Angela Merkel calls for widespread ban on full veil Islamic coverings
Source: Washington Post
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who last year opened the door to nearly 1 million mostly Muslim migrants, staked out a tough new stance on conservative Islam on Tuesday by making her first direct call for a widespread ban on “full veil” religious coverings.
Her backing could add Germany to the growing list of European nations imposing restrictions on Islamic coverings as debates sharpen across the continent over religious tolerance, perceived threats to European identity and possible security threats from Islamists.
It could also signal a pragmatic shift to the right for Merkel, who is seeking a fourth term as Germany’s leader. In the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and the U.S. election of Donald Trump, the tolerant Merkel became seen as among the last guardians of liberal democracy in the West.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germanys-merkel-backs-sweeping-limits-on-full-face-islamic-coverings/2016/12/06/d5aaf012-bbb0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.578bfe8027c2
If it can happen to somewhere like Germany it can happen in the US. We have to be vigilant about Trumps attempts to overturn freedom of religion and expression here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...to ensure that the identity and movements of people in public can be tracked.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The only reason to cover a face is to make the person disappear. Where whatever the fuck you want on your head but in public your face needs to be seen. I wouldn't trust anyone whose face I couldn't see. In NY this is already a rule dating back to the kkk.
arithia
(455 posts)particularly in areas where regimes crack down on free speech or counter culture ideas. Being able to hide one's identity can protect you from retaliation. Ask anyone in Anonymous about the necessity of masks when protesting Scientology for examples of how this applies in a society with protected free speech- there will *always* be nutjobs who try to hurt and stalk you for daring to express an opinion they do not like.
This is why anonymous free speech is important to protect- it encourages the free exchange of ideas and information. Yes, there are people who abuse the privilege, but that happens within any social system. Rules that punish abusers are fine. Widespread bans on cultural garments (that are mostly worn by women) are less a security issue and more an expression of xenophobia and paternalistic liberalism.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)A religion forcing one gender to cover themselves up has nothing to do with free speech and frankly, I'm stunned you're trying to push that nonsense here concerning this story.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Odd. Women are assaulted in the mid-east by men for not wearing them and assaulted in the west by men for wearing them. I'm beginning to think the wardrobe is not the problem, regardless of what you may indeed, push or pull.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)not wearing them. Most likely from one of their relatives. And nothing happens to them. When they assault someone here, they get arrested and put on trial. Why are you even trying to compare the two?
get the red out
(13,460 posts)Where the mistreatment of women is concerned. Liberalism seems to wrap back around itself to the point of supporting misogyny as "free speech", so long as it involves a non-western culture.
Yea, I know, I am all kinds of nasty names for saying that. I've heard them before.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And it's only one religion that gets liberals to put their good sense of right and wrong to the side. I've seen it countless times on DU.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)You've got it!
arithia
(455 posts)Forcing anyone engaged within the normal spectrum of human behavior to either cover themselves or uncover themselves is assumptive, controlling and paternalistic. *It goes both ways.* Bottom line is, with all of the problems in the world, we shouldn't be worrying about what the frak a woman decides to put on her own body if it's her own darn choice.
I've known many American muslim women who chose to wear a niqab or close to it- not out of pressure from friends, family or society, but because they feel that exposing the outward form and adorning the body are forms of vanity. There are countless other religions who do the same thing for the same reason, right down to my bonnet wearing Amish cousins.
In a country like Germany, it is a CHOICE to cover head to toe. **CHOICE** No one is legally forcing them to do so, relegating it to a cultural and social issue. Acculturation cannot be forced with a heavy hand without perpetuating bigoted stigmas and encouraging resentment towards that authority.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)the bullshit you just posted. They cover from head to toe by CHOICE? Not a freeking chance. And your bonnet wearing cousins aren't covering their FACES - a distinction I made early on here.
arithia
(455 posts)So.. I'm NOT supposed to believe the women I've known, some since childhood, who chose to do this? I know their families, their communities- they are each in the minority, the "oddball" of the family. Each is a feminist too, believe it or not. You don't know them any more than you know me, so please spare me your assertions that it's not their personal choice.
If you don't want to believe my personal account, google. There are countless personal accounts of "western" muslim women who chose to wear a veil or headscarf and they are happy to explain their decision. Social media is a wonderful thing.
Religious belief is personal. Some people wear veils. Some people wear turbans. Some people don't use zippers or buckles or wear colors other than black. Some people wear habits. Some people wear a frakin collander on their heads.
