|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing? Probably a face wrapped in a scarf or a skimask. (I assume the law is more general and just prevents fully obscured faces since a pure burka ban would be challenge on religious prosecution grounds)
|
Norway28873 Posts
On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing?
to make a point out of how stupid the law is.
|
Ah, I had assumed that would be classed as under "provocative actions". As in the reporting itself was the provocative action. Which would then lead me to the question of what exactly would class as a provocative action?
|
It is also possible that it was some overzealous person law abiding concerned citizen who wanted to finally report all those evil burka wearers, and thus jumped the gun on some ski scarf that looked kinda like one.
I had one black ski scarf/face mask thingy a while back. Though that looked more ninja than burka.
|
A law against ninja-like face coverings is sure to follow.
|
What about them skull balaclavas. For a while, it was fashionable for moped gang to UK wear them. Those guys are definitely threatening looking.
|
We have a law like that, but only during public protest demonstrations. I am still not entirely sure how carnival manages to get around that law, because that one obviously involves a large group of people parading about who hide their faces.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.bmi.gv.at/bmi_pictures/BMI_NEWS_INT%20-%20ANGERER/o_17756.jpg)
That was the government information they sent out. Top3 are "always allowed", next3 are "under condition" (medical reasons, traditional events, cold) and bottom3 are "never allowed".
Some people made fun of it by organizing a "traditional clowns march". It was seen as a provocation. Seems like some traditions are just more equal than others, just because they have been around before. 
|
So the "provocative action" were people reporting people for wearing clown clothing. That makes a bit more sense now. I suppose the report didn't want the inherent absurdity of "clown clothing" as a reason next to "winter clothing".
Also... Top middle is ok, because the face is white, but bottom middle is never allowed because the face is dark? Or I guess that is supposed to be a veil. Funeral mourners wearing veils are never allowed. Covering up your ears with a scarf or hat during winter is either not allowed, or you can wear bottom left when it is cold. Makes me wonder how this law even passed scrutiny.
Also.. brauchtumsveranstaltungen. What a word. What are the constituent words there?
|
"Brauchtum", meaning something like "cultural heritage"
"Veranstaltungen", meaning "events"
|
Seems to me that a failure to ban clowns is a serious oversight.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
|
On March 29 2018 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing? to make a point out of how stupid the law is.
So if 100 peaple are caught speeding that means only 100 people own a car? Laws doesnt work like that. The goal is to prevent not to punish.
|
On March 31 2018 02:17 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing? to make a point out of how stupid the law is. So if 100 peaple are caught speeding that means only 100 people own a car? Laws doesnt work like that. The goal is to prevent not to punish.
By imposing fines and restrictions on the women it is attempting to protect from perceived oppression. Because nothing says liberation like the goverment dictating what cloths women can and cannot wear.
|
Yeah, but if you had just newly introduced a speeding law where before there was none, you would expect some people being caught for speeding. Thus, if you newly introduced a law, and in the whole of austria, there were only 4 legitimate cases of breaking that law, that law should better be about some high-impact thing, not about headwear.
Also, the reasonable comparison is obviously not "people owning a car and people getting caught speeding", but "people getting caught speeding and people speeding"
Furthermore, with your logic, you quickly end up at "This rock prevents bear attack. I haven't been mauled by a bear since i own it."
|
On March 31 2018 02:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2018 02:17 Silvanel wrote:On March 29 2018 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing? to make a point out of how stupid the law is. So if 100 peaple are caught speeding that means only 100 people own a car? Laws doesnt work like that. The goal is to prevent not to punish. By imposing fines and restrictions on the women it is attempting to protect from perceived oppression. Because nothing says liberation like the goverment dictating what cloths women can and cannot wear.
Personal autonomy is an awful vantage point for this discussion. We don't tolerate cult membership and we expect at least some compliance with secular norms, libertarian arguments about burqa wearing do not have much pull.
|
On March 31 2018 02:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2018 02:22 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2018 02:17 Silvanel wrote:On March 29 2018 21:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 29 2018 21:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
To be fair, there appears to be one woman in the whole of Austria that wears a burka.
What I want to know is why would you report someone to the police for wearing winter clothing? to make a point out of how stupid the law is. So if 100 peaple are caught speeding that means only 100 people own a car? Laws doesnt work like that. The goal is to prevent not to punish. By imposing fines and restrictions on the women it is attempting to protect from perceived oppression. Because nothing says liberation like the goverment dictating what cloths women can and cannot wear. Personal autonomy is an awful vantage point for this discussion. We don't tolerate cult membership and we expect at least some compliance with secular norms, libertarian arguments about burqa wearing do not have much pull.
The core intent of the law is to stop what is perceived as women being forced to wear clothing that prevents them from being identified. A cultural artifice that the country would like to end. I have no problem with that, we have similar laws in the US. But they prohibit masks in general, not a specific article of clothing used by a specific culture. And the law has a clear wording that intent is to prohibit articles of clothing worn to conceal the identity of the wearer. The law in question seems to have unclear intent at best.
|
well the fact that it's an 'anti-mask' law rather than an 'anti-burqa' law is to not get into legal grey waters around discrimination against a specific group. I think that's probably less controversial than singling out a religion tbh. I also don't think it's understandable to require the ability to be identified in public.
The worst thing about all of this is honestly just that's it's coming from people who want to use the law for populist gain, but in principle I think it's both reasonable from a security and liberal standpoint.
|
The bottom right dude in that image looks like a beekeeper lol
I think beekeepers shouldn't be banned
|
The liberal standpoint is really kind of strange, though. I personally am not a big fan of burqas and the role of a woman that they symbolize. But i don't think that banning women from wearing them is a very liberal idea either. The whole thing has this giant paternalistic "white knight" flair, where men think that they just NEED to rescue the weak and oppressed women.
For any effort of women in a society becoming more equal to be authentic in any way, that effort needs to base in women from that society. Outside people may offer to help, but the initial push in this case needs to be coming from muslim women, not christian men.
Otherwise, the act is in the best case very dismissive of their own agenda (They don't know what is good for themselves, we white men need to teach them), and in the worst case just abusing them as pawns with a different goal (Doing something against muslims in general by trying to make them as uncomfortable as possible)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
