Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Muslims asked to remove headscarves for new Garda card

Options
1…34689…14

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    FTGFOP wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with the hijab. Do you think a person should be allowed to wear a hairband in their photo? The regulations state it's not allowed. Would you be happy to see this changed?

    I regard personal freedom very highly as long as the person acts responsibly. In maintaining personal freedom yes i would welcome such a change. Why sould we all be objectified as featureless faces for some government regulation and control. People over the years have died for liberty and freedom and slowly we are stripping it all away.


  • Options
    #153
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question. I will ask it again.

    If I objected to Muslim men hitting their wives, because the Qur'an permits it, would that be discrimination?

    And if you think I am misinformed, then here is a direct quote from the Qur'an: http://quran.com/4/34

    I answered your question and i am aware of the quote. I will maintain that you are very misinformed. You might want to do some more research in understand what it actually means and about islam in general.


  • Options
    #154
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    I answered your question and i am aware of the quote. I will maintain that you are very misinformed. You might want to do some more research in understand what it actually means and about islam in general.

    You didn't answer my question. And I am not misinformed. I have just quoted the Qur'an.

    Now answer my question.

    If I objected to Muslim men hitting their wives, because the Qur'an permits it, would that be discrimination?


  • Options
    #155
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    bluewolf wrote: »
    they take off the fcuking veil all the time
    taking it off IN PRIVATE for 5 mins to take a photo is not part of their identity. and for you to continue to insist that it is, is as much an insult to them as anyone else

    Why did they object to it if it wasn't much of insult to them? Why was there such resistance when sarkozy decided to ban the hijab in France?


  • Options
    #156
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    Why did they object to it if it wasn't much of insult to them? Why was there such resistance when sarkozy decided to ban the hijab in France?

    we're not talking about banning the hijab. we are talking about taking it off in private for long enough to take a photo. one which women who wear the full head to toe garb often don't have any problem with.

    Why did they object? because a lot of people are prone to the "fine for everyone else but I'M special" mentality.
    The same one that means people object when asked to queue properly or for any other trivial things


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question. And I am not misinformed. I have just quoted the Qur'an.

    Now answer my question.

    If I objected to Muslim men hitting their wives, because the Qur'an permits it, would that be discrimination?

    Because the quran does not say that and you are just misinformed.


  • Options
    #158
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question. And I am not misinformed. I have just quoted the Qur'an.

    Now answer my question.

    If I objected to Muslim men hitting their wives, because the Qur'an permits it, would that be discrimination?

    You should probably answer this question first. Do you know what discrimination means?


  • Options
    #159
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    Because the quran does not say that and you are just misinformed.

    It does say it, and I have quoted the verse where it states it. Are you a Muslim? And if so, why don't you cite the quote and explain to me why I'm wrong.


  • Options
    #160
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
    You should probably answer this question first. Do you know what discrimination means?

    I'm pretty sure I asked my question first, about 5 pages back.

    And yes, I'm quite aware of what the word discrimination means.


  • Options
    #161
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's not a comparison. The poster stated that we should respect people's religious beliefs. It is a held belief within Islam that apostasy should carry the punishment of death.

    You can't pick and choose where to apply your logic afraid. I'm 100% consistent with mine. Equal rights for everybody, irrespective of their religion. No exceptions.

    This is the best post on the thread, and is the reason af_thefragile's argument of "religious freedom" is pointless.

    Irish Law comes first. Religious freedom comes second. End of. You can't do what you like because your religion says so if it goes against the law of the land.
    af_thefragile, read a few of the reports on child abuse in ireland, see what happens when canon law gets in the way of real law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I asked my question first, about 5 pages back.

    Sorry, I literally thought you were joking.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    And yes, I'm quite aware of what the word discrimination means.

    Then you understand that it refers to the unjust treatment of different categories of people based on gender, religion etc.

    Therefore by definition condemning people for attacking other people or murdering people is not discriminatory.


  • Options
    #163
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article93731.ece
    “Though purdah is compulsory for women under the Shariat, Islamic law gives conditional permission under special circumstances,” senior member of the All India Muslim Personal law board and Naib Imam of Idgah, Lucknow, Khalid Rasheed Forangimahal told PTI.
    ...
    Mr. Farooqi maintained that even those who support purdah relax it for such necessary documents and Muslim seminaries have issued fatwa that photos of Muslim women can be taken if they are “need-based.”
    there

    enough of that nonsense


  • Options
    #164
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
    Then you understand that it refers to the unjust treatment of different categories of people based on gender, religion etc.

    And at no point have I called for unjust treatment of anyone. I have called for equality for everyone, irrespective of their religion from the very beginning. So please enlighten me as to how that is discriminatory?


  • Options
    #165
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    bluewolf wrote: »
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article93731.ece


    there

    enough of that nonsense

    ...that's the face covering.


  • Options
    #166
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    Paparazzo wrote: »
    This is the best post on the thread, and is the reason af_thefragile's argument of "religious freedom" is pointless.

