Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Burka ban

Options
24567…138

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I don't think a ban is "right" per se, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with some unnecessary measure that stems Islamification.

    There. I've said it.


  • Options
    #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    And yes I think it's wrong for nurses to wear crosses if they are prevented from wearing other jewellery.
    That story was spun quite well by the usual suspects. The nurse concerned was allowed to wear her cross inside her clothes, or pinned to her uniform. However, she turned down these offers and demanded that she be allowed to wear it in on a chain around her neck instead. The administrators were reasonably and rightly concerned that a neck-chain would be liable to be yanked by confused patients, so they denied her request, she bleated "Discrimination!", refused to back down, went to court and ultimately lost her case quite recently.


  • Options
    #34
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    AFAIK, it is not stated anywhere in the Koran that women should wear Burkas. I believe they are told to dress modestly and cover their heads and personally I don't have a problem with that and I imagine most people have similar feelings about this.
    If religion can't be used as an excuse to wear a burka, then Muslims will have to give a good reason why some of their women want (or are forced) to wear a burka.


  • Options
    #35
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    This is more about normalising Muslims into European society.
    I suggest you try going shopping with a paper bag on your head and see how you fair.
    All societies impose their morals through their laws, but perhaps you feel religions should have a special place and be held above such concerns.

    LOL

    Many muslims want to wear the burka, many don't I'm sure, but imposing a blanket ban on a garment is certainly not putting religion in a special place as you put it.

    Will people be allowed wear one at home? What about turbans, poor aul sheiks, not conforming with our catholic doctrine. Ireland, which has such a good history with legislation based on religious views, should stamp out this oppressive headwear altogether.


  • Options
    #36
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I'm religious and support the ban
    stupidly obvious statement:
    In order to ban the burka you have to define what you're banning...
    If you ban all garments that obscure the face then all visors will have to be clear...
    If you ban too specific a garment then it's pointless as they'll just have to wear a different style of face covering garb.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    I'm religious and support the ban
    The burka debate is all about the assertion of political authority, or in simpler terms, who runs the country. On the one hand, people in Europe are pretty free to wear whatever they want once it doesn't frighten the horses. On the other hand, islamic and other religious leaders have used this freedom to force their client populations, using the usual range of subtle and unsubtle manipulative tactics, to wear exactly what the leaders want. In this way, the freedom to wear something paradoxically (and cleverly) becomes a means to subvert the freedom.

    Anyhow, when basic freedoms are being denied, it's the unpleasant job of the State to step in an reassert the freedom by banning the class of clothes which religious leaders use to deny the freedom.

    But it isn't the state's job to protect people from their own gullibility. People should be free to follow whatever ideology they want, even if it is an oppressive and bigoted one. The basic freedom in this case is the freedom to choose your religion, not the freedom to go against the dress code of a club you yourself have chosen to join.*

    Also, the burka is just a symbol. Banning the burka will not ease the oppression of women who've been conned into a religion that forces them to cover their faces (although AFAIK this isn't actually the case in Islam) and may actually be counter productive if these women are only allowed to set foot outside their homes when covered. The religion itself is at the heart of this oppression, but I hope nobody thinks it'd be a good idea to go down the road of banning religions.


    *I am of course talking about women who are Muslim by choice here. I think the issue of women being forced to wear the burka is something of a red herring, since this is in the realm domestic abuse and should be dealt with under domestic abuse laws.


  • Options
    #38
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    *I am of course talking about women who are Muslim by choice here. I think the issue of women being forced to wear the burka is something of a red herring, since this is in the realm domestic abuse and should be dealt with under domestic abuse laws.

    As I already discussed, trying to prosecute a man for putting social pressure on a woman to dress a certain way is entirely unfeasible. If it even counts as some form of coercion, there is no way in hell that a woman under their thumb would testify against them.


  • Options
    #39
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Does dictating to someone what they can and cannot wear not go against the aims of "liberating" women?

    Do Gooder: You can take off your burqa now, you've been liberated from religiously inspired male tyranny.

    Muslim Gal: Er, I quite like wearing my burqa actually. Thanks for your concern but I'm capable of dressing yourself.

    Do Gooder: 'Fraid not. You're oppressed and so delusional you don't even know you're being oppressed. Therefore, it's up to me to make such decisions for you. You can thank me later.

    Muslim Gal: Feck this, if I wanted to be patronised, and talked down to I'd have stayed in Yemen.


