PDA

View Full Version : Egyptian woman killed in German court for being veiled



Mohamed
July 6th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Hi,

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/06/egyptian-woman-killed-in-german-court-for-being-veiled/

This woman was from my city .

I just want to ask what would you say if a Muslim killed a western ?

ablarc
July 6th, 2009, 06:28 PM
This story is misrepresented by the headline you have assigned it. It proves only the human propensity for passionate disagreement. The fact that the stabbing took place in Germany (and in a courtroom) is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

212
July 6th, 2009, 07:25 PM
It was a horrific murder. A neo-Nazi stabbed the woman 18 times in court when she sued him for harassment. She was pregnant, and her 4-year-old was also in the courtroom and saw her die.

The court security guard mistakenly shot the woman's husband when he tried to defend his wife from the neo-Nazi.

German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away.

Fabrizio
July 6th, 2009, 07:38 PM
Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?

Thanks. I'm waiting.

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 06:26 AM
While testifying in court, a plaintiff is murdered by the defendant, and the incident is not major news.

Theo van Gogh's murder was extensively reported.

Alonzo-ny
July 7th, 2009, 06:36 AM
I want to know how he got a knife in a courtroom and was able to stab her 18 times without being restrained.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 08:22 AM
My post was in reference to the immediatly preceding thought.

--------

(And BTW: if we want to get technical the attacker was not a Westerner... not a European.)

Futhermore the press here is often criticized for giving not enough coverage to Muslim crimes... there have been fathers killing daughters for not weraing headscaves etc. The reason given for keeping the coverage low-profile is to not enflame. I'm wondering if that may have been the motive here.

--

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 08:42 AM
The thought I get from post #3 is that the incident was ignored by both the press and the German government.

Alonzo-ny
July 7th, 2009, 08:45 AM
It made the BBC. Not a major headline though.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 08:49 AM
The thought I get from post #3 is that the incident was ignored by both the press and the German government.


There is the post.

And then there is "the immediatly preceding thought".

"the immediatly preceding thought" was:

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

My response to that was:

"Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

---------

BTW: I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 08:58 AM
Give me a break.

Since when don't you consider the context in which a post is made? Should I bother to dredge up examples where you've brought this up?

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 09:01 AM
???

I fully and immediately realized that my post needed clarification and posted the following:

"My post was in reference to the immediatly preceding thought."

Have you had your coffee yet?

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 09:16 AM
I'm familiar with the MO:

1. Post a general comment.

2. If it sticks, so be it.

3. If challenged, retreat behind "I was referring to...", but remain vague.

4. If challenged again, "I meant this sentence."

Give it a rest.


(And BTW: if we want to get technical the attacker was not a Westerner... not a European.) According to the court (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5hAwHTYyudXwuL-hFiLsNKbyNKAD9994MIO0), he is "a Russian of German descent who had immigrated to Germany in 2003."

I don't know; technically, what is that? (As if it matters).

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 09:26 AM
Whoa... I am sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking about.

Follow the thread.... After your post:

"The thought I get from post #3 is that the incident was ignored by both the press and the German government."

First of all you were entirely correct.

And I realized that my post needed clarification.

And so I clarified it... the fact is: I was refering to the preceding thought... read the thread... follow it. Note too: I made no argument with anyone... certainly not with your posts and thoughts on the subject.

There is no vagueness or hiding behind anything. And certainly no bad will.

It is hilarious that you chalk-up good behavior as MO.


---

And yes indeed: the attacker "was a Russian"... you posted it yourself. But as I mention: "if we want to get technical..."

--

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 09:56 AM
HEY!

Both of you, CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

Zip, you are taking it way too personally (I know, like I should [type]).

Fab, interesting you relate "Muslim" on the same level of "German" and somehow excuse the lack of response of the German GOVERNMENT to the lack of comments by a group of religious leaders that are not clearly defined or want to take any real close contact to a horrific crime.


First, I do not equate the "leaders" of a religion to the elected officials of a government, and second, when does the abstinance of one persons reaction condemning a horrible crime validate the same from another? We are not even talking "sides" here.

Your statement reads, in the order of the posts I have read here for the first time, "Well, they did nothing so why should [we] do anything?"

And I know you aren't German, so relax on that.


Point is, you kind of flinged that little bit of bloody poo into the forum and got a reaction. I don't care how much you try to explain the poo and validate your statement, it is still poo. Be an adult and apologise already. You ain't perfect you know, no matter how many times the mirror tells ya! ;)

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 10:15 AM
Oh, and to add to the OT, Mohamed, your title is very misleading.

