Burka ban

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We saw schools in the UK and elsewhere in Europe been investigated and they are only now finding the extreme Islamism. I'm saying a secular education is far better and should be introduced across Ireland and everywhere. Otherwise we are encouraging the rise of hate preachers.

And I'm saying it's fine for parents who want to provide secular education to do so, just as it's fine for them to provide Christian, or Islamic, or whatever ethos they fancy, education to their children. Allowing parents to choose their childrens values and education is not encouraging the rise of hate preachers, encouraging the rise of hate preachers is.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I think for multicultural societies to flourish we need to foster intercultarlism. Promoting self segregation as a means of preserving traditional values leads to social stratification and the type of 'us and them' mentality that is emerging in Europe. We don't need Catholic, Muslim or Atheist schools, we just need schools that treat children of all colour and creed similarly, with respect and without discrimination. Schools with a single religious ethos clearly promote sectarianism, segregation, and all the nastiness that goes with it.

Sure, fostering (as distinct from imposing) interculturalism is perfectly fine, even laudable. However, denying freedom of association, and reducing parents rights on the basis that you think you know better than them who they can associate with, and then claiming it's because they're 'self- segregating' (because that sounds so much worse than free association doesn't it) is actually just self righteous cultural imperialism dressing it's own nastiness in faux concern. We need schools; whether they're Catholic, Muslim, Atheist or otherwise is for parents to choose, not sjws.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Sure, fostering (as distinct from imposing) interculturalism is perfectly fine, even laudable. However, denying freedom of association, and reducing parents rights on the basis that you think you know better than them who they can associate with, and then claiming it's because they're 'self- segregating' (because that sounds so much worse than free association doesn't it) is actually just self righteous cultural imperialism dressing it's own nastiness in faux concern. We need schools; whether they're Catholic, Muslim, Atheist or otherwise is for parents to choose, not sjws.

If we're talking about cultural imperialism, having a situation where very many non-Catholics are likely faced with having to have their children attend Catholic ethos schools, and in some cases even lie about their religion to get any viable school place at all, it is exactly that. Suggesting that more single faith schools is a viable solution is clearly rubbish, as the non-Catholic population is both diverse in beliefs and well dispersed. Whether you call it self segregation or freedom of association is moot as it simply doesn't exist for most of those belonging to cultural minorities.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

If we're talking about cultural imperialism, having a situation where very many non-Catholics are likely faced with having to have their children attend Catholic ethos schools, and in some cases even lie about their religion to get any viable school place at all, it is exactly that.

Because they're the ones saying people can't have the schools they want? I don't think so....

smacl wrote: »

Suggesting that more single faith schools is a viable solution is clearly rubbish, as the non-Catholic population is both diverse in beliefs and well dispersed. Whether you call it self segregation or freedom of association is moot as it simply doesn't exist for most of those belonging to cultural minorities.

Maybe... I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that more single faith schools is a viable solution though. Personally I'm of the opinion that people providing whatever schools they want provided for their children is the solution to people having the schools they want for their children, but I'm willing to admit that it's not the solution to people wanting to be handed what they want, or to people wanting to impose their ideals on others. It's pretty clear if you want to impose your ideals you have to put a bit of effort in.

Samaris

I'm religious and support the ban

If we can't back the hell down on most of our schools being Catholic, then it is fairly inevitable that Muslim schools will be built. Not just because Muslim children might find it harder to get into a school in their community, but also because their parents may well not want them indoctrinated in a foreign religion. There's integration and then there's giving up something integral to yourself, which, like it or not, religion is to many people.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction, more religious schooling. And yes, while there is a dangerously extremist streak running through parts of Muslim society, I don't really think it's a good idea to isolate Muslim children from the rest of Irish society in their growing years. I don't think that Muslims are any more inherently dangerous than anyone else, but there are some very dangerous people targeting impressionable young teenagers and I suspect a school where a lot of targets are all together and being kept a bit separate from mainstream schooling and interaction with their peers would be a good place to target.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Samaris wrote: »

If we can't back the hell down on most of our schools being Catholic, then it is fairly inevitable that Muslim schools will be built.

I don't think so, as the Muslim population in Ireland is dispersed to the extent that they are unlikely to form a big enough group in most communities to make a Muslim school viable at a political or financial level. Most Muslims go for Educate together schools on the basis that while Islam is not taught or fostered, it is accepted and respected, as are all other belief systems. There are quite a few Muslim boys and girls in my daughters ET secondary school and they get along just fine. Nice kids, nice parents, not so different from anyone else. I dare say they get religious instruction outside of school, which is where it belongs.

