Germany: Burka ban to be proposed in security clampdown

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: BBC

Germany's interior minister will back plans to ban the burka as part of a raft of anti-terror measures, local media say.

Thomas de Maiziere also proposes deporting criminals more quickly and relaxing doctor confidentiality rules.

He is due to announce some ideas on Thursday, and back some ideas from ministers in his party next week.

There have been repeated attacks in German cities recently, some of them related to Islamist terror.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37033286

[Democat]

1. Are many terrorists wearing burka?

Don't they try to blend in with crowds before attacking?

[snooper2]

2. If I wanted to cause harm, death and destruction I would use one...

Pack all your shit under it, have it cut into a two piece with a top that can come off easily so you can move and see once in place. Pretty sure this has been done in the past-

[JackRiddler]

21. You "would." You're "pretty sure."

[snooper2]

28. you follow the news?

Islamic State Suicide Bomber in Woman's Dress Blows Up Mosque in Yemen
https://news.vice.com/article/islamic-state-suicide-bomber-in-womans-dress-blows-up-mosque-in-yemen

IS suicide bomber dressed as a woman kills 10 at Yemen Houthi mosque
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0RO0EH20150924

Nigeria suicide bombings: 18 confirmed dead after attacks by men 'dressed as women and with explosives disguised as babies'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nigeria-suicide-bombing-dead-men-dressed-as-women-and-strapped-explosives-onto-backs-like-babies-a6841911.html

Suicide bomber dressed as a woman kills 10 in Chad
http://www.gulf-times.com/story/446754/Suicide-bomber-dressed-as-a-woman-kills-10-in-Chad

[JackRiddler]

37. What does this have to do with Germany?

Those are places where burkas are normal.

[snooper2]

40. jeez

[JackRiddler]

41. Dodge.

Possible terrorist:



Dumbest unrelated photo wins!

[snooper2]

44. Actual Terrorist

Underneath the robes and veils, the men put on makeup, wore dresses and some even wore women’s bras; Others put on makeup but chose not to shave their facial hair.

[JackRiddler]

58. Something like 1000 times more "actual terrorists" dress like this:

Also like this:



In a Western context, how will you know someone dressed like this isn't a terrorist?



At some point it may sink in how stupid is the idea that by banning one form of possible disguise, you've done anything against preventing attackers from disguising themselves. It just may. I'm done arguing it with you.

Now if you have a problem with burqas as such, that's a different matter. So do I. Does De Maiziere propose arresting women wearing them? Or their families? Detaining the women until they relent? How does that get done?

[christx30]

60. I'd be ok with banning burkas

and arresting people, women included, for wearing them. Western women that go to Saudi Arabia would be arrested for not abiding by their cultural standards. They are in the west now. They have to join society. The burka is seperation (autocorrect wanted to say "depression", which isn't too far from the truth). If they don't like it, refuse to comply, put them on a plane.
And if the burka bomber tactic has been used successfully in other countries, why wouldn't it work in Germany? I'm in a store and I see a woman in a burka, I don't want to talk to her. I don't even want to look at her. I just get my stuff and leave. If it's actually a guy with 30lbs of explosives strapped to his chest, I wouldn't know.

[JackRiddler]

64. You also would not know if the fat guy in shorts...

had 30 pounds of explosives in his grocery bag.

It's important to separate the canard of "burkas help terrorists" from the reality of burkas are a cultural expression that oppress women.

As for the latter, if I'm understanding you right, you're saying the West needs to be more like Saudi Arabia? Tit for tat?

I'd like to see as much passion going into the idea of suspending all weapons sales and military aid to Saudi Arabia and other countries with such practices, who use these weapons and aid to murder around the globe. As long as they are "our" "ally," this seems incomparably more urgent. Where's De Maiziere's statement on that?

Do you agree?

[christx30]

66. My tit for tat about Saudi Arabia was that

if we go there, we abide by their laws and customs. Why shouldn't they have to do the same when they come to the west?
I agree with suspending weapons sales to SA. Absolutely. And freezing the assets of any Saudis that donate money or other support to ISIS.

[JackRiddler]

67. Because our laws and customs...

are supposed to be based on freedom and rights (a basis on which the burqa might be challenged, by the way) and not on a dress-code supposedly mandated by God?

I'm glad you agree that arresting immigrant or refugee women for wearing burqas should be less of a priority in actually changing the situation with Islamic terrorism than cutting off arms and funds to "our" "allies" who foment it.

[Quantess]

89. I agree with most of what you are saying, except, Dubai is surprisingly modern, I hear.

Many women go around in western style clothing and exposed hair in Dubai.