My point was that it was an expression of personal belief- an extension of free speech. If they chose to do so, to force them to do otherwise is paternalistic. You are saying "we know your culture better than you and what's good for you better than you do". Banning garments like the niqab does nothing to confront or impede any sexism attached to the notion of wearing one- it simply singles out one gender of a religious minority for increased scrutiny by both the law and by society. That too is bigotry.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)For the sake of making a man happy. Just throwing that out there, and it applies to all cultures.
comparing the head scarf with veils. It's completely dishonest. I have zero problem with covering the head. I have nothing but disgust and disdain for anyone who supports disappearing a woman, even those who claim it's their own choice - them I consider brainwashed. Period. Plenty of religious dress modestly, longer skirts, longer sleeves, stockings - whatever. They aren't being asked to pretend they don't exist by wearing a fabric coffin.
I'm not comparing hijab vs niqab beyond pointing out that they are worn for religious reasons. In a country that does not mandate it's use, wearing one is optional and a personal decision.
If it is worn by choice, it amounts to policing someone's body to tell them not to wear it. It is no different at it's core than forcing women to wear a veil.
Why are you supportive of ANY law that singles out women in a way that allows people to police what they wear? Either way, such laws send a message that women are incapable of making their own decisions. Either way, it's sexist!
Considering the woman to be brainwashed is rather assumptive, dismissive and insulting. It tells me all I need to- that I'm wasting my time with someone who has already decided to dismiss people they don't know based on their own personal prejudices.
Toodles.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Just WHERE was I supportive of ANY law that singles out women. The operative word here being LAW. Feel free to find me any country, anywhere where the law says MEN have to cover their faces. I'll wait.
And yes, anyone who thinks they have to cover themselves head to toe, including their faces, in order to be considered modest is brainwashed to such an extent, it's akin to abuse.
arithia
(455 posts)More assumptive fallacies from you. More insults of people you don't know. More demonstrated ignorance of world cultures.
I'm not "leaving in a huff". I've decided you aren't worth my time or energy because you so intent on insulting people you don't know. I can't communicate effectively with someone who thinks they are their own authority, especially with regards to stranger's lives.
But please, continue to post at me after I've already indicated I'm done with your rudeness.
Get that last word in.
I have better sh*t to do with my time.
Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)
brooklynite
(94,333 posts)I live next to an Arab neighborhood and see women in full burqas regularly.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)(and never in Westchester where I live). I meant to make that distinction. I have no problem with this law and think they should pass it everywhere. I hate those fucking things.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)So any 2 people in public that have their face covered and are, say, stopped and talking
are violating the law.
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0240.35_240.35.html
eissa
(4,238 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 6, 2016, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't care if it is a "choice" by those suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The head covering is bad enough, but the full niqab is meant to make women invisible, and is a degrading costume.
If you are willing to risk everything to live in a free and open society, then allowing women to roam without that hideous tent over them should not be an issue. But if your only goal in migrating is simply to recreate your homeland in another country....well, I think there is a legitimate issue with that.
get the red out
(13,460 posts)I am very surprised to see comments like yours on a liberal site, and relieved.
eissa
(4,238 posts)Of the many reasons for immigrating to the west, the better treatment of women ranked high. And before anyone jumps in with their ridiculous false equivalencies, you have no idea what you're comparing. NONE. I seriously DO NOT CARE if some women choose this hideous garb for whatever reason. They can twist and spin that it's some "feminist" statement all they want, but at its root the main reason behind the coverings is the belief that women are natural temptresses who lead men into sin.
I'm all for respecting and celebrating cultures, but I won't devalue the western culture and its elevation of women in exchange for "tolerance" of one that does not do the same.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)deserves an award. Women still have a lot of work to do in the west but the comparison to any culture that has a rule women have to cover themselves head to toe are absurd.
eissa
(4,238 posts)When my family fled Iraq in the 60s, those coverings were rare. And although the culture of male dominance (not just male privilege, dominance) was the norm, it has become so much more potent. I see my in-laws from Syria, and the family that remains in Iraq, and their mindset has mirrored that of their Muslim neighbors; their views of women are nothing like those that my family held, even while still in Iraq. Coverings are the norm, and not just the hijab, but the full costume. Anyone who says it's a "choice" is delusional. The pressure from family and society, in a culture that places community expectations above individual freedom, is overwhelming. If anything, the noose around women will tighten in the west as the men try to "protect" them from "western decadence and sin."
