The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

wes

anymore wrote: »

This is my last post on this thread for today - I will just end with the observation I made before, that you and some of the other posters are very keen to keep the thread to very narrowly defined paramaters - kinda curious for people who are so interested in 'rights' - as i also said before, growing up in Ireland, I am well used to the strategy of trying to direct the areas on which comments may be passed.

Same old nonsense, with the smears, and making the thread about other posters. Honestly, you seem desperate to go off topic, and make the thread about everything but the actual topic, and you consistently try and make it about other posters. Seems to me, you know you lost the arguement are desperately trying to hide it imho.

Again, stop being off topic and attacking other posters. This thread isn't about other posters on here, but about banning the Burqa or not.

anymore wrote: »

In fact all the different stragems for prtoecting the 'rights' of religions to control their members have been tried and exposed in irleand.

Yes, and so? I don't remember anyone proposing the country be run by a Religous authority.

anymore wrote: »

We are at last throwing off so many of the shackles imposed by pur own patriarchial catholic Church. Why on earth wouldnt we make the effort to ' Lift the veil' on some of the absurd cultural shackles of other religions ?:):)

The thread is still about whether to ban the Burqa or not, and those advocating it, just want to tell Women want to wear ultimately, and they aren't freeing them, but instead getting another group to tell them what to wear. All you propose is more shackles, when your actually talking about the actual topic that is, and not about other posters.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Same old nonsense, with the smears, and making the thread about other posters. Honestly, you seem desperate to go off topic, and make the thread about everything but the actual topic, and you consistently try and make it about other posters. Seems to me, you know you lost the arguement are desperately trying to hide it imho.

Again, stop being off topic and attacking other posters. This thread isn't about other posters on here, but about banning the Burqa or not.



Yes, and so? I don't remember anyone proposing the country be run by a Religous authority.



The thread is still about whether to ban the Burqa or not, and those advocating it, just want to tell Women want to wear ultimately, and they aren't freeing them, but instead getting another group to tell them what to wear. All you propose is more shackles, when your actually talking about the actual topic that is, and not about other posters.

Well we have already established the link between so called honour murders and burqas and the physical ill effects from wearing the burqa.
Have we dealth with the psychological effects arising from wearing the burqa ?

Now to satisfy Wes, we may as well look at the specifics of the thread and that is if the burqa shoulkd be banned in public buildings in France !
The main reason is on security grounds and as muslim extremeists are now using female suicide bombers, then it seems entirely logical to ban an all enveloping garment on security grounds in public buildings !
Whats all the fuss about it ?

wes

anymore wrote: »

Well we have already established the link between so called honour murders and burqas and the physical ill effects from wearing the burqa.

Actually, you didn't establish a link. You gave a single example about the Hijab, which is not the same as a Burqa firstly, and a single instance, is not establishing a link. Now, as I have clearly shown you argument in that regard is utter nonsense, as the Burqa isn't worn in the Sikh and Hindu communities and that is a rather massive hole in your assertion, whihc you constantly ignore, as it doesn't suit you, but sadly for your argument the massive hole does exist.

So, when you do establish a link, which you can't as there is not one, as honour killings happen for a variety of reasons, among several communities, and you are being remarkably reductive in your argument, which reduces a horrible crime, to an arguement against a particular item of clothing, while ignoring the many causes of honours killings, and the fact that banning the Burqa wouldn't change a thing or prevent honour killings.

So you esatablished nothing, in regard to honour killings. Your own link show massive holes in your arguement.

Yes, the Burqa can be bad for ones health, no argument from me there.

anymore wrote: »

Have we dealth with the psychological effects arising from wearing the burqa ?

I don't know, you seemed more interested in being off topic.

anymore wrote: »

Now to satisfy Wes, we may as well look at the specifics of the thread and that is if the burqa shoulkd be banned in public buildings in France !

Wow, that only took a dozen pages for you to be on topic.

anymore wrote: »

The main reason is on security grounds and as muslim extremeists are now using female suicide bombers, then it seems entirely logical to ban an all enveloping garment on security grounds in public buildings !