[ancianita]

122. Agreed. Enforced dress codes in the West are valid reciprocity for codes enforced anywhere else.

Immigrants can't start culture competitions/conflicts over special treatment everywhere they go.

The Capt. Steve Hiller (played by Will Smith in the movie, Independence Day) standard applies to immigrants: "Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.

[uhnope]

91. +1

[MowCowWhoHow III]

4. Probably more to do with evading surveillance

[PatSeg]

13. I saw something recently

about men disguising themselves as women by wearing burkas. I think it could be used to disguise weapons or suicide vests as well.

[JackRiddler]

20. You saw something!

[PatSeg]

34. Yep, right on the street where I live!!!

No actually I saw an article to that effect, but I honestly can't remember now where I saw it.

So what are you implying?

[JackRiddler]

38. Wrong focus, with a culture war twist.

[PatSeg]

42. Sounds like that would be an "anti terrorism" concern

Man who escaped mosque in burqa was under counter-terror restrictions
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/04/suspect-burqa-counter-terror-restrictions

Man disguised as woman wearing burqa kills 15 in Chad capital bomb attack
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-disguised-woman-wearing-burqa-kills-14-chad-attack-article-1.2288989

Man 'wearing burka disguise hit woman round head with brick in bag'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-wearing-burka-disguise-hit-5172353



The best one though, was the guy who dress in a burka because he was cheating on his wife. He was arrested as a terrorist suspect when neighbors noticed he was wearing men's shoes.

[JackRiddler]

53. Oh dear, how will they disguise themselves when burqas are banned?

Because, there's no alternative to it. Absolutely no other way for a human being to disguise themselves or hide their weapons. Terrorism will be over.

What about the possible majority of terrorist attackers who wore shirts, pants and shoes? What are we going to do about those accoutrements? It's not usually reported if they wore shirts, pants and shoes, so I guess there's no need to address it.

Hmm, about vehicles... I wonder how many stories can be dug up in which vehicles were involved in attacks? Oh never mind.

Let's turn instead to the details of De Maiziere's idea: Are police going to detain burqa-clad women? Pay a house visit? Who should be arrested, the woman or her husband/father or other family members? Should the woman be detained for her protection, even against her will? Will there be deprogramming?

[PatSeg]

73. I am only pointing out

that the many stories like this could be one of the reasons Germany is proposing a ban on burkas. I am not saying that it necessarily would or would not make a difference, though apparently some people think it would. Also I agree that this would be difficult to enforce.

[JackRiddler]

79. It might be very easy to enforce.

After all, no one can hide that they're wearing a burqa.

The question is, how much state force gets applied. It would be one thing if they offered a safe house for women who want out of their burqas to flee to (but what about their children or female relatives?). Probably be decried as welfare by many who approve of the burqa ban...

Or do they detain the woman? How long? Force her into other clothing? Arrest the male presumed to be in charge of her? Raid the house?

Suddenly this makes sense as a wedge item for surveillance without ethnic/racial "profiling."

[PatSeg]

80. The way you describe it,

it sounds like it would be very difficult to enforce. I can't imagine that such a proposition would have a chance of becoming law in a western country.

[riderinthestorm]

83. It's enforced in France. They're arrested, charged, released.

Go to court and pay a fine.

There's actually a guy whose been paying their fines for them.

So there is a Western country doing it now...

[PatSeg]

84. Really?

I didn't realize that.

[womanofthehills]

130. In France, the women only wear the niqab - no burqas - (not much difference)

The Burqa Ban: An Unreasonable Limitation on Religious Freedom or a Justifiable Restriction?

In the spring of 2011, France enacted a law banning the concealment of the face in public spaces (the “burqa ban”). The burqa ban creates two new punishable offenses in France. 1 First, wearing clothing designed to conceal one’s face in a public space is punishable by either a maximum of a €150 fine or by being required to take a class on the meaning of citizenship, or both. 2 Second, forcing a woman to wear a face-covering veil is punishable by one year of imprisonment or a €30,000 fine. 3 The burqa ban, which was first introduced by the French National Assembly 4 and passed “overwhelmingly” through both houses of the French Parliament, 5 went into effect in France on April 11, 2011. 6

In France, approximately 1,900 women wear the niqab and no women wear the burqa, according to a study prepared in 2009 and cited by the January 26, 2010 Parliamentary Commission’s report (“Parliamentary Commission’s Report”). 43 Half of the women who wear the niqab are under thirty years old, and ninety percent of the women are under forty years old. 44 Further, two-thirds of these women are of French nationality, and one-fourth of them are converts to Islam. 45 A statistic that was not ascertained, however, is how many of these women wear the niqab because they choose to (based on religious conviction, fear of harassment in public spaces, or cultural pride) and how many of these women are pressured to wear the niqab by their husbands, fathers, or Muslim religious official.

