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
Remember the minarets?
Options
Comments
-
More than likely. Persecuting people for being catholic didn't work here. Trying to force the people to become more secular in Iran made them more religous. Theres a clear pattern that people seem to be willfully ignoring.
And now the religious fundamentalism in that country is creating a generation who have distaste for such regimes. Round and round we go.BlaasForRafa wrote: »Why should secular people suffer for the irrational superstitions of religious people. Islam and christianity are as deserving of as much respect as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Exactly. Islam is no better than belief in the FSM. Or belief in... my personal deity which is a giant blob of green paint in space. This deity commands me to walk around naked in public, but unfortunately I am persecuted by our nations laws. If I am to be persecuted for my extreme "dress code", why do people get away with the exact opposite of my desired actions? Are their personal beliefs higher than mine? Why? Just let us all wear what we want!0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »Why should secular people suffer for the irrational superstitions of religious people. Islam and christianity are as deserving of as much respect as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm not suffering......I despised the sight of women in platform shoes, which were "in" for a while. Did it kill me? No. Did I want them banned? No. If somebodys clothing (or lack thereof) makes you "suffer", then I'd suggest the problem lies with you and not them. People should be free to do much as they please with a minimum amount of interference from others. That covers everything from smoking grass to going off to pray to their version of the big sky fairy.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Would you say that these are also for xenophobic reasons?
Nope, in that case, it has more to do with secularism.
I would also like to point out that the people of Tunisia, have very little say in there governments running, as it is a police state.
In the case of Turkey, the government tried to change the law regarding the Hijab (it was an election promise), but the Supreme court, put the kibosh on that.0 -
It`s great gas really....I`m reminded of the Skibbereen Eagle`s stern warning to Tsar Nicholas of Russia........"We`re watchin ye !!"
For a country which has made indecision,obfuscation and criminal negligence a National Pastime,Ireland (Or more particularly it`s citizenry) has little "right" to lecture the Swiss on anything.
I`d recommend that since there`s nothing here to see,we`re moved right along and put to cleaning up our countryside and attempting to stop serial savages from smashing up bus-shelters and vomiting on one`s shoes ! :rolleyes:Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
It`s great gas really....I`m reminded of the Skibbereen Eagle`s stern warning to Tsar Nicholas of Russia........"We`re watchin ye !!"
For a country which has made indecision,obfuscation and criminal negligence a National Pastime,Ireland (Or more particularly it`s citizenry) has little "right" to lecture the Swiss on anything.
I`d recommend that since there`s nothing here to see,we`re moved right along and put to cleaning up our countryside and attempting to stop serial savages from smashing up bus-shelters and vomiting on one`s shoes ! :rolleyes:
Very good post. The people of switzerland are to be written off as rabble rousers and biots etc for exercising thier democratic rights to protect thier own culture - how wonderfully liberal of Switzerland's critics. I cant think of the last time swwitzerland invaded anyone or engaged in acts of terrorism, so i suggest we leave the good citizens of Switzerland to make their own minds up.
In any event is there more to be added to the subject than was covered in the 'ban the Burqua thread ?0 -
Advertisement
-
There isn't even the slightest semblance of a hint in the debate here (i.e. Switzerland) thus far that the issue is about protecting Swiss culture.Very good post. The people of switzerland are to be written off as rabble rousers and biots etc for exercising thier democratic rights to protect thier own culture - how wonderfully liberal of Switzerland's critics.
I'm not sure where you get the idea from that this is what is trying to be accomplished.
I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.In any event is there more to be added to the subject than was covered in the 'ban the Burqua thread ?
Maybe I'm mis-remembering...but if that was the case, then clearly that line of reasoning / defence was wrong.
Anyway...I just thought some people might be interested, given the interest at the time in the minaret referendum.0 -
It's moot either way - My point is that, there was never an issue with the way Nuns dressed in the past (which is obviously to cover up). So why should there be one now with Muslims?
When was the last time you saw a nun covering her face in public?
No one is banning headscarves or other clothing items that leave the full face visible.Ah yes - The Modh Coinniollach of politics. Banning stuff arbitrarily on the basis of something that might happen.
