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.
GK> "conspicuous" to you?
No, to anyone with eyes to see. Do you really think I'm the only one who sees people who intentionally distance themselves from the general population?
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
GK> Hm, like Punks, Gothics and the like?
As I've never seen such things on the street, I can't say. But at least they don't claim they distance themselves because of some "religion" that dictates that women are inferior to men and should cover themselves as completely as possible so that men don't want to rape them. Apparently rape is a real problem in muslim countries... a woman who shows more than her eyes really gets some of the men in such societies hot. Or so anyone would believe, seeing the restrictions on women in such societies.
Luckily, things are different in Europe, and woman don't live in constant fear of rape, even if they show their hair, shoulders or even their legs. Try that in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
GK> I'd rather suggest to be suspicious of people wearing Bavarian GK> outfits. And why not require everyone wearing uniforms?
You're becoming ridiculous.
RB>> - what they do in their own four walls is their business, since as RB>> you shozuld knoe, religion is a PRIVATE matter in Germany.
GK> In which law can I read that?
Unfortunately, none. France is far more advanced in that particular matter. However, there is still at least theoretically freedeom of religion in Germany - even if the government collects a "religion tax" on most people stupid enough to have their children baptized or who enter a religion in any official paper. This is a holdback to the "good old days" of Hitler, who codified the "religion tax" in the hope of keeping the churches quiet while he carried out the "final solution".
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.
GK> So only things are allowed that are already there. How is a society GK> supposed to change or evolve then?
By revolution? And why does a society have to reject customs that are centuries old to adopt those which have only been forced on it in the last 10-20 years?
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.
GK> Why not get rid of Bavarian or Saxonian dialects in northern Germany? GK> I don't understand a word they say, and many of them cannot speak GK> proper German even if they try.
Like you? Or do you come from Hanover, where - people say - the best "high German" is spoken? You're confusing native dialects with an inability to speak the language.
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.
GK> I don't get it: Why should a society require anyone to wear or not to GK> wear certain clothing? Is that freedom?
No, it's integration. Identifying yourself with those around you. People who intentionally distance themselves from the population have no right to cry "discrimination" when their intentional differences are registered.
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?
GK> We could start by agreeing on the simple fact that the middle is not GK> on one of the extreme ends.
Possibly. Depends on what the "middle" is.
RB>> No, I disagree. Societies evolve, that's true, but they don't evolve RB>> in a period of one generation or even two.
GK> Of course they do. Our society is definitely changing dramatically GK> since WWII, the speed of change is still on the rise.
Believe what you will.
GK>>> I doubt you ever saw a burkha.
RB>> I can speculate, too.
GK> What did it look like?
You have the Internet, too.
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.
GK> As I said: You are vague and have no real arguments that would be GK> verifiable.
And you? Lots of verbiage and few real facts.
GK>>> Mr. Erdogan is from Turkey, burkhas are from Afghanistan. Don't you GK>>> think you mix up some things here?
RB>> No.
GK> Then I'll have to do that for you.
Fine by me. As long as your wife wears a black veil and long coat in public. That would doubtless please you, as "everyone knows" that women are inferior.
RB>> I think you are trying to talk down the problems that have arisen RB>> with muslims since around 2000.
GK> Problems that you are refusing to name, apart from the obvious fact GK> that you feel threatened by people wearing different clothing and GK> speak different languages than you do.
Gerrit, I have the feeling that you're still living in the 1980s, and haven't really realized what the present situation is.
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.
GK> Calling for censorship?
In such a radical case, yes. Why should a foreign ruler - now effective the Kaliph of Turkey - be allowed to whip up his mindless supporters in a foreign country, where religion is supposedly a private matter (but effectively a state matter because of the "religion tax")?
GK> Yes, I prefer to stick with the laws we have and only forbid things GK> that are forbidden. Right now I cannot see any urgent need to come up GK> with even more things to ban.
"Don't worry, be happy" I learned to hate that song. Just plain stupid.
GK>>> So please share the first-hand knowldge you apparently have.
RB>> Now you're being foolish, Gerrit.
GK> You claimed to have it, so let's have a look at it.
I claimed nothing except my own convictions, which incidentally are shared by a fair number of other Germans.
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.
GK> No, as you could easily verify if you cared for facts.
I note you avoid providing a URL.
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.
GK> The only one I know of from the top of my head. There may be others.
Nice turnaround. But unfortunately obvious.
GK> Back to the topic: Apparently this prosecution of the party's members GK> is too weak in your eyes. What do you suggest? More occupational bans? GK> Detention centres? Reeducation?
You're trying to twist my words. Give it up.
RB>> Which would not be surprising, given that the state is very RB>> conservative in its politics.
GK> Maybe you should move there?
Maybe you should move to Russia. Just a pity the GdR doesn't exist anymore. Whatever, such comments as you make are not new or particularly original, just irritating. "Go back where you came" is something you say to people who refuse to integrate into a society. That has never been my problem, but it does exist among those you please to defend.
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.
GK> Same for the left: I remember far more than one campain that was won GK> by the conservative parties by pulling the "red socks" card.
Long time ago. Leftist are "in" in Germany, whereas anything more conservative than the CSU is "Neonazi". People have such short memories.
RB>> But there's no onus on being a leftist, in fact such people are good RB>> company in some quarters.
GK> If you say so.
You read no newspapers or news sites in the Internet, right?
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?
GK> No, it is just statistically not so relevant these days.
"These days"... and how long will they last? As for "statistics"... well, you know the old joke about someone with one foot on a hotplate and the other on a block of ice, don't you?
RB>> Gerrit, the Nazis were in power over 70 years ago, and people here in RB>> Germany still crap in their pants if they even hear the word RB>> "rightest". Leftist terror in the 1970s and 1980s (plus the infamous RB>> STSI in the GdR), rightest terror 70+ years ago. That's what I mean RB>> by "people forget so quickly". But they only forget leftist terror.
GK> 2nd Wake-up call: terror from the right did not cease in 1945.
But terror from the left started. Never visited the GdR? I did, several times.
GK> We have something like 75-200 (depending on how you count them) GK> political murders from the far right since 1990 alone.
Sure, sure... whereby you count teenage punks and crazies in the "far right". Seems like everyone who resorts to violence in Germany these days is a "Neonazi".
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?
GK> I notice that you are scared shitless by a certain kind for foreigner. GK> You are not alone with that, and this has to be taken serious. But I GK> strongly oppose having fearmongers run the country.
I'm not scared shitless, but I do see a threat to our society by religious extremists, one which didn't exist before the year 2000.