KingBrian2

I'm religious and support the ban

Samaris wrote: »

If we can't back the hell down on most of our schools being Catholic, then it is fairly inevitable that Muslim schools will be built. Not just because Muslim children might find it harder to get into a school in their community, but also because their parents may well not want them indoctrinated in a foreign religion. There's integration and then there's giving up something integral to yourself, which, like it or not, religion is to many people.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction, more religious schooling. And yes, while there is a dangerously extremist streak running through parts of Muslim society, I don't really think it's a good idea to isolate Muslim children from the rest of Irish society in their growing years. I don't think that Muslims are any more inherently dangerous than anyone else, but there are some very dangerous people targeting impressionable young teenagers and I suspect a school where a lot of targets are all together and being kept a bit separate from mainstream schooling and interaction with their peers would be a good place to target.

Why should schools even be segregated along religious lines? Assigning children to schools according to language or skill level may actually do the trick. Russians have their own schools, Arabs have their own, French, Germans & Italians we could do it that way. The religious argument is becoming redundant at this stage. Children should attend all secular schools with a standard curriculum. When I was growing up I could care less about someone else's religion. Religion was a private matter.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Why should schools even be segregated along religious lines? Assigning children to schools according to language or skill level may actually do the trick. Russians have their own schools, Arabs have their own, French, Germans & Italians we could do it that way. The religious argument is becoming redundant at this stage. Children should attend all secular schools with a standard curriculum. When I was growing up I could care less about someone else's religion. Religion was a private matter.

Why not just send kids to the nearest school available? Segregating based on language, ethnicity or skill levels is pretty much as problematic as segregating on religious grounds.

KingBrian2

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Why not just send kids to the nearest school available? Segregating based on language, ethnicity or skill levels is pretty much as problematic as segregating on religious grounds.

Not really all the problems seem to come from the religious education and not from all those other areas I mentioned. Some schools have gone bust due to lack of finance though. The gvt could build more schools but we have plenty of schools it is just they are all Catholic with a couple of other non Christian schools sprinkled around the place.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not really all the problems seem to come from the religious education and not from all those other areas I mentioned. Some schools have gone bust due to lack of finance though. The gvt could build more schools but we have plenty of schools it is just they are all Catholic with a couple of other non Christian schools sprinkled around the place.

Having all schools able and willing to take all and any kids without discrimination makes more sense though, rather than having specific state funded schools for different groups. It is fairer, more resource efficient and scalable. Having kids go to their local school means less unnecessary travel, wasted time and traffic, means that kids are more likely to walk or cycle to school for a bit of extra exercise, and similarly have friends and activities in the same locality that they can walk or cycle to.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Assigning children to schools according to language or skill level may actually do the trick. Russians have their own schools, Arabs have their own, French, Germans & Italians we could do it that way.

Crazy idea.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Why not just send kids to the nearest school available? Segregating based on language, ethnicity or skill levels is pretty much as problematic as segregating on religious grounds.

Whereas segregating on the basis of the location of residence is just fine. I mean, we can't have people from poor neighbourhoods choosing schools in nice middle-class areas, now, can we? Little Samantha might find herself sitting next to some hideous tradesman's daughter!

Unless you adopt a rule that every school must take every student that applies, regardless of capacity, there are always going to be selection criteria at work. And whatever selection criteria you adopt is always going to be problematic on some level.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I don't think so, as the Muslim population in Ireland is dispersed to the extent that they are unlikely to form a big enough group in most communities to make a Muslim school viable at a political or financial level. Most Muslims go for Educate together schools on the basis that while Islam is not taught or fostered, it is accepted and respected, as are all other belief systems . . .

Nitpick: I think most Muslim pupils in fact attend Catholic schools (which is unsurprising when you think about it for a minute; most pupils of virtually any classification you care to construct attend Catholic schools because, hey, that's 95% of schools) and from this newspaper article the representative Muslim bodies seem to be generally happy with how this works.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas segregating on the basis of the location of residence is just fine. I mean, we can't have people from poor neighbourhoods choosing schools in nice middle-class areas, now, can we? Little Samantha might find herself sitting next to some hideous tradesman's daughter!

That argument doesn't really stack up. The current arrangements are more likely to lead to that kind of social segregation, with certain people getting access to schools that are oversubscribed, and certain others having to "make do" with the less desirable schools. And that's only in primary. At second level, there is that whole semi-private schools V free schools thing going on.

In terms of geographical areas, it is up to govt. and the local authority to ensure that a mix of social housing is dispersed within private housing, so that ghettos do not develop. In recent years developers were required to build a certain number of social housing units within new estates, but subsequently that policy degenerated away into having them pay cash to local authorities in lieu of the housing units. But that's another story.
Anyway, I think we should strive to have a good and equitable education policy, regardless of whether the housing policy has succeeded. That can be worked on separately.

