Support NeoGAF

[BobbyRobby]

It doesn't make sense to fight oppression with oppression.

Give people the choice to wear what they want. Then provide support to women who want to stop wearing the religious stuff who may face persecution.

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

 

[His Majesty]

You are out of ideas?!? How about accepting muslims, all muslims, as a deserving group within Western society. Jesus Christ, self-segregation is a fucking myth. In the UK west-indians are also segregated. In the US the different races are also segregated. You think minorities like social exclusion? You think minorities like living in poorer neighborhoods? Do you think white flight isn't a thing that exists? Europe has failed its minorities... all of them. To go back to the situation in the Netherlands, most racial minorities live in the 4 biggest cities, in minority-majority neighborhoods. This goes for all minorities, not just the muslim ones. The two minority groups most over-represented in the criminal justice system here in the Netherlands are Moroccans, muslim, and Antillians, non-muslim and black. Personal responsibilities are always a crutch used to by Western governments to not do anything to better the lives of racial and religious minorities. The only battle of ideas the West is losing is the one between a cosmopolitan, inclusive left and a racist nativist far-right.

Integration is a two-way street. Have Western governments done too little to promote and enforce integration? Yes, certainly. Are there minorities who wish to retain a lifestyle separated from European values? Absolutely. A recent poll in the UK showed that 23% of British muslims would like the introduction of Sharia law. Self-segragation is a fucking myth you say? No, not entirely.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I and many people have been asking for the receipts on that in this thread, but I've yet to see anyone deliver. It seems it's a common base assumption among many who want to ban it, but is there actually any proof to back up the basic premise?

Look at any territory where Islamists have taken over and imposed the burqa. When those Islamists are subsequently kicked out, women not surprisingly go back to non-burqa dress. Example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eing-freed-from-isis-manbij-sdf-a7173671.html

Now think of Islamist pressure and influence on the level of individual families. Extrapolate the country-wide Islamist example to specific women in Islamist families.

 

[Audioboxer]

It doesn't make sense to fight oppression with oppression.

Give people the choice to wear what they want. Then provide support to women who want to stop wearing the religious stuff who may face persecution.

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

And how does that help the majority of women who as I have said are in a zero-sum game where the choice they have really is a binary of conform or face physical, mental and relationship abuse?

 

[KingSnake]

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

Does a shirt makes you difficult to be identified when an identification is required? Is the shirt a symbol of oppression imposed by radicalism against a category of people?

If not, then how did you even find that comparison appropriate? Why make burqa a casual object?

 

[spekkeh]

It doesn't make sense to fight oppression with oppression.

Yet we do it all the time. For instance, we have government monopoly on violence to enforce the law such as 'you shall not discriminate'.

Give people the choice to wear what they want. Then provide support to women who want to stop wearing the religious stuff who may face persecution.

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

Yet we do it all the time. For instance, by law the government does not allow you to walk around naked.

Obviously it's all a spectrum and you can think that it's better to be laissez-faire in these matters. But these absolutes, like it's unheard of to fight oppression with oppression (where are these complaints when conservative Christians don't want to bake pies for gay people?), don't make any sense and just hurt your argument.

For me, though I'm not particularly in favor of banning niqabs, I'm also not against it. It may be worth a try and it seems like low hanging fruit to not lose to the far right.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Yet we do it all the time. For instance, we have government monopoly on violence to enforce the law such as 'you shall not discriminate'.

Yet we do it all the time. For instance, by law the government does not allow you to walk around naked.

Obviously it's all a spectrum and you can think that it's better to be laissez-faire in these matters. But these absolutes, like it's unheard of to fight oppression with oppression (where are these complaints when conservative Christians don't want to bake pies for gay people?), don't make any sense and just hurt your argument.

For me, though I'm not particularly in favor of banning niqabs, I'm also not against it. It may be worth a try and it seems like low hanging fruit to not lose to the far right.

The government doesn't have a monopoly on violence. You are free to inflict violence on others to protect yourself. You aren't free to inflict violence on others for not reason and neither is the government.