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You came from this part of the world and still have family and friends there. Why do you think it's gotten so much worse? I look at pictures of Afghanistan in the 1970s with women in western clothes and can't believe it's the same country. Same with Iran.
eissa
(4,238 posts)I guess a number of factors led to their regression. Secular, but brutal, dictators who tried to suppress religious influence only inflamed them more. Western interference (both political and cultural) fed into the fear of their societies being "corrupted" and "dominated" by outside forces. So you have a large population that feels their countries and culture are under attack by foreigners, supported by their puppet leaders, and they just cling even harder to their roots. Obama wasn't far off when he described the same group here who "cling to their guns and religion" when they feel persecuted. In such cases, the majority usually use the weaker group to take out their frustrations. As these are mainly homogeneous societies, the ones who ended up suffering were the Christians (who have fled the region in record numbers), and of course, women, who seem to have taken the brunt of the punishment.
That's my .02, I'm sure there are others who could articulate it better than I have.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)when men are in charge. I met a lovely woman when I was vacationing in Greece a few years ago that was a Christian in Syria. Her family fled the carnage and mostly went to Lebanon but she and her husband moved to Los Angeles. She said al assad was a brutal dictator BUT that he was far more protective of their Christian minority than the rebels or isis were. I've asked this a number of times - why do the only choices seem to be brutal dictator or religious extremists in that part of the world?
eissa
(4,238 posts)the ones who adore Assad and Hussein. I have people in my circle -- educated, bright people -- who celebrated Trump's win with such intensity. And it's hard to argue with them, because our support of the rebels/terrorists is something I still grapple with. Assad may be a brutal dictator, but the alternatives are so much worse. To be truthful, I've given up caring about the whole region. I just want us out of there, and for them to eventually figure things out on their own, like everyone else has. My hope is that those who have migrated west will be able to absorb the culture, rather than trying to replace it with their own. The same one they ran away from.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)the rebels and isis. I refuse to take sides in that conflict as both sides suck so badly. I understand the desire to give up on the area but in the meanwhile, so many women are going to suffer. I wont even pretend to think there's an easy answer.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)Bronx neighborhoods. Take a walk around Pelham Parkway when the schools let out. It's chilling.
I'm all for outlawing them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)enforced. I hate the fucking thing and would support its banning in a NY minute.
Mosby
(16,258 posts)In the US Circle K doesn't allow people wearing a Halloween mask in the store and banks (and others) don't let customers wear hats in the stores.
How is this any different?
tc123
(5 posts)Next you won't be able to wear hats by your logic. This is a deliberate targeting of Muslims to appease racist forces which Merkel was never willing to condemn strongly enough. Now she's getting Trumped, as always happens with center-righters who court the far right.
PatSeg
(47,260 posts)have been known to impersonate females. Not to hard to do when you are covering pretty much every part of the body.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Wouldn't you rather have her in leadership after next years election?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the Black Tigers of Sri Lanka started the trend.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)She is the last person standing in the G-5 with the others being replaced by right wingers.
Kittycow
(2,396 posts)Response to Blue Shoes (Original post)
Post removed
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Eyes can indeed, be creepy to many men. How oppressive the environment must have been for you-- unable to see faces of people. 
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I'm a feminist, not a multiculturalist. I don't respect cultures that don't respect women.
I want to live in a feminist country, and I've worked long and hard for laws that respect women's rights. Islamic burqas don't belong in a feminist society.
PatSeg
(47,260 posts)I see the full veil as an oppression of women and I'm sure most women don't have a choice in the matter. This is one small step to freeing some from a misogynistic religion and culture. Before the Taliban, women in Afghanistan dressed in more western style clothing. The burqas were never their choice.
1960s Afghanistan.
rollin74
(1,971 posts)I have no problem with the proposal
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)Seriously ?
christx30
(6,241 posts)kill their female members for "dishonoring" their families by dating someone of a different religion. There are some cultures that prosecute and execute rape victims for the crime of adultery. There are some cultures that toss gay people out of tall buildings to kill them.
Are those cultures worthy of respect?
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I don't need or want to live next door to people practicing a brutal misogynist culture; I don't want a pocket of Taliban culture in America.
Western feminists have worked long and hard to change attitudes and laws in our countries. I want every corner of the US to be a feminist society. I do not support the multiculturalism idea that some people in the US can live in their misogynist, gay-hating culture peacefully alongside feminist culture.
Orlando was a big wake-up call that it does not work, and is a threat to free Americans. 50 gay people in an Orlando nightclub died because a Taliban immigrant dad raised his US-born son in Taliban culture. Gay hating culture. And the Orlando mosque had welcomed a Shiite guest speaker from Iran/England who preached that Islam demands the death penalty for gays, weeks before the massacre. If the shooter felt he was gay, it seemed to be better to kill himself and dozens of others and die as an Islamic terrorist rather than face himself and his father with his real self.
Orlando is a city of free Americans exercising rights we've fought hard to win. How can it be of benefit to us to encourage people to practice a cruel misogynist gay-hating culture in their midst?