The compatibility of wearing the veil and gender equality is a contentious issue. To many, the veil represents an oppressive instrument that signifies women’s second-class status in Islam, rather than the fulfillment of a religious obligation for the women who wear them. 46 The Quran instructs men to ensure that women under their care or responsibility are “covered” when they go out in public, 47 and, accordingly, some women who wear any of the forms of veils see them as “sign[s] of male domination over women’s bodies and lives.”
48 Those who believe that the veil is a symbol of oppression regard regulations like the burqa ban as protection for women who would otherwise be forced to wear veils. They view the ban as addressing “[o]ne of the most salient concerns” for women who wear religioious
garb—that they do not choose to wear veils, but rather are required to wear them “by their family, their community, and their religion.”
http://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volume-25/issue-3/comments/burqa-ban-limitation-religious-freedom-restriction.

[JackRiddler]

19. None in recent attacks called "terrorist."

(In Europe.)

It's completely superfluous as a means of disguise, given there are a jillion other ways to disguise a person or weapons. Female bombers (there haven't been any in Germany or Western Europe recently that I know of) have usually dressed to fit in = "normal" dress. As you see from the other responses, this is about imaginations running riot, as if the burka is some kind of special threat compared to a baggy dress or a backpack or a... vehicle. Oh yeah, vehicles. Can you hide shit in there?

Ridiculous.

There have been three attacks in Germany with any kind of possible Islamist background, all of which appear to be the work of young male individuals on their own, stochastically inspired. (That does not include the big massacre in Munich, which was not Islamist and entirely on the "Columbine" model.)

The proposal self-evidently has no value in preventing attacks, it is a matter of culture war from a Christian conservative politician (de Maiziere) on Merkel's right who's trying to throw red-meat at his East German constituency, fearing the AfD. (Not that I'm pro burqua but prohibition is not the way to go.)

[DetlefK]

5. The problem isn't the burqua. It's radicalization in the face of a psycholigical crisis:

The german islamist radicals found extremism because they felt left out by society. The way I see it, there are two kinds of radical islamists:
* Some see western life as vapid, shallow, hollow. Focused on decadence, materialism and human-made laws instead of the higher, purer, pious ideals laid out by Allah.
* Some see their life falling apart, going nowhere. No job, no money, no respect, no future.

Except... There is one thing that can redeem them. One last hope. One thing that will instantly make everything alright: Wage jihad and go to heaven.

[pennylane100]

24. I think this thread is not about a burqua as a factor in radicalization.

It is more about how it can and maybe has been used by radicals. While I personally think they are ridiculous, as are the purple and pink outfits of bishops and cardinals, I do not think they have anything to do terrorism except as a means to an end.

The sad fact that in today's world, surveillance has become a necessary tool in public safety and completely covering one's face allows terrorists to work around that. Also, because the burqua is not (I think) mentioned anywhere in the Quran, banning it in public would not seem to be anti Islamic.

[JackRiddler]

65. Now that's a rational contribution.

It's one thing if De Maiziere condemned the burqa as a hateful instrument that oppresses women, and wanted to do something about that.

In that case he could be more effective by calling for an end to military collaboration with Saudi Arabia, don't you think? Alongside, in any case. Have you heard any such indication from the German government?

It's another thing to put forth this canard that burqas are the disguise par excellence for terrorists, without which they'd be less effective. That's just turning it into a symbol of the Other, whom we should hate. He's competing for the AfD vote, not putting forth a serious proposal.

[Squinch]

6. The burqa has nothing to do with the Islamic religion. It isn't required by the religion.

It is a secular requirement from areas that coincide with areas where there are many Muslims, but it is not part of the religion.

It is nothing more than a visible expression of the hatred of women.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Yup. nt

[JackRiddler]

22. Agreed.

Is prohibition the way to go?

In any case, the burqa also has nothing to do with terrorist attacks. It's imaginary as a tool of disguise. This is culture war by the German minister.

[snooper2]

29. yep, NEVER been used..ever!

[JackRiddler]

36. Not the point.

Baggy pants can also be used. Whatever is normal in context. In places where most women wear them, obviously usable. So what?

[Squinch]

32. That particular cultural characteristic, the burqa, has no role in civilized society.

It is the symbol of one person's ownership of the identity of another person.