The guy did not kill her because of a veil.

The thread might be more aptly named "Egyptian woman killed by Nazi in court" or something like that, and then explain it a bit more in the post.

This almost makes it sound like the court killed her! ;)

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 10:31 AM
Ninja: In the Muslim world religious and government leaders are often the same thing.

In respnse to this statement -

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

I make no further statement... no editorializing.... take it for what you will... go off on a million tangents if you like... but I ask.

Well?

As I said: "I'm waiting".

---

And by the way, your :




Both of you, CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

No... you cut it out. I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.

--

scumonkey
July 7th, 2009, 11:09 AM
http://russkcpa.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/3_stooges.833437.jpg

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 11:18 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/35_2.jpg

scumonkey
July 7th, 2009, 11:21 AM
Sorry mate, I'm a real dummy, not a cheap doll ;):D
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/42_1.jpg

Maybe this pic would have been a better choice
than the one I first choose?!
http://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr360/wrestlinwally/IMG_7353.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 11:36 AM
I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.No, I answered the question you were so patiently "waiting" for, and you retreated into your standard pattern of clarification.

The only thing missing was the condescending [sigh].

If you were referencing the "thoughts" expressed in post #3, I'm sure that those thoughts were based on the "thoughts"' in #1 and #2.

I could also say that of my post #8: "I make no further statement... no editorializing.... take it for what you will... go off on a million tangents if you like." Blah, blah. Gets us nowhere.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 11:49 AM
^ I cannot make heads or tails of this. Zip... You are trying to make this into something it is not. I just don't know what more to tell you. I think I have explained enough and clearly. Reread the thread is all I can say. I am mystified.

In the meantime if any other posters here can shed light on this please do... because frankly I have no idea of what's going on here.

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 11:56 AM
No... you cut it out. I was explaining myself, I think, in a civil way to someone who was making accusations. I will continue do that when I see fit.

Again, cut it out.

"No you" is very juvenile for someone who prides himself on being mature/cultured.


"I will... ...do as I see fit" is equally juvenile.

Are you so insecure that you have to condescendingly defend everything? Seriously, let it go.

Alonzo-ny
July 7th, 2009, 12:00 PM
I can see no issue with Fab's points. I dont understand why it has been turned into this big 'thing'. There is no need to call Fab juvenile or insecure when the topic at hand should be being discussed.

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 12:07 PM
@Fabrizio:

I've reread the thread several times. What is it I don't understand?

In my view, you went off-base in post #10. I've seen it before, and responded to it. That's what I'm making of it, nothing more. I'm not even telling you not to do it, but when you do - give me a condescending line-by-line reconstruction - I'm going to call you out on it.

You don't see it that way; that's your opinion.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 12:14 PM
Post 10 is perfectly fine. I clearly explained myself. I think the post is entirely civil. What is condescending about it?

Also: I made no arguments with anyone. I even agreed with 212's sentiments that the German leaders should have responded more strongly.(note I say, "I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".)

I have no idea what on earth you are "calling me out on".

This whole thing is baffling.

If anyone here (and that includes other Moderators) can find anything wrong with the following post please explain because i can't. Here it is (it would help to read it in it's context) but in the meantime, here is post 10:


There is the post.

And then there is "the immediatly preceding thought".

"the immediatly preceding thought" was:

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

My response to that was:

"Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

---------

BTW: I do not disagree with the "immediately preceding thought".






-----

LOL. I am being called juvenile for saying "no you" ...from a guy throwing around the pure Beaver-to-Wally "Cut it out!"

--

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 01:56 PM
I can see no issue with Fab's points. I dont understand why it has been turned into this big 'thing'. There is no need to call Fab juvenile or insecure when the topic at hand should be being discussed.

Could you tell the boys that?

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 02:08 PM
If I assume correctly who the "boys" are...

Fabrizio and I were engaged in a discussion (or argument if you think) that while one-on-one, was withing the framework of the thread topic.

You assumed that I was "taking it personally," and resorted to name calling, ironically, "taking it personally."

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Post 10 is perfectly fine. I clearly explained myself. I think the post is entirely civil. What is condescending about it?I didn't say it was uncivil; I said it was condescending, and already explained why. It's your opinion that it wasn't


Also: I made no arguments with anyone.Neither did I in posts #5 and 8. If yours didn't require a response from me, why is the reverse different? You initiated the quote in #10.