Really, how many Burqa clad suicide bomber have attacked Western countries? I think the answer is 0 in that regard.

anymore wrote: »

Whats all the fuss about it ?

The fuss is that you want to take people rights away from them.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Actually, you didn't establish a link. You gave a single example about the Hijab, which is not the same as a Burqa firstly, and a single instance, is not establishing a link. Now, as I have clearly shown you argument in that regard is utter nonsense, as the Burqa isn't worn in the Sikh and Hindu communities and that is a rather massive hole in your assertion, whihc you constantly ignore, as it doesn't suit you, but sadly for your argument the massive hold does exist.

Yes, the Burqa can be bad for ones health, no argument from me there.



Don't remember actually.



Wow, that only took a dozen page for you to be on topic.



Really, how many Burqa clad suicide bomber have attacked Western countries?



The fuss is that you are wrong.

Goodness me Wes, I didnt even have time to fhave a cup of tea !
Wes you are being simplistic and not doing any favours to your own arguements in trying to reject the killing of a young daughter for refusing to wear the head veil. As to whether it is only one or there have been more is the irrelevant thing. If the hypothesis is that there is no link, then one example is sufficient.
The fact that burqas arent worn in Sikh and Hindu communities is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread, you can always post a new thread sealing with these murders in the Sikh and Hindu communities, if in fact there is any evidence of them in Europe, if you wish.
Now the question of how many burqa clad women have already attacked western countries is irrelevant; the first time it happens will be one time too many. And of course there is always the fear and potential that the female will only be used to conceal the bomb/weapons to be passed on to the male criminals.
It is not that long since the idea of female suicide bombers would have been unthinkable ! There is a progression at work here.

By the way I have never heard of a middle aged or elederly irish man or woman smuggling a bomb/guns with a view to becoming suicide bombers on to Irish planes, but we still have to surrender our civil rights and allow ourselves to subject to the security measures that aim at preventing us from suicide bombers.

P.s did you see that fasinating Channel 4 Dispatches program on UK Islamics aiming to establish a Caliphate in UK - I guess we know now why George Galloway was so enthusiastic about opposing the Iraq war as the programme stated he got a lot of support from ISF. It focussed on Tower Haml;ets in London - riveting !

wes

anymore wrote: »

Goodness me Wes, I didnt even have time to fhave a cup of tea !

Ok....

anymore wrote: »

Wes you are being simplistic and not doing any favours to your own arguements in trying to reject the killing of a young daughter for refusing to wear the head veil.

Nope, I am not being simplistic at all. I am just poking holes in your reasoning.

anymore wrote: »

As to whether it is only one or there have been more is the irrelevant thing.

No, its actually completely relevant. You are saying there are links to honours killings and not to a honour killing. You see Plural and singular are not the same.

anymore wrote: »

If the hypothesis is that there is no link, then one example is sufficient.

Nope, actually a single instance isn't sufficent. Its nonsense unless you can link it to a majority of the killings, which you have actually disproven, via your own links.

anymore wrote: »

The fact that burqas arent worn in Sikh and Hindu communities is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread, you can always post a new thread sealing with these murders in the Sikh and Hindu communities, if in fact there is any evidence of them in Europe, if you wish.

Well, your the one who brought honour killings up in the first place, not. If you drop it, I will drop, but seeing as you refuse, then I won't drop it.

The Burqa can't possibly have anything to do with honour killings in those communities, which shows you are wrong. Your own link btw mentioned Hindu and Sikh honour killings, so in context of replying to you, it perfectly valid to bring those communities up. So once again, you are clearly wrong, and are still off topic in this regard, but if you keep bringing it up, I will keep showing that you are wrong.

anymore wrote: »

Now the question of how many burqa clad women have already attacked western countries is irrelevant; the first time it happens will be one time too many. And of course there is always the fear and potential that the female will only be used to conceal the bomb/weapons to be passed on to the male criminals.

Well, you see a baggy jumper can also hide things as well, so a Burqa is no more a danger than those. So once again, your case doesn't really work, unless you propose we all walk around naked, as any item of clothing can conceal weapons.

anymore wrote: »

It is not that long since the idea of female suicide bombers would have been unthinkable ! There is a progression at work here.

