[QUOTE]Austria's ruling coalition has agreed to prohibit full-face veils in public spaces such as courts and schools.
It is also considering a more general ban on state employees wearing the headscarf and other religious symbols.
The measures are seen as an attempt to counter the rise of the far-right Freedom Party, whose candidate narrowly lost last month's presidential vote.
The centrist coalition nearly collapsed last week amid crisis negotiations over the government's future direction.
[B]'Symbolic' step
[/B]
Detailing the package of reforms, the coalition devoted just two lines to the planned ban on the Islamic niqab and burqa.
"We are committed to an open society, which also presupposes open communication. A full-face veil in public places stands in its way and will therefore be banned," it said.
An estimated 150 women wear the full niqab in Austria but tourism officials have expressed fears that the measures will also deter visitors from the Gulf.
One government spokesman told an Austrian newspaper that the ban would apply for ski resorts such as Zell am See as much as the centre of Vienna.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38808495[/url]
Well, it makes sense. You shouldn't be able to cover your face in public places, as long as it's not required for safety i.e. when driving a motorcycle. At the same time once you're off your motorcycle you should take it off.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE]The measures are seen as an attempt to counter the rise of the far-right Freedom Party, whose candidate narrowly lost last month's presidential vote.
[/QUOTE]
A bit like what Bismarck did with the socialists
[QUOTE=SirJon;51755588]Bismarck did with the socialists[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate? As i know of the ship and it's fate just not the person.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51755609]Care to elaborate? As i know of the ship and it's fate just not the person.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)[/url]
Basically he allowed a few moderate (and very reasonable) social policies in order to take the wind out of the socialists sails, so to speak. The general public deemed that a fair compromise, and he potentially avoided a rise in extremist socialism, being weary of this since it was causing a lot of trouble in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune"]Paris*[/URL] at the time. Basically a really clever way to deal with a potential disturbance of peace, and also proof that a brute restrictive approach isn't always the best - since[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws"] he had tried that earlier[/URL], with very little success.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm no historian.
[QUOTE=SirJon;51755626][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)[/url]
Basically he allowed a few moderate (and very reasonable) social policies in order to take the wind out of the socialists sails, so to speak. The general public deemed that a fair compromise, and he potentially avoided a rise in extremist socialism, being weary of this since it was causing a lot of trouble in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune"]Paris*[/URL] at the time. Basically a really clever way to deal with a potential disturbance of peace, and also proof that a brute restrictive approach isn't always the best - since[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws"] he had tried that earlier[/URL], with very little success.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm no historian.[/QUOTE]
David Cameron tried something similar with the Brexit vote...
[QUOTE=ben1066;51755871]David Cameron tried something similar with the Brexit vote...[/QUOTE]
I don't really think the nationalists are the same as socialists. The socialists had a very real cause of fighting inequality and exploitation. If you start taking care of the people better and the situation improves ofc the desire of extreme measures e.g. socialist revolution decreases. Modern socialists often partly resent the welfare state, because while they feel it has of course helped provide for people, they also feel it has stalled socialism.
Of course this won't always work too. I think for the David cameron comparison the UK would have to actually have been part of the EU, where it used the euro and followed all of the laws, and then Cameron would have to do something like pulling them out of the Euro.
I don't really agree with prohibiting people from covering their faces in public anyway.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=SirJon;51755588]Well, it makes sense. You shouldn't be able to cover your face in public places, as long as it's not required for safety i.e. when driving a motorcycle. At the same time once you're off your motorcycle you should take it off[/QUOTE]
I don't get pissy when the pizza/roast chicken delivery man does not remove his helmet when he comes to my door. It's literally the most unimportant thing in the world, I'd have to be anal to care about something like that.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51756000]I don't really agree with prohibiting people from covering their faces in public anyway.
[editline]31st January 2017[/editline]
I don't get pissy when the pizza/roast chicken delivery man does not remove his helmet when he comes to my door. It's literally the most unimportant thing in the world, I'd have to be anal to care about something like that.[/QUOTE]
it amused me that you order roast chicken in portugal and we order peri-peri chicken in the uk, although I'm glad my delivery driver comes in a car so I don't have to answer the door to someone with a helmet on.
