Support NeoGAF

[BudokaiMR2]

As someone who has seen first hand the sinister ways conservative Muslim families and husbands oppress their wives when I was teaching international students, I really do think this is necessary.

It's not going to change overnight but at the very least I think it's a step towards challenging and changing oppressive and sexist parts of the culture.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

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.

Did I justify the killing of LGVTQ people? (Which I of course condemn) Why do you assume these religious practices I'm talking about? I'm talking about how difficult it is for refuges to adjust to culture, in response to someone who says that they should just magical change.

People don't understand how difficult it is for refuges to adjust to Western Culture. Someone women may be legitimately are uncomfortable showing their face (Which I personally know I a few, no one is forcing them), no matter how much you think that's apart of a patriarchal culture, it doesn't change how these women feel. If a women is forced than it's wrong, but there are many women who choose to wear a veil.

 

[DrunkShogun]

It's not nice to hear people can't wear reikogious clothing but she did only say the full face veil and I can understand the thought behind it during current issues. Unfortunatley I can see people forcing this decision by force on some individuals. If it was any religious clothing such as a scarf to cover the hair but still show the face in full then it would be wrong. Merkel doesn't want to lose her seat.

 

[Replicant]

Did I justify the killing of LGVTQ people? (Which I of course condemn) Why do you assume these religious practices I'm talking about? I'm talking about how difficult it is for refuges to adjust to culture, in response to someone who says that they should just magical change.

Because the religious practices has awful repercussion to both women and LGBTQ people. That's why! This is obviously true for many other religion but most notably is obvious in Islamic teachings.

People don't understand how difficult it is for refuges to adjust to Western Culture. Someone women may be legitimately are uncomfortable showing their face (Which I personally know I a few, no one is forcing them), no matter how much you think that's apart of a patriarchal culture, it doesn't change how these women feel. If a women is forced than it's wrong, but there are many women who choose to wear a veil.

How are you supposed to adjust if you don't even make a stride on your own? When you migrate to another country, you should be ready to make changes of your own. You can't expect the country of your destination to cater to your every whim and culture. The destination country also expect you to assimilate and interact with people in the country and that'd be impossible if you stick to your own culture, especially if you cover up your face. Most people are not comfortable talking to people whose face they can't see.

 

[thezerofire]

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.



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

I'm going to take this away from the current topic and discuss your tag

because jesus fucking christ what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Skellig Gra]

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

Funny I could say the same thing about this proposal

 

[El Topo]

A general ban of burka and niqab, as is well known since 2012, would violate the German constitution.

 

[AntChum]

Some are calling for a law making it a regulatory offense for women to cover their faces in courtrooms, administrative buildings and schools, as well as while driving or attending demonstrations.

Seems pretty reasonable — although the last two are a little iffy, IMO — and I'd hope such measures are extended to men and include not only religious garb. That's all that needs to be said; the whole "Are they, or aren't they oppressed?" game is pointless, because Muslims are neither a hive mind, nor are any of us telepathic.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

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

Article of clothing: including Balaclavas, scarves, handkerchiefs, masks, etc. The only exception would be in extreme cold temperatures below a certain objective threshold (freezing temperatures for example). And the law would only apply for public property and infrastructure....not private property (I.e., would be at discretion of owner).

This way it would be neutral of religion. It would apply to any terrorist or violently disruptive organization or entity trying to obscure identity, including paramilitaries, militias, religious extremists, gangs, etc.

If they are truly doing this for public safety, this is how they should do it.

 

[Nezumi]

Seems pretty reasonable — although the last two are a little iffy, IMO — and I'd hope such measures are extended to men and include not only religious garb. That's all that needs to be said; the whole "Are they, or aren't they oppressed?" game is pointless, because Muslims are neither a hive mind, nor are any of us telepathic.

As has been pointed out and ignored several times already in this thread, these laws are already in place for everyone else.

 

[DrSlek]

As has been pointed out and ignored several times already in this thread, these laws are already in place for everyone else.

So then if it's already illegal, what's the point of a new law?

 

[El Topo]

So then if it's already illegal, what's the point of a new law?

There's an election in 2017.

 

[Htown]

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

I know the way I always try to end oppression is to make laws against the oppressed instead of the oppressors. That's always effective.

