Austrian police force women to uncover their faces as country's 'burka ban' comes into force

First topic message reminder :

A Muslim woman was forced to remove her veil today as the ban on full-face veils came into force in Austria.
Items concealing the face in public places, such as the full Islamic veil, medical masks and scarves to cover faces have been outlawed.
Only under certain conditions, such as 'at cultural events', will people be able to wear them in public.
The laws are aimed at 'ensuring the cohesion of society in an open society' and anyone violating the rules could be hit with a €150 fine.

On Sunday, a Muslim woman defying the rule was spotted being told to remove her veil in the town of Zell am See.
In a ruling announcing the ban, officials in Vienna said: 'Acceptance and respect of Austrian values are basic conditions for successful cohabitation between the majority Austrian population and people from third countries living in Austria.'
The measures, similar to those in other European Union countries, also apply to visitors even though large numbers of Arab tourists holiday in the Alpine country.

How the burqa ban has divided opinion across Europe

There is no law restricting the wearing of garments for religious reasons.
However in March 2007 the education ministry published directives allowing directors of public establishments and denominational schools to ban the niqab veil.

Judges have on occasion refused to hear veiled women because they could not verify their identity.
The legislation, which has passed the lower house and now has to be approved by the Senate, bans the wearing of burkas, helmets and face masks on public transport as well as education, healthcare and government buildings.
The bill was proposed by Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk last year, as he believed clothing that covered the face hindered communication in public services and could pose a security threat. Violations could result in a fine of up to 410 euros.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere has proposed a partial burka ban. De Maiziere, one of Merkel's closest allies, said the ban would cover 'places where it is necessary for our society's coexistence' including government offices, schools and universities, courtrooms as well as demonstrations.

The first European country to ban the full-veil in public spaces with a law 'banning the hiding of the face in public spaces', with a law that took effect in April 2011.

The European Court of Human Rights upheld the burka ban in 2014, rejecting arguments that outlawing full-face veils breached religious freedom. The law has resulted in around 1,500 arrests in the past five years, and violations can result in fines of up to 150 euros.

Earlier this year, several French towns sought to ban burkinis, the full-body Islamic swimsuit. The move was successfully challenged in all but one case on the island of Corsica.
The wearing of the full veil is governed by a June 1, 2011 law. It prohibits 'appearing in places accessible to the public with a face masked or hidden, in whole or in part, in such a way as to be unidentifiable'. Exceptions exist, in particular where the workplace requires the face to be hidden, or for the carnival season. Violations can result in fines and/or up to seven days in jail.

In September, Bulgarian lawmakers approved a law that bans wearing in public clothing that partially or completely covers the face, with exceptions for health or professional reasons. Initial violations result in a fine of roughly 100 euros, while subsequent violations are fined the equivalent of 750 euros.

There is currently a debate over a 1975 law aimed at protecting public order that makes it illegal to cover one's face in public places and the provision applies to the veil, as well as motorcycle helmets and other masks.
The anti-immigrant Northern League presented in October a draft law in the Lombardy region around Milan that would ban the burka, niqab and burkini.

A region in the Italian Riviera is to ban women from wearing the Islamic niqab in hospitals and public offices.
Officials in the northern region of Liguria announced plans to enforce the ban in what is described as an attempt to defend women's freedom.

Switzerland's lower house narrowly approved in September a draft bill on a nationwide burka ban, but the measure remains far from becoming law. In the southern Tessin region however, the burka has been forbidden since July 1 and violators face a minimum fine of 100 Swiss francs.

Education Minister Torbjorn Roe Isaksen said in October that the government was seeking regulations prohibiting the full-face veil in schools and universities. Scandinavian neighbours such as Denmark and Sweden have allowed schools, administrations and companies to decide the issue for themselves, while there is no ban in Finland.
Three other countries that have not banned the burka are among those closest to the Middle East or North Africa - Greece, Portugal and Spain.

Morocco has banned the production and sale of burqa full-face Muslim veils for security reasons.
While there was no official announcement by authorities in the North African nation, the reports said the interior ministry order would take effect this week.

The ban has been imposed due to reports felons have been using the garment to help carry out their crimes.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4938126/Muslim-woman-forced-remove-veil-Austria.html

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:


could he claim that Jesus himself said it was ok and acceptable?