If it's good enough for those against the law in Belgium to be against it based on what might happen then I don't see why anyone else should worry about it.
i.e. that proposed law bans anyone from wearing clothing preventing someone from being indentified etc. Of course in the future we all know it is merely going to be used to persecute Muslims via our crystal balls...0 -
There isn't even the slightest semblance of a hint in the debate here (i.e. Switzerland) thus far that the issue is about protecting Swiss culture.
I'm not sure where you get the idea from that this is what is trying to be accomplished.
I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering...but if that was the case, then clearly that line of reasoning / defence was wrong.
Anyway...I just thought some people might be interested, given the interest at the time in the minaret referendum.
Resisting the importation of such obivousily foreign religous/cultural ( and all the bagges that comes along with them) practices would seem to be fit into the category of protecting ones culture. I suppose it is a matter of perspective.
i believe one of the belgian Parliament commottees also has considered such a prohibition.0 -
I started the thread more because I seemed to recall that one of the mindsets on one of the threads relating to the minaret referendum was that it was a meaningless gesture by the Swiss, which wasn't really targetting Muslims at all and that it wasn't like there were going to be further steps taken.
The question really is are there laws in Switzerland against covering your face in any manner in public without a justifiable reason?0 -
As I pointed out in the OP, there isn't any significant numbers. I would add that there is no (reported) indication that it is on the rise, either.Resisting the importation of such obivousily foreign religous/cultural ( and all the bagges that comes along with them) practices would seem to be fit into the category of protecting ones culture. I suppose it is a matter of perspective.
I additionally pointed out that no-one, including the people promoting the issue, are casting it about being about protecting Swiss culture from anything.
I guess it is a matter of perspective.
Taking a move which is discriminatory by its nature and almost-certainly seen as antagonistic, for no direct gain (other than to be discriminatory, and to cause antagonism, if you see those as gains), in order to "protect" against something which isn't a problem and may never become one seems, to me at least, to be a case of losing perspective.
Even if your argument had merit, why only the burqa? Why not the niqab? Why only items of clothing, if its the religious culture in its entirety that culture needs to be protected from? Where should the line be drawn? Where is it reasonable to draw the line?
Remember....its not about things that are problems...its about things that might be problems. It would seem that the only logical conclusion to that line of reasoning is to kick all foreigners out entirely. Forget even the nations that are close neighbours...if anything their cultural influences are more insidious then any others.
For me, that entire argument reduces itself to absurdity, unless some arbitrary line is drawn which says "this cultural stuff is fine, and that cultural stuff isn't", and even then you still end up needing to explain why its a move taken against only one item of clothing if the logic is protection against some wide range of "foreign" stuff.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
How is that really the question? An answer in either the affirmative or the negative doesn't shed any light on the proposed referendum.
Actually it does. If for instance there already is a law banning the wearing of clothing which prevents identification without justifiable cause it would shed a lot of light on the banning of a burqa..it raises questions..
In the case that there is a law already covering this area then it raises the questions (a) why is there a need for a new law relating to burqas? (b) if there is such a law why has it not been applied to burqas before now? (c) if burqas are for some reason exempt from such a law before now - why? (d) have others been fined/prosecuted/jailed under such a law? (e) if there isn't such a law would the new referendum refer specifically to burqas or would it be applicable to anyone wearing something to make identification difficult.
The answers to these questions would enable me to make a more informed judgement on the referendum tbh. Unlike some other people I like to take in the whole picture, rather than jumping on a sensationalist headline in an effort to remind myself how open minded and great I am.
Aren't Swiss tech firms to the forefront of developing facial recognition devices and software? Aren't these already deployed in some places in Switzerland?0 -
I'm all for this though I'd support an outright ban on religion.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
..it raises questions..
Exactly my point...it raises questions. Its hardly the "real" question if the answer (either in the affirmative or negative) only serves to raise more questions. It doesn't resolve anything in and of itself.
This sounds suspiciously rhetorical.Aren't Swiss tech firms to the forefront of developing facial recognition devices and software? Aren't these already deployed in some places in Switzerland?
Perhaps you could clarify what it is you are suggesting before I try responding.0 -
Exactly my point...it raises questions. Its hardly the "real" question if the answer (either in the affirmative or negative) only serves to raise more questions. It doesn't resolve anything in and of itself.
Fine. Let's go back to making up our minds without the relevant facts etc. Rabble rabble pitchfork rabble. Apparently it's irrelevant if there is a law against covering your face in public when we discuss a law against covering your face in public.This sounds suspiciously rhetorical.
Perhaps you could clarify what it is you are suggesting before I try responding.
Bit pointless spending money installing facial recognition systems without laws regarding the covering of faces in public. And yes I realise in most applications it has been on a voluntary ID basis so far, but they have been deployed on a largescale basis before.0 -
Now you're just strawmanning.Fine. Let's go back to making up our minds without the relevant facts etc. Rabble rabble pitchfork rabble. Apparently it's irrelevant if there is a law against covering your face in public when we discuss a law against covering your face in public.
I never suggested it was irrelevant, nor that the alternative was some sort of "rabble-rousing".
I merely disagreed with the notion that this was some some sort of key question, which cut to the heart of the matter. Its not, because no matter what way it is answered, it leaves us no closer to understanding he reasons for the proposals. The questions it raises are questions that were already raised....ultimately the question is "why do people think this is a good idea", and your allegedly-key question doesn't help answer that.
Such an argument would have merit if the following assumptions were true:Bit pointless spending money installing facial recognition systems without laws regarding the covering of faces in public. And yes I realise in most applications it has been on a voluntary ID basis so far, but they have been deployed on a largescale basis before.
1) We were discussing proposals regarding the covering faces in public, rather than a proposal dealing with one specific face covering.
2) We were discussing a specific face covering which is highly prevalent and/or where we had reason to believe that there was a high risk-factor
3) Facial recognition systems were at a point where they were supposed to offer 100% recognition, and could not be fooled by relatively simple methods, but only by concealing most of the face
4) Facial recognition systems were intended to work alone, rather then as an augmentation for human-based security systems.
All four of these assumptions are false, so the argument would appear to have no relevance or merit. I'm open to correction, of course.
You may be implying that if these laws you asked about existed, and if these facial systems were rolled out to an extent that they're not, and if it was no longer voluntary, and if any number of other conditions were true, then this could be a reason....but now we're back to "whatiffery", and I somehow suspect that if you find that any of the necessary conditions aren't true, you won't suddenly decide that its a bad, unjustified move.
Its almost as though you support it, but are still looking for a good reason to offer others.0 -
Now you're just strawmanning.
I never suggested it was irrelevant, nor that the alternative was some sort of "rabble-rousing".
That's exactly what it is. If we condemn a law banning burkas in public surely to get the full picture we should be aware of laws banning any clothing preventing identification. Personally it would send me one way or the other on the burka referendum.I merely disagreed with the notion that this was some some sort of key question, which cut to the heart of the matter. Its not, because no matter what way it is answered, it leaves us no closer to understanding he reasons for the proposals.
IMO it does. If for instance there is a law against me shielding my face with a scarf and hood in public for no particular reason I would be less than impressed if my neighbour was freely entitled to do likewise with a burka. If there is such a law it should be enforced. If there is such a law and burkas are exempt I want to know on what grounds. With this knowledge I could either be against the referendum or back it. I am not going to go against it solely on the basis that I see Burka and Ban and immediately go down the prejudiced bigots route.The questions it raises are questions that were already raised....ultimately the question is "why do people think this is a good idea", and your allegedly-key question doesn't help answer that.
If there is such a law and it has not been enforced then personally I think it is a good idea to legislate to cover burkas, it would be a case of closing a loophole.Such an argument would have merit if the following assumptions were true:
1) We were discussing proposals regarding the covering faces in public, rather than a proposal dealing with one specific face covering..
Which brings me back to my original question re all other types of face covering. If all other types are already legislated for then it seems logical to propose legislation to deal with the one that isn't.2) We were discussing a specific face covering which is highly prevalent and/or where we had reason to believe that there was a high risk-factor...
Matter of opinion.3) Facial recognition systems were at a point where they were supposed to offer 100% recognition, and could not be fooled by relatively simple methods, but only by concealing most of the face...