My only concern with walking around naked is a hygiene one.

I don't follow the Christian bakery argument.

Yes, I'll admit I may be too laissez-faire with this. Though I think your 'worth a try' reasoning to win votes from the far right is soinding too pragmatic.

Does a shirt makes you difficult to be identified when an identification is required? Is the shirt a symbol of oppression imposed by radicalism against a category of people?

If not, then how did you even find that comparison appropriate? Why make burqa a casual object?

I said it was oppression to make girls wear a burqua.

I am also saying there may be casual reasons that people are comfortable wearing a burqua.

The two points are not mutually exclusive.

You do not make a person more free by removing options from them.

 

[EloKa]

Like much of the old world Germany ain't America, it's a lot less liberal than you might think. I mean they still have blasphemy laws for crying out loud. Restricting the veil probably wouldn't be out of line with their political tradition. Ban a little bit here, censor a little bit there etc.

I don't know how much you know about German culture (I'm an expert) but there is a lot wrong in those 3 sentences.

 

[ck8215]

Like much of the old world Germany ain't America, it's a lot less liberal than you might think. I mean they still have blasphemy laws for crying out loud. Restricting the veil probably wouldn't be out of line with their political tradition. Ban a little bit here, censor a little bit there etc.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This blasphemy law you are talking about protects every religion and world view, you might have, from being made fun of. Since it includes world views it also protect atheists and I think this law is quite sensible. Just because you don't agree with people doesn't mean you're allowed to make fun of them.

 

[BobbyRobby]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This blasphemy law you are talking about protects every religion and world view, you might have, from being made fun of. Since it includes world views it also protect atheists and I think this law is quite sensible. Just because you don't agree with people doesn't mean you're allowed to make fun of them.

If I started a religion that believes Donald Trump is god, I'd hope you make fun of me. Ideologies don't deserve this type of protection.

It doesn't sound sensible to me. Maybe stuff like this is why integration isn't happening.

 

[EloKa]

If I started a religion that believes Donald Trump is god, I'd hope you make fun of me. Ideologies don't deserve this type of protection.

It doesn't sound sensible to me. Maybe stuff like this is why integration isn't happening.

It has nothing to do with making fun of religion. This law exists to stop people attacking specific religions on purpose which might result in public riots. You can make fun of any religion any time. You just shouldn't turn into hateful hyperbolism.

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

Isn't this just her shoring up for the election in 2017? Or is this the beginning of a new German mindset?

 

[Sayah]

1. A lot of women voluntarily wear it and for those saying they've been "raised" into it, what about mid-aged women who convert and decide to voluntarily wear a burqa? Were they also "raised" into it? Were women also "raised" into wearing bikinis or short shorts, because in contrast, enough people in the Muslim world also see those clothing options as objectifying and oppressive.

2. Having a full on ban for face coverings is nothing short of idiotic. Should we also ban kids from wearing masks on Halloween or at comic con or motorcyclists from wearing helmets or clowns at the circus from covering their face with layers of makeup or just everyday people covering their face with a scarf to protect themselves from icy winds?

3. A lot of people think the burqa/niqab is a religious obligation. It isn't. Islam doesn't mandate women to wear a burqa.

 

[Baki]

In this thread, white people talking about bringing Brown people into the 21st century and protecting them from themselves. Also known as imperialism.

... And people wonder how the crimes of the 19th and 20th century began.

The reality is that most people cannot accept or understand a life that deviates from their own values. Most people are bigots.

 

[ClosingADoor]

1. A lot of women voluntarily wear it and for those saying they've been "raised" into it, what about mid-aged women who convert and decide to voluntarily wear a burqa? Were they also "raised" into it? Were women also "raised" into wearing bikinis or short shorts, because in contrast, enough people in the Muslim world also see those clothing options as objectifying and oppressive.

2. Having a full on ban for face coverings is nothing short of idiotic. Should we also ban kids from wearing masks on Halloween or at comic con or motorcyclists from wearing helmets or clowns at the circus from covering their face with layers of makeup or just everyday people covering their face with a scarf to protect themselves from icy winds?