Yes, I know America already has Westboro Baptist Church. They are homegrown crazies we have to tolerate, because they have rights, just like the Orlando mosque. But I don't hear people saying we have to celebrate the diversity of having Westboro culture in America, it's another beautiful aspect of multiculturalism.
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)You cant blame the entire Islamic / "Taliban" culture based on one or two rare isolated incidences.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)It was no rare, accidental event that an imam preaching 'Islam demands the death penalty for gays' appeared at the Orlando mosque. It's a part of their theology and culture.
Saudi Arabia is a cruel misogynist gay-hating culture. Agree?
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)well in that case we should close the borders to these people.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)religious teachings and everything to do with men's fear?
seriously?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)
Scruffy1
(3,252 posts)I have to admit some of the women I have known well have scared the hell out of me, but I just don't get why wearing what you want to wear is a bad thing. Yeah, I suppose some stores could have a rule about no masks, but I just don't see where wearing a veil has ever been a problem to anyone else. I'll take the individual liberty line every time. Maybe some women like the style. Certainly none of my muslim friends wear veils, but many wear burqas.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I really couldn't see this being proposed if Merkel wasn't running for office.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)They are nowhere required by that religion. They are a cultural act of oppression from a culture that hates women even more than most.
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)in the Netherlands.
A controversial motion to ban burqas, veils, and other “face-covering clothing” from some Dutch public institutions was approved by a majority of parliament on Tuesday. The motion passed by a show of hands, the lower house of parliament confirmed, and will head to the senate for approval.
If approved, violators risk a 400 euro fine. The ban, which also includes ski masks and some motorcycle helmets, covers those entering education facilities, government buildings, health care offices, and public transportation.
http://nltimes.nl/2016/11/29/dutch-mps-vote-ban-burqas-ski-masks
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Guess she figured nobody could possibly criticize her, given the US repug candidate's record and proposed policy statements. Her actions will look like small potatoes to the rest of the world, compared to the dRumpfenfuhrer's.
christx30
(6,241 posts)and she's fighting for her political life. Throwing the right a small bone to stop someone worse from getting into power next year.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Never. Ever. Not once.
It just encourages them to make more extreme demands. They have the mentality of radical revolutionaries who can never be appeased. Or the mentality of a small barking poodle, that gets encouraged to chase a large adult, when that adult walks away from the poodle. Or the mentality of '30's nazis, who kept demanding small bones until they launched their bid to take over the world.
It's possible that your sensibilities on the subject have been deadened by all the times the repugs screamed charges of "Neville Chamberlain" and "appeasement" at our side. So now that a German leader is performing an act of Chamberlain like appeasement to the nazis, on an international scale, you feel it is a "small bone".
I disagree with your strategic thinking on the subject, cx30, but it's a polite academic disagreement.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)In what fucked-up reality does telling anyone, regardless of gender or religion or culture, what they MUST or MUST NOT wear have anything to do with *anything* other than OPPRESSION?
Full body covers offend your feminist sensibilities? Well, they offend mine too. But telling a woman she can't wear them is paternalistic and condescending (we know what's better for you than you do), and THAT offends my feminist sensibilities EVEN MORE.
You say facial coverings tweak your sense of safety? Well then, do you also support CCTV cameras on every corner, or other trappings of a full surveillance state? No? Then maybe you need to reevaluate what's really bugging you.
Male terrorists might be disguising themselves as female? That one's not even worth a response. (Except to say, way to buy into the Muslim = terrorist narrative, there.)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)You'd prefer that the State not dictate to women (and men) that they should not walk around in public hiding their identities, their faces for security reasons.
You would prefer allowing extremist Muslim men to dictate to their women, yes they consider them property, to cover up their faces when they go out because they are not to be trusted and may just seduce another man and this way he knows for certain. Is this your position?
Are there women that if you asked them would say they prefer it? Of course. They are brought up to accept it as normal. They probably also believe their archaic religion that they are all temptresses and need to be reigned in like this for their own good.
Its a cult. A very large cult but a cult nonetheless. There have been cults in America. If you asked one of the 13 year old brides of some cult leader's harem here they may say that they are perfectly fine and they chose this husband freely and please just leave us alone. Should the big bad State step in and trample on their freedom of religion?
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)You'd prefer to allow the state to tell you what to wear for security reasons.
You'd prefer to decide for other people what they do and do not get to wear, do, and believe.
You'd prefer to decide for women whether or not they should feel oppressed.
Of course it's a cult, all religions are cults.
Bringing up minor children is irrelevant to the current argument, unless you are suggesting that grown women and minor children have something in common and need protecting from the world in the same way?