  • Options
    #40
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    So if a society decides that atheism or homosexuality is unacceptable, and if the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly, is that OK with you?
    Clearly there are some things enshrined in our laws I find disagreeable with or others do.
    But I like others should adhere to the laws. But unlike those of a religion I can at least seek to sway my follow citizens to change their minds and repeal/invoke legislature which conforms to my view.
    PDN wrote: »
    but the whole point of a secular democratic society is that we tolerate stuff we don't agree with, not that we just tolerate the stuff we like anyway.
    Actually no, A secular democracy is one which adheres to democratic principles and does not assign specific privileges to religion.
    Your proposition is one where you have a democratic vote and then ignore the majority :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #41
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Many muslims want to wear the burka, many don't I'm sure, but imposing a blanket ban on a garment is certainly not putting religion in a special place as you put it.
    I said the reverse, its because of religion having a 'special' place that a woman in a burka can walk around obscured in public spaces, but for example you couldn't since you're not doing it for religious reasons.
    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Will people be allowed wear one at home? What about turbans, poor aul sheiks, not conforming with our catholic doctrine. Ireland, which has such a good history with legislation based on religious views, should stamp out this oppressive headwear altogether.
    Its about public spaces.
    Nor is it a law that removes religious garb, the hi-jab for example is not affected. If you want to wear just a pillow case on your head and run around your house knock yourself out, just don't be surprised if society 'oppresses' you when you try to do it outside on the street.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    old_aussie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Laws are usually passed by people who are elected by a majority vote.

    If the majority of people want the burka banned(except in the muslims home) then make is so number 1.

    majority rules apply in public.

    so a minority want to run around nude in public, just cause it's a democracy doesn't mean they can do it.


  • Options
    #43
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I have to admit I'm in two minds about that.
    In my view, nobody should be allowed or able to dictate anybody how they want to dress.
    However, most countries unfortunately still have legislation regulating a minimum of clothing for either sex. So in that vein, imposing regulation for a permitted maximum doesn't seem that far out.

    Personally, I'd love to see both done away with. If people want to walk around dressed as black wardrobes or stark naked should really be entirely up to them.


  • Options
    #44
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm religious and support the ban
    old_aussie wrote: »
    Laws are usually passed by people who are elected by a majority vote.

    If the majority of people want the burka banned(except in the muslims home) then make is so number 1.

    majority rules apply in public.

    so a minority want to run around nude in public, just cause it's a democracy doesn't mean they can do it.

    I always feel very uneasy when democracy is cited on equality matters.... rights should be the same for everybody, regardless if they're minority or majority. And the right to dress as you see fit should really apply to all, in my view.


  • Options
    #45
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kiffer wrote: »
    People should be allowed to wear what they like, but should not be able to force people to wear identity hiding clothes... I was going to say should not be able to force people to wear clothes but that would stop schools and various jobs having uniforms... And
    adding an exception for uniforms would allow schools to have them as a uniform... The question is are any of those 30 women being forced and if so is such forcing covered under existing law?


    Is there any law that forced you to be indentifiable at all times when in public?
    Even German law which is rather harsh on the subject only forced you to not cover your face whne you are engaging in any form of public political demonstration...


  • Options
    #46
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #47
    Truley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I think mini skirts should be banned. How do you know women aren't being forced to wear them? In fact I would wager there are alot more women in this country being coerced into wearing mini skirts than burkas.


  • Options
    #48
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    Truley wrote: »
    I think mini skirts should be banned. How do you know women aren't being forced to wear them? In fact I would wager there are alot more women in this country being coerced into wearing mini skirts than burkas.

    Actually, you may have a point there Truley although I don't think coercion is the right word, I think brainwashing might be more approppriate.


  • Options
    #49
    Truley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Splendour wrote: »
    Actually, you may have a point there Truley although I don't think coercion is the right word, I think brainwashing might be more approppriate.

    Ah but how do you know that? I bet lots of women are being forced into it, prostitutes, or women with abusive partners? Best to ban it just in case.


  • Options
    #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    But it isn't the state's job to protect people from their own gullibility. People should be free to follow whatever ideology they want, even if it is an oppressive and bigoted one.
    Yes, up to a point that's true. In essence, it's the classic political dilemma about how much one polity can tolerate a newer, competing one which rejects, in certain areas at least, the authority of the first polity.