3. A lot of people think the burqa/niqab is a religious obligation. Islam doesn't mandate women to wear a burqa.

1. The Muslim world isn't exactly known for being very progressive, so I wouldn't hold that up as a good example to make comparisons too.

2. Try walking into a bank with a helmet on. Hint: you're locked between the two doors at the entrance and they demand you take it off or they call the police. Happened to someone I knew who walked in after he parked his motorbike next to the entrance. Plus, Germany already has laws against face covering for safety some posters earlier in the thread pointed out.

3. If it isn't mandated by religion, then a ban should make even less of a difference for people.

In this thread, white people talking about bringing Brown people into the 21st century and protecting them from themselves. Also known as imperialism.

... And people wonder how the crimes of the 19th and 20th century began.

The reality is that most people cannot accept or understand a life that deviates from their own values. Most people are bigots.

You are ignoring the Muslims who agree with the ban, some in this very same thread.

 

[KingSnake]

1. A lot of women voluntarily wear it and for those saying they've been "raised" into it, what about mid-aged women who convert and decide to voluntarily wear a burqa? Were they also "raised" into it? Were women also "raised" into wearing bikinis or short shorts, because in contrast, enough people in the Muslim world also see those clothing options as objectifying and oppressive.

So people adopting radicalism as adults makes it OK? What about fascism? If one becomes fascist as adult it should be OK, no? It's their choice in the end. /s

 

[Funky Papa]

I'm about to start banning folks who refuse to read the op.

 

[ElFly]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This blasphemy law you are talking about protects every religion and world view, you might have, from being made fun of. Since it includes world views it also protect atheists and I think this law is quite sensible. Just because you don't agree with people doesn't mean you're allowed to make fun of them.

this law really fills me with confidence when it is being pushed by countries which regularly jail people for blasphemy on the most ridiculous charges

so yeah I am gonna call bullshit on calling this 'sensible'

this is clearly not even about 'making fun' and just plain old imposing their worldview

 

[Slurpy2k20]

You think everyone who wears a burka has a choice?

In Europe and North America? Vast majority are wearing it by choice, yes. There is very little evidence to assume otherwise. I guess you haven't watched doezens and dozens of interviews with full veiled women, but I have. Don't assume things. But it's ironic that you seem concerned that because some might not be, yet you're fucking ok with explicitly removing that choice from all and believe that would be a good solution. Not hypocritical at all. You pretend to be concerned by "choice" when you don't like the choices some are making, but then jump at the opportunity to take that choice away.

 

[KonradLaw]

In this thread, white people talking about bringing Brown people into the 21st century and protecting them from themselves. Also known as imperialism.

... And people wonder how the crimes of the 19th and 20th century began.

The reality is that most people cannot accept or understand a life that deviates from their own values. Most people are bigots.

If those people are coming in and trying to enforce their own values on foreign countries? The case of natives not rolling over is imperialism? Nice.

 

[Baki]

If those people are coming in and trying to enforce their own values on foreign countries? That's imperialism of the natives?

Lmao! U wot m8. Haha. Amazing. Why do you feel so threatened?

Anyways, no one is trying to implement a law forcing burqas onto people. So your question is redundant.

 

[KonradLaw]

Lmao! U wot m8. Haha. Amazing. Why do you feel so threatened?

Anyways, no one is trying to implement a law forcing burqas onto people. So your question is redundant.

But somehow we don't allow children brides in EU, despite it being pretty common in many countries muslim migrants come from. Neither do we allow female genital mutilation. It's incredible how opressive we are towards migrants from other cultures.

 

[Ashes]

In this thread, white people talking about bringing Brown people into the 21st century and protecting them from themselves. Also known as imperialism.

... And people wonder how the crimes of the 19th and 20th century began.

The reality is that most people cannot accept or understand a life that deviates from their own values. Most people are bigots.

Whilst I can't agree with such sweeping statements, some parts of it reflects the modern world politics in a deeply uncomfortable way.

In addition, you have the rising political capital of the irreligious who brush away the right to practice religion, purely because they decide it to be ridiculous.