If anyone here (and that includes other Moderators) can find anything wrong with the following post please explain because i can't.Depends on what you mean by "wrong." Since you've included moderators, I'm assuming you mean something that's in violation of posting policy. I stated previously:
I'm not even telling you not to do it, but when you do - give me a condescending line-by-line reconstruction - I'm going to call you out on it.
You should know by now that I try to avoid mixing posting with moderating.

"Calling you out on it" means responding in kind.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 02:55 PM
OK: if anyone here (and that includes moderaters) can find anything condescending in post # 10 please point it out because I simply do not see it. Thanks for the help.

In the meantime, although I have been told: "gimme a break"... that apprentley I have an "MO"... that I should "give it a rest", .... that "if challenged I retreat behind"..."that I have a "standard pattern" of clarification ... and who knows what else.... I believe my posts in this thread have been proper and I would not change a word.

--

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 03:00 PM
If I assume correctly who the "boys" are...

Fabrizio and I were engaged in a discussion (or argument if you think) that while one-on-one, was withing the framework of the thread topic.

You assumed that I was "taking it personally," and resorted to name calling, ironically, "taking it personally."


You guys are going OT. You are getting caught up in the semantics of your argument rather than the actual story here. You are busy dissecting his original posts trying to prove the validity of your criticism, including references to him following a formula and expecting him to "sigh".

He, OTOH, is pretending ignorance and innocence of anything going on, proclaiming his right to post as he wishes, also ignoring the OT as he defends his own particular style of posting.


You BOTH are very difficult to disagree with on anything, and it has turned a rather small, albeit serious topic, into a debate not on the matter of the stabbing, but more on whether it was post #8 or #10 that got things going.

Whatever. If you are having fun, have it. I think the rest of us are out of here (I can only speak for myself).




PS

>sigh<

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 03:06 PM
Ninja: In the Muslim world religious and government leaders are often the same thing.

But you cannot blame all of Europe for something that Germany did (or didn't) do.

Decrying the entirety of the Muslim leadership was a bit too broad, IMO.


In respnse to this statement -

"German leaders made a huge mistake by not speaking out strongly about this, right away."

I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"

Yes. May I ask, what area was this guy from? You could have been more specific saying "Muslim leaders from XXX". As I said before, blaming all of Europe, say condemning England (by saying "European Leaders") for this stabbing and not speaking out about it would not exactly be fair.

It isn't exactly Apples and Oranges I am talking here, but you sure aren't providing a pair of Fugi's to compare.


As I said: "I'm waiting".

If you are waiting for you want in life, it may take much longer than you are willing to wait for it.

Ninjahedge
July 7th, 2009, 03:07 PM
OK, NOW I am out of here!!!!






















Maybe........

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Oh this is cute:




He, OTOH, is pretending ignorance and innocence of anything going on, proclaiming his right to post as he wishes, also ignoring the OT as he defends his own particular style of posting.



I doubt that anyone could ever accuse you of pretending ignorance.

Alonzo-ny
July 7th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Ninja,

Is OT = On Topic or = Off Topic? The acronyms can be misleading, and for the non-initiated like me, hard to understand.

Fabrizio
July 7th, 2009, 06:43 PM
I think OTOH is a penis, 2 balls and step ladder.

lofter1
July 7th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Yes, that ^


Ninja,

Is OT = On Topic or = Off Topic? The acronyms can be misleading, and for the non-initiated like me, hard to understand.

Also: On The Other Hand aka Conversely

Mohamed
July 7th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Guys, I think you forgot the topic a talked about yoursleves .:)






there have been fathers killing daughters for not weraing headscaves etc.

--

Really, I have never heard about some think like that .

*****************



I simply ask : "Will some one please post statements from Muslim leaders condeming the murder of film director Theo van Gogh... shot 8 times, nearly decapitated, and left with two knives implanted in him?"
Dutch government treated him well .

*****************

I don't know why some westerns talking like Muslims got the power (not Europe&America) and battling the world and they should get stopped.
Guys, we got no power or anything to do :)
We are not bad, I swear to god we are not evils as "some of you" think .

ZippyTheChimp
July 7th, 2009, 09:53 PM
^
Don't know about headscarves, but there are cases of "honor killings," where fathers murdered daughters who rejected arranged marriages, or fell in love with the "wrong person."

Here's one (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280814,00.html) in the UK

I remember one in the US a few years ago, in Atlanta I think.

Alonzo-ny
July 8th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Yes, that ^



Also: On The Other Hand aka Conversely

Imagine how confused I was trying to figure out what BOTH meant, then it hit me.

Mohamed
July 8th, 2009, 04:54 AM
I also heard about the European who caged his daughter in the basement and rapped her for about 20 years .

Fabrizio
July 8th, 2009, 05:39 AM
Mohamed: would you do this for us?: Tell us about basic human rights in your country... the status of women and homosexuals.

This is an article from Wikipedia reporting about basic human rights in your counrty. According to this article the picture is not very good: is it true? You tell us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Egypt

ZippyTheChimp
July 8th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I also heard about the European who caged his daughter in the basement and rapped her for about 20 years .I heard about that, and equally horrendous incidents in the US. The difference is that you said you never heard about Muslim honor killings. Can that be? Have you Googled it?

http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+%22honor+killing%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US228. It even has a Wikipedia page.

----------------------

In your first post, you mentioned "western," and later made reference to Europe and America.

What does America have to do with this? I can tell you without a doubt, if anyone murdered anyone in a US courtroom, it would immediately become major news.

And what's a western?

NATO countries? That would include Turkey.

Western capitalist democracies? That would include Japan and Korea.

Predominately Christian? The entire western hemisphere.

It happened in Germany, not in the West.

Ninjahedge
July 8th, 2009, 10:44 AM
Ninja,

Is OT = On Topic or = Off Topic? The acronyms can be misleading, and for the non-initiated like me, hard to understand.


Agreed, it usually depends on topic.

When someone says "going OT" that usually means off, but "getting back OT" means on.

Sorry, I just am used to the convention, not the maker thereof!!! ;)


PS - What's with Ornithologists Transporting Oligarchical Hedonists?

Mohamed
July 8th, 2009, 10:48 AM
Yes Zip, I Have heard about honor killing, But the reason of it is fornication not loving .

lofter1
July 8th, 2009, 11:10 AM
And that makes it OK?

ablarc
July 8th, 2009, 11:16 AM
What does that mean, anyway?

Ninjahedge
July 8th, 2009, 11:54 AM
What, it ruins the "value" of the daughter?

Are female offspring still seen as either property or liabilities? To be given in hopes of either Dowry (I am not sure if this is still practiced), or connections to family?

Not saying that the latter is foreign to us either, but it kind of turns my stomach that a father will kill his DAUGHTER because she slept with someone besides her betrothed.

If anything, you would think the father would try to kill the guy, but I guess that would be a bit difficult. Also, it IS the womans fault for luring the other guy, right? :rolleyes:


Mo, sorry if this seems a bit insulting, but just the idea of killing a family member over this is astounding. It is like something out of the middle ages for most of us of European descent, and to think it is still being done in areas of the middle east is very disheartening.

ZippyTheChimp
July 8th, 2009, 11:58 AM
Yes Zip, I Have heard about honor killing, But the reason of it is fornication not loving .The two often go together. Is fornication a capital offense in Egypt?

Question for you: What is your perception of the lives of Muslims in America?

Alonzo-ny
July 8th, 2009, 11:58 AM
From recollection in middle ages Europe wouldn't the family member simply be cast out of the family/ village etc? I dont remember ever hearing of them being killed as a typical response.

Ninjahedge
July 8th, 2009, 12:03 PM
From recollection in middle ages Europe wouldn't the family member simply be cast out of the family/ village etc? I dont remember ever hearing of them being killed as a typical response.

I guess that would depend on what honor was lost or something.

If the woman was betrothed to someone and ended up sleeping with a rival or something, the father might have been forced to do something drastic or loose his place "where all the good filth" was out in the moors.


Idunno.

lofter1
July 8th, 2009, 08:19 PM
I think those types were sent to a nunnery.

OTOH Harlots in early America were often deemed witches, and suffered such wonderful indignities as dunking -- wherein if you survived you were definitely a witch and then perhaps burned to death but if you drowned whilst being dunked you were deemed innocent of witchery.

Either way, not so good for the accused fornicant.

Ninjahedge
July 9th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I guess the lesson learned is that a man who doesn't get what he thinks is his kills those that do?

I still fail to see why sex is such a stigma. In and of itself it is pretty strait forward.

It takes human intelligence to (puntastically) F it up.