They are getting to that point. I think it was at the last Super Bowl that the crowds in attendance were scanned and 19 people with outstanding arrest warrants were identified. They are also in use in international airports.. Frankfurt IIRC.4) Facial recognition systems were intended to work alone, rather then as an augmentation for human-based security systems.
When burka wearers (or more correctly their husbands) refuse to cooperate with human based security systems where to then? How far must we go to accomodate be it a balaclava or a burka wearer?0 -
I somehow suspect that if you find that any of the necessary conditions aren't true, you won't suddenly decide that its a bad, unjustified move..
Wrong. I see no valid reason to ban burkas if there is no legislation to prohibit or restrict any other type of disguising one's appearance without justified cause. The law should cover everyone or none tbh, which works both ways if such a law exists already - why doesn't it apply to burkas, and if this new ban is imposed I would be against it if it legislated for burkas and nothing else because then you'd have a case about certain people being singled out ( see proposed Belgian legislation ).0 -
Advertisement
-
If we condemn a law banning burkas in public surely to get the full picture we should be aware of laws banning any clothing preventing identification.
It may be part of getting the full picture, but so are a myriad of other things. Getting the full picture is, ultimately, the question of "why do some think this law is a good idea".
So....if no such laws existed, you'd vote one way....but if such laws did exist and didn't cover the burqa you'd vote the other. The nature of these laws, if they existed, and what else they didn't cover wouldn't be of concern to you?Personally it would send me one way or the other on the burka referendum.
Given that you're pretty clear that you'd support this referendum if such laws existed, and this was closing what you see as a loophole....I take it that means that if such laws don't exist, you wouldn't support this referendum?
<edit> I see you've already answered that in the affirmative</edit>
I have to admit to being somewhat bemused to see you classify the choice to wear a burqa as being "for no particular reason".If for instance there is a law against me shielding my face with a scarf and hood in public for no particular reason I would be less than impressed if my neighbour was freely entitled to do likewise with a burka.
Well, you've already defined these notional laws in a way that makes it clear what the grounds would be. You've repeatedly referred to the notion that these notional laws would be a ban on face-covering without justifiable reason. If the burqa-wearing wasn't covered, it could only be because precedent or law had established that there was a justifiable reason.If there is such a law it should be enforced. If there is such a law and burkas are exempt I want to know on what grounds.
No, it wouldn't be closing a loophole. The notional laws, as you have described them, would fail to cover teh burqa because in the eyes of the law there would be a justifiable reason for wearing one. Now, what you're saying is that some justifiable reasons shouldn't count....that there could still be reasons for covering one's face, including religious belief, but when it came to one specific item of clothing, that wouldn't apply.If there is such a law and it has not been enforced then personally I think it is a good idea to legislate to cover burkas, it would be a case of closing a loophole.Matter of opinion.
In my opinion, picking one of an infinite number of not-absolutely-impossible, imagined scenarios that could post a future risk, and deciding that this one and this one alone constitutes something worth legislating for is a sham of an excuse. There has to be an ulterior motive...a reason for choosing this imaginary risk over others...and an additional reason for wanting to hide that ulterior motive with such a poor excuse.
Your opinion may, of course, be entirely different. You are as entitled to it as I am to mine.
So we're agreed that we're not at that point.They are getting to that point. I think it was at the last Super Bowl that the crowds in attendance were scanned and 19 people with outstanding arrest warrants were identified. They are also in use in international airports.. Frankfurt IIRC.
We're also, I'm sure, agreed that the facial recognition systems still didn't work without human intervention. After all, they didn't arrest the 19 people...that would require humans.
If you have a need to identify someone, and they refuse to co-operate, then situationally-dependant there are appropriate responses.When burka wearers (or more correctly their husbands) refuse to cooperate with human based security systems where to then? How far must we go to accomodate be it a balaclava or a burka wearer?
Need to identify someone to allow them into a building? Don't let them in.0 -
Firstly I think the more appropriate question (for the mods) is remember this thread? What does the current thread bring that is new to debate? Quite frankly I find it astonishing that this thread was started when the last one spiralled in circles before descending into a spat-off between religious vs. non-religious.
