Headscarve issue with a twist
 

Link to the Article

Normally, I wouldn't care less if the legislation is for all religious symbols. That would imply that the state doesn't wan't any form of religion in the classroom. However, this is not the case for Bavaria.

Is this a case of a legislation design for discrimination?

So they want to free muslim women by oppressing them?

Says you.

But then again are you against Muslim countries that force women to wear them?

Anyway, Arya it depends on why they're doing it. If they're doing it to ban religion and ban only one, then that's discrimination. If they're doing it for other reasons it might not be. Regardless it is their country just like many of the Arab countries that force it on women - if people accept scarfs as culture in the latter, then they should accept no-headscarfs in Europe as well.

-Rudey

You are such an instigator. But anyway, last time I checked, Germany was NOT a muslim country that forced women to wear hijabs. So then they really are oppressing women's rights to choose to wear them for religious purposes (not for cultural reasons).


ETA: why would you ask me such a question anyway?

Reread what I said because you have difficulty reading and understanding simple English statements. It seems you take issue with a non-Muslim state keeping hijabs off of women but you haven't come on here taking an issue with a Muslim state keeping women wearing the hijab.

Again, if this is about cultural integration, then it's different.

And stop using words like "instigator" if you have no idea what they mean opi, dopi, my little finopi.

-Rudey

I think that I read your post clearly...maybe you need to reread mine and actually think before you post.

the issue at hand was about Germany's method of freeing "hijabis" and not about muslim countries like Saudi Arabia forcing women to wear the hijab. PS: I was born in one of those countries..and I have separate opinion on that issue.

I still dont understand why you would ask me this, as it has nothing to do with Germany and its policies. But to answer your question (since you are dying to know)..sure I am against those countries' policies.

ETA: I know what instigator means, and you were instigating there Rudey Fruity ...

The reason why it has relevance is that Germany and Europe are integrating large amounts of immigrants from Muslim countries and having difficulty.

Muslim countries force their laws onto women who even appear in public but this German rule is for people working for the government my little mopi dopi fropi banana popi.

-Rudey

Again, they (Germany and France) integrate these individuals by oppressing the rights of other immigrants/native muslims who wear the hijab out of choice?

Sounds ridiculous to me. But then again, it is not that surprising that its coming from Germany.


ETA: ignoring Rudey choice of pet names.

Ummm right...

Anyway France and Germany...two countries with very strong ties to the Arab world...

Ummmm yeaaaaah opi smoki da dopi

-Rudey

They are targetting only Muslim women who wear headscarves. This legislation does not cover nuns who works in public school (yes, there are many that does), nor other religions.

There are doubts wether this particular legislation is even legal.

The ECHR states that in Article 9:

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance'

However section 2 of article 9, which is likely to be used by the federal state in question as a defence states that

'Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'.

I feel the only way this defence could work, 'to protect the rights and freedoms of others', which is why the federal constitutional court also would have said that 'new laws could be passed by individual states banning them if they were deemed to unduly influence pupils', is by widening the law to cover all religious symbols like in France. Otherwise it prevents solely a certain minority of people from expressing their religious freedom while others of other religions are entitled to the same right, for example nuns teaching in public schools (they do exist) would still be able to wear a veil as would Christian fundamentalist teachers who want to wear a cross, Jewish teachers who want to wear a yamulke, etc. If they are suggesting the rights and freedoms of others are solely threatened by Muslim teachers it would be hugely controversial.

But the legislation affects those who are outside the Arab world as well. uhmmm yeah ok!

Most of the immigrants to those countries are from the Arab world. You can go read the Cat in the Hat now.

-Rudey

You think France did it to ban religious symbols? Right. It allows Yarmulkes and it allows crosses unless they are extremely large. I don't remember ever seeing too many school kids in Paris wearing large wooden crosses around their necks. Also the Sikh population has been often allowed to skirt this rule by arguing it is culture, and not religion.

This rule in France was put in place because of a problem with the integration of a large number of Muslim Arab immigrants. And again, France and Germany have great ties to the region where those immigrants came from. In fact, there were several religious leaders in Iran, I believe, that said that since it is France's land they have every right to do that (why wouldn't they since Iran forces you to wear a headscarf no matter if you're Muslim or not).