Anywhooooooooooo

Mohamed
July 10th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Guys, It's not only about daughters.
Everyone had sex without marriage, should get killed, man or woman .
And people can cross this rule by not having sex without marriage :).



Is fornication a capital offense in Egypt?
Of course it's not allowed Zip .



What is your perception of the lives of Muslims in America?
If they could follow the rules of the country they live in, they should live in it .



Mohamed: would you do this for us?: Tell us about basic human rights in your country... the status of women and homosexuals.

This is an article from Wikipedia reporting about basic human rights in your counrty. According to this article the picture is not very good: is it true? You tell us.

I don't have enough knowledge to tell you, but what i see, women are live as like men if someone did violence to her she can report police and send him to jail and prison too , if she is in everywhere, all people will help her because she is woman, because my mother is woman,my sister,my daughter and my wife(in the future:D), prophet Mohamed said "heaven is under the legs of mothers", there is (sura) in Quran called "women" shoes rights of women, and there isn't any sura call men ! no human choosed to be male or female .

Ninjahedge
July 10th, 2009, 09:32 AM
Guys, It's not only about daughters.

Everyone had sex without marriage, should get killed, man or woman .
And people can cross this rule by not having sex without marriage :).

That is absolutely barbaric.


If they could follow the rules of the country they live in, they should live in it .

Don't start with that hackneyed "love it or leave it" BS. W all know it is not worth the salt it is written with. Many people do not have the option of packing up and moving to another country, away from friends and family, just because they do not like their private lived being dictated by the government.

I am sure if she REALLY had a choice between leaving and dying, she would have started packing, but that is not the case. This smacks back to the close mindedness of almost every nation in this world befoe they realized that in todays modern world, the false blessing of celebacy is nothing but an ancient shell game put on when there was a need for social balance, and no real reliable methods of contraception.

The problem occurs when you make a rule and when people ask "why", the answer is "because God said so". "God" does not modernize. "God" objected to the Erath rotating around the sun and threatened death to those that said otherwise.

"God" is just the dietal manefestation of whatever the people want to beleieve at the time coupled with mans own desire to lead and rule.


Is there a God? Quite possibly. But I seriously doubt he cares whether his frisky little flesh-sacks boink each other with or without a marriage ceremony.

I find it extremely odd that a perfect being would create subjects so willing to disobey what he has set down as "law". Just means that either he is NOT perfect, or we just keep making up stuff about him to satisfy our own cultural desires for a supreme leader.


I don't have enough knowledge to tell you, but what i see, women are live as like men if someone did violence to her she can report police and send him to jail and prison too , if she is in everywhere, all people will help her because she is woman, because my mother is woman,my sister,my daughter and my wife(in the future:D), prophet Mohamed said "heaven is under the legs of mothers", there is (sura) in Quran called "women" shoes rights of women, and there isn't any sura call men ! no human choosed to be male or female .

Then why is heaven allowed to be owned by men, or at least the legs above it?

Fabrizio
July 10th, 2009, 09:55 AM
We are not bad, I swear to god we are not evils as "some of you" think .

But....



Everyone had sex without marriage, should get killed, man or woman .

Question for the studio audience: would you want to live next door to a person who, because of their religion, believes that people should be executed for having sex out-side of marriage?

I wouldn't.

--

windycity
July 10th, 2009, 10:40 AM
I think we are evolving to the point of not needing to believe in such foolish fairy tales. The people still following these teachings are just getting left behind, let natural selection play out.

Yay my first post.

Ninjahedge
July 10th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Probably not the best choice of where to start WC... but you could have done worse, you could have talked about England!!! ;)

Fabrizio
July 10th, 2009, 11:57 AM
So I guess if it had been, "Egyptian woman killed in German court for having had sex before marriage" ... it would have been ok.

Ninjahedge
July 10th, 2009, 02:47 PM
Well, that would have made SENSE!!!!!

212
August 15th, 2009, 05:37 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/14/arts/abroad-600.jpg
Norbert Millauer/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In front of the regional court in Dresden, a photo commemorates Marwa al-Sherbini, an Egyptian woman who was killed in a courtroom there on July 1.


Abroad
In Dresden, High Culture and Ugly Reality Clash

By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/michael_kimmelman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

DRESDEN, Germany — In early July thousands of mourners took to the streets in Egypt, chanting “Down with Germany.” Thousands more Arabs and Muslims joined them in protests in Berlin. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/index.html?inline=nyt-per) added to the outcry by denouncing German “brutality.”