Unless, you can prove you can predict the future, I won't be taking it seriously.

anymore wrote: »

By the way I have never heard of a middle aged or elederly irish man or woman smuggling a bomb/guns with a view to becoming suicide bombers on to Irish planes, but we still have to surrender our civil rights and allow ourselves to subject to the security measures that aim at preventing us from suicide bombers.

Well, you see most of the security in air ports is actually just for show, and doesn't really protect anyone, its there to make you feel better.

anymore wrote: »

P.s did you see that fasinating Channel 4 Dispatches program on UK Islamics aiming to establish a Caliphate in UK - I guess we know now why George Galloway was so enthusiastic about opposing the Iraq war as the programme stated he got a lot of support from ISF. It focussed on Tower Haml;ets in London - riveting !

UK Islamics? What the hell does that mean? Why do you insist on going off topic constantly. Honestly, start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Ok....



Nope, I am not being simplistic at all. I am just poking holes in your reasoning.



No, its actually completely relevant. You are saying there are links to honours killings and not to a honour killing. You see Plural and singular are not the same.



Nope, actually a single instance isn't sufficent. Its nonsense unless you can link it to a majority of the killings, which you have actually disproven, via your own links.



Well, your the one who brought honour killings up in the first place, not. If you drop it, I will drop, but seeing as you refuse, then I won't drop it.

The Burqa can't possibly have anything to do with honour killings in those communities, which shows you are wrong. Your own link btw mentioned Hindu and Sikh honour killings, so in context of replying to you, it perfectly valid to bring those communities up. So once again, you are clearly wrong, and are still off topic in this regard, but if you keep bringing it up, I will keep showing that you are wrong.



Well, you see a baggy jumper can also hide things as well, so a Burqa is no more a danger than those. So once again, your case doesn't really work, unless you propose we all walk around naked, as any item of clothing can conceal weapons.



Unless, you can prove you can predict the future, I won't be taking it seriously.



Well, you see most of the security in air ports is actually just for show, and doesn't really protect anyone, its there to make you feel better.



UK Islamics? What the hell does that mean? Why do you insist on going off topic constantly. Honestly, start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

For all the times you have asked me to confine myself to the thread, I see you have entirely ignored the thread OP - wonderful !:D:D:D
I will return to the points you have made above AFTER we deal with the thread OP - so over to you to refute the French reasons for considering ban on burqas ... or do you concede defeat ?

wes

anymore wrote: »

For all the times you have asked me to confine myself to the thread, I see you have entirely ignored the thread OP - wonderful !:D:D:D

Wow, its interesting that you have completely decided to ignore my post, and then accuse me of going off topic. Care to explain how I went off topic? You brought up honour killings not me. I was just pointing out again, how irrelevant it was to the topic at hand. You have constantly brought it up, and not me. You also brought up Sikh and Hindu honour killing via your own links, so I am afraid once again, you are still wrong.

anymore wrote: »

I will return to the points you have made above AFTER we deal with the thread OP - so over to you to refute the French reasons for considering ban on burqas ... or do you concede defeat ?

I have already addressed all these reasons earlier in the thread, and was replying to your reasoning above.

Now, clearly you aren't bothered enough to reply to what I said above regarding the Burqa, which you have ignore for whatever reason, probably because you can't come up with a reply.

Get back to me when you actually want to discuss the topic, as opposed to whatever irrelevant topic you suddendly wish to dicuss, due to your in ablity to defend you position, without resorting to constant straw men.

anymore

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-french-ban-of-burqa-a_b_446856.html
This article deals very persuasively with the thread Op about why the ban should be imposed in France. It ends with the following question :
" Why is it that we as a society can constantly strive for progress and equality and place limitations on the right of people to promote ideologies that impede that progress, but simultaneously turn a blind eye and force ourselves and each other to accepted certain antiquated practices and traditions just because they have been categorized as religion? "

He deals with the question of security risks posed by the burqa, the question of rights and freeedom of expression and the place of religion in society. I fear my own summing up of these points would not do the author justice, so I suggest a reading of the article in full .

wes

anymore wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-french-ban-of-burqa-a_b_446856.html
This article deals very persuasively with the thread Op about why the ban should be imposed in France. It ends with the following question :
" Why is it that we as a society can constantly strive for progress and equality and place limitations on the right of people to promote ideologies that impede that progress, but simultaneously turn a blind eye and force ourselves and each other to accepted certain antiquated practices and traditions just because they have been categorized as religion? "

He deals with the question of security risks posed by the burqa, the question of rights and freeedom of expression and the place of religion in society. I fear my own summing up of these points would not do the author justice, so I suggest a reading of the article in full .

