just choose not to wear it now, no law necessary? Obviously because they don't feel safe and secure making that decision. How would a law like this give them that safety, security, and peace of mind? If they don't feel safe actually sticking up for themselves and speaking their minds, why would a law like this change that in any way and the status quo not be maintained instead, with them being fearful of how their husbands or their other male relatives/friends will react?

Without proposals targeted at giving them that security and peace-of-mind and safety to make those kind of decisions, laws and policies that actually make sure they at all times possible have the greatest ability possible to escape persecution and seek safety and make whatever choices they will with utter peace-of-mind and confidence (whether that be in the form of anonymous hotlines or women's shelters or what-have you or any number of other measures aimed at helping women out in exactly those type of situations and trying to give them as much security and peace-of-mind as possible and give them the resources they may need), such laws and pointless and accomplish nothing because the fear of abuse and retaliation remains. And if those things are granted, then things like this are unnecessary to begin with because in that situation, it would mean the decision isn't being made because of fear of persecution/oppression but in fact because it's the woman's choice at that point and should be respected.

 

[Jacobi]

If they're single without social pressure there's nothing stopping them without the law...

Ergo one would expect that if they are wearing the garbs today within that social context, it's by choice...

Convincing their husband to "lay it off" is equally possible today without any law if that was their choice.

The point is, if they already had the social desire to and leverage to "persuade" their way out of an oppressed position then that would have already happened no?

If they are used to said social situation, walking around not being seen and they never felt the difference, they might be less motivated to do so.

Not even mentioning not-wearing a burka is a kind of requirement to live any live outside of the household and supermarket.

 

[Nezumi]

I think you are allowed to walk around in one, but it's banned in demonstrations and probably while driving a car (blitzer). But everyone is confused about it here.

Yeah, like I said I wasn't sure and the thing is, and that is the fact that a lot of people seem to happily ignore, that Muslim women wouldn't been banned from walking down the street in a burka as well, but only had to take it down in places or situations where everyone else is also prohibited from covering their face.

 

[Jacobi]

If it's really that easy and that's how it would go, then why don't they just choose not to wear it now, no law necessary? Obviously because they don't feel safe and secure making that decision. How would a law like this give them that safety, security, and peace of mind? If they don't feel safe actually sticking up for themselves and speaking their minds, why would a law like this change that in any way and the status quo not be maintained instead, with them being fearful of how their husbands or their other male relatives/friends will react?

Without proposals targeted at giving them that security and peace-of-mind and safety to make those kind of decisions, laws and policies that actually make sure they at all times possible have the greatest ability possible to escape persecution and seek safety and make whatever choices they will with utter peace-of-mind and confidence (whether that be in the form of anonymous hotlines or women's shelters or what-have you or any number of other measures aimed at helping women out in exactly those type of situations and trying to give them as much security and peace-of-mind as possible and give them the resources they may need), such laws and pointless and accomplish nothing because the fear of abuse and retaliation remains. And if those things are granted, then things like this are unnecessary to begin with because in that situation, it would mean the decision isn't being made because of fear of persecution/oppression but in fact because it's the woman's choice at that point and should be respected.

These laws actually accomplish a lot. Turkey has a partial burka ban and it works in a muslim country.

We already have woman safehouses and the likes.

Yeah, like I said I wasn't sure and the thing is, and that is the fact that a lot of people seem to happily ignore, that Muslim women wouldn't been banned from walking down the street in a burka as well, but only had to take it down in places or situations where everyone else is also prohibited from covering their face.

You can't expect from people that they'd read more than the title

 

[Salty Rice]

Great thing. Its a oppression of women and a ban i totally agree with.