The provocation was the murder on July 1 of Marwa al-Sherbini, a pregnant Egyptian pharmacist here. She was stabbed 18 times in a Dresden courtroom, in front of her 3-year-old son, judges and other witnesses, reportedly by the man appealing a fine for having insulted Ms. Sherbini in a park. Identified by German authorities only as a 28-year-old Russian-born German named Alex W., he had called Ms. Sherbini an Islamist, a terrorist and a slut when she asked him to make room for her son on the playground swings. Ms. Sherbini wore a head scarf.

The killer also stabbed Elwi Okaz, Ms. Sherbini’s husband and a genetic research scientist, who was critically wounded as he tried to defend her. The police, arriving late on the scene, mistook him for the attacker and shot him in the leg.

More than a week passed before the German government, responding to rising anger across the Arab world, expressed words of sorrow while stressing that the attack did occur during the prosecution of a racist and that the accused man was originally from Russia.

Dresden is one of the great cultural capitals of Europe. It is also the capital of Saxony, a former part of East Germany that, along with having a reputation as Silicon Saxony, has made more than a few headlines in recent years for incidents of xenophobia and right-wing extremism. One wonders how to reconcile the heights of the city’s culture with the gutter of these events.

This year’s annual report of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, showed that far-right crime rose last year by 16 percent across the country. Most of these offenses were classified as propaganda crimes — painting swastikas on Jewish headstones or smashing the windows of restaurants run by immigrants — but politically motivated violent acts like murder, arson and assault accounted for 1,042 of the nearly 20,000 crimes recorded, a rise of 6.3 percent over 2007.

And these violent crimes turned out to be far more commonplace in parts of the former East Germany. Saxony, with roughly 5 percent of the country’s population, accounted for 12 percent of the violence classified as far right in nature, the report said.

These days Dresden’s center, once obliterated by Allied bombs, is a marvel of civility, a restored Baroque fairyland surrounded by Socialist-era and post-Socialist-era sprawl. The rebuilt Frauenkirche, the great Baroque cathedral where Bach played, again marks the skyline with its bell-shaped dome, as it did for centuries.

The ruin of the Frauenkirche became a gathering spot for protests against the East German regime during Communist times. In February, as usual on the anniversary of the Allied air raids, neo-Nazis marched through the streets. Some 7,500 of them carried banners condemning the “bombing holocaust.” They were outnumbered, Spiegel Online reported, by anti-Nazi demonstrators, but 7,500 was nonetheless twice as many neo-Nazis as showed up last year.

The other day only the benign clop-clop of horse-drawn carriages sounded across the cobblestone square outside the cathedral, the carriages bouncing camera-toting tourists past high-end jewelry shops and overpriced cafes. Nearby, the Zwinger palace, perhaps the most beautiful of all Baroque complexes, attracted the usual supplicants to Raphael’s Sistine Madonna, which was paired in the Gemäldegalerie with an African sculpture.

Germany is now a bastion of democracy in the heart of Europe. But the far right is on the rise across the Continent, and xenophobia is gaining in this country, not least among youth and not least singling out Muslims. A recent two-year government survey of 20,000 German teenagers classified one in seven as “highly xenophobic” and another 26.2 percent as “fairly xenophobic.”

“It was known that the figures were high,” Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said. “But I’m appalled that they’re this high.”

The newspaper Tagesspiegel reported that Alex W. asked Ms. Sherbini in the courtroom, “Do you have a right to be in Germany at all?” before warning her that “when the N.D.P. comes to power, there’ll be an end to that.”

“I voted N.D.P..,” he added.

No surprise.

The far-right National Democratic Party, a marginal but noisy troublemaker on the German political scene with a tiny official membership (some 7,000), is as strong in Saxony as it is anywhere. Recent polls have routinely shown its support in the state as nearing 10 percent of the population; it claims 8 seats out of the 124 in the state parliament in Dresden. On Tuesday the party issued a statement calling for a black politician, Zeca Schall, working on regional elections in Thuringia for the ruling Christian Democratic Union, “to head home to Angola.” Thuringia should “remain German,” the statement said. Mr. Schall, Angolan-born, has lived in Thuringia, another region in the former East, since 1988.

High-tech industries and research institutes like the one where Ms. Sherbini’s husband works, which recruit foreign experts, have lifted Dresden economically above much of the rest of the former East, and last year nearly 10 million tourists fattened the city’s coffers. With half a million residents, some 20,000 of them foreigners, the capital looks prosperous and charming, like its old self.

All of which gets back to the problem of reconciliation: What are the humanizing effects of culture?

Evidently, there are none.

To walk through Dresden’s museums, and past the young buskers fiddling Mozart (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/wolfgang_amadeus_mozart/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on street corners, is to wonder whether this age-old question may have things backward. It presumes that we’re passive receivers acted on by the arts, which vouchsafe our salvation, moral and otherwise, so long as we remain in their presence. Arts promoters nowadays like to trumpet how culture helps business and tourism; how teaching painting and music in schools boosts test scores. They try to assign practical ends, dollar values and other hard numbers, never mind how dubious, to quantify what’s ultimately unquantifiable.

The lesson of Dresden, which this great city unfortunately seems doomed to repeat, is that culture is, to the contrary, impractical and fragile, helpless even. Residents of Dresden who believed, when the war was all but over, that their home had somehow been spared annihilation by its beauty were all the more traumatized when, in a matter of hours, bombs killed tens of thousands and obliterated centuries of humane and glorious architecture.

The truth is, we can stare as long as we want at that Raphael Madonna; or at Antonello da Messina’s “St. Sebastian,” now beside a Congo fetish sculpture in another room in the Gemäldegalerie; or at the shiny coffee sets, clocks and cups made of coral and mother-of-pearl and coconuts and diamonds culled from the four corners of the earth in the city’s New Green Vault, which contains the spoils of the most cultivated Saxon kings. But it won’t make sense of a senseless murder or help change the mind of a violent bigot.

What we can also do, though, is accept that while the arts won’t save us, we should save them anyway. Because the enemies of civilized society are always just outside the door.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/arts/15abroad.html?pagewanted=all

Alonzo-ny
August 15th, 2009, 05:57 AM
“Down with Germany.”

Why is this always the reaction? Like the Danish cartoons, all of Denmark bore the wrath. Why is the whole country always tarred with the same brush?

ablarc
August 15th, 2009, 08:08 AM
^ Prejudice is contagious.

http://www.worldofquotes.com/topic/prejudice/index.html

MidtownGuy
August 15th, 2009, 10:53 AM
Antonello da Messina’s “St. Sebastian,” now beside a Congo fetish sculpture

This line made me chuckle.

Ninjahedge
August 17th, 2009, 09:51 AM
People are stupid.

It is always eaiser to hate a people than a person. For a person, you need a reason, for a people, all you need is an emotion.

ZippyTheChimp
August 26th, 2009, 06:29 PM
Muslim woman told to remove
scarf sues Mich. judge

By BEN LEUBSDORF (AP) – 1 hour ago

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — A Muslim woman on Wednesday sued a Michigan judge for telling her to remove her headscarf in his courtroom, claiming he violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

Raneen Albaghdady, 32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom. The headscarf, which does not cover the face, is worn by many Muslims in the U.S.

"This is the country and the land of freedom, and we're not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf," the Dearborn Heights woman said at a news conference Wednesday at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relation's Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Callahan and Wayne County.

A courtroom video of the hearing shows Albaghdady appearing before Callahan wearing a loose headscarf.

"No hats allowed in the courtroom," Callahan told her.

"This one?" she asked, touching her scarf. "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Albaghdady pushed back her headscarf for the rest of the hearing on her request to change her name. Callahan denied the request on technical grounds.

"Judge Callahan and the court have the greatest respect for spiritual practices and all religious preferences," Callahan said in a statement released by the court. "Had he been informed that the head covering had some religious significance, the judge would have permitted Ms. Albaghdady to continue wearing it in court."

Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said Wednesday she was intimidated by Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.

"I come from a country where you can't say no to a judge in a courtroom," she said.

Some Muslims believe Islamic law requires women to wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not a close relative.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order judges in Wayne County to allow the wearing of the headscarf in court.

Wayne County, which includes Detroit, is home to one of the nation's largest Muslim populations.

In another situation involving veils, the Michigan Supreme Court voted June 17 to give judges wide authority over the appearance of witnesses. The rule was adopted after a Muslim woman refused to remove her niqab, or face veil, while testifying in a 2006 small-claims case. Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk dismissed Ginnnah Muhammad's case as a result.

Albaghdady appeared before Callahan the day before the state Supreme Court approved the rule. Her lawsuit does not challenge it or address the issue of face veils, said her attorney, Nabih Ayad.