As, I said above I am done replying to you. You haven't bothered to reply to any of my points, and are now trying to avoid addressing any of them.

I won't be replying to you anymore. You have consistently avoided answering simple question, and addressing point brought up by others. Questions and points have to be said repeatedly for you to address them. I simply can not be bothered to reply to you anymore, seeing as you constantly try to avoid having to address problem brought up with your assertions.

saol alainn

Personally, I don't mind the hijab. Some of my muslim friends (here and abroad) wear one, while others don't...and they're all good women. I don't like the burkha, but up till a number of years ago I never really thought about it. Until a number of friends themselves (this was mid to late 80s) used to get het up about it when it was mentioned, as it brought bad memories and emotions. A couple of them were disowned by their families because they wouldn't wear one (they considered themselves lucky). Another one had a sister who had to wear it because of a violent husband. We all know that it was ignorance that led to these episodes, but it doesn't make them feel any better.

They were always of the opinion that the burkha was a cultural, rather than a religious, thing. As long as they didn't go out in revealing clothes, and kept their modesty, there's no reason why they should wear it. Anyone who says otherwise does not necessarily do so because of personal conviction. I learned the truth of their words when I went to Egypt to stay with my friend's family for a few weeks. My friend was at university in the UK at that time, and a couple of her 'school-mates' were on the plane. At uni they were always going on about having the right to the burkha, etc. etc. Yet by the time we reached Egypt, even their hijabs came off, and there they were - donning jeans and t-shirts, and hair flowing. Talk about hypocrisy. Yet there I was, veil in hand, ready to put it on. My friend said I didn't have to, only in certain areas when it would be easier just to have it in place. In fact, while there were many with the veil, I don't recall seeing any significant burkhas in the streets. I remember being told that it was generally frowned upon by city people.

So should the burkha be banned in public places in France? That's up to the french. In the rest of Europe? If not banned, I think restrictions should apply. ie not allowed in banks and public offices, the same as one's not allowed to wear helmets, hoodies and balaclavas in such places.

shqipshume

So many arguments you can put forward with this whole scenario.
First they are brought up with this belief and forced to wear them.So therefore looks like own free will because they do not know any different.

Its wrong in two ways forced on them from a religious and cultural point of view and for most to oppress the woman.But they do say its for protection from those who would see them as sluts if without them.However i have no idea what the real point of view of that maybe because we can not see into the heads of those who uphold it.It is however a man invention to control women also possible?

However in non Muslim countries with the full head scarf were you can not see faces i think should be banned as it is not called for here and it is not of religious context.I do not recall ever seeing in quran the woman must hide her face.Therefore can be argued it is cultural and when they leave that culture for what does not oppress them they should also throw down what had oppressed them.
I think the full face for security reasons and public safety and trust towards people of Islamic faith should not be allowed.If they want it they should go back to the country they are supposed trying to make a better life away from.
If we go to their country they would expect and not only expect but enforce their laws on us.
But the other head scarf should be allowed.

irishconvert

shqipshume wrote: »

If they want it they should go back to the country they are supposed trying to make a better life away from.

What if they are Irish and born here? Or British and born in the UK?

MaceFace

I can't believe this is still going on.

It is as simple as:
Wearing of a Burka is allowed anywhere I can wear a balaclava.
Wearing of a Hijab is allowed anywhere I can wear a hat.

People seem to be using this thread as a place to debate Muslim culture in general.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

What if they are Irish and born here? Or British and born in the UK?