Bye Felicia.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)So I will take it that yes, you would prefer that this medieval cult, as you agree it is, should be able to exist within a liberal democratic society including every draconian law they had in the cult ruled countries they fled from, as long as you don't have to see it.
Question:
If you had to choose A or B, do you think they wear this full body and face covering, even in the height of summer, because its a combination of cult programming, how they were raised, their dominant cultural views formed from very young, in combination with being fearful of their husbands if they dared to NOT wear it.
or B, They are just strong independent females exercising their rights to wear whatever they, without any pressure, decided for themselves to wear?
Another question, you say to me "You'd prefer to allow the state to tell you what to wear for security reasons." like its a bad thing. So I'll ask you, if you believe that so much, then does it also apply to men? If a group of Trump deplorables decided to wear balaclavas (and probably also open-carry weapons in public), that would be fine. The State should not be able to decide anyones outer garments for security or any other reason?
And yes, men are more physically dominant, so women and children should, if needed, have specific laws to protect them. The point of what I said there was that there are examples of the State stepping in to say to a cult that they cannot behave a certain way in a western liberal democracy.
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)
The Wizard
(12,536 posts)The idea of people concealing their identity is dangerous to the well being of the majority. No one is forcing Islamic fundamentalists to live in jurisdictions that do not approve of concealed identity. There are limits to religious freedom for good cause.
Using religious freedom as a shield for other objective is just plain wrong, whether practiced by Islamic fundamentalists or radical Supreme Court justices who approved of that in the Hobby Lobby case. Extremism of all stripes is a danger to civil society.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)I'm truly frightened to see what horrors await us the next 4 years.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Those damned tents those women are forced to wear are the epiotme of religious extremism and oppression. To say "those women choose to wear" is a fucking lie that can't even be said with a straight face. As someone else posted, those tents weren't being worn in the Middle East as required decades ago; protect women not the sacred cowpie of a religion that forces them to wear that shit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It asks PEOPLE - not just women - to dress modestly.
It's not a fan of putting it all out there.
But anything beyond that, from "hijab" to "burka" or what-have-you, is the interpretation of controllling males who want to keep females caged and controlled.
Response to Blue Shoes (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Squinch
(50,911 posts)subjugation and erasure of the identities of women. They should be banned.
JHan
(10,173 posts)but we can't separate the niquab from its meaning and what it represents. The niqab is dehumanizing, it removes a woman's agency. Covering the face completely erases a woman's agency and freedom in the public space.
I wouldn't judge the women who choose to wear it ..of course, I can't understand it, but some women are okay embracing symbols that define them as second class citizens and the Niqab is connected to Wahhabist philosophy which is deeply misogynistic. As liberals we shouldn't deny this or skirt about it- the niqab is a symbol of oppression.
Merkel is likely thinking about elections next year but cases like this really test the limits of secularism as a balancing force because all beliefs are not equally deserving to be accepted as part of social norms. Democracies should represent freedom of choice - including religious freedom - but this freedom shouldn't prevent us criticizing harmful ideologies and practices.
so I guess I'm right back to square one....
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)I would be happier if she made a reasonable and rational criticism of the ideology of Islam. I'd rather discuss the reasons why millions of people believe women need to be hidden.
SunSeeker
(51,511 posts)
Bayard
(22,005 posts)I will always have a problem with one religion telling another that they need to be converted to their way of thinking. If these women are comfortable, and wearing the garb by choice, how is it anyone else's right to tell them they must be assimilated? Missionaries have been the cause of a lot of misery thru history.
I live in an area that is heavily populated by the Amish. Women wear the starched white prayer cap as a "symbol of modesty and submission to God". Its not the same as having the face covered by a veil, but I think the sentiment is the same.
Everyone deserves religious freedom. Just as I have every right to be an atheist. Trump stands for prejudice, and is already setting other cultures' and their religions' acceptance back years. Isn't that attitude the crux of the Standing Rock conflict? Disrespect for other cultures, and their way of life?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I sort of liked her, but now - pfft!
JI7
(89,239 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)it could just make some Muslims feel persecuted.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Wth the archaic laws against women drivers, religious minorities, homosexuals, "blashemphers", and...oh yeah...women who don't cover up enough in public.
I think banning the stupid black tents and face veils is anything but persecution, it's forcing this backwards religion and it's fundies to get with the times and stop forcing women to hide themselves in a void.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and they may feel persecuted, and that can have backlash in Germany.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for the Germans but I'd be damned before I'd let fear dictate what I feel is a very good law. Anyone who feels the need to cover themselves from head to toe, including their eyes, is free to leave Germany and live wherever this is considered normal behavior.