Harika

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I don't think so, as the Muslim population in Ireland is dispersed to the extent that they are unlikely to form a big enough group in most communities to make a Muslim school viable at a political or financial level. <-snip->

Saudi Arabia is spending a lot of money in Europe to build Mosques, so there is only a small step that they start to sponsor Islamic Schools. I am not sure if the Irish state would allow that, but it would be theoretically possible.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Already happened. Where do you think the money for the massive Clonskeagh campus came from?
The money for the next big one proposed (Clongriffin) is supposed to be coming from Saudi and/or UAE.

skD13

recedite wrote: »

The money for the next big one proposed (Clongriffin) is supposed to be coming from Saudi and/or UAE.

That mosque in Clongriffin is not going ahead. A recent planning application for housing (2610/16) was granted on the proposed mosque site. The houses are already under construction as the next phase of the "Bell Tree" development. You can go on to DCC website and compare the site map of this recent application with the one for the mosque (3325/12). Same site.

The project has been dead in the water for a couple of years but there was no big announcement. The proposers just didn't have the money and when the housing demand returned Gannon Homes just continued to construct houses. The fact that ground has now been broken on the site for housing indicates the mosque won't happen, at least not on that site anyway.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

skD13 wrote: »

The fact that ground has now been broken on the site for housing indicates the mosque won't happen, at least not on that site anyway.

Good news. I thought they were just biding their time. Maybe the collapse in oil prices had something to do with it.

silverharp

not Burka related but prob doesn't warrant its own thread


Parliament in Slovakia legislates to prevent Islam from being recognised as an official state religion

The new law more than doubles the required number of a religion's followers for it to qualify for state subsidies and run its own schools. At least 50,000 members, against the previous 20,000, has now been set as a threshold for gaining official status as a religion.

https://www.rt.com/news/368755-slovakia-islam-religion-law/

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

https://www.rt.com/news/368755-slovakia-islam-religion-law/

Here's what appears to be the original Reuters article from which the text on the Russian website seems to have been copied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovakia-religion-islam-idUSKBN13P20C

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Dutch parliament votes to ban face veils in some public places

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-religion-burqa-netherlands-idUSKBN13O1WB

Reuters wrote:

The Dutch parliament voted on Tuesday to ban face veils in some public places, a law the government said was essential for security but which opponents said pandered to anti-Muslim sentiment. The law, passed by the lower house but still requiring the senate's approval, bans veils and other items that hide the face such as ski masks and helmets, in places where identifying the wearer is considered essential, including government buildings, public transport, schools and hospitals.

Few women in the Netherlands wear face veils, but a ban has long been a demand of Geert Wilders' anti-Islam opposition Freedom Party which is leading in polls ahead of elections in March. Full and partial face veils such as burqas and niqabs divide opinion in Europe, setting religious freedom advocates against secularists and those who say that the garments are culturally alien or a symbol of the oppression of women.

France and Belgium have completely banned wearing face veils in public and some other European countries have local or regional restrictions. Violating the Dutch law would incur a fine of 405 euros ($430). "Everyone has the right to dress as he or she wishes," the government said in a statement announcing the law. "That freedom is limited only where it is essential for people to see each other, for example to ensure good service or security."

Opponents of the law have accused center-right Prime Minister Mark Rutte of pandering to the anti-Muslim vote in a bid not to be outflanked by Wilders. Long seen as one of Europe's most tolerant countries, the Netherlands has seen racial tensions mount since the turn of the century, with the 2004 murder of controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh by an Islamist militant widely considered a turning point.

silverharp

unfortunately this is from the guardian but anyway Australian court where witness wants to give evidence wearing a Niqab , Judge declines



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/niqab-ruling-the-australian-judges-decision-in-full

Niqab ruling: the Australian judge's decision in full

I must take into account whether I would be impeded in my ability to full assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence’

• Woman cannot give evidence in a niqab, Australian court rules



On Tuesday Moutia Elzahed requested permission to wear a niqab while giving evidence in the district court of New South Wales. Her request was denied. Reproduced here is the full transcript of the reasons Judge Audrey Balla gave for her decision:



This is a claim by four plaintiffs for damages for injuries each of them say they sustained during the execution of a search warrant at their home on 18 September 2014. The AFP is the first defendant, and the New South Wales police is the second defendant. Liability is in issue.