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51756000]I don't really agree with prohibiting people from covering their faces in public anyway.
[/QUOTE]
So criminals have an even easier time commiting crimes?
[IMG]http://www.informationliberation.com/files/migrant-kicks-german-woman-down-stairs.jpg[/IMG]
Maybe it's cause I'm American and not a godless commie European but I really don't see why people should have to show their faces in public.
I mean if it's crime related you can still identify someone based off clothing, in the immediate space of them committing it. For something larger can't they just, put it on when it's time to commit the crime.
edit: and just for the record, here's austria's justification
[quote]We are committed to an open society, which also presupposes open communication. A full-face veil in public places stands in its way and will therefore be banned,[/quote]
Though, at the very least it's good to enforce the law consistently.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51756210]Maybe it's cause I'm American and not a godless commie European but I really don't see why people should have to show their faces in public.
I mean you can still identify someone based off clothing, in the immediate space of them committing it. For something larger can't they just, put it on when it's time to commit the crime.
Though, at the very least it's good to enforce the law consistently.[/QUOTE]
it wouldn't help crimewatch's success rate.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/58Wdsb8FKdhTWWNBHGRLsLf/wanted-faces[/url]
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51756193]So criminals have an even easier time commiting crimes?
[IMG]http://www.informationliberation.com/files/migrant-kicks-german-woman-down-stairs.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
But the man has his face out in the open in those ? The fuck are you on about ?
I did some research on that picture and all the sources I found were less than trustworthy (far-right xenophobe journalism), but the guy was arrested a week later. So what's your point ?
The entire "it's to stop crime !" logic isn't valid until criminals start using it on a widespread level to blend in, like what used to be the case in North Africa. And it worked for them there because of a predominantly Muslim culture that, while still not fully familiar with the burqa (it's not at all popular in that region), was still much more likely to tolerate it for that very reason.
Besides, if someone wants to commit some form of crime while concealing his face, don't you think they :
1. would do so regardless of the laws, because they're criminals
2. would put it on right before the act, not much earlier for the police to see them
3. would pick something more practical than a gigantic dress going down to the ankles ?
I find it fucking stupid and incredibly god damn hypocritical that the government tries to push this friendly, open-minded image while at the same time telling what I assume would be a fringe amount of the population what to wear so as to not upset everyone else. Not to mention the fact it can possibly hurt tourism seeing as they're applying it to ski stations alongside the capital.
It's almost like making laws dedicated to restraining very small minorities isn't the most tolerant thing to do, eh ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51756245]But the man has his face out in the open in those ? The fuck are you on about ?
I did some research on that picture and all the sources I found were less than trustworthy (far-right xenophobe journalism), but the guy was arrested a week later. So what's your point ?
The entire "it's to stop crime !" logic isn't valid until criminals start using it on a widespread level to blend in, like what used to be the case in North Africa. And it worked for them there because of a predominantly Muslim culture that, while still not fully familiar with the burqa (it's not at all popular in that region), was still much more likely to tolerate it for that very reason.[/QUOTE]
My point is if he had a mask on they would have had a much harder time catching him, if at all.
Also, this story was pretty much covered by many news sites and channels
[url]https://www.google.de/search?q=pushing+subway&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=5umQWP3LLa7i8AemtaeoCg#q=kicking+down+subway[/url]
[QUOTE]
Besides, if someone wants to commit some form of crime while concealing his face, don't you think they :
1. would do so regardless of the laws, because they're criminals
2. would put it on right before the act, not much earlier for the police to see them
3. would pick something more practical than a gigantic dress going down to the ankles ?
I find it fucking stupid and incredibly god damn hypocritical that the government tries to push this friendly, open-minded image while at the same time telling what I assume would be a fringe amount of the population what to wear so as to not upset everyone else. Not to mention the fact it can possibly hurt tourism seeing as they're applying it to ski stations alongside the capital.[/QUOTE]
1. By your logic there shouldn't be any laws because people who don't follow the laws won't follow them any way.
2. Why wouldnt they just have them on all the time if it was allowed at public places? That way nobody will see their face and they can get away with it. And they also wouldn't be acting suspicious because, you know, it is allowed to cover your face.