-Rudey

I'm pretty sure not all of them are Arabs.

No thanks.

Can you read English? Do you know what the word "most" means"

-Rudey
--Kat in da hat?

I can read just fine Rudey, but you cant seem to argue well. You used to be funny, but that ish just ain't funny anymore!

No, no darling...it's hard to make up for reading mistakes. Look up the word "most". It's useful in Daily English.

-Rudey

Reading mistakes? right..ok, Rudey...continue focusing on the "integration of the Arab communities in Europe" when you damn well know that it affects everyone else who wears the Hijab. I guess these non-Arabs are collateral damage then?At the same time, when I redirect your attention, you focus on my reading abilities and asking me ridiculous questions about my views on Arab countries..when we are talking about Europe. Sure, and I have reading problems? 'k Rudey..**:rolleyes: :rolleyes: **

M to the O to the S to the T

-Rudey
--R to the E to the A to the D

i was actually talking about Bavaria, not French. As I've noted, the legislation specifically targetted Muslim women's who her headscarve. As I've noted, that particular law may be against the European Constitution since it targeted a specific group of people because of their religion.

Another thing to consider, this is a political discussion forum. We can discuss any issues, although in final analysis it will do little, it does provide a forum where we can discuss issues and we think about it.

ETA: You two, please stop attacking each other.

What is the difference between France's and Bavaria's legislation?

And nobody attacked. I am teaching her English. I went to ESL so I know all about English and shizznizzle.

-Rudey

France's legislation bans all overt religious symbol in public schools, whereas the Bavarian law only bans headscarves worn by muslim woman.

Here's what I said about France: You think France did it to ban religious symbols? Right. It allows Yarmulkes and it allows crosses unless they are extremely large. I don't remember ever seeing too many school kids in Paris wearing large wooden crosses around their necks. Also the Sikh population has been often allowed to skirt this rule by arguing it is culture, and not religion.

This rule in France was put in place because of a problem with the integration of a large number of Muslim Arab immigrants. And again, France and Germany have great ties to the region where those immigrants came from. In fact, there were several religious leaders in Iran, I believe, that said that since it is France's land they have every right to do that (why wouldn't they since Iran forces you to wear a headscarf no matter if you're Muslim or not).

Now Bavaria is just more overt about it in my opinion. Don't you think?

-Rudey

Yes, Bavaria is very overt about it. Which is why I think the law will be struck down by the European court. French did it smartly, they banned "overtly" religious symbol. Of course, the overtly portion is subject to your own analysis.

I do believe this particular legislation will be struck down by the European court because it targets a very specific group of people. Female muslims to be exact. Ironically, one can argue that this legislation is sexist.

So even though both do the exact same thing, France's is OK simply because they were more diplomatic about it? Perhaps for some.

-Rudey

Frence's legislation did not specifically targeted one particular group of people. Instead, it's ban was against all form of overtly religiuos symbol. Whereas Bavaria's legisation specificaly targetted Muslim women.

I also question the real reason why Bavaria passed this legislation. Edmund Stoiber, the Bavarian premier, is known for his statement against immigrants. In particular, he has disdain against anything Turkish. He is very vocal about keeping Bavaria a Christian state and he is also against EU being expanded into EU.

Except the only people with over religious symbols in France are...Muslims.

-Rudey

and in order to integrate these "arab" women, we should strip them down!

Opi stop talking about stripping. Please.

-Rudey

Except what I just wrote is about Bavaria.

Except I made a comparison to France.

Again, France and Bavaria have the same rule targeting the same people. If they don't target the same people, I'd like to know who else in France has been targetted.

-Rudey

Excetp Bavaria is not part of FRench. We are talking about Bavaria here. There is another discussion about French ban on overtly religious symbol. I'm sure you can find it.

Except they are related. It's not a completely different discussion.

-Rudey

France banned the headscarves.

Germany banned the headscarves.

Turkey banned the headscarves (yes, even Turkey)...

These are hardly religous symbols and more analogous to a dog pissing on a tree for territorial purposes. They oppress muslim women and treat them as property of muslim men.