Yes, with respect to the burqa, prohibition IS the way to go.

[leftynyc]

49. 100% agreement

There is NO reason for a women to wear one of those hideous things - those that do are being forced into it by their male relatives and they can prohibit them all over the world and I wouldn't blink an eyelash.

[patsimp]

86. i suspect you have a good point

[uhnope]

92. +1. Personally I think head scarves/hijabs are cool but anything more is creepy. n/t

[Squinch]

114. I don't know anyone who feels as I do about burqas who has any problem with scarves/hijabs.

I think that makes it pretty clear that the objection is not an objection to the religion or the religion's mandates. I don't get it, any more than I get the orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs, but I have no problem with it.

Burqas are becoming commonplace in a neighborhood where I work in New York. They are just horrible. To see them proliferating, to see kids grow up thinking the erasure of women's identities is normal and acceptable, is disturbing. I just hope that a new generation will drop them.

[Akicita]

43. Wrong. It is religiously based. The dress code is not consistant among all Islam. The same way a

Quaker might dress differently than an Lutheran. Wearing a burqa is decreed by religious figures in many countries and enforced by religious police. It is the religion that is used to subjugate women in those places. Nothing secular about it.

[Squinch]

50. It is not required by Islam. It just isn't.

[Akicita]

52. Male priests are not required in most of Christianity. In Catholicism it is required.

Conservative Islamic countries and sects have different religious requirements than moderate Islamic countries and sects.

[Squinch]

57. The burka is a regional tradition. It isn't part of the religion.

[Akicita]

59. If you go to those countries and ask people why they are required to wear burqas the answer will not

be because of hygiene, or safety, or tradition, or health reasons. They'll say it is because their religion commands it. I have Muslim friends and co-workers from those countries and that is what they say.

[Quantess]

90. Are you sure you mean the face-covering burqa, and not the hair-covering niqab?

By thw way, I know women who self-identify as muslim, and they dress western and expose their hair.

[leftynyc]

95. Niqab's do cover the face

Hijabs are strictly for hair covering.

[Quantess]

97. Oh, my mistake. Anyway, are you sure they mean the face coverings

and not the hair coverings?

[Squinch]

119. If you talk to some white supremacists, and you ask them why they hate people of

color, they will tell you that in part it is because their religion demands it.

Most of them consider themselves Christian. In fact, there is a thing among them called the Christian Identity Movement.

Anyone can say anything. It doesn't mean the religion requires it.

[womanofthehills]

131. Agreed - all Islam says is modesty

[Xithras]

61. It's not "secular"

It's a cultural interpretation of a religious mandate.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty (private parts); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their (coverings) over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their (Muslim) women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs (eunuchs), or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. - Quran 24:31

The conservative Arabian cultural interpretation of that passage states that women should be covered, so that only the men listed can see any part of "their beauty". Islamic cultures have traditionally varied in the amount of coverage they require because they have differing interpretations of the meaning of the phrase "...not display their beauty..."

It's a cultural interpretation of a religious requirement. It's certainly not secular.

[Arazi]

68. "Cultural interpretation". Exactly. The burka is cultural, not religious

And certainly not mandated by Islam

[Xithras]

70. It is mandated that women "cover their beauty"

All Islamic societies agree on that. They only differ on the amount to be covered.

Someone once compared it to Christians going to church. The Christian Bible doesn't actually require its followers to attend church, but simply requires that they spend time reflecting and praying. The Christian interpretation of that requirement, for at least the last 1500 years, says that you fulfill the requirement by attending church on Saturday or Sunday.

Strictly speaking, church attendance is not mandated by Christianity. But the popular cultural interpretation says that you ARE supposed to attend church if you're a Christian. Most Christians will tell you that you are not an observant Christian if you aren't attending. Simply put, the Bible lays out a requirement, and western cultural norms govern that requirements enforcement.


This is the way all religions have always worked. The religion lays down basic requirements, and the people apply their own cultural interpretations to those requirements. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that its not religious though. The requirement only exists because the Quran reduces a womans appearance to an item of property that belongs to her husband and family. Whether or not her face counts as her "beauty" is secondary to the objectification and dehumanization that Islam imposes on its female adherents. The fact that many Islamic cultures don't objectify and dehumanize women as badly as others is hardly a defense.

And, for what it's worth, I'm only pointing this out about Islam because it's the subject of this discussion. I'm fully aware that many other religions (including Christianity) to the same thing. That's also not a defense that anyone should be using.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Cultural, not religious

We have laws about what has to be covered in public too. All cultures do. That each culture has various interpretations on what is acceptable has a lot of factors. Religion can be one.

