News

German court told that burkinis violate Islamic dress codes

German court told that burkinis violate Islamic dress codes

Although they provide full body cover, burkinis still breach Islam’s ethic of decency, Germany’s constitutional court in Karlsruhe was told in a case involving an 11-year old girl.

But the court, the highest in Germany, rejected an appeal by the girl’s parents that she should be excused from the school swimming classes because burkinis were unIslamic, and ruled that ultra-conservative Muslim girls must take part in mixed swimming classes.

The girl had argued before lower courts that swimming in a burkini revealed the shape of her body, something that goes against her religion.

The constitutional court further found there were “no binding rules in Islam” to define appropriate clothing.

Germany is in the grip of a heated public debate about the role of Islam in society as it seeks to integrate more than a million mainly Muslim asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution who have entered this year and last.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose conservatives have been punished at the polls in regional elections by voters angry at what is seen as her open-door policy, on Tuesday proposed a ban on full-face Muslim veils.

She said the Muslim full-face veil was not compatible with German culture. Crowds cheered as she said:

Here we say ‘show your face’. So full veiling is not appropriate here. It should be prohibited wherever legally possible.

Her Christian Democrats, who have been bleeding support to the AfD, a populist party that says Islam is incompatible with the constitution, toughened their tone on integrating migrants at a party conference this week.

The court’s ruling could give more credibility to future attempts by the government to ban the full-face veil after a parliamentary election next year.

15 responses to “German court told that burkinis violate Islamic dress codes”

  1. L.Long says:

    isLame is incompatible with the constitution!?!? Well there is a kettle calling the pot!!!!

  2. Angela, Angela my dear, there is only one way for you to atone for the immense danger you have wrought upon your nation: Retreat to your bunker, and follow Adolf’s example by putting a bullet into your head.

  3. CoastalMaineBird says:

    The constitutional court further found there were “no binding rules in Islam” to define appropriate clothing.

    What does THAT have to do with anything?
    The Constitutional court shouldn’t be interpreting RELIGIOUS law…

  4. Paul says:

    Coastal Maine Bird
    It’s because the parents appealed there against the first ruling making the girl Swim in mixed classes – so the Court would have had to counter argue what the parents set out in their appeal. So it would have the proper right to state ‘interpreting’ Islam and the religious (parents) statements that Islam prohibits Burkinis etc (so the child wouldn’t swim in mixed classes) and thereby rejecting their appeal.

  5. RussellW says:

    CoastalMaineBird,

    Agreed, Religious interpretations aren’t the business of the Court.

  6. Trevor Blake says:

    Democracy is compatible with Islam. It’s just that Islam is not compatible with democracy.

    What is the role of Islam in society? I’m sure that is best decided by Muslims themselves, in Muslim nations.

  7. Stephen Mynett says:

    Most, probably all, religions are incompatible with democracy, unfortunately Islam still has a tight grip on the indoctrinated and there has been nothing akin to the enlightenment.

  8. Dick Chopper says:

    WRONG …the headline should read:-
    Islamic court told that burkinis violate German dress codes.

  9. Paul says:

    In European countries there are no longer Courts Temporal they are fused into normal courts. However in the U.K. The CofE Church Synod is ‘separate’ to the extent it decides Church doctine such as admitting women bishops as it did a few years ago – and we recall how that went. In this case in Germany if an appellant argues a religious point, the legal process is the court must hear the opposing side counter argue. And the court then must make a decision on that religious point after hearing both sides. Clearly a rational logical conclusion is the only one that was made, as the evasive koran doesn’t have a dress code in it, like it doesn’t have all the other made up stuff it’s adherents tell us that it and Islam dictates – such as women covering up etc. And not drinking alcohol.
    Moreover it is quite acceptable, and in a democratic society I would add imperative, for the Constitutional Court to decide this ‘religious’ point. The alternative is a decision by a religious ‘gathering’, to call them courts is frankly obscene, and we can guess what that would decide and then we are back to burning witches and a clear regression of society. My point is that religious gatherings have no place making decisions that would affect the entire society – and this is about the entire society as it is only about German children swimming together – the religious argument is false and misleading – and that decision, one of Constitutional importance affecting the whole of society, must be made by the Constitutional Court.

  10. Brian Jordan says:

    @Paul,
    It’s all very well saying that the Koran doesn’t have a detailed dress code, but one has – or several have – from the “other stuff”: through the deliberations of theologians and/or theocrats. In dipping its toe into these murky waters, the court has avoided the real question: where does freedom of religion begin and end? Does religious liberty allow, or not allow, parents to interfere in secular matters and keep a girl from mixed swimming lessons?

  11. Paul Cook says:

    @ Brian Jordan
    that is not the question at all.
    The question before the Constitutional Court is should children in Germany swim together?
    Religion and any religious muddy waters is totally spurious and irrelevant.

  12. Bill Bonk says:

    There is something deeply and troublingly unsavoury about those who are so unhealthily interested, those who are so fanatically fascinated, with the female form to the extent that they will murder, often by stoning, or disfigure and blind with acid, any woman showing more than a few square centimetres of bare flesh. This should tell you all you need to know about islam and its stupefied uncivilised deviant mysogenistic men. Sexually repressed men, especially the younger fanatical unmarried virgin variety, are a real danger. Its a well known fact that sexual repression leads to all kinds of nasty behaviour and mental illness.

    The trouble is that religions use sex as a powerful method of control … sex is dirty, sex is bad, sex outside marriage is forbidden, you can only have sex when you are married and you cant get married without permission, sex is shameful, sex outside marriage brings intolerable shame to your family, break the rules and you will be stoned to death, outcast or disfigured and beaten. To control people first poison their minds with the notion that sex is bad except when they have a sex license issued by a cleric and even then its obscene and grubby.

  13. John the Drunkard says:

    The Special Islamic Snowflakes will NEVER run out of ways to attempt to inflict their views on the host culture.

    In England, one of the veiling fusses emerged when a girl’s family objected to a standard talwar sameez school uniform. Nothing to do with Muslim dress codes, but NON-Muslim girls (Sikhs and Hindus) were wearing the same gear. Therefore the girl was being asked to dress like an infidel….

  14. Michael Glass says:

    Curiously, the burkini was developed in Australia by a Muslim designer so that Muslim girls could take part in surfing without going against their beliefs.

    What is controversial in many parts of the world is simply part of the background in Australia.

  15. John says:

    What the Court ruled was that there is no theological basis for a burkini.
    This means there is no religious law at all supporting this nonsense.
    Quite right too, in my opinion.
    What kind of parents can put their own child through this?
    I am sure she just wants to integrate with the other kids.
    Parental zealotry at the expense of children is truly ugly.
    If they do not want to integrate, why go to Germany?
    If they can’t accept their values, maybe they should go back?