21 Sep 16 16:09, Robert Bashe wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
RB> OK. from my point of view people who aren't conspicuous on the street RB> - skin color is not that important, as there are also black Germans RB> resulting from the last war - who speak German, and fit in well with RB> the existing society.
"conspicuous" to you?
RB> That would eliminate all those who like to wear strange dress RB> (scarves, burkahs and the like) to make themselves conspicuous in RB> public
Hm, like Punks, Gothics and the like? I'd rather suggest to be suspicious of people wearing Bavarian outfits. And why not require everyone wearing uniforms?
RB> - what they do in their own four walls is their business, RB> since as you shozuld knoe, religion is a PRIVATE matter in Germany.
In which law can I read that?
RB> Nuns and priests would be an exception, since they've been with us RB> for many centuries and are part of the normal scenery.
So only things are allowed that are already there. How is a society supposed to change or evolve then?
RB> It would also eliminate all those who, although they've lived here RB> for many years, speak little or no German, keeping in their own RB> ghettos to avoid contact with the locals.
Why not get rid of Bavarian or Saxonian dialects in northern Germany? I don't understand a word they say, and many of them cannot speak proper German even if they try.
RB> Basically, as you gather, I would eliminate all those who RB> intentionally and consciously separate themselves from the German RB> society, only too often to claim subsequent "discrimination" - after RB> they have already discriminated against themselves.
I don't get it: Why should a society require anyone to wear or not to wear certain clothing? Is that freedom?
GK>> "Not placing any value" on it would be the other extreme. How about GK>> something in the middle?
RB> And who's to decide what "the middle" is?
We could start by agreeing on the simple fact that the middle is not on one of the extreme ends.
RB> No, I disagree. Societies RB> evolve, that's true, but they don't evolve in a period of one RB> generation or even two.
Of course they do. Our society is definitely changing dramatically since WWII, the speed of change is still on the rise.
GK>> I doubt you ever saw a burkha.
RB> I can speculate, too.
What did it look like?
GK>> I do. But you are vague. What do you refer to?
RB> Now, just think _deeply_ about what we were talking about any you RB> won't have to ask me any superfluous questions.
As I said: You are vague and have no real arguments that would be verifiable.
GK>> Mr. Erdogan is from Turkey, burkhas are from Afghanistan. Don't you GK>> think you mix up some things here?
RB> No.
Then I'll have to do that for you.
RB> I think you are trying to talk down the problems that have arisen RB> with muslims since around 2000.
Problems that you are refusing to name, apart from the obvious fact that you feel threatened by people wearing different clothing and speak different languages than you do.
RB> No, but you're trying to wriggle out of the argument. Your reference RB> was to a live TV appearance at a mass ralley in Cologne, at which the RB> police feared - with a good deal of justification - violence from the RB> Turkish participants. IOt was NOT a political campaign approved and RB> permitted by the federal Government, nor fif the federal government RB> have anything to do with banning Erdogan's like TV appearance.
Calling for censorship? Yes, I prefer to stick with the laws we have and only forbid things that are forbidden. Right now I cannot see any urgent need to come up with even more things to ban.
GK>> So please share the first-hand knowldge you apparently have.
RB> Now you're being foolish, Gerrit.
You claimed to have it, so let's have a look at it.
GK>> "not a threat to democracy"? They have been under observation by the GK>> Verfassungsschutz from day 1 of their existance until 2014.
RB> Presumably you're confusing Die Linke with the NPD.
No, as you could easily verify if you cared for facts.
GK>> Their members are still prohibited from becoming civil servants in, GK>> e.g., Bavaria.
RB> I figure the "e.g.", meaning for example, is the _only_ state with RB> such a restriction.
The only one I know of from the top of my head. There may be others. Back to the topic: Apparently this prosecution of the party's members is too weak in your eyes. What do you suggest? More occupational bans? Detention centres? Reeducation?
RB> Which would not be surprising, given that the RB> state is very conservative in its politics.
Maybe you should move there?
GK>> Strange enough, they are part of the Bundestag and several other GK>> state governments.
RB> And are being considered as a coalition partner in Berlin. Whereas RB> the AfD is ostracized by the politicians, although they have achieved RB> remarkable election results. It's really amazing how easily people RB> can be tarred in Germany by calling them "rightst" - true or not.
Same for the left: I remember far more than one campain that was won by the conservative parties by pulling the "red socks" card.
RB> But RB> there's no onus on being a leftist, in fact such people are good RB> company in some quarters.
If you say so.
RB>>> People forget so quickly... but I can easily remember the leftist RB>>> murders by the RAF in the 1970s and 1980s.
GK>> Wakup-call: It's not 1970 or 1980 anymore.
RB> So leftist terror is totally impossible?
No, it is just statistically not so relevant these days.
RB> Gerrit, the Nazis were in RB> power over 70 years ago, and people here in Germany still crap in RB> their pants if they even hear the word "rightest". Leftist terror in RB> the 1970s and 1980s (plus the infamous STSI in the GdR), rightest RB> terror 70+ years ago. That's what I mean by "people forget so RB> quickly". But they only forget leftist terror.
2nd Wake-up call: terror from the right did not cease in 1945. We have something like 75-200 (depending on how you count them) political murders from the far right since 1990 alone.
GK>> I still fail to see how this might be connected with the problematic GK>> burkha-wearing Erdogan-fans you claim to exist.
RB> The conversation had drifted to political orientation. Hadn't you RB> noticed?
I notice that you are scared shitless by a certain kind for foreigner. You are not alone with that, and this has to be taken serious. But I strongly oppose having fearmongers run the country.
Regards, Gerrit
--- Msged/BSD 6.2.0 * Origin: Tall orders to fulfil (2:240/12)
