Burka ban

Morbert

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

As an aside, we should indeed be islamophobic regarding some aspects of islamic culture. Examples would be:

Honour Killings.
The murder of apostates.
The oppression of women.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

if Mohammed were alive today and lived in Europe he wouldn't marry a 9 year old, because people don't do that now.

I'm sure you're right. My point was just to identify something that might be as annoying to Irishconvert as the burka is to some folk here.

robindch

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

Morbert wrote: »

Honour Killings.

Are you really saying that the french and the belgians should abridge the freedom to murder? :eek::eek:

What is the world coming to?!

irishconvert

Nemi wrote: »

I'm sure you're right. My point was just to identify something that might be as annoying to Irishconvert as the burka is to some folk here.

Hey, I also hate the Burqa. I also hate hoodies. I just don't believe the state has the right to tell people what they can or cannot wear.

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

re: your gf: do I need to remind you of what Caesar said about friends and enemies? The greatest danger to muslims is often from other muslims. Just like the greatest danger from us is from our own, not from some far-away external threat.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. I'm an atheist if that helps?

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I can't accept you looked at it rationally for the simple reason your arguments don't measure up.

My arguments measure up perfectly. Peoples actions always affect more than themselves. People say that you shouldn't take drugs because they are dangerous and bad. And drug takers say I'm only "hurting" myself, why is it any of your business? But they are not. They have to buy those drugs from criminals in their countries, who are buying them from bigger criminals from other countries and so by taking drugs, you fund these criminals (NB if you point out that this would not be the case f drugs were leagl and sold by legitimate companies, like medical marijuana is in america, I will poke you most severally with one of these, because that would be purposely missing my point).

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I never said you are racists, just that you dislike islam. Those are very different things (you cannot change your race, but you can change your religion).

Religiously biased then (is there another word for this, like racist is for ethnic group?)

Moomoo1 wrote: »

so just because hitler advocated going out for a walk, we should never go out for a walk? Do you see? Some people might be wearing the burka without a belief that girls need to be stoned to death for being raped? In fact, how many girls in Ireland have been stoned to death?

This is not hitler advocating going out for a walk, this is hitler advocating jews covering themselves up while they go out, so as not to insult any of the arian superrace they might encounter.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

secondly, you said 'infringing on our culture'. How exactly are they 'infringing'?

YOu think that they dont want to bring in sharia law aswell? From a poll in 2006:
a third (36pc) would prefer Ireland to be ruled under Sharia law, while 37pc would like Ireland to be governed as an Islamic state.
More than half of young Muslims (57pc) believe Ireland should become an Islamic State.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Do they make you wear the burka? No, they are not infringing, all they want is to practice their culture without fear of persecution.

I'm a man, why would I be made wear a burka?

Moomoo1 wrote: »

A freedom surely that is the cornerstone of western democracy.

One of the othercornerstones of western culture is being able to see the face of the people around you.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I see. So it's about 'them evil immigrants arriving and taking our culture away from us'. I'm glad you showed your true colours in the end.

Who said anything about immigrants? Anyone who supports the burka is trying to bring in a barbaric misogynistic culture, which has no place in teh modern world.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

How exactly will they 'encroach' and 'dominate our culture', pray tell?

They are trying to get sharia law recognised, both here in Irlenad and in th UK.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Will a ban change anything in that respect, or will it just make the things that are banned more appealing (forbidden fruit and all that...)

Even if that is true, that applies to everything-dangerous driving, drugs, stealing murder-should we unban all these simply because a very select few will be attracted to them because of their forbidden fruit status?

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

so it's the burka that damaged all those societies? Really? Silly me, and I thought it was a backward tribal culture amplified by extreme poverty and inequality. There is a clear line between the extreme human rights abuses in those countries and the burka: it's flawed logic to say 'if lots of people wear the burka in Ireland then we'll start stoning people and cutting hands off'. One doesn't follow from the other.