 

[ElFly]

In Europe and North America? Vast majority are wearing it by choice, yes. But it's ironic that you seem concerned that because some might not be, yet you're fucking ok with explicitly removing that choice from all with would be a good solution. Not hypocritical at all.

but you are ok with people being forced to wear it and doing nothing for them, just because some women wear it by choice?

also gotta question how much of a choice it is when it is being backed by religion and family pressures

I mean, mysteriously nobody wears burqa-like clothing regularly without a religious reason behind it, yet people wear will headscarves without a religious reason

 

[Lights and Waves]

I see the logic here tbh. Wear whatever you'd like, just as long as you're showing your face.

 

[DragonSworne]

Wouldn't running around veiled in a western society just alienate you? How can you assimilate if you alienate yourself?

 

[Baki]

But somehow we don't allow children brides in EU, despite it being pretty common in many countries muslim migrants come from. Neither do we allow female genital mutilation. It's incredible how opressive we are towards migrants from other cultures.

So just we are on the same page. Are you saying:

1/ refugees are forcing their culture on to you?

2/ You are not oppressive towards immigrants from other cultures?

Regarding (1) I think we've already addressed that.

Regarding (2) - my comments were on the people on this thread.

 

[KonradLaw]

So just we are on the same page. Are you saying:

1/ refugees are forcing their culture on to you?

2/ You are not oppressive towards immigrants from other cultures?

No. I was sarcastic. We in fact are opressive towards muslim immigrants because we don't allow some parts of their culture, like children brides. We do it because we believe that we know what's good better than them. If we do that with child brides, why it is such a shock when we try to extend it to other parts of their cultures?

 

[spekkeh]

The government doesn't have a monopoly on violence. You are free to inflict violence on others to protect yourself.

Don't know what tribalistic society you hail from, but I'm pretty sure in Germany you are not free to inflict violence against anyone whatsoever, at best you will not get prosecuted if there are attenuating circumstances. The monopoly of violence (which is a German concept) lies pretty absolutely with the government.

My only concern with walking around naked is a hygiene one.

Good for you, but you'll still get fined.

I don't follow the Christian bakery argument.

People were chomping to bits that the Christian bakery wasn't allowed to discriminate against gays, whereas the Conservatives said they were being oppressed for not being allowed to oppress. Either this is true, or it isn't.

Yes, I'll admit I may be too laissez-faire with this. Though I think your 'worth a try' reasoning to win votes from the far right is soinding too pragmatic.



I said it was oppression to make girls wear a burqua.

I am also saying there may be casual reasons that people are comfortable wearing a burqua.

The two points are not mutually exclusive.

You do not make a person more free by removing options from them.

Fwiw I didn't mean worth a try to placate the far right, I meant worth a try to combat fundamentalist tendencies. Though I don't know if that's the reason Merkel proposed it. She seems to just make a case for courtrooms and demonstrations. Given that wearing a balaclava is forbidden everywhere in Germany, I'm not sure why this distinction is important here.

 

[Baki]

Whilst I can't agree with such sweeping statements, some parts of it reflects the modern world politics in a deeply uncomfortable way.

In addition, you have the rising political capital of the irreligious who brush away the right to practice religion, purely because they decide it to be ridiculous.

Definitely the sentiment on what are supposed to be `Liberal` online communities. Its a shame, as I'd consider myself a liberal, but also believe that respecting "individuals right to live life freely, as long as they are not harming anyone" as a fundamental human principle.

 

[Baki]

No. I was sarcastic. We in fact are opressive towards muslim immigrants because we don't allow some parts of their culture, like children brides. We do it because we believe that we know what's good better than them. If we do that with child brides, why it is such a shock when we try to extend it to other parts of their cultures?

The last part is the definition of imperialism lol. Do you not understand why this line of thinking is dangerous.

Its why the western world believed it had the right to colonise so many countries.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Definitely the sentiment on what are supposed to be `Liberal` online communities. Its a shame, as I'd consider myself a liberal, but also believe that respecting "individuals right to live life freely, as long as they are not harming anyone" as a fundamental human principle.