Ownership of women, perception of their value as chattel, having excessive control over their sexuality, family "honor" codes etc are enormous issues in Islamic cultures- all of which have zero to do with religion and certainly influence cultural norms about dress codes.

The fact remains that Islam has only the vaguest directives about dress.

[Bradical79]

113. Requirements for the burqa are based on religious texts

It's both cutural and religious, as different islamic traditions interpret the text different ways, and different countries integrate specific Islamic teachings into their laws in different ways.

[Squinch]

121. As I said upthread, many white supremacist groups use something called

the Christian Identity Movement to justify their positions of hatred. They say their religion requires their positions.

Anyone can interpret anything into any of these religions. It doesn't mean the religion actually requires it.

[Bradical79]

123. Yes, religion and culture are largely entertwined

That's kind of my point. Trying to say "it's not religion, it's culture" or vise versa doesn't nake a whole lot of sense. Religion comes from its originating culture, influences other cultures, gets influenced by cultures that adopted it, and so on over and over. It's not something you can seperate from culture. When practicing religions you're either adopting an expression of culture from somewhere else, or adapting it to your own cultural practices. This can be good and bad.

[Squinch]

127. But you can distinguish it from culture. Just as we can, do and should distinguish the white

supremacist culture's hate from anything that calls itself Christian, we can and should also distinguish the cultural hatred of women that gave rise to the burqa from anything that calls itself Muslim.

I see what you are saying: the local culture informs the religious interpretation.

But when those local cultural mores are not compatible with civilized society, we have never hesitated to disallow them. Just as we don't encourage Maoris to practice their traditional cannibalism in modern society, we should not accept the acts of women-hating people that erase the identities of the women among them in modern society.

I simply do not accept that, in order not to be accused of xenophobia, I need to smile and nod my encouragement while a group works to erase the identities of the women in that group.

[Bradical79]

133. Yes, I agree with you on that.

We do have limits to freedom of religion here, like your white supremicist example, cannibalsim, human sacrifice, slavery, and so on. I can see the Burqa being in that category morally as it exists to dehumanize an entire group of people.

[Ilsa]

7. If I was a small man, I'd wear a burka to help hide

My guns to make it easier to get into whatever venue undetected.

But there is no reason to ban hijabs.

[NurseJackie]

8. "But there is no reason to ban hijabs."

Thank you. 100% Agreement!

[JackRiddler]

23. Baggy pants would do as well and raise no suspicion.

This is imagination, not based on who's actually done attacks and how.

[KittyWampus]

46. Baggy pants don't also cover the face.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. No, but if it's my grand-pops they come pretty darned close.

[Ilsa]

62. I think the perceived woman in the burka

Would get fewer looks than a man, baggy pants or not. "Hey, she wants to be invisible, she's invisible! It's a woman in big clothes!"

[leftynyc]

9. Good

I hate the fucking things. Nothing more than an attempt to disappear women and in this case, probably make it easier to identify someone.

[AlbertCat]

10. I hate the fucking things.

I know where you're coming from.

But as a costume designer, a burka can be a beautiful garment. So can a corset, a pannier and a farthingale....but of course they are centuries old and no one wears one...or (and this IS the thing) is FORCED to wear one.

[leftynyc]

11. Force is the issue

not the article of clothing. I think women who wear high heels to make their legs look longer are nuts also but they're not being forced into ruining their feet and backs.

[PatSeg]

15. As a woman,

I hate the damn things. It is so medieval and cruel.

[get the red out]

30. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was to chicken to post that when I saw the OP.

[PatSeg]

35. There is something insidious

in a culture or religion that requires women to dress in a way that implies shame for being a woman. And if the problem is men that can't control themselves, maybe it is the MEN who should have restrictions. Perhaps they could be kept at home for the most part and not allowed out in public unless accompanied by a female relative, preferably one with a big stick!

[leftynyc]

48. 100% agreement

I've always thought arming the women would be the best option. THEN we'll see who is doing what voluntarily.

[PatSeg]

51. Absolutely!

Why do women have to be punished because some men have no self-control? We've let men rule the world for thousands of years and look what we got. They had their turn. They should consider themselves lucky, as women will treat them far better than they treated us, but they'll have to give up their war games.

[uhnope]

94. exactly. Especially since that's a BS excuse anyway.

Other societies have proven that showing skin has nothing to do with provoking anything. It's not like men are running around crazed out of their minds on the French Riviera

[PatSeg]

110. That's a really good point

If anything showing more skin makes people less vulnerable to enticement. People get used to it. I enjoyed the visual of "men running around crazed out of their minds on the French Riviera" though.

