Muslims asked to remove headscarves for new Garda card

Unavailable for Comment

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Just giving my view. I wouldnt feel it would be giving me special treatment. I would be treated the same as everyone else. Ive never suggested everyone would be happy with it but sure you cant please everyone.

Fair enough. I just don't think that's reason enough to discomfit people.

Whatever you think of the reasons for it these women really would be upset by such requests and personally I would put their genuine emotional distress above the niggling thought that certain sections of society might benefit from a completely irrelevant courtesy that I don't.

dirtyden

The purpose of an ID card is to uniquely identify the owner. I do not see how that is possible with a Hijab on. Unless another unique identifier is associated with the ID like a retinal scan or fingerprint that can be easily read by wherever needs the ID I am afraid I dont see how the Garda could sanction the ID.

If the Islamic council comes up with a workable solution then fair enough, until then they should abide by the law of the land.

Seachmall

dirtyden wrote: »

The purpose of an ID card is to uniquely identify the owner. I do not see how that is possible with a Hijab on. Unless another unique identifier is associated with the ID like a retinal scan or fingerprint that can be easily read by wherever needs the ID I am afraid I dont see how the Garda could sanction the ID.

If the Islamic council comes up with a workable solution then fair enough, until then they should abide by the law of the land.

The Hijab only covers the hair, ears and neck.

Hair can be changed, ears can be covered by hair, and necks can be covered by clothes. So they're not identifiable features, and the Hijab doesn't impede the purpose of the ID card.

dirtyden

Seachmall wrote: »

The Hijab only covers the hair, ears and neck.

Hair can be changed, ears can be covered by hair, and necks can be covered by clothes. So they're not identifiable features, and the Hijab doesn't impede the purpose of the ID card.

Why not get an ID card with a motor bike helmet on then?

hondasam

dirtyden wrote: »

Why not get an ID card with a motor bike helmet on then?

This is just silly. Why are people saying a helmet is the same thing as a scarf.
We all look different in our passport photos, women look different with and without make up.

Seachmall

dirtyden wrote: »

Why not get an ID card with a motor bike helmet on then?

Because a motorbike helmet covers and distorts the face, even with the visor up.

A more reasonable question/comparison would be "Why not get an ID card with long hair then?".

Thwip!

Does this mean that those who follow the Jedi religion can wear their hoods?

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

When, they are unable to actually stick to facts, and are essentially making stuff up that never happened to justify there views, then that would be a yes. Unsurprised, that you would as per usual agree with stuff that never happened. The best you can come up with is a rolleyes, which is very much a typical broken record response from yourself. The fact remains the law was not broken, which was the basis of my point, and in fact you don't address my point at all, again a not uncommon response from yourself.

The fact that remains is that this is Ireland. Not some Muslim country. Uour ball - our rules. Get over it. Sticks and stones, etc.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

wes wrote: »

The Women went to the cultural centre and told them about it, and then the cultural center contacted the Gardai, and it turned out that the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

So what was their problem then?

keithclancy

FFS, this whole thing is like reverse racism or something.

If they made them wear a symbol on their clothing for photos BECAUSE of their religion then people would be up in arms screaming all sorts.

But when their treated the same as everyone else thats wrong ?

Horsesh*t.

I'll give you another example:

Here in the Netherlands its legally required to have health insurance if you work.

Get this:
http://www.cvz.nl/en/insurance/zvw/zvw.html

Exemption from the obligation to take out insurance

Two groups are exempt from the obligation to take out insurance:

conscientious objectors: people who do not want to take out insurance because of their religion or beliefs;
soldiers on active service.

keithclancy

Actually I might ring up and tell them "Jesus is my Health Insurance"

wes

Freddie59 wrote: »

So what was their problem then?

I don't know. Some people seem to think they did something illegal.

prinz

keithclancy wrote: »

Here in the Netherlands its legally required to have health insurance if you work.

"Neddy doesn't believe in insurance, he considers it a form of gambling."

alastair

Freddie59 wrote: »

The fact that remains is that this is Ireland. Not some Muslim country. Uour ball - our rules. Get over it. Sticks and stones, etc.:rolleyes:

I understood our country allowed freedom of religious expression?

Sir Gallagher

Fair played to the Gardai on this one, a request was made, they weighed it up and responded with reason.

Some of the responses here are embarrasing. "why can't i wear a helmet/balaclava", "our country our rules", "dey durk er jobbs". Unsurprising considering the amount of nouveau wannabe right-wingers/brow-beating athiests you find in AH these days.

coffee_cake

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Fair played to the Gardai on this one, a request was made, they weighed it up and responded with reason.