Presumably someone would explain that there is no religous requirement or point in wearing a burqa and if they were born in Ireland, they would surely know there is no cultural reason for wearing one.

bonkey

shqipshume wrote: »

So therefore looks like own free will because they do not know any different.

You could justify suppression of almost anything cultural on this basis.

Where, exactly, do you draw the line?

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

Presumably someone would explain that there is no religous requirement or point in wearing a burqa and if they were born in Ireland, they would surely know there is no cultural reason for wearing one.

I will not debate with someone who refuses to stay on topic or answer points made to them so you are wasting your time replying to me.

anymore

bonkey wrote: »

You could justify suppression of almost anything cultural on this basis.

"

Where, exactly, do you draw the line?

"

Very good question ! Would you for example draw the line at wife beating ?
Wife beating is a long established and respected cultural Islamic tradition. So well established that there are formal rules on how you beat your wife ! If anyone doubts this, have a look at the following youtube guide to beating your wife:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58
or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do&feature=related
In fact there are quite a fewto choose from and some are very disturbing.
From what I can see the basic rules are
Dont break a bone, dont cause bleeding, dont bruise and dont hit around the eyes. The last one about not hitting about the eyes ties in nicely with burqa wearing doesnt it ? You can only see the eye area with the burqa.

So where do you or we draw the line at respecting foreign cultural traditions ? Is it our business or none of our business ?

Nodin

I see the tactic of "Look - Evil!!!!!1111" is continuing on regardless.

Wife beating has nothing to do with the issue. Neither has honour killing or any of the other crimes mentioned. If you can't argue against the Burka without attempting to tack on the aforementioned, it doesn't say much for your argument.

GuanYin

anymore wrote: »

Presumably someone would explain that there is no religous requirement or point in wearing a burqa and if they were born in Ireland, they would surely know there is no cultural reason for wearing one.

That answer is based on YOUR conjecture that they are not actually deeply spiritual and devout people who want to conform to their religion and cultural heritage.

GuanYin

Moderation Post
OK guys.

Lets quite this "fog of issues" thing that has been going on here.

I'm quite frankly getting tired of people equating Islam with things that have nothing to do with Islam. It's bordering on deliberate misinformation which is, as you all know very well, not allowed here.

I'm going to start giving formal warnings if this continues.

joesoap007

Sykes wrote: »

My own view is that it should be banned in public buildings and on transport. That includes teachers and Doctors. I would not let my child be taught by someone that covers their face nor would I see a Doctor who covers their face.

It's interesting because in Israel recently a poll by a paper showed only 25% of Israelis would see it banned. It's a funny situation, you'd have thought they'd be the first to want it banned, but Muslims in Israel usually wear the headscarf.

There is definitely a political 'message' in Europe being sent out by those who wish to cover their whole face. It's become more prevalent.

if thats apart of been a Muslim cover what ever they want.

if the doctors face is covered try a vet;)

Berwick

The burka is not part of being a Muslim.

It has even been declared un-islamic by a high Islamic authority in Cairo.

joesoap007

Berwick wrote: »

The burka is not part of being a Muslim.

It has even been declared un-islamic by a high Islamic authority in Cairo.

un islamic?are islamic people muslim

Berwick

What else?

joesoap007

Berwick wrote: »

What else?

is Cairo in france

Berwick

I give it up .....

old_aussie

The burka should be banned in all public places and definitely banned when they're driving.

How do you even know if it's a woman and not a terrorist or bank robber.

There should be a poll re The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

joesoap007

Berwick wrote: »

The burka is not part of being a Muslim.

It has even been declared un-islamic by a high Islamic authority in Cairo.

joesoap007 wrote: »

is Cairo in france

Muslim women use various methods to cover their bodies. Some use scarves, some veils, and some Burka; the basic objective remains the same..cairo is not in france .france is in e.u. has the high Islamic authority in cairo asked france to change their laws..

joesoap007

old_aussie wrote: »

The burka should be banned in all public places and definitely banned when they're driving.

How do you even know if it's a woman and not a terrorist or bank robber.

There should be a poll re The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

are bankrobbers allowed to wear balaclavas....terroists are the same.