Yep it's definitely a cultural thing. I think it really is mostly to suppress women and not as a way one shows their religion which one does by living and not by clothing.

Historically, the veil was considered a huge step forward for women's rights/freedoms as it allowed them to leave the house more than three times in their life. Before that, they left the house to marry and move from their father's home to their husband's and when they died....and maybe I am misremembering that number of "three times" or maybe I just can't remember the third instance.

(I'm a woman. I've had a college class in Women's History. FWIW.)

Point is, islam was a progressive religion. But many countries took it in as a regressive one since they were also taking in customs from the culture which islam was supposed to progress.

Which totally misses the point. You shouldn't have been importing burqua if women were already were allowed to go outside without it.

The reality is that progress tends to be a case of two steps forward and one step back. It's also reality that this is true in part because people come up with these theoretical ideals of equality or something and they sometimes don't work in practical reality.

Additionally, one way to spread religion is to be tolerant of the existing culture of the people you are hoping to spread the religion to. This is Christianity is associated with a lot of holidays that have seemingly inane and random traditions, such as Easter and Easter Bunnies and hiding Easter eggs.

What on earth do bunnies and hiding eggs have to do with each other, much less the risen Christ? Not much, but it's some pagan set of traditions that got tolerated by the Christian church and that's how you have bunnies and hidden eggs all wrapped up with the risen Christ.

https://www.history.com/topics/holidays/history-of-easter

Yes, I'm mainly complaining about the reverse happening with islam's spread (due to it being spread by wars). Instead of islam progressively adapting to each country's culture, it brought regressive practices with it.

Well, now they'll have to stay at home again...which is what the fascists who brought that in actually wanted. They just don't want to see them on the streets.

It's kinda sad that so many supported this and I'm happy that this wide ban would (probably...) be unconstitutional in Germany.

Someone not letting their wife out because burqua is banned is outright abuse, and should be dealt with that way. It isn't even a common piece of clothing in the majority of muslim countries. (+1 point to horseshoe theory: apparently islam forbids women to go out without burquas according to both extreme leftists and rightists, bu noone else)

How should you deal with it when you're not even seeing it and can't even prove that the woman is being held in her home against her will if her will is already so weak that she'd wear a burka? This is what I meant: you just make the problem disappear from the public with that measure. You don't solve anything and make it actually worse for the women.

I don't even know how you get the leftists in there but at this point I'm too afraid to ask...