"That's for a later case," he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press

Fabrizio
August 26th, 2009, 06:57 PM
IMHO: If it is true that "no hats are allowed in the court room" then that should include all head coverings. Otherwise the law should be changed so that hats are allowed too.

Ninjahedge
August 27th, 2009, 10:33 AM
I think we are getting too caught up in the technicalities. So long as the hat does not cover the face, or make it difficult to identify the individual (or is distractingin some ourtageous way) then there is NO reason other than outdated dictates of propriety from ages long gone by.

She should not have been required to remove it, but at the same time she should not be allowed a suit other than minor restitution.

Also, this REALLY DOES NOT MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!


!!!!!!


Strange how we get so caught up in these meaningless little cases, only to have people screaming that this is ruining the USA and costing us billions, therefore we should not be allowed to sue for anything, yadda yadda yadda. Just wait for Hannity, Rush and O'Reilley to get onto this one. :p

ZippyTheChimp
August 27th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Generally, US courtrooms require the removal of hats. I was asked to remove my hat while waiting in "traffic court" (Don't ask why I was there; a waste of time for both me and the state). Preserving the dignity of traffic court - LOL.

Allowances are made for religious headgear - turbans, yarmulkes, head scarves, etc. A conflict usually arises when a lawyer or witness wears religious headgear at a case where it is perceived that it might influence the jury.

The Wayne County incident seems to be an etiquette thing.

The woman should have asked the judge what he was wearing under his robe.

Fabrizio
August 27th, 2009, 10:53 AM
IMHO allowances should not be made. The law is the law. If no hats are allowed, why should headscarves be allowed? And no exceptions for religious reasons: there is supposed to be separation of Church and State.

ZippyTheChimp
August 27th, 2009, 10:54 AM
It's a law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7mjoxHzm4

Ninjahedge
August 27th, 2009, 02:18 PM
Fab, seperation is different than exclusion.

The presence of state should not remove all presentation of religion. State should not SPONSOR, FORBID or REQUIRE religion.

This hat in the courtroom is as silly as declaring an official color for all those in the court.

Fabrizio
August 27th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Then end the ban on hats in the courtroom.

Hat: hat (ht) n. 1. A covering for the head, especially one with a shaped crown and brim.

(The idea behind such a ban is probably not so illogical and silly though).

If exceptions about dress are made on religious grounds, then the burqa would be fine too.

Ninjahedge
August 27th, 2009, 04:54 PM
Then end the ban on hats in the courtroom.

Hat: hat (ht) n. 1. A covering for the head, especially one with a shaped crown and brim.

(The idea behind such a ban is probably not so illogical and silly though).

If exceptions about dress are made on religious grounds, then the burqa would be fine too.

No. That would interfere in the identification of the individual involved.

I know what you are saying Fab, but I can't see your all-or-nothing option as feasable in todays world.

I do not like the lame hat rule either, but trying to tie religious expression into an argument about an otherwise stupid dress code is a slippery slope.

Quite frankly, I think the religious requirements requiring hats in the first place is silly, but to each their own.

Fabrizio
August 27th, 2009, 05:37 PM
I know what you are saying Fab, but I can't see your all-or-nothing option as feasable in todays world.

The all-or-nothing option is probably the most feasable in today's world.

lofter1
August 27th, 2009, 06:31 PM
Is it allowable to wear a Yarmulke (http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm#Yarmulke) in a courtroom?

ZippyTheChimp
August 27th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Fab, seperation is different than exclusion.
Yep. "Separation of church and State" is often applied to the First Amendment, but without an understanding of what the amendment guarantees.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Establishment of religion: there can be no church of the United States, or any law favoring one religion over others.

Free exercise thereof: What we're talking about here.

The phrase separation of church and state is believed to have been coined by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The First amendment doesn't protect government from religion; it protects religion from government. The Establishment Clause has been tested over the years as it applies to the national motto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Legal_status).

However, In Jesus We Trust, In Allah We Trust, or In Yahweh We Trust would be struck down as unconstitutional.

ZippyTheChimp
August 27th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Is it allowable to wear a Yarmulke (http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm#Yarmulke) in a courtroom?Yes.

lofter1
August 27th, 2009, 08:28 PM
Then it's pretty hard to justify denying anyone else who opts to wear religious head ware.

Seems in the Michigan case the problem arose because the women didn't tell the judge that she wore her scarf for religious reasons. But the judge (insensitive -- or ignorant? -- lout) should have asked that of her before he demanded that she remove the scarf.