 

[darscot]

Article of clothing: including Balaclavas, scarves, handkerchiefs, etc. The only exception would be in extreme cold temperatures below a certain objective threshold (freezing temperatures for example). And the law would only apply for public property and infrastructure....not private property (I.e., would be at discretion of owner).

This way it would be neutral of religion. It would apply to any terrorist or violently disruptive organization or entity trying to obscure identity, including paramilitaries, militias, religious extremists, gangs, etc.

If they are truly doing this for public safety, this is how they should do it.

But we all know it has nothing to do with public safety.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Not sure how I feel about this.

 

[EloKa]

she literally was refering to the Burka (nothing else) and that germans are showing their faces (literally: show true colors / show true faces). She was talking about the faces and not the religious background. I would feel uncomfortable to talk to people that are fully hiding their faces behind any kind of clothing or armor or whatever. Personally I see nothing wrong in the intent of trying to have people show who they are even if they do it for religious or traditional reasons.

 

[Aytumious]

I'm all for any measures that can cut back on such an extremely dehumanizing practice.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

Because the religious practices has awful repercussion to both women and LGBTQ people. That's why! This is obviously true for many other religion but most notably is obvious in Islamic teachings.

I'm from Saudi Arabia, and I can tell you all of the people I know would never hurt any LGBTQ person or women, even though they would say they are religious. Religion and culture are nuanced, many things in Islamic teachings are not practiced, or reinterpreted. Practices religion is not textual religion.

[

How are you supposed to adjust if you don't even make a stride on your own? When you migrate to another country, you should be ready to make changes of your own. You can't expect the country of your destination to cater to your every whim and culture. The destination country also expect you to assimilate and interact with people in the country and that'd be impossible if you stick to your own culture, especially if you cover up your face. Most people are not comfortable talking to people whose face they can't see.

I don't quite understand how it's the entire reasonability for people to suddenly change their entire understanding of culture. For refuges, who've been through horrifying things, to change, it's going to take years and will still hold on to culturally important things like the Hijab, practicing their religion and be amongst people who are familiar. People have to understand and regonize the difficulties that refuges go through, it's easy to just say people should assimilate.

 

[oti]

Another smart move by Merkel.
She can't outright ban it. That's impossible and she knows it. At the same time people leaning towards the far-right will hear this and shout "FINALLY SHE'S DOING SOMETHING!!!". The irony being that this "something" is the most insignificant problem we have right now and to be quite honest I don't know anyone who actually is against this proposal. People here are weirded out by it, I'm weirded out by it too. I don't care about your religion, show me your face. I wouldn't go out of my way to ban all of it either though. This is such a Merkel topic.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I'm all for any measures that can cut back on such an extremely dehumanizing practice.

Yes let's fix the problem by punishing the women who are being "dehumanized".

 

[wsippel]

A general ban of burka and niqab, as is well known since 2012, would violate the German constitution.

The article it violates is fucked and needs to be limited, anyway. That's actually something our constitutional court demands for a while now. Also, any constitutional right can be limited if it collides with other constitutional rights. Genital mutilation isn't covered by 4(2) GG because it collides with 1(1) and 2(2) GG. If you argue that the burka violates 1(1), 2(1), 3(1) and/ or 3(2) GG, 4(2) GG no longer applies.

 

[El Topo]

The article it violates is fucked and needs to be changed or removed, anyway. That's actually something our constitutional court demands for a while now. Also, any constitutional right can be limited if it collides with other constitutional rights. Genital mutilation isn't covered by 4(2) GG because it collides with 1(1) and 2(2) GG. If you argue that the burka violates 1(1), 2(1), 3(1) and/ or 3(2) GG, 4(2) GG no longer applies.

I'm referring to an official assessment from 2012. The general ban of burka is not going to happen, even if CDU/SPD had the necessary majority to change the constitution.
Restrictions are possible, but a general ban is simply not going to happen. That is (to my knowledge) unanimous among all reports.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Encroachment of personal freedoms.

 

[oti]

Encroachment of personal freedoms.

Not like people are free to run around naked either.

 

[Nezumi]

So then if it's already illegal, what's the point of a new law?

Well, I'm not saying that Merkel didn't say this to pander to the more right leaning people in her party, she totally did, but the fact is that woman wearing the burka have technically been breaking these laws but due to religious freedom they'd been given a pass of sorts and that is what is proposed to be changed here.