The burka is part of the socal norms in those countries. The people who embrace the burka in the west, embrace the other societal norms from those countries.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

the burka - on its own - is harmless to our society. The important freedom to preserve is the freedom to wear what you like: if you set the precedent by saying 'you cannot wear the burka' who's to say that someone down the line won't continue that precedent by saying 'you must wear the burka'?

This is explaine din the drugs analogy in my previous post.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

threatening us... how?

what do you mean 'give in'? Who says we are going to bring in sharia law, except you? So allowing people freedom of what to wear leads to bringing in sharia law? Surely you can see that's false? And even supposing there is this evil organisation determined to make Ireland a country with sharia law: surely banning the burka will just play in their hands and make them more determined to reach their goals?

Read the links quoted in my previous post.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

You still haven't addressed the USSR example in which it was clearly seen how attacking religion makes its followers more and more zealous.

One example of a country that something wrong=no-one should ever try again, yeah big point to deal with there :rolleyes:.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

so you advocate placing people into an irresolvable conflict between their religion and the state. Giving them the choice between having a criminal record and (in their eyes) going to hell. Do you not think that's exceptionally cruel?

I dont care. Its for their and our own good.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

you are missing the point. The point being is that you have to allow people to do certain things that you might perceive as harmful. And surely wearing a garment is one such thing? It harms no one bar the wearer... and doesn't harm the wearer's health.

Going in circles here, nothing any one does only effect themselves. Nothing. The alcoholic down the street? They are beating their kids, or their wife. When they get sick they go to hospoitals and waste doctors and nurses time who have to treat them. No-one ever just hurts themselves.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Most of those intelligent people lived before it was conclusively proven that the world was older. You can only judge a situation based on the information you've got.

Millions of intelligent people everyday make incredibly moronic choices because they suspend their intelligence in order to feel special or to get a quick fix. Its not hard for people to actually examine things like homeopathy, or the claim that MMR causes autism, or the claims of nutritionists to see that they grade A bullsh*t. But people, millions upon millions of people just dont bother. And now you have hundreds of thousands of people needlessly suffering with aids in Africa because the countries leaders allowed themselves to be convinced of homeopathic placebos efficacy over the tried and tested drugs(this link is long, but its well worth a read), you have increases in the instances of measles mumps and rubella in the children of parents caught up in the mmr scare (all the while autism rates stay the same) and you have the €50 billion a year nutrition industry raking it in even though over 80% of their claims where thrown out last year by a european commitee on food because the chemicals they where promoting didn't exist.
There is no reason why people cant figure out this bs by themsleves, the information is there (even if there is no information, the lack is calls for dismissal of said claim). But people pump money into these cons thinking that they only hurt themsleves, not realising that by supporting the assholes who peddle their sugar pills in Boots, you are fund propaganda liars who are causing the painful deaths of aids sufferers in africa.
No one ever just hurts themselves when they do something stupid. No-one.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Point is, you don't KNOW that those people ignored the facts. Maybe they saw the facts and still made the decision they did. You simply don't have the information to make the decision for them.

Once you have the right answer, no amount of wrong answers actually matter. The burka is absolutely illogical and only prospers most when people are not allowed to question it.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

as sherlock holmes said, if you exclude all the possibilities, then what remains must be the truth. I've excluded all the possibilities except plain old islamophobia.

Except Sherlock did this through logical deduction, you have done through emotive ignoring. You dont like that we made have come to these conclusions logically, so you just wave them away.

Mark Hamill

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

if Mohammed were alive today and lived in Europe he wouldn't marry a 9 year old, because people don't do that now.

Nice of god to change his mind on that rule, eh?

Moomoo1 wrote: »

You cannot compare the rules and customs of today with those of 1400 years ago, when marrying young girls was considered normal.

You can if you think god is an omnipotent omnipowerful being, whose laws written down 1400 years ago are still suppose to apply today.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

If you denounce Mohammed in this way you have to denounce a large part of the male population of the planet at the time also.

No problem here.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

ancient greek and roman men slept with young boys because that was normal in their culture. So what: we should denounce all of the classical civilisation as just a load of paedophiles?

Not just as pedos. Some of them did other things as well as pedoing.

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

Hey, I also hate the Burqa. I also hate hoodies. I just don't believe the state has the right to tell people what they can or cannot wear.

Why do you hate hoodies?

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

I just don't believe the state has the right to tell people what they can or cannot wear.

In retrospect, my comment about Mohammed was rather stupid in the circumstances. Because there's really no more or less to it than what you've just said there.

irishconvert

strobe wrote: »

Why do you hate hoodies?

No particular reason, I just don't like em.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont care. Its for their and our own good..

How sad to see a comment like this, the amount of cruelty, oppression, and needless suffering that that has been justified by the comment "It's for your own good" is quite mind boggling.
It's quite interesting to see you "Don't care" about the dilemma that a ban would create, a very good example of the "I'm alright jack" attitude.

Everybody who posted

In this thread I've seen many points given why the wearing of a burka is (to put it mildly) a crazy thing to do,
which I totally agree with, but I have not
come across a single intelligent, justifiable and most importantly logical, reason why it should be made an offence.
Xenophobic insecurity ie thinking the wearing of a burka is the first step to sharia law is not a justifiable reason,
because the wearing of this garment will not automatically lead to a sudden and practically magical change in the attitude of the Irish people/electorate to accept such a thing,
so the argument is a non starter.
Not liking or even hating the garment is not a reason, for the simple fact that
it is impossible to legislate for the individual likes and dislikes of people.
That the wearing is oppressive to women (which I believe it is), is not a reason because to prevent someone who wants to wear it is also oppressive,
therefore this cannot be a valid argument.
I conclude from this that even though the majority of people voted for the ban, they cannot justify this position logically,
therefore the anti ban contingent have the upper hand so far.

robindch

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I have not come across a single intelligent, justifiable and most importantly logical, reason why it should be made an offence.

Have a read of this post, this one or this one (etc)

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of this post, this one or this one (etc)

Ok.. taking these one at a time

1...Banning will not give these women any more power, only education of the younger generations will slowly change this. Outright bans tend to increase problems of this nature not solve them. Since the reason for the covering is not to be seen in public uncovered, then the result of a ban will be not to go out in public. This will give women less power.
2...This comes under my first point, that we here are not in danger of subscribing to sharia law.
3...It is true that the law to wear a covering is in a different league than a law not to wear one, But we must think carefully, is banning something that many women want to wear (yes there are many who wear it out of free choice) not against our own constitution (freedom of religious expression etc).


P.S. You have good points

Mark Hamill

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

How sad to see a comment like this, the amount of cruelty, oppression, and needless suffering that that has been justified by the comment "It's for your own good" is quite mind boggling.
It's quite interesting to see you "Don't care" about the dilemma that a ban would create, a very good example of the "I'm alright jack" attitude.

It is for their own good, and more importantly everyone elses. Like I said in my rant here (big bit in the middle) People do incredible stupid things which always go on to effect others, its unavoidable. The individuals directly effected by the burka ban may not enjoy what they are going through but is necessary to stem the tide against the sort of thinking that supports the burka, the sort of thinking humanity needs to leave behind.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Xenophobic insecurity ie thinking the wearing of a burka is the first step to sharia law is not a justifiable reason,
because the wearing of this garment will not automatically lead to a sudden and practically magical change in the attitude of the Irish people/electorate to accept such a thing,
so the argument is a non starter.

Its not going to be an automatic transition, and the burka isn't the only part of it, but it still part of the translation they would like to see. The rise of Wahabi islamism happened by more and more conversions of the more lenient muslims to the west hating, uber conservatibe muslims, until it reached the leadership of the countries (the saudi royals converted, political parties in other countries grew etc). The burka is not an isolated choice. People who wear do not just support the idea that the burka is necessary because all men need to be saved from their own voracious sexual appetite. The people who support the burka, do so because they support Wahabi conservative islam, and banning the burka is a step in the right direction in stopping that madness from spreading here.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That the wearing is oppressive to women (which I believe it is), is not a reason because to prevent someone who wants to wear it is also oppressive,
therefore this cannot be a valid argument.

Assumes that the people who "want" to wear it have chosen freely, which they haven't (as evident by the complete lack of reason and logic behind it).

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I conclude from this that even though the majority of people voted for the ban, they cannot justify this position logically,
therefore the anti ban contingent have the upper hand so far.

The anti ban people have yet to give a single logical reason against the ban.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

this debate is getting almost religious in the entrenchment of the positions.

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

this debate is getting almost religious in the entrenchment of the positions.

Yep. One side is dogmatically defending a barbarous religions worse aspects. And the other side is dogmatically refusing to defend a barbarous religions worse aspects. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of this post, this one or this one (etc)

Apologies if this is repetition, but the problem I see with those reasons is that they don't have compelling relevance to the Irish situation. We've more to lose by preventing people from freely choosing what to wear than we have to gain by eliminating any risk of women being compelled to wear a burka by their families.

Now, fine if you invaded Saudi and declared yourself dictator. Maybe, in that situation, banning a burka would be a step to some goal in social engineering. But a burka ban here only suggests that Islam is a force that could quietly subvert European culture. I'd suspect if we'd more confidence that European culture was a self-evident good, we'd see no threat in burka-wearing.

Just thinking of a slight parallel, the early Irish Republicans (ie Wolfe Tone's era) were generally Protestant, and used to have animated debates over whether brainwashed Catholics could be trusted with a vote whenever the Republic was established. Tone would have been one of the voices that argued that Catholics should be given a vote. But, while saying that, his assumption was that Catholicism must inevitably perish in a free society. Whether his expectation was right or not, I've a feeling the value he was expressing is relevant here.

MrPudding

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

Let's just all buy these:

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/jmoshop.110593258

And leave it at that.

MrP

Metalfan

i think where they are making the mistake is calling it a burkha ban they should simply say that "when in public an individual's face must be clearly visible"

that way nobody can argue, you can just say yup no balaclavas, no hockey masks, no burkhas etc

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

But presumably this would be acceptable.

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

Metalfan wrote: »

i think where they are making the mistake is calling it a burkha ban they should simply say that "when in public an individual's face must be clearly visible"

that way nobody can argue, you can just say yup no balaclavas, no hockey masks, no burkhas etc

I agree. It's a shame but we just can't get away with admitting that we just hate them damn muslims.

Let me know if you can think of a clever way of getting rid of them damn blacks and homos, without looking like we actually hate them for no good reason.



DEY DOOK AR JABBZ

mcclain!

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I agree, the moral qualms of a society shouldn't be imposed by law.

Its a slippery slope.

Its all relative. we have had many moral qualms in Our countries drugs policies...

But then again, who is the Burka offending? No reason for such an inconsiderate decision

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

mcclain! wrote: »

But then again, who is the Burka offending? No reason for such an inconsiderate decision

It probably "offends" quite a few people, such as this poster from the first page on this thread:

Darlughda wrote: »

I find women wearing burkas offensive to me as a women for everything that the burka represents, and how it flies in the face of all of the progressive moves made in western society since the 1950's ...

... To you both:

Nobody has the right to NOT be offended.

There may be legitimate reasons to ban the burka, but if there are, causing offense is not one of them.

mcclain!

condra wrote: »

There may be legitimate reasons to ban the burka, but if there are, causing offense is not one of them.

Then what are the legitimate reasons? Surely any other legitimate reason to ban the Burka could be deemed offensive to those who feel that their burka is an obligation, or even those who wear it as a demonstration of their religious and cultural identity?

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

mcclain! wrote: »

Then what are the legitimate reasons?

Again, nobody has the right to NOT be offended.
Being offended is a personal thing. Universal freedom of speech/expression is much more important to most people in the Western World.

Rape is not illegal because it offends people. It is illegal because it infringes on the rights of others.

It would be difficult to make an argument that people should have the right to see everyone elses face, so the people who support the ban are citing other legitimate reasons, such as security, and womens rights.

By the way, when I say legitimate reasons, I mean "potentially legitimate reasons", such as security. Banning something for security reasons is potentially legitimate, where banning something because it causes offense is not.

____


FWIW, I find burkas utterly disturbing, but would personally be leaning more to the side opposing a burka ban for the following reasons:

1]
In a true secular democracy, people are free to practice their religion, as long as the rights of others are not infringed.
I don't believe the rights of non-Muslims are being infringed by women wearing burkas.
Admittedly, a good case could be made for the argument that Muslim womens rights are being infringed upon. Actually, this is the only argument for banning the burka that I feel holds much water.

2]
I think a lot of people (not all) who support a ban are using legitimate arguments to support a more sinister agenda than they would admit. Some of them hate all religion. Some of them hate Islam or Muslims or certain immigrants.
Not all Christians hate Islam, and not all atheists are liberal/secular.
I'm a secular humanist for the most part.

3]
Most arguments I've read in favour of a burka ban are unsound. (A, B, and C below, but not D)

A
The security issue
- Motor bike helmets are banned in banks, but we are talking about an outright ban on the burka. If the burka was to be banned for security reasons, we may as well ban the motor bike helmet outright too.

B
Why can't they respect our cultural traditions like we respect theirs when we are in their country?
This is a democracy. Maybe you should try to convince Muslim countries to be more tolerant, rather than try to make ours less tolerant.

C
It offends me
Tough s***.

D
It is oppressive to women
Like I said, this is the only argument that I feel holds any water, and it's the reason I'm only partially on the pro burka side of the fence.

Let's face it. The main reason most people want a burka ban is because they hate muslims and want to oppress or get rid of them. I would respect them more if they admitted it.

Why is nobody proposing a ban on Jewish beards, Seek hair, or Hindu Bindi?

old_aussie

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

Nemi wrote: »

But presumably this would be acceptable.

Where'd you get that pic of mohammad?

pH

condra wrote: »

Again, nobody has the right to NOT be offended.
Being offended is a personal thing. Universal freedom of speech/expression is much more important to most people in the Western World.

Rape is not illegal because it offends people. It is illegal because it infringes on the rights of others..

But do they have the right to be masked everywhere? In banks? Teaching our children, working as doctors in our hospitals? As a police officer? As a judge? It seems to be a cop out to say well the burka's fine and should be allowed, just not here, and here oh and here ...

What about nakedness? this is only a *proposed* burka ban (and indeed proposed in other countries), yet in Ireland today you'd be arrested (or at least detained) for being naked it public. No actual harm is done, nakedness is banned solely on the basis of the offence it causes, so let me ask, is there anyone who is in favour of allowing the burka but would still like to see nakedness prohibited in public?

AudreyHepburn

I would be against this ban because I don't believe any government has the right to tell some-one how to dress or how not to dress.

Just because some-one people are uncomfortable around women in Burkhas does not mean they should be prevented from wearing them. It does not infringe on your rights. It is their culture and as far as I can make out it is not hurting you in anyway or disrupting your everyday life so just let them be.

In my opinion those who wish to ban the burkha are using it as a cover for their hatred of Muslims or religion in general or at least the open expression of beliefs.

robindch

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would be against this ban because I don't believe any government has the right to tell some-one how to dress or how not to dress.

So, by implication, you support the right of men to tell "their" women what to wear?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In my opinion those who wish to ban the burkha are using it as a cover for their hatred of Muslims or religion in general or at least the open expression of beliefs.

If you read this thread closely, you'll find that many of the pro-ban posters support the ban simply because they don't like to see women controlled in a distinctly totalitarian manner.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

So, by implication, you support the right of men to tell "their" women what to wear?

I'm implying nothing of the kind and you know it. I don't think anyone has the right to tell some-one how to dress.

If you read this thread closely, you'll find that many of the pro-ban posters support the ban simply because they don't like to see women controlled in a distinctly totalitarian manner.

You're assuming these women are being forced into wearing the Burhka. How do you know they aren't choosing to wear it? Besides even if they feel they have to wear it might not be something they object to, if that is how they are raised.

No, in my opinion any objections being raised are purely on the grounds that people are afraid of other cultures and different ways of living that they don't understand or don't conform to their ideas of what's normal.