    To look at it in starker terms, what about this guy? Yes, his legal system rightly permits him to believe what he wants, but he actually believes that his religious beliefs outrank the legal system that provides him the freedom to believe what he wants in the first place.
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Also, the burka is just a symbol.
    The burka isn't "just a symbol", it's a powerful medium in which to deliver a firm message of political identity and loyalty, and the loyalty is signals is typically not to the state, at least in western Europe anyway. And that's a problem that the state must, unfortunately, address sooner or later.


  • Options
    #51
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    The burka isn't "just a symbol", it's a powerful medium in which to deliver a firm message of political identity and loyalty, and the loyalty is signals is typically not to the state, at least in western Europe anyway. And that's a problem that the state must, unfortunately, address sooner or later.

    Just a thought, but what about a state sanctioned burka then? One whose shape and colour is designed by the state (maybe a flag of the nation you live in?), but significantly different from the islamic one?
    If the women who want to wear the burka are doing it for purely modesty reasons, how it looks should be entirely irrelevent and by having the design state chosen, it may back up the unconscious idea that, ultimately approval of the burka is state sanctioned, not religion.
    Maybe best of both worlds, maybe I've forgotten something very important?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    maybe I've forgotten something very important?

    Freedom?

    You could always put a yellow star on them.


  • Options
    #53
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #54
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #55
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    Freedom?

    If the burka is truely just about modesty, then what it looks like is irrelevent, so saying it has to be a certain colour/shape wont be infringing on any freedoms.
    PDN wrote: »
    You could always put a yellow star on them.

    I dont understand? Something like a teachers gold star, you mean?


  • Options
    #56
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You really can find pictures of anything on the internet :).


  • Options
    #57
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Not in general, but in the specific case where the symbols disrupt the cohesion of society, or where they provide loopholes for alternate authorities to acquire power from the state, or to implement (as in the case of the burka) a subtle system to oppress the rights of half the population, then sooner or later the state will probably have to intervene to reassert its authority as well as the rights of the disenfranchised segment of the population.

    This is easier to see in the context of the example above, of the Nigerian senator who married a 13-year old and declared himself above the law. As indeed do most religious people when one manages to (a) get them to understand the question and (b) get them to answer it -- though in practice most religious people don't act out their contra-legal fantasies, as this Nigerian bloke did.

    .


  • Options
    #58
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Is there any law that forced you to be indentifiable at all times when in public?
    Even German law which is rather harsh on the subject only forced you to not cover your face whne you are engaging in any form of public political demonstration...

    When I buy petrol I am delayed for several minutes, every time, by the fact that I must remove my helmet and show my face then go to the trouble of putting it back on again. Many petrol stations will not switch on the pumps until I have taken it off. So yes, I am being forced to be identifiable in public. I have no problem with that.
    Of course I could just say that "biking" is my religion and that I have to keep it on for modesty reasons. So then that would be ok yeah?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    It's not about being offended, it's not offensive that someone covers themselves up. It is about recognition and identification. That's all. If you refuse to allow yourself to be identified in public what are you hiding? What are you up to?


  • Options
    #59
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Not in general, but in the specific case where the symbols disrupt the cohesion of society, or where they provide loopholes for alternate authorities to acquire power from the state, or to implement (as in the case of the burka) a subtle system to oppress the rights of half the population, then sooner or later the state will probably have to intervene to reassert its authority.

    This is easier to see in the context of the example above, of the Nigerian senator who married a 13-year old and declared himself above the law. As indeed do most religious people when one manages to (a) get them to understand the question and (b) get them to answer it -- though in practice most religious people don't out their contra-legal fantasies, as this Nigerian bloke did.

    Oh great! Justify the illiberal act of telling people what clothes they are allowed to wear by invoking the spectre of paedophilia on another continent. :(


  • Options
    #60
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Just a thought, but what about a state sanctioned burka then? One whose shape and colour is designed by the state (maybe a flag of the nation you live in?), but significantly different from the islamic one?
    That's an interesting idea and it's analogous to the policy that the Chinese government has adopted in respect of christian churches, where preachers must acknowledge the ultimate authority of the state (or communist party, which comes to much the same thing).

    However, as some posters might confirm, there are various underground religious movements within China which reject the claim of the state to be the ultimate authority, a position which the religious movement typically reserves for itself and its belief system. Again, much as our Nigerian friend and his 13-year old wife have done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    If you refuse to allow yourself to be identified in public what are you hiding? What are you up to?
    This argument is ridiculous; why do people keep repeating it? When it's cold, I often wear a hood with a scarf around my face. Should that be banned too?


Advertisement