Some of the responses here are embarrasing. "why can't i wear a helmet/balaclava", "our country our rules", "dey durk er jobbs". Unsurprising considering the amount of nouveau wannabe right-wingers/brow-beating athiests you find in AH these days.

You're right, all non-muslims are atheists

keithclancy

alastair wrote: »

I understood our country allowed freedom of religious expression?

As long as you don't march down the road in Dublin wearing an Orange outfit.

Sir Gallagher

bluewolf wrote: »

You're right, all non-muslims are atheists

Where did i say that?

Edgar Allan Poe

If I cant wear my top hat then headwear should be strictly out. It is made from the finest of chinese silk and the jaunty angle I wear it at in no way decieves the peelers as to who I am.

The imaginary entity that rules so many humans just makes life (and death) a pain in the rear for the rest of us. Church should NEVER dictate tothe state. Ireland of all "her children" should have learned that at this stage. If you havent, then you deserve that everything you get - and that your children get.

dublin daz

International law or Sharia law? The face-covrings are not protected under international or Irish law. My sister had her Passport application returned because her fringe was over her eyebrows.

This is Ireland, not Saudi Arabia. The likelihood of sand blowing into their hair or face is minimal and they should be treated like anyone else.

If they feel unhappy with how things are done here then the question that needs to be asked is why are they here?

Freddie59

alastair wrote: »

I understood our country allowed freedom of religious expression?

The law supersedes it in this instance. Thankfully. When in Rome, etc.

Well, I suppose you might considering religious freedom women being forced to wear ludicrous garments. I don't. And neither do many others.

Unavailable for Comment

Freddie59 wrote: »

The law supersedes it in this instance. Thankfully. When in Rome, etc.

There's no legal obligation. Just please try and commit the one salient fact from that article to memory.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Well, I suppose you might considering religious freedom women being forced to wear ludicrous garments. I don't. And neither do many others.

But somehow your definition of freedom is forcing women to remove them? Nice!

Logical Fallacy

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

when in rome.....

There is something suitably funny about a phrase of religious origin being used in this context.:)

tigger123

alastair wrote: »

I understood our country allowed freedom of religious expression?

"I thought this was America?!"

alastair

Freddie59 wrote: »

The law supersedes it in this instance.

Ehhhh, not sure how to break this but... :rolleyes:

dirtyden

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Fair played to the Gardai on this one, a request was made, they weighed it up and responded with reason.

Some of the responses here are embarrasing. "why can't i wear a helmet/balaclava", "our country our rules", "dey durk er jobbs". Unsurprising considering the amount of nouveau wannabe right-wingers/brow-beating athiests you find in AH these days.

What about other religoius freedoms, perhaps the stoning of adulterers, should that be allowed too?

This is a secular state, regulations should not be influenced by any religion. Where should the line be drawn?

If you want an ID card you follow the rules. A photo can be taken in the comfort of ones own home, I dont see how this limits anyones religious freedom. I think its more of a case of the PC brigade on here needing to demonstrate their unthinking empathy.

alastair

dirtyden wrote: »

What about other religoius freedoms, perhaps the stoning of adulterers, should that be allowed too?

This is a secular state, regulations should not be influenced by any religion. Where should the line be drawn?

If you want an ID card you follow the rules. A photo can be taken in the comfort of ones own home, I dont see how this limits anyones religious freedom. I think its more of a case of the PC brigade on here needing to demonstrate their unthinking empathy.

As we've established - the rules allow for wearing a scarf. I'm pretty certain that stoning people is a distinct and different catagory from scarf-wearing. Nice crisis-mongering though!

hondasam

dirtyden wrote: »

If you want an ID card you follow the rules. A photo can be taken in the comfort of ones own home, I dont see how this limits anyones religious freedom. I think its more of a case of the PC brigade on here needing to demonstrate their unthinking empathy.

This photo is for the GNIB card, this photo is taken by the gardai, it's not taken in the comfort of your own home. It's taken at the airport.

Sir Gallagher

dirtyden wrote: »

What about other religoius freedoms, perhaps the stoning of adulterers, should that be allowed too?

This is a secular state, regulations should not be influenced by any religion. Where should the line be drawn?

If you want an ID card you follow the rules. A photo can be taken in the comfort of ones own home, I dont see how this limits anyones religious freedom. I think its more of a case of the PC brigade on here needing to demonstrate their unthinking empathy.

Naturally i would be fine with the stoning of adulterers as an unthinking empathising member of PC brigade.

dirtyden

alastair wrote: »

As we've established - the rules allow for wearing a scarf. I'm pretty certain that stoning people is a distinct and different catagory from scarf-wearing. Nice crisis-mongering though!

Where is the problem then?