However, for the sake of argument, asssuming this is a pure religous symbol and it is discriminating this one group, I would still support a ban on headscarves because it is not being used for religious purposes in school, but rather to provoke and pressure other religious groups. In school, the headscarf is a tool used by extremists and fundamentalists to threaten jewish and catholic groups. Any religious meaning behind wearing the headscarf has been lost or abused by the few bad apples in this orchard.

BTW, can you stop posting ignorant comments about a topic you do not know. Hijab/head scarf is a RELIGIOUS symbol and not every woman who wears the hijab is ARAB and/or OPPRESSED. so you need to get that out of your head. As a muslim WOMAN, your comment offends me greatly. Hijab is a religious mandate for women and a matter of choice. If some woman are oppressed by their men, it is possible. But why is it that in my ENTIRE life ..and all the muslim women that I grew up (and that is quite a lot), I have never met one who hadn't worn the hijab out of CHOICE. A family member just started wearing the Hijab couple of weeks ago because she wanted to become more RELIGIOUS, not CULTURAL. So please take your comment, go to your local mosque/muslim student organization and learn more about the hijab and hear from an AMERICAN-MUSLIM on why they do wear the hijab.



and you compare it to pissin on a tree? if that aint bigotry and a LIE i dont know what is!!


ETA: lol@muslim WOMEN being extremist/fundamentalist and wearing the hijab to scare catholic and jewish kids...BTW, we eat them too (but dont tell anybody)

OK while you two go back and forth, he didn't say Arab. You are the one that did and now you're capitalizing it too.

-Rudey

Rudey,

If he said that about the Judiac religion, he would be called an anti-semite? wouldn't he?

Yet you seem to be defending him..for what reasons I don't know.

Its irrelevant whether he said Arab or not...its about devaluing the traditions of a religion and the women in it.

RUGreek,

BTW, you do know that Mary (or mariam) used to wear a headscarf too....as well as Nuns in the Christian religion...are they wearing it because of culture? hmmm...I'll let you ponder on that..

Listen I just mentioned the Arab thing. He said nothing about Arabs, you did. You threw that in there. I mentioned that. Let me repeat that I mentioned that you made a mistake and that's what I did. Wait did you get what I did or not yet? I hope you did.

Don't try and pawn off any of your BS on me.

-Rudey

Look Opi,

If this discussion is too personal for you to discuss, then don't post really ignorant comments like I don't know what I'm talking about. While I can't say I'm offended (maybe more or less amused), I am a little confused as to whether you have knowledge of the issues here.

Perhaps you'd like to educate me as to what you believe are the real reasons behind the headscarf ban. I know my comments may seem offensive to you, however I never directed them to you so bite me.

Also, the reasons and facts I listed were not completely authored by myself. The BBC and its fine news reporting is where you should direct your anger and frustration. If you feel so strongly about your headscarf, then go over to Europe and protest with your fellow religous friends.

As for not growing up with oppressed muslim women who wear the headscarf, I think you are very lucky and blessed. You obviously live in America and share in the liberties and freedoms of all citizens. This is not the case in all other countries. I'm going to assume you did not grow up in a muslim country, but I may be mistaken. If you didn't grow up there, then that would clearly explain why you haven't witnessed this mistreatment of women.

Finally, your last attempt to edumacate me on Mary (either out of rage or personaly amusement:) puzzles me a little. Are you trying to say something to me that I didn't know or maybe trying to get under my skin? From the sounds of it you might be trying to imply I'm christian and this would somehow offend me. Well sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not and it doesn't :D


Yours Truly,


RUgreek

Maybe my message was distorted by the metaphors I used.

A dog pissing on a tree is its way to mark one's territory. The headscarf is used by the fundamentalists to keep women under wraps and hidden from others.

Now, I can see that at first glance (dog and pissing) would imply me being offensive, but I disagree that I was speaking like a bigot towards the muslim population. I had meant to show my distaste towards the oppression of muslim women by relgious fanatics. If any other message was derived from my statements, then feel free to ask for a clarification before jumping to ignorant conclusions...