3. This ban is not just against some religious dress, it is against being unidentifiable in a public space.
Do you call not being allowed to drive with it also oppressive and racist?
[QUOTE]
It's almost like making laws dedicated to restraining very small minorities isn't the most tolerant thing to do, eh ?[/QUOTE]
How is it against a minority if everyone has to follow this rule? It would be the other way around, it would be intolerant to allow only the minority to not follow this rule while everyone else has to. This is not equality.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51756644]
How is it against a minority if everyone has to follow this rule? It would be the other way around, it would be intolerant to allow only the minority to not follow this rule while everyone else has to. This is not equality.[/QUOTE]
Your logic here doesn't make any sense. Lets say for example a small minority of people have to wear baseball caps for religious purposes. The gov bans the baseball caps from being worn for said reasons. Now the people that follow the baseball cap religion cannot wear their caps legally. The law is targeting a small group, just because the law applies to everyone doesn't mean it isn't targeting a minority.
[QUOTE=tigerman4111;51756981]Your logic here doesn't make any sense. Lets say for example a small minority of people have to wear baseball caps for religious purposes. The gov bans the baseball caps from being worn for said reasons. Now the people that follow the baseball cap religion cannot wear their caps legally. The law is targeting a small group, just because the law applies to everyone doesn't mean it isn't targeting a minority.[/QUOTE]
lol and your analogy does? This might work if the koran actually stated that women had to cover themselves in this manner but it doesn't.
[QUOTE=tigerman4111;51756981]Your logic here doesn't make any sense. Lets say for example a small minority of people have to wear baseball caps for religious purposes. The gov bans the baseball caps from being worn for said reasons. Now the people that follow the baseball cap religion cannot wear their caps legally. The law is targeting a small group, just because the law applies to everyone doesn't mean it isn't targeting a minority.[/QUOTE]
So how about nudists? Are nudists allowed to walk around naked in public spaces? Why do nudists have to wear something in public spaces? Why? Wouldn't the law which requires people to wear clothes discriminate against nudist? A minority?
[QUOTE=SirJon;51755626][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)[/url]
Basically he allowed a few moderate (and very reasonable) social policies in order to take the wind out of the socialists sails, so to speak. The general public deemed that a fair compromise, and he potentially avoided a rise in extremist socialism, being weary of this since it was causing a lot of trouble in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune"]Paris*[/URL] at the time. Basically a really clever way to deal with a potential disturbance of peace, and also proof that a brute restrictive approach isn't always the best - since[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws"] he had tried that earlier[/URL], with very little success.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm no historian.[/QUOTE]
Huh, Teddy Roosevelt basically did the same type of thing with Progressivism. Mark of a good leader perhaps?
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51756644]My point is if he had a mask on they would have had a much harder time catching him, if at all.[/QUOTE]
There's something called pursuing and tackling.
pure fear mongering to ban an article of clothing because of 'crime'. you can use the same logic to ban pretty much anything: guns, cars, protests, free speech...
but because it only effects the evil muslims, it's ok
Nobody would have a problem with this if it were a law already.
does this mean you can't wear balaclava in winter time?
[IMG]http://www.happybondi.com/k-lo/uploads//2016/01/Multipurpose-Balaclava-Full-Face-Ski-Mask-2-Pack-Regular-Winter-Protection-with-Microfleece--Best-Cold-Weather-Gear-for-Your-Outdoor-Work-Sports-Recreation--Unisex-for-Men-Women-Kids-0-7.jpg[/IMG]
Does no one see the flaw in banning full-veils, but you can wear winter gear
[sarcasm] no this definitely isn't discrimination, and it will do SOO much to protect the public [/sarcasm]
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51757079]So how about nudists? Are nudists allowed to walk around naked in public spaces? Why do nudists have to wear something in public spaces? Why? Wouldn't the law which requires people to wear clothes discriminate against nudist? A minority?[/QUOTE]
Yeah why not?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.