The first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff, and the mother of the other two plaintiffs. She is a religious Muslim. She wears what I understand is a niqab; that is, her whole body, other than her eyes, is covered. Senior counsel for the plaintiffs informed me earlier today that he intended to call the first plaintiff to give evidence. The issue then arose as to whether she should give that evidence with her face covered or uncovered. Just before I adjourned I was told that the first plaintiff refused to give evidence with her face uncovered.

Since I have resumed after lunch, I have offered other courses to the first plaintiff; that her evidence be taken while she is in a remote room. Her face would be uncovered, but she could choose not to see who is watching her to give evidence; and/or I close the court so that only lawyers involved in the proceedings would be in the court. She has decided not to do so.

It is my role to ensure that there is a trial which is fair to all parties. I must balance on the one hand the need to respect the first plaintiff’s religious beliefs. In this case, those beliefs mean that she may choose not to give evidence which could impact on the successful prosecution of her case.

On the other hand, I must take into account whether I would be impeded in my ability to full assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence of the first plaintiff if I am not afforded the opportunity of being able to see her face when she gives evidence. I am well aware that the demeanour of a witness and the viewing of their face is not the only way in which credibility is assessed. In some cases the demeanour of a witness may be misleading. However, neither of those considerations can, in my view, mean that I should be completely deprived of having the assistance of seeing her face to assess her credibility.

I have only heard the evidence of one of the sons. However, yesterday I asked senior counsel for the plaintiff whether there will be a conflict in the evidence as to what actually occurred, and he replied that there is bound to be. He agreed that I will need to make a finding about whose evidence I prefer.

As the resolution of the likely conflict in the evidence as to exactly what occurred that morning is essential to the determination of the proceedings or the part of the proceedings involving the first plaintiff at least, and the assessment of the weight to be given to the evidence of the first plaintiff is part of that exercise, I have decided that she can only give evidence with her face uncovered. I decline to permit her to give evidence with her face covered.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Very sensible decision.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Australians tend to be quite forthright about these things; practicality and bluntness are considered fairly virtuous, and this was a practical decision delivered with an unusual level of diplomacy I thought.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

unfortunately this is from the guardian [...]

As ever, a genuine question here - given that comment, do you believe that the Guardian has fabricated the story, or is likely to have done so?

And if you believe it hasn't, then why are you then affecting upset at having to link to a story which you therefore believe is either mostly or entirely accurate?

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

As ever, a genuine question here - given that comment, do you believe that the Guardian has fabricated the story, or is likely to have done so?

And if you believe it hasn't, then why are you then affecting upset at having to link to a story which you therefore believe is either mostly or entirely accurate?

just having a bit of fun , Im completely neutral where I get my links from especially if its just a straight report of a news event

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

Im completely neutral where I get my links from especially if its just a straight report of a news event

In theory, that's a reasonable position.

In reality though, many news outlets - especially government-controlled outlets like RT, party-political outlets like Breitbart or Fox - cannot and should not be trusted for obvious reasons - though I read recently that Breitbart and some other news outlets intentionally include accurate reporting of some science-based stories, together with their more normal wholly inaccurate reporting on other science-based stories, presumably to poison the well a little more subtly than they've been doing heretofor.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

In theory, that's a reasonable position.

In reality though, many news outlets - especially government-controlled outlets like RT, party-political outlets like Breitbart or Fox - cannot and should not be trusted for obvious reasons - though I read recently that Breitbart and some other news outlets intentionally include accurate reporting of some science-based stories, together with their more normal wholly inaccurate reporting on other science-based stories, presumably to poison the well a little more subtly than they've been doing heretofor.

the way I approach news is by picking up feeds on twitter etc, I rarely go on a website directly "to read the news" apart from the journal.ie occasionally . As such I tend to avoid opinion or editorial pieces. One of the things Breitbart or possibly even RT seem to do is hoover up stories from smaller local news sites around Europe so it adds to the journalistic mix imo , you can always google translate the local article if its not in English. However there is no point painting them as bogeymen, anyone with a twitter or Facebook and a couple of thousand followers can throw up news or link to local news
In reality the days of relying on the BBC and the Guardian as your gatekeepers is over, they have their own agendas.

recedite

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

robindch wrote: »

outlets like Breitbart or Fox - cannot and should not be trusted for obvious reasons - though I read recently that....

Oh, and where did you read that about them? Not from a rival news org with a different agenda by any chance?

silverharp

mutti Merkel throws in her 2 pfennigs. A bit of tokenism on her part


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/06/angela-merkel-cdu-partial-ban-burqa-niqab-german

Angela Merkel endorses party's call for partial ban on burqa and niqab

German chancellor tells CDU conference ‘full facial veil is inappropriate and should be banned wherever it is legally possible’