    Irish Law comes first. Religious freedom comes second. End of. You can't do what you like because your religion says so if it goes against the law of the land.
    af_thefragile, read a few of the reports on child abuse in ireland, see what happens when canon law gets in the way of real law.

    Well except it has nothing to do with the law as there is no requirement for religious women to remove their scarves.


  • Options
    #167
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fluorescence


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...that's the face covering.

    And the head covering. Not all of them were wearing the full-face one. They all had completely bare heads in their photos.


  • Options
    #168
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...that's the face covering.

    and if there is any reason that the headscarf will impede ID, i'm sure it covers that too.

    the point is that even though they completely cover up and consider that part of their identity, they all realise there are necessary exceptions.


  • Options
    #169
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And at no point have I called for unjust treatment of anyone. I have called for equality for everyone, irrespective of their religion from the very beginning. So please enlighten me as to how that is discriminatory?

    I am trying to explain to you how your hysterical attempts to liken a concession on headscarves to murder and wife beating is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #170
    Jimbob 83
    Registered Users Posts: 2,033 ✭✭✭Jimbob 83


    One law for everyone, if you don't like it leave.


  • Options
    #171
    JONJO THE MISER
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12,333 ✭✭✭✭JONJO THE MISER


    Makes me so angry, there in Ireland, adopt or get the **** out.
    Im sure there going to make a great addition to society walking around with hijabs and not integrating with anyone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Im sure there going to make a great addition to society walking around with hijabs.

    How does is Woman covering her head any different than someone wearing a hat? Seriously, WTF?


  • Options
    #173
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Makes me so angry, there in Ireland, adopt or get the **** out.
    Im sure there going to make a great addition to society walking around with hijabs.

    People often wonder why issues like this can't be discussed in a semi-calm manner. I present the above as an example.


  • Options
    #174
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
    I am trying to explain to you how your hysterical attempts to liken a concession on headscarves to murder and wife beating is ridiculous.

    Like a hijab, I see my comment went over your head.

    I wasn't likening them. I was highlighting the idiocy of using religion as a means to permit exemptions to certain people for observing a state's laws. In this instance, it was obviously a mix-up.. But in general terms, if someone is required by law to remove a hijab, then they should do so. Everyone else understood my point, except you.


  • Options
    #175
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Makes me so angry, there in Ireland, adopt or get the **** out.
    Im sure there going to make a great addition to society walking around with hijabs and not integrating with anyone.

    These rules apply to everyone. Not just immigrants.


  • Options
    #176
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    The state has no problem interfering with blood transfusion cases involving the children of jahovas witnesses because of the risks to life.
    Having people not clearly visible in id photos is a threat to national security and potentially to life. No?


  • Options
    #177
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Makes me so angry, there in Ireland, adopt or get the **** out.
    Im sure there going to make a great addition to society walking around with hijabs and not integrating with anyone.

    I think you mean adapt rather than adopt and they're rather than there but aside from that what are you basing your assumption that they're not integrating or contributing to society on ?

    If this makes you very angry I shudder to think how real issues affect you


  • Options
    #178
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Like a hijab, I see my comment went over your head.

    I wasn't likening them. I was highlighting the idiocy of using religion as a means to permit exemptions to certain people for observing a state's laws. Everyone else understood my point, except you.

    You were either intentionally likening them or perhaps it was just your sloppy prose.

    Either way the State considers this exemption to be a non issue. There is no rule being broken here. No special treatment being given so really there's nothing more to say.

    However it is strange that a person of your professed secular convictions did not pick up on Ali Selim's quote. I'll let you google him . . . There, did you find him? . . . Good. Have a quick read there. . .

    Charming eh?

    See that's the real problem with people like you. You're so blinded by your invented affronts to our freedoms that you don't even see the real pernicious ones.


  • Options
    #179
    token101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    Unavailable for Comment wrote: »
    Well except it has nothing to do with the law as there is no requirement for religious women to remove their scarves.

    There should be upon reasonable request. If I owned a business, I wouldn't have someone wearing a burqa with their face covered entering my premises for the same reason I wouldn't allow entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet or a balaclava. If you don't comply, 'management reserves the right to refuse entry'. In the case of the Gardaí, if you refuse reasonable instruction you should be subject to arrest. It's common sense, only morons would disagree.


  • Options
    #180
    token101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭token101


    Nodin wrote: »
    People often wonder why issues like this can't be discussed in a semi-calm manner. I present the above as an example.

    That doesn't make an entire argument any less valid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Unavailable for Comment
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Unavailable for Comment


    token101 wrote: »
    There should be upon reasonable request. If I owned a business, I wouldn't have someone wearing a burqa with their face covered entering my premises for the same reason I wouldn't allow entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet or a balaclava. If you don't comply, 'management reserves the right to refuse entry'. In the case of the Gardaí, if you refuse reasonable instruction you should be subject to arrest. It's common sense, only morons would disagree.

    I completely agree with you and if this thread was about people wearing balaclavas or burqas or motorbike helmets I'd agree that it was ridiculous.

    However it's not. it's about a headscarf. Nothing more.


Advertisement