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
12467…138

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Still and all, better than flying planes into skyscrapers, eh?

    .....the ****?


  • Options
    #93
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Makes your argument very weak when you have to edit my quote to something i did not say. :rolleyes:

    Not really when the only 'argument' you can hold against western society is behaviour that is condemned by that very same society. Makes your 'argument' a non-sense to begin with.


  • Options
    #94
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Still and all, better than flying planes into skyscrapers, eh?

    Now now robin, its well known that the CIA drove those buildings into those planes piloted by innocent peace-loving Muslims.


  • Options
    #95
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    Where? I don't know of any country where it is a "legal requirement".

    Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and Afghanistan (while it was under the Taliban).
    I personally know women who choose to wear the veil, even though other members of their family do not do so. How many Muslim veil wearing women do you personally know?

    None. Why?


  • Options
    #96
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    im seeing a lot of overeducated, overcomoplicated arguments here. anything can be justified if talked about long enough. you cant wear a motorcycle helmet walking into a bank or a ski mask in a school. its not authoritarian or dictorial to make people show there faces. Like i said earlier when in rome do as the romans do. when im in iraq ill wear a burka, assuming im female. i mightnt like it but i wont force my dislike of it onto someone elses culture and not wear it. its the law not a mass genocide.


  • Options
    #98
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


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

    I would agree that the problem will not be automatically solved, and the rights of women who freely choose to conceal themselves will be infringed upon. But if that serves as a stepping stone to a more complete liberation then so be it. I don't see the banning of the burqa as any more authoritative or oppressive than forcing people to wear clothes in public.


  • Options
    #99
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, you're almost right. But it's a victory which used authoritarinism to uphold liberalism, a victory which was necessary in the first place, because authoritarianism subverted liberalism.


  • Options
    #100
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, you're almost right. But it's a victory which used authoritarinism to uphold liberalism, a victory which was necessary in the first place, because authoritarianism subverted liberalism.

    I totally agree. Hitler had a lot of liberal ideas. One cant co exist without the other. A moral decision like this cant be won by giving into one groups wants and needs because its the easier thing to do. If we were too give into everyone personal choices we'd living in an anarchy. Liberalist attitudes can lead to extremes as well as authorative attitides. a medium has too be found. this is usually called 'common sense'.


  • Options
    #101
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    And, as I said above, liberalism can only work where there is no manipulation or coercion. This is not the case and I don't quite understand why you're ignoring the one fact upon which this entire debate turns.


  • Options
    #104
    Frei
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭Frei


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    When you are in Muslim countries are you expected to cover up in accordance with the prevailing culture? I think you are expected to. I know that banning something is different, but I do find hypocrisy in the fact that Westerners over in Dubai or other places are not allowed to do certain things that over here would be fine, and they stick to the rules (usually)

    I detest all religions equally, but I do think that Islam has to be one of the most anti-female religions on this earth. It is one thing wearing a hijab but covering up women from head to toe is just disturbing.


  • Options
    #105
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #106
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    It's not going to solve it, but it's going to cut it down and that's a good start.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    As I've pointed out several times already and won't bother pointing out again, you're ignoring the central fact, namely that there is coercion and maipulation. In which case, it's quite reasonable for the state, with the support of the liberals (though not the libertarians), to step in a protect the rights of the coerced and manipulated.

    I'm sure John Galt would have cheerfully left them rot :)


  • Options
    #107
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sure John Galt would have cheerfully left them rot :)
    Ha ha ha that made me choke on my coffee.


  • Options
    #108
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Sure it can, we're happy with the idea of "banning" people walking naked, maybe you're not (you mightn't me of course but you'd be in the minority), and as far as I can see nakedness (of others) doesn't cause any actual harm - so once we accept that the way people can dress (or not) can offend others then the rest is just debating the details - if tyou can stop people being naked in public because they 'offend' then you could certainly ban the burka for the same reason.

    I'm kind of torn on this, I think people should be free to wear anything (or nothing), however the practical implications of masked people I find a little troubling.

    There was a recent backlash against "hoodies" (if not here then certainly in the UK), and I think nobody would be happy if a hooligan element in our society started wearing facemasks all the time as they drunkenly wandered the city center at night.

    A la the "No motorcycle helmets" rule, what would happen if shops started to ban people with their faces covered (on the basis that it makes identification of shoplifters impossible) - is that also fair? Women wearing a burka free to use public property but banned from most shops?


  • Options
    #109
    checkyabadself
    Registered Users Posts: 471 ✭✭checkyabadself


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I think burkas are oppressive and purely a tool used by extremely jealous husbands/fathers to keep prying eyes from their wives/daughters, whilst at the same time holding as many wives as they see fit, which is unbalanced as usual.

    Burkas are not needed for modesty as set out in the koran, they serve no other purpose than to oppress a person and deny them an individuality and reduces a human being to the level of property or livestock.