[Akicita]

55. Bravo. Good post.

[PatSeg]

75. Thank you!

[get the red out]

63. Amen!

I agree completely!

[womanofthehills]

134. Agreed - it's so oppressive

Can you imagine never feeling the sun on your body.

[PatSeg]

135. Oh god, that picture

says so much more than all the words we've said. Brought tears to my eyes.

[Akicita]

54. But would you ban a woman who likes them from wearing one?

[leftynyc]

71. Yes,

because you'll NEVER get me to believe a woman covers herself from head to toe in hot climates voluntarily.

[PatSeg]

78. I would worry that an overbearing

husband would take it out on the wife. Maybe even prevent her from ever leaving the house as well. I don't think there is an easy solution to this. It might take a generation in a Western culture to successfully get rid of the offensive garb.

[leftynyc]

88. That is DEFINITELY a threat

that needs to be considered. It's maddening that men still have such control over women in this day and age. They're virtual slaves.

[PatSeg]

107. Which makes it obvious

that this is more about control than religion. The concept of "women as property" has been with us throughout history and in most cultures. Yes, it could be considered legal slavery.

[leftynyc]

109. Most religious edicts,

of any kind, are all about controlling human behavior. But that women - in the year 2016 - are in a position where they can't leave their house without a male relative, can't wear what they want, can't work, can't love who they want - it's simply disgusting.

[PatSeg]

111. And the whole concept of "honor killing" too

What kind of brain washing is going on in these cultures that relatives and husbands believe this is a honorable practice? It is really more like a cult than a religion.

[leftynyc]

112. Oy - that's another topic

that makes me want to break stuff. Killing your child, or your sister, or your mother because of some demented version of "honor". We should be embarrassed as humans that this is still going on.

[PatSeg]

115. I know

It gives me the chills whenever I think of it and I try to imagine what it must be like to be raised in such a woman hating environment.

This is nothing like the Muslims I've known over the years. Some were more Westernized than others, but I never saw any extreme behavior and the women were always pleasant and sociable neighbors or co-workers.

[leftynyc]

117. I've known several also

All women. None of them even covered their hair and if it wasn't for the fasting during Ramadan, nobody here would have even known.

[PatSeg]

125. Same here

I went back through my memories and I realized I knew a lot of people from the Mideast and Pakistan. I am quite sure they must have been Muslim, but I never noticed anything in their behavior or dress that distinguished them in any particular way. Occasionally some women wore more ethnic clothing, but I don't recall any of them covering their heads or appearing subservient to their husbands.

It was around the late 1990s and early 2000s that I began to encounter some more orthodox people, but with few exceptions, the women were outgoing and sometimes even a little bossy. I'm not sure when or where the changes began.

[leftynyc]

128. I think it's different in the US

From what I'm reading, the problems occurring in Europe are due to the lack of assimilation allowed to the immigrant Muslims. The US ENCOURAGES assimilation. Every religion is going to have those that go overboard, fanatics - but it does seem like much less of a problem in a multi cultural society.

We also have an office in Pakistan so I'm always aware of the Muslim holidays - I get along GREAT with those guys. They hate the religious freaks they feel are ruining their religion.

[PatSeg]

129. You know

I had read the same thing. People tend to assimilate better in the U.S. than European countries. The few people I remember who were more orthodox were here temporarily because of business. Often they did not want to socialize with Americans and were inclined to keep to themselves.

[leftynyc]

136. That's not really surprising if

they were here temporarily. When our folks from China and Pakistan are here, they don't really socialize with anyone other than colleagues.

[Akicita]

82. I find it hard to believe too. But you never know. People are willing to put up with a lot of

sacrifice for their religion.

[PatSeg]

126. With the women,

I think sometimes it is a matter of survival and in a real sense.

[PatSeg]

76. No

I don't think that would be enforceable anyway. The hard part is there are women who are so male dominated, that they might be afraid to say they don't want to wear them.

However, if a woman wanted a government issued picture ID such as a driver's license or passport, they should not be allowed to cover their face in the photo. There would be no point to a photo ID then. There was a case like that a number of years ago in Florida.

[uhnope]

93. I've seen women in burkas accompanied by men in shorts and tshirts that

just looked like slobs. I agree, it's gross.

[PatSeg]

108. Yes

The men are free to fit into whatever culture they are in, but the women are essentially wearing an identifying uniform. I've noticed this with some strict fundamentalist christian religions as well. A family would come into a restaurant and the men would be wearing polo shirts and khakis, whereas all the women would have Victorian hairstyles, no makeup, and denim skirts. It is kind of like branding a cow. "These women belong to us."