Who cares, he was a bullying arshole just as any man of any religion is who hits his wife..

but that is the whole point syl

when people are so controlled by a set of rules that they live by according to what they believe.

mohammed allowed it,,,,(as a last resort)

as an aside this has always amused me tbh. first they remonstrate with their wife, if that doesn't work then you deny her sexually. I mean come on,,,,,there she is desperately playing the part of the disappointed wife while she's mentally punching the air with triumph and delight that she doesn't have to suffer his sweaty greasy body all over her. He only hits her if all that fails


Jesus did not say that was ok

@ didge no, i dont know but i get your point

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

it's the rules of islam (sharia)

that does not need statistics

they are set for all time

You didn't say that.  You said, in fact, that there were more "likely" wife-beatings in those kinds of families.  

Didge wrote:Thus these Wahhabist Muslim women are that more likely to suffer domestic violence based on Wahhabist beliefs.

That is a simple quantitative statement.  

Or, don't you wish to converse in English anymore?  Perhaps some other language, not reliant upon logic?

why are you telling me what I said and then quoting didge?

which one of us are you answering?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You didn't say that.  You said, in fact, that there were more wife-beating in those kinds of families.  That is a simple quantitative statement.  

Or, don't you wish to converse in English anymore?  Perhaps some other language, not reliant upon logic?

Ah the sign of a true racist. Now use whether someone can converse in English.

I posted a link the other day about the Muslim wivies of those who had husbands that were child groomers.

All had been forced in submission with sex

That is marital rape

Its on the Uk section.

The problem is within Islam, that it is taught in many cases that women are chattel and have to be obediant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

You're a cheap weasel, trying to wiggle out of your own shoddy thinking, didge.  Yet another example of why conservatives go wrong.  They don't know how to think.  They use one idea, and mean another.  Pretty soon, they come down with "trickle down" theories.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Who cares, he was a bullying arshole just as any man of any religion is who hits his wife..

but that is the whole point syl

when people are so controlled by a set of rules that they live by according to what they believe.

mohammed allowed it,,,,(as a last resort)  

as an aside this has always amused me tbh.  first they remonstrate with their wife, if that doesn't work then you deny her sexually.  I mean come on,,,,,there she is desperately playing the part of the disappointed wife while she's mentally punching the air with triumph and delight that she doesn't have to suffer his sweaty greasy body all over her.  He only hits her if all that fails


Jesus did not say that was ok

@ didge no, i dont know but i get your point

To me one verse may have been invented by the Gosple writer Matthew. As in countless examples Jesus stops a stoning of an adulterer. Allows those for the time to be considered as sinners to be welcome. John the baptist was the same when he baptised Prostitutes, Gentiles, tax collectors etc.

Matthew claims Jesus stated in 5.17.

"I have not come to change the Law but fulfill it"

To me this one verse has caused enless problems with Christianity

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You didn't say that.  You said, in fact, that there were more "likely" wife-beatings in those kinds of families.  



That is a simple quantitative statement.  

Or, don't you wish to converse in English anymore?  Perhaps some other language, not reliant upon logic?

why are you telling me what I said and then quoting didge?

which one of us are you answering?

I'm speaking to didge. If you bother to read the thread, we have a conversation going on about...well, sloppy conservative reasoning...or, anti-reason, as the case may be.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Who cares, he was a bullying arshole just as any man of any religion is who hits his wife..

but that is the whole point syl

when people are so controlled by a set of rules that they live by according to what they believe.

mohammed allowed it,,,,(as a last resort)  

as an aside this has always amused me tbh.  first they remonstrate with their wife, if that doesn't work then you deny her sexually.  I mean come on,,,,,there she is desperately playing the part of the disappointed wife while she's mentally punching the air with triumph and delight that she doesn't have to suffer his sweaty greasy body all over her.  He only hits her if all that fails


Jesus did not say that was ok

@ didge no, i dont know but i get your point

Re the hitting.....yes, its allowed, but according to the videos I have seen when its talked about its very light hitting that would never cause bruising or marking.

Listen Gelico, its all bollocks to me, but I still believe that banning the burka would not help anyone....education would though.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ah the sign of a true racist. Now use whether someone can converse in English.

I posted a link the other day about the Muslim wivies of those who had husbands that were child groomers.

All had been forced in submission with sex

That is marital rape

Its on the Uk section.

The problem is within Islam, that it is taught in many cases that women are chattel and have to be obediant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

You're a cheap weasel, trying to wiggle out of your own shoddy thinking, didge.  Yet another example of why conservatives go wrong.  They don't know how to think.  They use one idea, and mean another.  Pretty soon, they come down with "trickle down" theories.

it isn't his own thinking it is the rules of islam which he has provided links for time and again

why and how can you be so blind and ignorant on this?

oh, and I were you, I would give up trying to sound clever,,,,it really doesn't work well for you at all

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ah the sign of a true racist. Now use whether someone can converse in English.

