I mean, you are the type to prefer a tyranny you agree with to a democracy you disagree with so I'm not surprised.

I agree with her. Lets stop this oppression of women in the name of "religion". No men have to cover their full body and face, wonder why? How ridiculous. No one should feel the need to defend any religion that sees women or even gays as inferior. And covering your face in public is definitely a security risk.

More about today's speech: 2015 refugee influx "can and must not repeat itself."

But Dr Merkel also defended her refugee-friendly position, saying "every single" asylum application would be reviewed, though not all would end up able to stay.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/angela-m...06-gt5gth.html

Angie's holding on to that seat with everything she's got. Centrist ha.

I wanna wear one tbh it's pretty.

From what point of reference? The stop and frisk 90s? The drug war 80s? The civil rights 60s?

Don't speak on race relations if you have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus, log off.

Great news!

The US should also enforce a national ban, but I don't think I've ever seen women in full-face veils before.

But they told me she was weak on Muslims

Lol already bowing to pressure from racists and the right. So much for the "last bastion of liberalism" or whatever!

It is a bit hypocritical of liberals to get angry at Christians for not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings and then turn around and defend Muslims despite their oppression of women and LGBT people. I understand freedom of religion should apply everywhere and people shouldn't be targeted because of their religion but you can still support that while calling them out on their beliefs.

I ultimately think people should be allowed to wear what they want (and I don't agree with banning it), but you still can't have it both ways in your thinking.

Hmm. I think it's different. As a liberal myself, I think it is undemocratic to use religion to discriminate against others (especially those of non faiths). I also defend Muslims, despite their beliefs. But no liberal is advocating Muslim positions. They are simply defending their right to be in the country.

If a Muslim ran for office and said in the name of Allah they want to ban gay sex, then that's different. You can't compare the two.

And? FDR had four. Truman ran for a third term (although his "2nd official") Same with Teddy, and LBJ. They may not have been elected, but they would've served three terms no less.

The issue isn't if we should have them or not. But don't come for Germany for not having it when not so long we didn't have them, and we only have them because one party wanted to obstruct as they continue to do today.

I mean even some muslim countries want it banned. It makes sense to ban the Niqab and Burqa.
The hijab should never be banned though because the face is 100% visible and the majority of women choose to put the hijab on whilst most women who put the Niqab or Burqa are forced to.

What are you talking about? There are millions of Christians living in the Middle East, and have lived in the region for centuries. The only country that you could make this argument for is Saudi Arabia, but they don't let anyone into the country unless they have a specific reason to be there.

I get that she's doing this to garner popularity for reelection, but it's still a crappy law. It's redundant to say your country is just and free if you're only going to grant freedom and justice on your terms. These women wearing the burqa have done nothing wrong but are being criminalized because "there's potential for something bad to happen." It's a law of assumptions, which we know are horrible and unjust (see the Japanese-American internment during WWII). In reality, it's because the veils Muslim women wear make people uncomfortable. Why would you be uncomfortable if you don't have any prejudice against Muslims? The niqab forces you to confront your racism, and it's easier to make it go away so you can continue to pretend that you support religious freedom. Germany has a population of 4.7 million Muslims, and it is estimated that only a few hundred wear the burqa (which is different from the niqab and hijab), so this law is literally useless and just to appease those that are intolerant of Muslims. The gays in here celebrating these women's rights being taken away because of gays being thrown off of roofs under TERRORIST rule. Newsflash, gay people aren't the only people who suffer under those dictators; straight people, particularly WOMEN, suffer too. And in the West, Muslims still face racism on a large scale. And before anyone says Muslims are a religious group and can't face racism, they can. Islam has been racialized to the point where even people who aren't Muslim are being attacked and discriminated against because they "appear" Muslim (i.e. Sikhs, South Asians, non-Muslim Arabs). The same system that oppresses the LGBT community oppresses the Muslims as well. We need to support more solidarity between both groups and demand that our rights to live equally with the rest of society are granted. Work needs to be done on both the Muslim and the LGBT side to be more accepting of one another.

/endrant

Good

Why don't SJWs hate the leader of Saudi Arabia as much as they hate Donald Trump? I honestly think SJWs don't care about countries where there's no white people.

I meant Niger which is 50% Muslim as of 2008 and has banned face veils in some cities according to the source in the OP.

Chad is 53.1% Muslim as of the 1993 Census and they banned face veils last year due to suicide bombings (their president is a Muslim)

Syria and Malaysia also have partial bans in place (both majority Muslim)