The last thread failed because proponents of total individual freedom (mainly libertarians and the OP included) failed to debate the merits and problems assciated with habitual face covering in public places (quite a uniqe and definable practice), instead preferring to sling mud words (like xenophobia) around. The idiotic arguing has already started in this thread with the burqa being compared to nuns habits, platform shoes and sunglasses. It is about face covering not dress sense.
A few questions.
Is habitual face covering the tradition in Europe?
No. So this becomes a matter of protecting a tradition, regardless of what the OP would like it to be about.
Is the tradition of not covering ones face in public important enough to be worth protecting?
This is what needs to be debated, as something being a tradition is not justification enough for its unchallenged continuance (e.g. Good Friday)
Do we value open and transparent public spaces?
This can also be debated.
Does the number of people engaged in this 'frowned upon' activity matter?
The OP and others would like us to think that behaviours of a minority should not concern us. Imagine ONE person from a far off culture that arrived in Ireland and believed he was perfectly entitled to swing his dick at you to appease his god. Would his individual right to practise his religion trump the wishes of the society? Some people (i.e. libertarians) may argue yes.
BTW if you ban the swinging penis man you are a xenophobe! Isn't that how you play your race card game? GuanYin still owes me an apology
I think for a functioning multicultural society you need to have compromise on both sides (which means the curtailment of minor individual freedoms) and respect on both sides. If any law is applied to only burqas and muslims then it is discriminatory but if it is applied to all habitual face covering in public then it is not. Its the same way a law about parking caravans on the side of motorways applies to us all but may only affect travellers - and any law needs to be justified. I think I justified the importance of maintaining open and transparent public areas on the other thread (citing research), Bonkey asked where do we draw the line? At habitual face covering.
It is quite a unique issue soIt would seem that the only logical conclusion to that line of reasoning is to kick all foreigners out entirely. Forget even the nations that are close neighbours...if anything their cultural influences are more insidious then any others.
For me, that entire argument reduces itself to absurdity
I'd agree, your argument is totally absurd.Remember....its not about things that are problems...its about things that might be problems.
No. Its about current practises that, even though are carried out by a small minority are deemed unacceptable in a Western society. Someone mentioned the liberal West as being champions of individual freedoms, well the West is also the champion of democracy so if people do not want certain behavious then they get to vote to force legislation. As a libertarian you can LIVE WITH IT, or leave. Better still you could go set up a little libertarian paradise where you canremind [yourselves] how open minded and great [you are].
And mutual respect for cutures and compromise for the sake of integration is not just my idea -
The husband of the woman fined in Italy said thisMuslim groups in Italy insisted that Italian laws must be respected Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said, "We are for the freedom of women and against veils of any kind and Italian laws must be respected."
"We as an organisation have always said that we are against face veils in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed," he added.
If such a ban on facial covering did result in the locking away of muslim women then that is an issue to be dealt with by the islamic community (and false imprisonment laws)."We knew about the law and I know that it's not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can't have other men looking at her,"0 -
I have to admit to being somewhat bemused to see you classify the choice to wear a burqa as being "for no particular reason".
Can you give me a reason? Is it required by religion : No. Is it required by practicalities (i.e. the origin of burka style clothing) No. Is it simply a matter of fashion choice : Yes. As such I see no reason why a burka is acceptable while a pillowcase with eye holes isn't. Simply a matter of preference.Well, you've already defined these notional laws in a way that makes it clear what the grounds would be. You've repeatedly referred to the notion that these notional laws would be a ban on face-covering without justifiable reason. If the burqa-wearing wasn't covered, it could only be because precedent or law had established that there was a justifiable reason.
If that is the case then I'd love to see the justifiable reason.No, it wouldn't be closing a loophole. The notional laws, as you have described them, would fail to cover teh burqa because in the eyes of the law there would be a justifiable reason for wearing one.
Says who? If there are such laws have they been challenged? Have the reasons been given as to why burkas are exempt?Now, what you're saying is that some justifiable reasons shouldn't count....that there could still be reasons for covering one's face, including religious belief, but when it came to one specific item of clothing, that wouldn't apply..
Covering your face is not a religious belief of Islam.In my opinion, picking one of an infinite number of not-absolutely-impossible, imagined scenarios that could post a future risk, and deciding that this one and this one alone constitutes something worth legislating for is a sham of an excuse...
