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?