[packman]

14. The Codpiece - don't forget the codpiece

[AlbertCat]

16. The Codpiece - don't forget the codpiece

[eissa]

17. Right there with you

The men might push back on this, and maybe some women who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, and of course the usual cultural apologists. But the majority of women who are forced to wear that shitty tent are quietly cheering.

[JackRiddler]

25. Maybe.

[pennylane100]

26. Making women disappear from public view seems to be part of many sects of many religions.

There is a Jewish sect that does not want women's faces on newspapers or on a public site. They also want separate accommodation for women in public places and have been known to ask for a women to be moved from sitting next to them on airplanes. The Amish and other similar groups definitely make women in their community second class members. No catholic women are priests, probably because they do not make good pedophiles. Nuns are considered subordinate to priests. I remember that from my convent school education.

Unfortunately this is all tolerated in the name of religion. I must confess that it makes me feel a little superior to be an athiest.

[leftynyc]

31. I remember a story about

and Orthodox Jewish man asking for a woman to be moved on a flight - I also remember commenting that the cretin should have to buy not only his seat but the one next to him to accommodate his insanity. But that's still a far cry from burkas - supposedly worn to keep men from behaving like animals. How about they just not behave like fucking animals? Burkas are only to make women disappear - THAT'S IT. Other religions have stupid rules but far too many in Islam want to make an entire gender disappear until it's time to make more Muslims. Many can't even leave their homes without a male relative.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. One should also note the difference in the responses to those events.

One story gets heaps of scorn and nary a supportive or "understanding" post in sight; the other, well...

[leftynyc]

47. Oh I noticed it at the time

As usual, DU did their best to prove Bill Maher right yet again.

[Squinch]

33. When a man asks that a woman be moved away from him on an airplane, the woman is able to say

"Oh, hell no" in our culture.

In all the examples you cite, the women who are being mistreated are still allowed an identity. Even in those backward cultures. The burqa goes beyond even all those examples, and goes miles beyond.

And atheism doesn't absolve you from association with asshole misogynists. Asshole misogynists are in every walk of life. it's just that in some cultures, it's celebrated. And the women are forced to wear burqas.

[Akicita]

56. Or worse yet, they are forced to undergo FGM.

[Owl]

18. Good.

[apcalc]

27. Good!

Get rid of them everywhere.

[vkkv]

39. "Just because I'm paranoid -

doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."


I can't take credit for making that up.

[Recursion]

69. Well, that will help

[romanic]

72. Good.

It may not help much in terms of security but for women who are forced to wear these horrible garments, this is a victory for them.

[patsimp]

85. true

[guillaumeb]

77. Perhaps a yellow crescent to identify Muslims?

I know that something like that was done in Germany before.

What simplistic nonsense.

[ButterflyBlood]

87. How on Earth is this comparable?

If "identifying Muslims" was the goal why ban burkahs? They help do so. Zero similarities.

[guillaumeb]

99. The yellow Star of David was used to single out the Jews,

and this "ban the clothing" nonsense also singles out Muslims as uniquely problematic.

[leftynyc]

96. The BURQA

identifies them as Muslim. NOBODY else wears them so your entire premise is complete and utter bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

100. Identifying Muslims as uniquely problematic is nonsense.

And it is the same type of racist nonsense that was previously used by the Germanys to identify the Jews as "THE BIG PROBLEM" in Germany. Interesting and troubling parallel, no?

[leftynyc]

103. WTF are you talking about?

It's certainly not the fault of the Germans that ONLY Muslims wear the disgusting garments. They make ID impossible and are a security risk as pointed out in several posts already here. That has nothing to do with the German government FORCING people to identify themselves, in fact it does the exact opposite.

[guillaumeb]

104. Oh yes, the ID problem for security reasons.

Then ban large hats, wigs, colored contact lenses, large purses, loose clothing, hair coloring products, tanning products, etc.

All of these things can be used to hide and disguise.

The disgusting garment comment speaks for itself. And what it says is not good.

[leftynyc]

106. Large hats, wigs

large purses, loose clothing, and hair coloring DO NOT COVER THE FACE while a burqa does. What part of this are you twisting yourself into a pretzel to not understand? You don't think the burqa is a disgusting garment? Are you a woman?

[guillaumeb]

138. Three questions posed.

1) What is being proposed here is merely a part of the racist stereotyping of Muslims.

2) I would never wear a burqa. And that has nothing to do with this proposed action.