Discussion can be had about if it is truly harmless. For example: if someone picks up a kid from school, how does the teacher know it is actually the parent if they can't see them. Those things are certainly safety issues.

 

[spiderman123]

My gf family is Muslim and they have the choice of wearing the burqa. I myself come from a family of which half is Muslim and half is Hindu. NOBODY in our family is forced to wear a burqa. It is mostly worn by older women while the younger women in the family simply wear hijabs. They wear it for religious reasons in terms of the "awarah"

I do not agree with Merkel. Conservatism is part of the Muslim religion and it applies to both male and female. I do agree however, that there are parts that are seemingly outdated that is up to the more traditional Muslim populace to decide.

 

[Sayah]

1. The Muslim world isn't exactly known for being very progressive, so I wouldn't hold that up as a good example to make comparisons too.

2. Try walking into a bank with a helmet on. Hint: you're locked between the two doors at the entrance and they demand you take it off or they call the police. Happened to someone I knew who walked in after he parked his motorbike next to the entrance. Plus, Germany already has laws against face covering for safety some posters earlier in the thread pointed out.

3. If it isn't mandated by religion, then a ban should make even less of a difference for people.

1. Even if you want to make that argument, it still doesn't address the point that people choose to wear it voluntarily. Why should their clothing options be restricted?

2. I agree that high security areas need identity confirmation. Women wearing burqas have to and do reveal their faces at airport check-ins for instance. I was talking about a full on ban, not a circumstantial ban where identity confirmation is necessary.

3. Just because it isn't mandated by religion doesn't people should be restricted in terms of clothing.

 

[Kinyou]

The last part is the definition of imperialism lol. Do you not understand why this line of thinking is dangerous.

Its why the western world believed it had the right to colonise so many countries.

Is it really imperialism when we're talking about national laws? A certain degree of assimilation will always be demanded when you come to a new country

 

[ck8215]

If I started a religion that believes Donald Trump is god, I'd hope you make fun of me. Ideologies don't deserve this type of protection.

It doesn't sound sensible to me. Maybe stuff like this is why integration isn't happening.

Exactly that's why Germany doesn't recognize those things as religion. Just like scientology is was stripped of all benefits of a religion here in Germany.

It has nothing to do with making fun of religion. This law exists to stop people attacking specific religions on purpose which might result in public riots. You can make fun of any religion any time. You just shouldn't turn into hateful hyperbolism.

And this. Of course you can make fun of the church and stuff. There are enough German comedians who did it, you just can't defame religion or a world view.

And on topic, I don't care what someone wears, religious or not, but I also think that these types of clothing are oppressive.

 

[ClosingADoor]

1. Even if you want to make that argument, it still doesn't address the point that people choose to wear it voluntarily. Why should their clothing options be restricted?

There are various reasons to restrict it. To get rid of the societal pressure on women to wear these things for example. To try and create more equal rights. To prevent safety issues. To improve integration.

2. I agree that high security areas need identity confirmation. Women wearing burqas have to and do reveal their faces at airport check-ins for instance. I was talking about a full on ban, not a circumstantial ban where identity confirmation is necessary.

A ban would be only in public places, where it might be a safety issue anyway.

3. Just because it isn't mandated by religion doesn't people should be restricted in terms of clothing.

If it is not a religious thing, then the argument that this is against freedom of religion some make is not a valid one.

 

[psychowave]

My gf family is Muslim and they have the choice of wearing the burqa. I myself come from a family of which half is Muslim and half is Hindu. NOBODY in our family is forced to wear a burqa. It is mostly worn by older women while the younger women in the family simply wear hijabs. They wear it for religious reasons in terms of the "awarah"

I do not agree with Merkel. Conservatism is part of the Muslim religion and it applies to both male and female. I do agree however, that there are parts that are seemingly outdated that is up to the more traditional Muslim populace to decide.

Your girlfriend isn't representative of the entire muslim community or what many muslim women go through.

 

[JP_]

Has there actually been real life examples where the religious face covering was used to aid crime?