 

[CheDominik]

A general ban of burka and niqab, as is well known since 2012, would violate the German constitution.

The BVerfG hasn't ruled on a general ban, and they are the only institution to rule something unconstitutional. What are you referring to?

 

[R10Neymarfan]

I'm from Saudi Arabia, and I can tell you all of the people I know would never hurt any LGBTQ person or women, even though they would say they are religious. Religion and culture are nuanced, many things in Islamic teachings are not practiced, or reinterpreted. Practices religion is not textual religion.
.

That's personal anecdote though. The government of Saudi's actions and laws say otherwise.

 

[El Topo]

The BVerfG hasn't ruled on a general ban, and they are the only institution to rule something unconstitutional. What are you referring to?

Report for Bundestag (from 2012 iirc). There is also e.g. WD 3 - 46/10 Das Tragen einer Burka im öffentlichen Raum, available online. There are many other legal opinions and reports on the matter, to my knowledge unanimous in that a general ban is not possible and would even possibly violate Art. 1 of GG. Restrictions are possible, e.g. at school or in court, but a general ban is not.

 

[wsippel]

I'm referring to an official assessment from 2012. The general ban of burka is not going to happen, even if CDU/SPD had the necessary majority to change the constitution.

Yeah, a general ban isn't going to happen, but it's possible, according to the assessment, to limit it where it collides with other constitutional rights. Where and to what degree it collides is up for interpretation.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

That's personal anecdote though. The government of Saudi's actions and laws say otherwise.

I've said this before in this thread, government policy does not necessarily mean individuals act this way. Government policies perpetuates certain attitudes, but then again the Government of Saudi Arabia is not democratically elected.

Also, I see value in anecdotal experiences (Not saying mine is that great or anything) because individuals experiences are more illustrative than statistical data (Some statistical data is unreliable also).

 

[pigeon]

That's personal anecdote though. The government of Saudi's actions and laws say otherwise.

I mean, so did America's actions and laws until quite recently, and we're a secular democracy. So did most countries in the world, including Europe.

I'm not saying that Saudi Arabia or Islamic people who oppress LGBT don't deserve serious resistance on this issue. They clearly do. But that doesn't automatically extend to every person who practices Islam. Lots of people practice Islam while accepting the rights of LGBT people.

 

[Salty Rice]

Funny I could say the same thing about this proposal

Women should be able to show themselves in public and not be forced to hide.

If you decide to live in germany you should stop to treat woman terrible.

Just because its someones believe and religion doesnt make it ok.

 

[Dryk]

There is no reason to ban the full veil. Either you want to ban people concealing their identity in public (which I strongly disagree with) and a targeted ban is irrelevant, or you're singling it out at which point you can go fuck yourself. There are better ways to help oppressed women than telling them what they can and can't do.

Relevant:

Not like people are free to run around naked either.

I think it's pretty disingenous to compare requirements for minimum amounts of clothing to maximum amounts of clothing.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Women should be able to show themselves in public and not be forced to hide.

If you decide to live in germany you should stop to treat woman terrible.

Just because its someones believe and religion doesnt make it ok.

Forced to hide? Do you have proof that everyone who wears it is forced to wear it?

It should be the woman's choice to wear what she wants.

 

[Jacobi]

Forced to hide? It should be the woman's choice to wear what she wants.

It clearly isn't in radical islamic families.

 

[Pomerlaw]

I don't see anything disappointing about this.

+1 burka is a symbol of oppression and is in direct conflict with many people values.

And to think about it, even full out of control liberals should realize that the left and center have to listen to the population and their fears. Not play into them, but at least listen. This is the best way right now to cut the appeal of the far right parties for the average Joe.

 

[CheDominik]

Report for Bundestag (from 2012 iirc). There is also e.g. WD 3 - 46/10 Das Tragen einer Burka im öffentlichen Raum, available online. There are many other legal opinions and reports on the matter, to my knowledge unanimous in that a general ban is not possible and would even possibly violate Art. 1 of GG.