I posted a link the other day about the Muslim wivies of those who had husbands that were child groomers.

All had been forced in submission with sex

That is marital rape

Its on the Uk section.

The problem is within Islam, that it is taught in many cases that women are chattel and have to be obediant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence

You're a cheap weasel, trying to wiggle out of your own shoddy thinking, didge.  Yet another example of why conservatives go wrong.  They don't know how to think.  They use one idea, and mean another.  Pretty soon, they come down with "trickle down" theories.

Ah so now the infantile insults start

I posted links to domestic violence within Islam

You ignored this and there is countless more.

You though want to ignore the problem surrounding this. Where its bad enough that many victims of Domestic violence are in fear to come forward and thus the number abused is not truly known and thus could be substanically higher. Which of course you would never dispute. Yet when I say the problem is worse in that some Muslim women are taught to believe they can be beaten. Then even more women Muslim will not think to come forward to report this violence.

I mean use your argument to any support group for Victims of Domestic violence. Saying you need to see stats, when countless victims are afraid to come forward.

Hence the only ignorance comes from you here.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


why are you telling me what I said and then quoting didge?

which one of us are you answering?

I'm speaking to didge.  If you bother to read the thread, we have a conversation going on about...well, sloppy conservative reasoning...or, anti-reason, as the case may be.

yes but you specifically posted back to me with the words ''that's not what you said''

I see now that you merely got the two of us mixed up

perhaps if you bother to read the thread,,,,

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


why are you telling me what I said and then quoting didge?

which one of us are you answering?

I'm speaking to didge.  If you bother to read the thread, we have a conversation going on about...well, sloppy conservative reasoning...or, anti-reason, as the case may be.

She has every right to engage you in debate on this

Talk about how you are a controlling male, attempting to silence a woman and why clearly you failed to grasp problems like this

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're a cheap weasel, trying to wiggle out of your own shoddy thinking, didge.  Yet another example of why conservatives go wrong.  They don't know how to think.  They use one idea, and mean another.  Pretty soon, they come down with "trickle down" theories.

it isn't his own thinking it is the rules of islam which he has provided links for time and again

why and how can you be so blind and ignorant on this?

oh, and I were you, I would give up trying to sound clever,,,,it really doesn't work well for you at all

I use it as an example of the shoddy thinking that conservatives engage, in order make a higher point. I've said many times that conservative thinking is atrophied, and thus they get into off-reason ideas. Only liberals know what is going on, and that's because they stay tuned to the 'real' world. Conservatives drift off on these kinds of illogical forays, and eventually it gets into the mainstream of thinking.

Here, we are off to condemning Muslims, as a culture, because one of those ill-reasoned statements. Just as you would pick up trash someone carelessly threw on the sidewalk, I pick up thoughtless trash I find here.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


it isn't his own thinking it is the rules of islam which he has provided links for time and again

why and how can you be so blind and ignorant on this?

oh, and I were you, I would give up trying to sound clever,,,,it really doesn't work well for you at all

I use it as an example of the shoddy thinking that conservatives engage, in order make a higher point.  I've said many times that conservative thinking is atrophied, and thus they get into off-reason ideas.  Only liberals know what is going on, and that's because they stay tuned to the 'real' world.  Conservatives drift off on these kinds of illogical forays, and eventually it gets into the mainstream of thinking.

Here, we are off to condemning Muslims, as a culture, because one of those ill-reasoned statements.  Just as you would pick up trash someone carelessly threw on the sidewalk, I pick up thoughtless trash I find here.

Actually its not condemning Muslims, but beliefs, the point you miss.

There is domestic violence in all cultures, but where you have one that actually indoctrinates some Muslims to believe its okay to commit domestic violence and marital rape. Then this makes the problem far worse.

As many Victims of Domestic violence and marital rape, fear coming forward.
So where you have some women that have been institustionalized to believe they are the property of men through beliefs. Then the problem is going to be worse in that even less victims will come forward. 

The worst aspect of your argument is that you forget that this is neo-conservative islam, with Wahhabism and Salafism that is the problem here with religious political beliefs.