Why have you not described the identical points when raised against the Belgian legislation? Why are impossible to predict future risks etc acceptable as an argument against the legislation but not for? See the double standard.We're also, I'm sure, agreed that the facial recognition systems still didn't work without human intervention. After all, they didn't arrest the 19 people...that would require humans....
Would those people have been identified at all if they had been wearing clothing concealing their identity?If you have a need to identify someone, and they refuse to co-operate, then situationally-dependant there are appropriate responses.
Like giving them a fine for it? Then you support the actions of the police officers in the recent Italian case then? Request person to remove it, person's husband refuses to cooperate, invoke the law and fine said person. Seems reasonable to me.0 -
It`s great gas (....) on one`s shoes ! :rolleyes:
You're right, we've no right to an opinion. Please get the Overmod to shut down all the politics boards.Anymore wrote:Resisting the importation of such obivousily foreign religous/cultural ( and all the bagges that comes along with them) practices would seem to be fit into the category of protecting ones culture. I suppose it is a matter of perspective.
So, do you think they were right to keep out the Jews? Thats the reasoning they used.Laminations wrote:Is habitual face covering the tradition in Europe?
No. So this becomes a matter of protecting a tradition, regardless of what the OP would like it to be about.
Why is tradition a good reason to ban anything?Prinz wrote:Covering your face is not a religious belief of Islam.
This has been done to death. You can't speak for all muslims.0 -
Well that's going to hurt business on Bahnhofstrasse in Zurich.In the past week in the Swiss media, it seems like there's quite a storm brewing with moves to start a referendum to ban the burqha.
It's actually a religious-cultural tradition that is still observed in orthodox Judaism, and I believe that they came up with that particular workaround originally (Orthodox Jews are masters of the religious workarounds).On the other hand, this leads to fantastically absurd workarounds such as women in certain jobs wearing a wig, over a scarf, which itself is over their hair.
Just be glad that St Paul won that power struggle against St James, otherwise we'd all have to observe these stupid rules - we got off lightly with fish on Fridays!0 -
-
Why is tradition a good reason to ban anything?
Did you read my whole post? Did you even read the following question?Laminations wrote: »Is the tradition of not covering ones face in public important enough to be worth protecting?
This is what needs to be debated, as something being a tradition is not justification enough for its unchallenged continuance (e.g. Good Friday)This has been done to death. You can't speak for all muslims.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to ban anything, nor is religion a good enough reason to justify anything, if you think it is you can say hello to the swinging penis man.0 -
Laminations wrote: »What does the current thread bring that is new to debate?
That the Swiss are making moves to bring a referendum on the issue. Was that not clear from the OP?A few questions.
Is habitual face covering the tradition in Europe?
No. So this becomes a matter of protecting a tradition, regardless of what the OP would like it to be about.
Is the tradition of not covering ones face in public important enough to be worth protecting?
This is what needs to be debated, as something being a tradition is not justification enough for its unchallenged continuance (e.g. Good Friday)
Do we value open and transparent public spaces?
This can also be debated.
Do you not see that these questions are at odds with each other?
You start by staking a position that covering of one's face is not a tradition in Europe...and then go on to point that something being a tradition is not justification for its unchallenged continuance.
So what is the relevance that its not a tradition in Europe?
For someone who's complained about people comparing things to sunglasses and platform shoes, I'm delighted to note that you have kept your comparisons in a far more relevant and reasonable light.
Does the number of people engaged in this 'frowned upon' activity matter?
The OP and others would like us to think that behaviours of a minority should not concern us. Imagine ONE person from a far off culture that arrived in Ireland and believed he was perfectly entitled to swing his dick at you to appease his god. Would his individual right to practise his religion trump the wishes of the society? Some people (i.e. libertarians) may argue yes.
So you agree, then, that hte proposed referendum in Switzerland is discriminatory? It has been made clear that it targets burqas.If any law is applied to only burqas and muslims then it is discriminatory but if it is applied to all habitual face covering in public then it is not.
Why?Bonkey asked where do we draw the line? At habitual face covering.