That's just an opinion though and doesn't hold any real legal meaning. I mean there is a possible scenario where infringing on those constitutional rights that apply.(Art. 1 GG doesn't IMO) could be justified. Unless we get an BVerfG ruling it's just conjecture.
Zwei Juristen - Drei Meinungen

Making the burka illegal in regards to §17a VersG could very well be constitutional, but until it's enforced we won't get a BVerfG ruling.

 

[Salty Rice]

Forced to hide? Do you have proof that everyone who wears it is forced to wear it?

It should be the woman's choice to wear what she wants.

Everyone who says its their real own "choice" is delusional.

They do it because of religious believes of themselves or their family what dictate that they have to do it.

There is no choice.

 

[shintoki]

I'm not seeing an issue. It's akin to wearing a mask in public basically.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Everyone who says its their real own "choice" is delusional.

They do it because of religious believes of themselves or their family what dictate that they have to do it.

There is no choice.

That's a choice. Religion is a personal choice.

If the latter is happening, then we should persecute it as such. A blanket ban persecutes the Muslims who choose to wear it by choice.

 

[Jacobi]

That's a choice. Religion is a personal choice.

If the latter is happening, then we should persecute it as such. A blanket ban persecutes the Muslims who choose to wear it by choice.

You didn't read the OP

 

[Nesotenso]

I'm Muslim but not a fan of the niqab or burka at all. I honestly don't like it at all, but there are people who choose to wear it out of their own volition.

Not sure how to feel honestly.

same here

 

[Replicant]

I'm from Saudi Arabia, and I can tell you all of the people I know would never hurt any LGBTQ person or women, even though they would say they are religious. Religion and culture are nuanced, many things in Islamic teachings are not practiced, or reinterpreted. Practices religion is not textual religion.

If that is true then you need to reflect that in the religion and what it teaches. Because at this point in time, Islam is not exactly winning points with many people. If you can tell them precisely what you tell me now then more people will be less afraid of the religion. If you tell them to respect women's rights and LGBTQ people then that'd go a long way towards convincing others. Not to mention it'd create new generations of Islamic children who are more respectful towards women and LGBTQ people.

I don't quite understand how it's the entire reasonability for people to suddenly change their entire understanding of culture. For refuges, who've been through horrifying things, to change, it's going to take years and will still hold on to culturally important things like the Hijab, practicing their religion and be amongst people who are familiar. People have to understand and regonize the difficulties that refuges go through, it's easy to just say people should assimilate.

Because that's the reality of life. People in a particular country will already be suspicious of any migrant and the first thing they want will be your ability to integrate with them. I should know because I was a migrant too. From a moderate muslim country no less. Granted, my values were more or less already closer to the values of most western world but I still had to made some adjustment to how I perceive others. People will try their best to accommodate the refugees but similarly, they too need to understand that they are entering someone else's house, so to speak.

 

[pigeon]

+1 burka is a symbol of oppression and is in direct conflict with many people values.

And to think about it, even full out of control liberals should realize that the left and center have to listen to the population and their fears. Not play into them, but at least listen. This is the best way right now to cut the appeal of the far right parties for the average Joe.

I mean, yes, if all of the parties adopt Islamophobia as public policy, that will reduce its value as a unique driver for the far right. All parties will just be far right then. Everybody will just agree that oppressing religious minorities is fine, so it'll just be about economic issues.

I guess that's a win for some people! Not everybody though.

 

[Shaanyboi]

That's a choice. Religion is a personal choice.

If the latter is happening, then we should persecute it as such. A blanket ban persecutes the Muslims who choose to wear it by choice.

What do you think happens to those people who wear it because they're forced to?

 

[Salty Rice]

Religion is a personal choice.

Is it really for everyone? Kinda doubt that.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

You didn't read the OP

By "blanket ban" I mean a ban on everyone who wears it by choice or by force.

 

[pigeon]

What do you think happens to those people who wear it because they're forced to?

Germany has freedom of religion. Is your society so weak that it can't protect people from being forced to wear burkas? Maybe you should work on that! If they don't want to wear them, they should stop wearing them, and the German government should protect them from the repercussions.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Is religion a choice when kids are encroached in it?

Is religion a choice when apostasy is punishable in some countries by death?

 

[Sir Alemeth]

Good.
All countries should ban religion altogether and their oppressive elements and conditioning of people. This is 2016, we need to move pass the stone age and move on to a new age of enlightenment of science and logic.