You are just one in a long line of idiots that, on the one had claim to defend against poor beliefs, yet here defend them, because you place any condemnation against that belief as racist. It in fact makes you racist. As we are one racial species and yet you fear to look at other cultures and ignore problems, in case you be seen to be racist. Yet its only people like you that think so stupidily. Ignoring the plight of many people that suffer persecution.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I use it as an example of the shoddy thinking that conservatives engage, in order make a higher point.  I've said many times that conservative thinking is atrophied, and thus they get into off-reason ideas.  Only liberals know what is going on, and that's because they stay tuned to the 'real' world.  Conservatives drift off on these kinds of illogical forays, and eventually it gets into the mainstream of thinking.

Here, we are off to condemning Muslims, as a culture, because one of those ill-reasoned statements.  Just as you would pick up trash someone carelessly threw on the sidewalk, I pick up thoughtless trash I find here.

Actually its not condemning Muslims, but beliefs, the point you miss.

There is domestic violence in all cultures, but where you have one that actually indoctrinates some Muslims to believe its okay to commit domestic violence and marital rape. Then this makes the problem far worse.

As many Victims of Domestic violence and marital rape, fear coming forward.
So where you have some women that have been institustionalized to believe they are the property of men through beliefs. Then the problem is going to be worse in that even less victims will come forward. 

The worst aspect of your argument is that you forget that this is neo-conservative islam, with Wahhabism and Salafism that is the problem here with religious political beliefs.

You are just one in a long line of idiots that, on the one had claim to defend against poor beliefs, yet here defend them, because you place any condemnation against that belief as racist. It in fact makes you racist. As we are one racial species and yet you fear to look at other cultures and ignore problems, in case you be seen to be racist. Yet its only people like you that think so stupidily. Ignoring the plight of many people that suffer persecution.

You are talking about a code...Wahhabism. But you didn't limit yourself to the code, but rather made a statement about the results. Little tiny mistakes in logic, have huge consequences at a distance. It's best to get them right at the beginning.

Next time, learn to be more precise in your thinking. Stick to the code and don't make empirical statements you can't back up.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Actually its not condemning Muslims, but beliefs, the point you miss.

There is domestic violence in all cultures, but where you have one that actually indoctrinates some Muslims to believe its okay to commit domestic violence and marital rape. Then this makes the problem far worse.

As many Victims of Domestic violence and marital rape, fear coming forward.
So where you have some women that have been institustionalized to believe they are the property of men through beliefs. Then the problem is going to be worse in that even less victims will come forward. 

The worst aspect of your argument is that you forget that this is neo-conservative islam, with Wahhabism and Salafism that is the problem here with religious political beliefs.

You are just one in a long line of idiots that, on the one had claim to defend against poor beliefs, yet here defend them, because you place any condemnation against that belief as racist. It in fact makes you racist. As we are one racial species and yet you fear to look at other cultures and ignore problems, in case you be seen to be racist. Yet its only people like you that think so stupidily. Ignoring the plight of many people that suffer persecution.

You are talking about a code...Wahhabism.  But you didn't limit yourself to the code, but rather made a statement about the results.  Little tiny mistakes in logic, have huge consequences at a distance.  It's best to get them right at the beginning.

Next time, learn to be more precise in your thinking.  Stick to the code and don't make empirical statements you can't back up.

Its not a code, but a belief system, a political religious belief system.
You want to have a serious debate and you then come out with bollocks saying its a code.
If this was the Tea Party Evangicals covering up domestic violence and marital rape. You would not shy away from saying what the problem is, in regards to their beliefs.

Next time, stop being a right idiot, where you continually defend neo-conservative Islamic ideologies.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:


it isn't his own thinking it is the rules of islam which he has provided links for time and again

why and how can you be so blind and ignorant on this?

oh, and I were you, I would give up trying to sound clever,,,,it really doesn't work well for you at all

 Only liberals know what is going on, and that's because they stay tuned to the 'real' world.  

comedy store classic

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

 Only liberals know what is going on, and that's because they stay tuned to the 'real' world.  

comedy store classic

Proof is in the pudding. And I would be remiss to let let it slide. Conservatives get away with too much as it is.

Conservatives have big egos, but they truly are dumb as stones. As your own countryman said: "It's not that all conservatives are stupid; but all stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

comedy store classic

Proof is in the pudding.  And I would be remiss to let let it slide.  Conservatives get away with too much as it is.

Conservatives have big egos, but they truly are dumb as stones.  As your own countryman said: "It's not that all conservatives are stupid; but all stupid people are conservative." -- John Stuart Mill

So why are you defending neo Conservative Islamic beliefs here then?

Hence the contradiction in your answers.