I don't like the burqa but I think dictating how they should practice is counter-productive and is likely to do more harm than good unless there's actually a legitimate safety issue the ban actually solves. I just haven't heard any evidence it does solve real life safety issues.

 

[Ashes]

No. I was sarcastic. We in fact are opressive towards muslim immigrants because we don't allow some parts of their culture, like children brides. We do it because we believe that we know what's good better than them. If we do that with child brides, why it is such a shock when we try to extend it to other parts of their cultures?

You use the word oppressive too fast and too loosely.
By your understanding, the state is oppressive toward anybody defying the law, e.g. murderers, rapists etc.

The art of law and politics is in the balance of these things. Items of clothing are not a suitable parallel to the endangerment of children.

 

[spiderman123]

Your girlfriend isn't representative of the entire muslim community or what many muslim women go through.

Didn't say she was. I'm using her family as an example. They aren't forced to wear it nor is it oppressive for them nor is it for their friends and family. I know that some Muslim women consider it oppressive while others don't. It is a conversation for them to decide and is part of religious freedom and choice.

But thanks for being selective and ignore what I said in my earlier response.

 

[gutter_trash]

to make this law just, she should change the language in her bill to include both genders

 

[PistolGrip]

"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."

This is reasonable.. right? Religion has no place in schools and courtrooms. And, anything that obstructs your view should not be allowed while driving.

 

[Baki]

Has there actually been real life examples where the religious face covering was used to aid crime?

I don't like the burqa but I think dictating how they should practice is counter-productive and is likely to do more harm than good unless there's actually a legitimate safety issue the ban actually solves. I just haven't heard any evidence it does solve real life safety issues.

"Security" issues are always used to justify people's bias. I have yet to see concrete evidence to see widespread misuse of burqas in crimes.

 

[Stinkles]

It doesn't make sense to fight oppression with oppression.

Give people the choice to wear what they want. Then provide support to women who want to stop wearing the religious stuff who may face persecution.

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

Support for women who want to stop?

Burqas and more extreme coverings are not religious in nature, they are deliberate forms of cultural oppression of relatively recent introduction and reintroduction. They are often introduced in childhood. These women won't see or know about "support."

Ideas that were introduced by extremists to hide women and drag them out of society bear extreme scrutiny.

I don't mean hijabs.

 

[psychowave]

Didn't say she was. I'm using her family as an example. They aren't forced to wear it nor is it oppressive for them nor is it for their friends and family. I know that some Muslim women consider it oppressive while others don't. It is a conversation for them to decide and is part of religious freedom and choice.

But thanks for being selective and ignore what I said in my earlier response.

I didn't mean to be hostile, and I don't pay attention to every post that's made and which poster makes them. I just said that because too often an oppressed group's concerns are pushed under the rug because someone's friend who is a part of said group thinks it's okay (e.g. this show isn't homophobic because my gay best friend thinks it's hilarious).

 

[HotHamBoy]

This seems ironically oppressive.

 

[Octavianus]

What if tomorrow they said you can't wear a shirt in public. Would everyone be comfortable with that?

Maybe in the middle of the summer. Sure.

 

[JP_]

Support for women who want to stop?

Burqas and more extreme coverings are not religious in nature, they are deliberate forms of cultural oppression of relatively recent introduction and reintroduction. They are often introduced in childhood. These women won't see or know about "support."

Ideas that were introduced by extremists to hide women and drag them out of society bear extreme scrutiny.

I don't mean hijabs.

Like the bathing suit ban, isn't there a risk that the result won't be women out in public without covering, but instead it will result in women just not going out in public, as it now conflicts with their religious convictions?

If you want them to westernize or secularize, I think it's far more desirable to have them interacting with people in public, rather than pushing them toward social isolation.

 

[kruis]

Et tu, Merkel? Fasten your seat belts, we are moving toward dark times.

Dark times = allowing misogyny?

I don' see anything wrong with not being tolerant of the suppression of women, because that's what burqas are meant for. Their only function is to make women second class citizens in society.