So not electing the fascist leads to

Austria’s governing coalition has agreed to ban full-face veils in courts, schools and other “public places” as part of a reform programme aimed at countering the rise of the far-Right in the country.

The agreement was made between the ruling coalition of Social Democrats and the centrist People’s party as Chancellor Christian Kern attempts to regain the political initiative from the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) ahead of next year’s parliamentary election.

“The full-face veil will be banned in public spaces,” Mr Kern said after the week-long negotiations concluded, adding that the ban will be implemented over the next 18 months.

I think I can just about manage it in banks and witness boxes but in public in general? We don’t ban balaclavas, do we?

23 thoughts on “So not electing the fascist leads to”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    A new 35-page document also says that migrants granted the right to stay in Austria will be forced to sign an ‘integration contract’ and a ‘statement of values’. … ‘Those who are not prepared to accept Enlightenment values will have to leave our country and society,’ the text says.

    That is interesting because I don’t accept “Enlightenment” values – that is, the decadent, child murdering sexual deviancy that defines the modern EU. Good thing I am not living in Austria.

    However the problem is still there – because we accept people alien to our values and civilisation, liberal values are slowly dying. They can die all at once, or they can die this sort of death by a thousand cuts. But they will die unless we reduce this cancer in society to zero.

  2. Whilst I understand the thinking behind this, I really don’t think I want government to be making laws about fashion.

    Especially when you look at what MPs wear….

  3. David Moore

    Ah, but it is being done by good people, so it’s OK.

    Banning stuff like this is ridiculous. OTOH, I think we should be free to use Koranic toilet paper if we want and the Muslims should be told – “freedom for all, including the bigots. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.”

  4. @ken: Agreed, but failure to allow any dissent and constantly letting them trample everyone else’s rights leads to this sort of thing.

    Eventually, the pendulum swings, and it tends to swing wildly to the other side for a brief period.

  5. It is wrong because the scum of the state have no business telling anyone how to dress. It is a pathetic attempt to con mugs that the Austrian boss class is doing “something” about the RoP invasion and takeover while allowing that invasion and takeover to continue.

  6. I looked at the Mail photo captioned – (file photo of residents leaving Aleppo in Syria) – wondering how long it’ll be before you’ll see one captioned – residents leaving Somethington in Whatevershire?
    Would Maidenhead would tolerate refugees from Barnsley, perhaps?

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    JuliaM – “no, because not all Muslims insist on full face veil for their womenfolk. The ones that do are the ones to be rid of.”

    Well no. A lot of Islamist terrorists are not notably religious. They just hate us. A lot. The religion doesn’t have to be observed to have an effect.

    I suggest a £10 poll tax. Which is to be spent on candles in a local Catholic Church and/or Hindu temple. Ideally no Muslim would stay. But those that did would be the ones that had no problems with paying for other people’s pagan rituals.

  8. To counter the rise of the far right, the moderate parties have agreed to lock up all darkies and poofs in concentration camps.

  9. Generally speaking I agree that the government has no business banning veils where it wouldn’t also ban other forms of face covering. Insisting on being covered up in court and in official photos shouldn’t be tolerated; wearing whatever you like at other times should be.

    The best counter-argument I’ve seen is that Radical Islam is political in a way that modern Westerners can’t understand (though our ancestors would have done). You can be a Muslim and not cover up – doing so is an expression of a politico-religious ethos inimical to liberal society. Of course, I don’t agree with banning political uniforms either, but this is Austria we’re talking about.

  10. @Charlie Suet,

    I’ve long said that Socialism / Communism was a religion masquerading as a socioeconomic political system, and Islam is a socioeconomic political system masquerading as a religion.

    Hence the similarities, and the way lefties react to both.

    It seems very, very difficult for many people to distinguish purely-religious moderate islam and political islam, which is totalitarian to varying degrees.

    If people would actually go and read the Koran in cronological order, they might understand this better…

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Charlie Suet – “Of course, I don’t agree with banning political uniforms either, but this is Austria we’re talking about.”

    I am not convinced the Austrians should ban political uniforms. They are mostly harmless. Lederhosen on the other hand are an abomination unto Nuggan. A sensible country would outlaw them.

    And, needless to say, make dirndl compulsory. At least for anyone female, nubile and under 28. Actually that could solve some of their Muslim problems.

  12. “We don’t ban balaclavas, do we?”

    No – we don’t have to because a sizable minority of the ppulation don’t normally cut about wearing them and nor are they a form of dress forced upon people due to misogyny.

    And good luck trying to carry out normal daily life wearing a balaclava without quickly finding yourself treated with distrust or hostility by normal people – or even stopped and asked some questions by the police.

    Unless you’re a violent lefitst at some daft protest in which case you can wear one and do whatever you want without fear of consequences.

  13. A balaclava shows your face. A ski mask is what most people mean.

    Or a “Terror Hood”. Ah I remember the good old days of the 70s when The Sunday Post shat itself with outrage that ordinary people could purchase a £2.50 “terror hood” by mail. No internet then.

    It was up there as a hot topic with Brucellosis and the invasion of Scotland by giant Hogweed.

    I guess they should have been bothered about invasions more dangerous than giant Hogweed.

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    I have a “terror hood”, and yes I remember the faux outrage that they could be bought mail order. It has proved to be very for overnight cross channel sailing in January.

  15. A full-head cloth hood with two round eye-holes as opposed to the ski-mask type.

    They were used by the IRA/UDA and by the violent criminal blaggers of the era.

    The Sunday Post had a stupid bansturbation campaign because you could buy them for £2.50 from some obscure source. K-Tel possibly but who knows?

    As if the villian’s grannies couldn’t knit them one.

  16. Mr Ecks,


    Two eye-holes, no mouth hole describes what I wear under crash helmet, but not knitted by granny type.

    Re: UDA – typo? Did you mean UVF?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *