Burka ban

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

Yawn.

Haha. At least you read my post.

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

goingpostal wrote: »

If women are allowed to walk around in public with a burka on concealing their face, I demand that all the burka-apologists defend my right to walk into the bank tomorrow with a motorcycle helmet over my face.

Utterly ridiculous.

You are implying that Muslims are somehow privileged to be allowed wear burkas, as if the rest of us would actually care to do the same.

This sort of absurd argument has been displayed again and again in this thread. It is quite obviously a front for the real reasons why you would be in favour of a ban on burkas.

At least Dades had the guts and honesty to admit he has "no love for the Muslim faith and the culture that comes with it."

So I put the question to you Goingpostal, why are you in favour of a burka ban? What is your opinion of Muslims who live in Ireland?

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

... it would be perfectly acceptable for the State to prohibit human sacrifice. But there's no reason for the State to stop people wearing funny clothes.

"Funny clothes" - I'm sure this actually is the reason for many people. They are utterly afraid of anything alien to traditional Irish culture.

And all the time the elephant in the room is the fact that infant boys have actually died on Irish soil as a result of circumcision. Yet here we are banging on about the burka, as if it mattered a jot to anyone actually subject to Irish law.

Agreed. While I am in favour or religious freedom within reason, I don't think that should extend to the mutilation of infants in the home, or anywhere else.

As far as I know, there is no specific law in Ireland that prevents people from practicing male or female genital mutilation.

sonicthebadger*

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

condra wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous.

You are implying that Muslims are somehow privileged to be allowed wear burkas, as if the rest of us would actually care to do the same.

This sort of absurd argument has been displayed again and again in this thread. It is quite obviously a front for the real reasons why you would be in favour of a ban on burkas.

At least Dades had the guts and honesty to admit he has "no love for the Muslim faith and the culture that comes with it."

So I put the question to you Goingpostal, why are you in favour of a burka ban? What is your opinion of Muslims who live in Ireland?

Look, there's a lot of insults flying about from the pro burka side here, lets get this straight, some of the people who are arguing against face covering are doing just that and nothing more. It's typical of a screamer to put words in someone elses mouth. It gives me a pain in the hole to have to take my lid off every time I get petrol in the bike but I have to and that's it. If I'm pulled over by a Garda you can bet your ass I'll be told in no uncertain terms to remove the lid.

I don't give a flying ****e about any religion or what they care to wear, but if I have to do something why should any one else not have to. Can I start claiming I have every right not to take my lid off unless I'm at home alone cause the Mighty Honda says "cover your face in public cause... just cause like"?

If you demand special treatment you can have it... but don't dare ask for equality and special treatment in the same breath.

Morbert

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

condra wrote: »

While I am in favour or religious freedom within reason, I don't think that should extend to the mutilation of infants in the home, or anywhere else.

You just hate such culture. The cornerstone of a truly free democracy is the freedom the mutilate infants.

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Look,

I'm looking, I'm looking!

It gives me a pain in the hole to have to take my lid off every time I get petrol in the bike but I have to and that's it. If I'm pulled over by a Garda you can bet your ass I'll be told in no uncertain terms to remove the lid.

Security concerns are legitimate. I'm not sure on what the current policy is with regard to burkas in banks, but if anyone, is allowed to wear a burka in a bank, I am opposed to this. This is different from an outright ban though.

I don't give a flying ****e about any religion or what they care to wear

Apparently you do.

but if I have to do something why should any one else not have to. Can I start claiming I have every right not to take my lid off unless I'm at home alone cause the Mighty Honda says "cover your face in public cause... just cause like"?

What are you being asked to DO that Muslims are not? Restrain from wearing a burka? If you really want to get a sex change and convert to Islam, you won't hear any objection from me.

__

Morbert wrote: »

You just hate such culture. The cornerstone of a truly free democracy is the freedom the mutilate infants.

Facetious and tasteless. Nobody would make such a point, and there is a huge difference between wearing a burka and mutilating a child.

AudreyHepburn

Morbert wrote: »

You just hate such culture. The cornerstone of a truly free democracy is the freedom the mutilate infants.

And what's the problem with hating practices like that which harm people?

You can't compare that to wearing a Burkha, however. The Burkha hurts/kills absolutly no-one.

The only people it affects are those who fear/are warey of cultures outside their own or simply hate anything Muslim/Religion related.

Dades

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The only people it affects are those who fear/are warey of cultures outside their own or simply hate anything Muslim/Religion related.

Or those who are forced to or feel compelled to wear it. You keep forgetting that one.

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

condra wrote: »

......So I put the question to you Goingpostal, why are you in favour of a burka ban? What is your opinion of Muslims who live in Ireland?

My principle reason for being in favour of a burqa ban is that I believe that every citizen of a secular democracy has the right to look every other citizen in the face. This is such a basic and simple right that it eludes some people. This right should trump any so-called right claimed by any particular faith. I would refuse to deal with any person who has their face covered. I worked in a financial institution where anyone on a motorbike had to take off their helmet when approaching a hatch, but a woman wearing a burqa couldn't be identified against her passport because of sensitivity towards her husbands religious beliefs. If I lost money because of the possibility that I paid out the wrong person, it came out of my wages. I don't see why people should be given special privileges because they subscribe to any particular religion. I wasn't allowed to refuse to serve someone who was hiding their identity either. This has very basic, practical consequences. I have nothing in particular against the Muslim religion, it is no more ridiculous than Christianity or Judaism or any other revealed religion/fantasy. There are some aspects of it that I find very distasteful, for example the attitude of Islam towards women and gay people, and the violent rhetoric and actions of radicalised Muslims, who are backed up by a literal reading of the Koran. I think that our country is finally coming out of the shadow of centuries of oppression at the hands of the Catholic Church, and that we should be moving towards a secular society, not pandering to the worst excesses of other religions. Not everyone who objects to the burqa is a slavering Islamophobe.

robindch

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The Burkha hurts/kills absolutly no-one.

The following is what can happen when burqa-wearing becomes a symbol of political oppression, and some brave girls choose not to submit themselves to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/3446627/Afghan-schoolgirls-sprayed-with-acid.html

In an ideal world, men would not bike around the place and spray kids with acid at the behest, or the implication, of their religious leaders. However, this does happen in Aghanistan. Similar, though less extreme things, have been recorded in Europe. So the state is quite right to step in and remove the ability of these men to use the burqa as a political symbol, by banning the thing.

No, it's not a perfect solution and ideally, the burqa would not be a political symbol used to identify who and who should not be sprayed with acid. However, it is. And this has to be dealt with lest more women suffer.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

goingpostal wrote: »

My principle reason for being in favour of a burqa ban is that I believe that every citizen of a secular democracy has the right to look every other citizen in the face.

Utterly ridiculous.
Actually every citizen of a secular democracy has (should have) the right to hide their face (within reason), eg hat & scarf and shades, are people opposed to these or believe such items should be banned in the street.

Mark Hamill

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

Nemi wrote: »

How can Islamic "religious supremacists" hope to subvert Irish society by compelling women to wear a burka?

The same way that the religious supremacists subverted the more lenient muslim societies in the last century. Iran as it is now was not the way it was 40 years ago, check out these pics.

Nemi wrote: »

For my part, it most certainly would be acceptable for the State to step in to prevent an immediate death. However, it would be unacceptable for the State to force parents to vaccinate their children, as that's simply interfering with people's liberty to too great an extent.

Really? Its now part a fundamental part of someones liberty to be allowed to take massive risks with their kids health? Should these people be allowed to put their kids on the roofs of their cars when they drive around?

Nemi wrote: »

And all the time the elephant in the room is the fact that infant boys have actually died on Irish soil as a result of circumcision.

So on the one hand, you have a problem with circumcision, because kids have died from it, but on the other you think that the state shouldn't interfere with people vaccinating their kids, regardless of how many kids have died from that? How can you not see the hypocracy?

Nemi wrote: »

Yet here we are banging on about the burka, as if it mattered a jot to anyone actually subject to Irish law.Yawn.

If you dont like the thread topic then why post in it?

Mark Hamill

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous.
Actually every citizen of a secular democracy has (should have) the right to hide their face (within reason), eg hat & scarf and shades, are people opposed to these or believe such items should be banned in the street.

Why should your right to hide your face outrank my right to see it?

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should your right to hide your face outrank my right to see it?

You have as much right to see my face as any other part of my body which is absolutely zero. Thankfully.

condra

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should your right to hide your face outrank my right to see it?

Why should a persons right to not be raped outrank a rapists right to rape someone?

Firstly, don't assume anything is a right rather than s privelage, and not all rights are equal anyway.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The same way that the religious supremacists subverted the more lenient muslim societies in the last century. Iran as it is now was not the way it was 40 years ago, check out these pics.

From this report it would seem that the majority of Iranians didn't like the way it was then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/16/newsid_2530000/2530475.stm

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You have as much right to see my face as any other part of my body which is absolutely zero. Thankfully.

So you think we should all have the right to go around dressed like highway bandits or members of paramilitary organisations, covered with face-scarves or balaclavas? That is truly mind-boggling. But of course you will say "oh but no, I said, within reason" Whose reason, yours or mine? Where do we draw the line? How do you define "reasonable concealment"?

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

condra wrote: »

Why should a persons right to not be raped outrank a rapists right to rape someone?

Firstly, don't assume anything is a right rather than s privelage, and not all rights are equal anyway.

The burqa-appeasing arguments are getting more and more bizarre. We have no rights, only privileges. That is a new one on me.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

goingpostal wrote: »

So you think we should all have the right to go around dressed like highway bandits or members of paramilitary organisations, covered with face-scarves or balaclavas? That is truly mind-boggling. But of course you will say "oh but no, I said, within reason" Whose reason, yours or mine? Where do we draw the line? How do you define "reasonable concealment"?

Next winter when you walk around the streets during a cold spell and see someone with a scarf covering their face, think of this thread, walk up to them and try exercising your "right" to see their face. Just be very carefull doing it.
I can absolutely guarantee you if an altercation ensues, you will be arrested or cautioned for harassment by a member of the garda siochana.
Lets get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

robindch

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

irishconvert wrote: »

From this report it would seem that the majority of Iranians didn't like the way it was then:

Iran's secret police -- now religious -- are more powerful now than they were under the Shah. Last year's revolution failed miserably.

Not, btw, that Ahmadinejad appears to be much more popular than the Pahlavi was either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10865085

irishconvert

robindch wrote: »

Iran's secret police -- now religious -- are more powerful now than they were under the Shah. Last year's revolution failed miserably.

Not, btw, that Ahmadinejad appears to be much more popular than the Pahlavi was either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10865085

Last year's "revolution (sponsored by the BBC)" failed for a reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Next winter when you walk around the streets during a cold spell and see someone with a scarf covering their face, think of this thread, walk up to them and try exercising your "right" to see their face. Just be very carefull doing it.
I can absolutely guarantee you if an altercation ensues, you will be arrested or cautioned for harassment by a member of the garda siochana.
Lets get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no use of physical violence as a tactic to get my point across (unlike some of the men who force women to wear burqas). Even in cold weather, as you describe, you will find that most people will wear a hat and a scarf around their neck, for the simple reason, that having a piece of fabric covering one's nose and mouth, makes breathing more difficult. However, there is a world of difference between covering one's face temporarily as a practical measure to ward off cold, and forcing a woman to cover her face as a political and religious symbol of her status as mere chattel, a non-person, utterly powerless over the complete dominion of her husband or male relatives over her existence. If you think I am exaggerating, go to Afghanistan and observe how women are treated there, when they attempt to throw off this hideous abridgment of their basic human rights or read the stories about what happens to women who stand up to men in countries like this. I don't want to be a part of a country that allows this practice, even if it allows it only by tacit appeasement or turning a blind eye.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

goingpostal wrote: »

My principle reason for being in favour of a burqa ban is that I believe that every citizen of a secular democracy has the right to look every other citizen in the face.

This was the comment I was responding to, and I still say it is ridiculous.
Edit; In very cold weather I and many others cover our noses with a scarf and its not difficult to breathe.

To repeat myself from earlier in this thread

The burka is to prevent being seen in public, therefore the consequence of a ban would be women either being prevented from going out
or in the case of women who wear it by choice, they would be unwilling to go out themselves.
When things of a religious nature are banned it usually makes them stronger.
As I have already stated I have no love for burkas or anything whatsoever to do with religion.
Ban such a thing and you entrench the idea that it is something to fight for.
If catholicism was not banned here for many years we would probably be living in a more secular society than we are now.
This is the kind of thing that time and the fact that the younger generation don't always follow their parents "ideas" will change.
Ban it and you give that generation something to rebel against.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

there seems to be a distinct failure to separate attitudes to the burka from the burka itself.
it's like trying to reduce rape by banning women from dressing 'provocatively'.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

there seems to be a distinct failure to separate attitudes to the burka from the burka itself.
it's like trying to reduce rape by banning women from dressing 'provocatively'.

Spot on.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

In an ideal world, men would not bike around the place and spray kids with acid at the behest, or the implication, of their religious leaders. However, this does happen in Aghanistan.

Again, the example is simply irrelevant to our situation.

robindch wrote: »

Similar, though less extreme things, have been recorded in Europe.

If you want your case to have any influence on me (and there is absolutely no reason why you should), you need to concentrate on these cases. You need to convince me that burka-wearing presents such a threat to Irish society that we need to impose a new restriction on what women may choose to wear.

Morbert

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And what's the problem with hating practices like that which harm people?

You can't compare that to wearing a Burkha, however. The Burkha hurts/kills absolutly no-one.

The only people it affects are those who fear/are warey of cultures outside their own or simply hate anything Muslim/Religion related.

condra wrote: »

Facetious and tasteless. Nobody would make such a point, and there is a huge difference between wearing a burka and mutilating a child.

You both have missed the context of the post. It is obvious that we disagree over whether or not the burqa is harmful. So the post was a parody of those who label the 'pro-ban' side as anti-islam or anti-freedom (which has frequently been done here). It is blatantly obvious that a burqa is not on par with mutilating infants. It is also blatantly obvious that people who support the ban do not do so for oppressive or islamophobic reasons.

As for the other issue:It is well established that the Burqa is a misogynistic invention used to exert control over women. I really can't see how it can be argued otherwise. So I would wonder if anyone would answer this question: Given what we know today about both male and female sexuality, why is it that the burqa is not worn by men as well as women?

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The same way that the religious supremacists subverted the more lenient muslim societies in the last century. Iran as it is now was not the way it was 40 years ago, check out these pics.

I see. So the first step is to convert Ireland into a lenient muslim society. Best of luck to them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Its now part a fundamental part of someones liberty to be allowed to take massive risks with their kids health?

Its a reasonably basic civil right that you must consent to health treatment, except where there is immediate need, yes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Should these people be allowed to put their kids on the roofs of their cars when they drive around?

I don't quite see what that has to do with the medical profession not owning your life.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So on the one hand, you have a problem with circumcision, because kids have died from it, but on the other you think that the state shouldn't interfere with people vaccinating their kids, regardless of how many kids have died from that? How can you not see the hypocracy?

I can see the complexity. Can you? Can you identify how both of those cases hinge on who can intervene in your life and in what circumstances? Should parents be allowed to pierce their baby daughters' ears? Can you see that the decision to circumcise, vaccinate and pierce are actually different degrees of much the same thing?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you dont like the thread topic then why post in it?

But I absolutely adore the thread. I wouldn't miss the sight of otherwise rational people suggesting we will defeat religious extremism by adopting its intolerance.

goingpostal

I'm religious and support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This was the comment I was responding to, and I still say it is ridiculous.

And I find your previously expressed idea that we all have a right to go around concealing our faces from each other, "within reason", absurd and indefinable not to mention indefensible. Every other example of facial concealment that I can think of is associated with criminality, e.g., highway robbers, paramilitaries, bank robbers.