You've said its a tradition, but also that tradition isn't a sufficient reason.
You've said that compromise is needed on both sides...so why is this something where there can be no compromise?
You've said that if its only the burqa then its discriminatory...but if we draw the line at habitual face-covering, how is that not discriminatory?
Why is the line drawn here? You want it drawn there, and I don't see a reason why. So seriously....why draw it there?
As in the minaret thread...I've never tried to argue that the Swiss should be denied their freedom to make the wrong decisions, any more than I've tried to suggest that people should be denied the freedom to disagree with me.Someone mentioned the liberal West as being champions of individual freedoms, well the West is also the champion of democracy so if people do not want certain behavious then they get to vote to force legislation.
I like the way you throw around this "Libertarian" label and make comments like this. It shows that you really do want to raise the tone fo the debate above the mud-slinging that you complained about. Bravo.As a libertarian you can LIVE WITH IT, or leave. Better still you could go set up a little libertarian paradise where you canAnd mutual respect for cutures and compromise for the sake of integration is not just my idea -
I think mutual respect and compromise is a fantastic idea. I just have a problem with making that concept coincide with the attitude of "we don't like that, so you shouldn't do it at all".
You and Prinz both have said you'd disagree with a discriminatory law but would side with some sort of blanket ban on the grounds that you'd see it as not discriminatory. You've both talked about compromise, though. Where is the compromise in your position? You'd suypport banning all face covering, How is that compromise?
Incidentally, I would point out that the referendum being proposed in Switzerland is not about all face coverings. It is targetting the burqa specifically. Additionally, Prinz's notional laws about face covering "for no justifiable reason" don't exist either.
So it would seem that despite making it clear that both of you think I'm taking some sort of extreme position, you both agree with my actual position, which is that the referendum, as currently being proposed and discussed, is discriminatory in nature, should not be supported, but that it is the right of the Siwss to make such a decision.
So after all that comparison-drawing with penis-wavers and comments about libertarians and the rest of it...you apparently agree with me.
Glad to hear it.0 -
Like giving them a fine for it? Then you support the actions of the police officers in the recent Italian case then? Request person to remove it, person's husband refuses to cooperate, invoke the law and fine said person. Seems reasonable to me.
Why is it that you keep creating these black-and-white situations?
I don't know the details of the Italian case, but from what you're describing....no....I don't think it was the appropriate response. And before you jump to the next semi-rhetorical question....not....I do not think that the correct response would have been for the police officer to just shrug and say "fair enough then".
Seriously...if we want to make a convincing argument for compromise, wouldn't you agree that a good start would be to show that the situation is not black-and-white, but that there are shades of grey on which compromise can be sought?0 -
Advertisement
-
So you agree, then, that hte proposed referendum in Switzerland is discriminatory? It has been made clear that it targets burqas.
Have you seen the proposed wording of the referendum? Apparently the proposed law in Belgium is also discriminatory though it mentions neither a religion nor a specific item of clothing.I think mutual respect and compromise is a fantastic idea. I just have a problem with making that concept coincide with the attitude of "we don't like that, so you shouldn't do it at all"..
So do I. Do what you like in your own home.You and Prinz both have said you'd disagree with a discriminatory law but would side with some sort of blanket ban on the grounds that you'd see it as not discriminatory. You've both talked about compromise, though. Where is the compromise in your position? You'd suypport banning all face covering, How is that compromise?
Without justifiable cause no one should have their faces covered in public. End of. That's the compromise. Why is your face covered - is that a good enough reason, either you're on your merry way or you fall foul of the law. Similar rules apply to many things. For instance carrying a screw driver in your pocket - you could be done for having a concealed weapon. Or you could explain to the police that you are an electrician on a job fair enough that explains that.Incidentally, I would point out that the referendum being proposed in Switzerland is not about all face coverings. It is targetting the burqa specifically.
So you are willing to answer these questions now? Why not earlier? Do we have the wording of the propsed referendum?Additionally, Prinz's notional laws about face covering "for no justifiable reason" don't exist either.
Again, what was the problem with saying this earlier? Why should someone be forced to take a position without informing themselves of the greater picture? As it is I find that hard to believe that no such restrictions exist.0
Advertisement