3) No. Again, that has nothing to do with this attempted profiling.

[leftynyc]

140. And once again

It's not Germany's fault that Muslims are the only ones to wear that disgusting, repulsive, vile garment. Would you still be bitching if they just passed a law like NY city that it's illegal to cover your face? And you are obviously NOT a woman if you're going to continue defending mean forcing women to disappear themselves with that piece of crap tent.

[guillaumeb]

141. Is tolerance for difference a Western value?

If so, please filter your argument through that Western value and see what remains.

[leftynyc]

143. I don't need to filter

anything through any Western lens. The FACT is that garment is used by men to control women, NO OTHER REASON. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that without it, men would be disgusting animals who can't keep their hands to themselves. Is that the argument you want to make? It's disgusting, vile, repulsive and no different that what they used to do to women's feet in China. I can't believe any liberal would be foolish enough to try and defend it but then again, you really do seem determined to prove Bill Maher right every single day.

[christx30]

105. So make the Muslims dress

like everyone else in Germany. Make them blend in with the rest of society. Don't let them stand apart. The burka is a tool of seperation and oppression that has no place in western culture. If the men want to be able to force their women to wear that stuff, they can always hop on a plane and go back to a middle eastern country that embraces that culture. They come to the west for many reasons. Freedom from dictatorial governments, jobs, ect. Things that are not available in their home countries because of the dominate culture.
And they shouldn't bring that culture to the west.

[guillaumeb]

139. Forced behavior? An interesting argument from a Democrat.

How about re-education camps to instill Western values?

Maybe even have a motto over the gates?

Arbeit macht frei has already been used. Perhaps a contest for the motto?

[christx30]

142. Would you be ok with an honor killing

of a girl that married someone her family disapproved of?
"Well, it's their culture. How are we to say they're wrong."

[roamer65]

81. Ban burkas? Yes. Hijabs? No.

[GOLGO 13]

98. Germany has the right to defend herself. Live in Germany? Follow the rules. Simple.

[trixie]

101. What about nuns?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

116. Most nuns at least have their face showing.

Sometimes more than one face. The priest sees one face, the students see a different face.

(kidding)

[Squinch]

120. Few nuns wear habits anymore. And when they did, for at least the last century, it was generally

a vocational life choice that the woman made in her late teens or early twenties or later. The woman made the choice for herself as an adult.

[bananakabob]

102. Racism masquerading as security.

Germany did this once in the 40's and it didn't end well.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

118. Is it racism to prohibit all races from wearing burkas? nt

[bananakabob]

150. I don't see people banning baseball caps

Because a white male shooter wore a baseball cap.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

151. A baseball cap doesn't usually cover your whole face.

... usually.

[christx30]

124. Where do you draw the line in accepting

of cultural practices? Niqabs? Burkas? FGM? Stoning rape victims for adultery? Cutting hands of thieves? Honor killings? Bullet ant manhood rituals in Brazil?
Because somewhere in your mind, there is a line where, despite your effort to seem accepting of every cultural practice on earth, there is a line. After this line, it's unacceptable, and you believe that crap should stay out of the west. Or, better yet, stop entirely.
Or would you be cool if a couple in Berlin decide to take their daughter for female genital mutilation? "Well, it's their way. We have to accept their culture. We're no better than them."

Some people's lines are just not as far as yours. People who's lines aren't as far as yours say you're too accepting. People who's line is farther than you call you a bigot.

[romanic]

144. Protecting regressive culture is the new progressive trend

Sad but true. :/

[leftynyc]

145. Oh no it's not

And you have plenty of people right here on DU that will prove how untrue your statement is every single day.

[christx30]

146. That's why I asked that question:

"Where is your line?" I think it's a perfectly valid question, one that can expose the bigots from people that just don't have a clue how bad things are in other countries.
"You're using the wrong fork for your salad. You make me SICK!"
to
"Oh, she got raped, now you're going to bury her in sand to her waist and throw rocks at her head until she's dead, because she 'committed adultery'? Well, can't argue with that logic. Because I'm not a racist."

Everyone has a line. And apparently where your line is determines if you are a progressive or a bigot.

[EX500rider]

147. Islam is a religion, not a race.

[bananakabob]

149. Same line right wingers use.

[EX500rider]

152. They may also say the sun rises in the East....so what?

[Grey Lemercier]

132. good, it is the clothing of a slave... who cares the rationale.. BAN that shit

This is the West... not some shithole ruled by insane religio-cultural misogynistic rotters. Well, except for Republicans.

[Coventina]

137. Good! It is oppression of women, pure and simple.

The erasure of a person.