    Part of me ( the rational and politically correct part) wants to say no to the ban as its unfair in normal circumstances. I`d be okay with it if they were removed in the same way a motorcyclist conforms with the accepted norms, concerning entry to shops, banks, etc, but I dont see them adapting in anyway, (look at the drawings of muhammed as proof)

    The other part of me (the really honest part) wants to say, the more we can do in a civilized society to end the poisonous practices of muslims, the better. I`ve no problem with people having and following their faith, but burkas have nothing to do with islam, just another way of reducing women to a sub human level.


  • Options
    #110
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    checkyabadself wrote: »
    The other part of me (the really honest part) wants to say, the more we can do in a civilized society to end the poisonous practices of muslims, the better. I`ve no problem with people having and following their faith, but burkas have nothing to do with islam, just another way of reducing women to a sub human level.
    Must say I agree with you, its a mistake for this to be viewed as a West vs Islam issue, when really its a case of Western values vs. Arab/Wahhabi ideology.

    Islam managed to spread itself extensively around the globe, but it wasn't until the advent of Saudi oil that facilitated the spread of the Wahhabi derivative of Islam that the burka emerged as a global issue rather than one confined to a particular cultural grouping.

    The burka is potent symbol of this misogynistic theocratic ideology. An ideology which is not simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and personal liberties but actively hostile to them.

    Its also worth noting opposition to the Wahhabi/Burka is also present in other Islamic countries, with leading clerics there speaking out against it.

    imho etc etc.


  • Options
    #111
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #113
    Bus77II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 159 ✭✭Bus77II


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, but a woman in a Burka has no abillity to take part in any of these movements by her peers. And has very limited options when it come to following the clothing 'norms' in sociality also. Such as in employment.
    Your defending options she cant avail of. Peer groups she cant join.
    This is why I don't agree with Burkas in our society.

    But, do I agree with a hard and fast law banning them? No. Because, if the ideal I want to promote is choice and freedom to move freely socially. Then it's just plain anti-ethical to send a policeman (who himself wears a uniform) to someone's door and have them say ''I want you and your kids to be able to take better part in pluralistic society, clothing wise. Now, get that off you!''.

    What I would support is a bit of ''timed legislation'' for each family. Not a ban on first generation wearers but some sort of agreement that it is not to carry on fully to the second generation.


  • Options
    #114
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #115
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes *places*, not everywhere, anywhere at any time. Look let's go back to your original statement:

    'The very question "Should we ban burqas?" only discloses a belief system that is deeply antithetical to individual liberty. It cannot be represented as anything else.'

    Do you also agree with the very question "should we ban teachers being naked" only discloses a belief system that is deeply antithetical to individual liberty".

    Anyway we already live in state where our liberties are curtailed, now your arguing against adding more is admirable, but unless we can go all the way, allow people to be naked, repeal the anti-libertarian seatbelt and motorcycle helmet legislation etc. then you are just making a special case for the burka based on a general rule that is not implemented across the board.

    The bottom line is that, in a liberal pluralist country, it should not be a crime to offend someone. Choosing what to wear is both an individual choice and an expressive act. Whether someone chooses to express conformity with a shirt and tie, or rebellion with a pink mohawk and safety pin through the nose, is up to the individual. Such matters should never be legislated by the state.

    But specifically what about the masked/anonymous aspect of it, in general is it OK for people to go around in public masked? and if so, would it be equally fine for private premises to refuse access to masked individuals?


  • Options
    #116
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    If this is genuinely about addressing muslims womens rights when living in western countries then a burqua ban is teh wrong tool. To my knowledge the only way of lifting a disadvantaged or oppressed group out and onto a level footing is through education. Enforcing mandatory schooling for all children, secularising education to broaden individuals horizons, encouraging all children to progress as far academically as they can and to eventually find work outside the home will do more to remove muslim female oppression than a blanket ban on an item of cloathing.


  • Options
    #117
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    If this is genuinely about addressing muslims womens rights when living in western countries then a burqua ban is teh wrong tool. To my knowledge the only way of lifting a disadvantaged or oppressed group out and onto a level footing is through education. Enforcing mandatory schooling for all children, secularising education to broaden individuals horizons, encouraging all children to progress as far academically as they can and to eventually find work outside the home will do more to remove muslim female oppression than a blanket ban on an item of cloathing.

    There is no way any government here would bring in that sort of legislation. Apart from the tentacles CC ltd. has stuck in the educational system, you'd have every other religious whack-job up in arms if you tried to enforce that.

    I voted for btw. Got to start somewhere. and any step will be fraught.


  • Options
    #118
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    I'm religious and support the ban
    My problem is that they're specifically targeting Muslims, I would be much happier if they banned balaclavas, and put burkhas in the same catagory.


  • Options
    #119
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I'm religious and support the ban
    cypharius wrote: »
    My problem is that they're specifically targeting Muslims, I would be much happier if they banned balaclavas, and put burkhas in the same catagory.

    And
    motorcycle helmets with tinted visors and fancydress costumes and advertising costumes?


  • Options
    #120
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kiffer wrote: »
    And
    motorcycle helmets with tinted visors and fancydress costumes and advertising costumes?

    Yes actualy, unless they are riding a motorcycle or are playing paintball people don't need to hide their faces.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement