Muslims asked to remove headscarves for new Garda card

philologos

I'm quite happy to give deference to religious freedom in society. I'm not a Muslim and indeed strongly disagree with Islam, but I'm more than happy to give people this leeway. I don't see how someone isn't identifiable by wearing a headscarf.

smokedeels

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If you are moving to a country accept the laws there.

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

smokedeels

gozunda wrote: »

smokedeels wrote: »

You said the incident happend in the street...

So if when something happens on a plane or in a hotel etc thats ok is it? All because anyone adopting what effectively a disguise can get away with without being identifiable!

And btw I dont remember seeing anywhere that wearing a bike helmet was a religous duty.

Look to save faffing around further just go back and read the concluding remarks - maybe just maybe you will get the point the second time around. But I am not holding my breath....

Your conclusion as I understand it is that we should suspect everybody and therefore ban all garments that cover the head. Not just for photographs but in all aspects of everyday life.

I get the point, I don't agree with it, but I get it just fine.

R P McMurphy

They are gonna freak it when they realise that Phil Hogan is introducing new legislation to make it mandatory for all women to pose topless for these photos

Galwayguy35

smokedeels wrote: »

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

No

Snake Plisken

Dead right they should be made take it off for official id in this country! They know where the door is if they don't like!

smokedeels

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

smokedeels wrote: »

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

No

You should, it's great.

Galwayguy35

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I bet you'd have been a hoor to the kaffirs black-skinned people in Apartheid South Africa. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

What are you implying? Say it out in plain english what you mean If you want to accuse me of racism. Im amazed you are allowed to make comments like that about another poster.

hondasam

gozunda wrote: »

My sister was attacked whilst walking down a street in london at 8.30 in the morning by a large woman wearing a full lenght Burqa with face covered except for the eyes. Now as my sister did not know any women who dressed like this and is Irish btw. She had never met this individual or knew anyone who dressed in this type of clothing or otherwise. The deranged woman attacked my sister and dug dirty fingernails into her neck and tried to throttle her. The woman was pulled off by some passers by and ran off screaming into the crowd. When my sister was asked to describe her attacker - well you can fill in the report sheet yourself....

It did not matter that the police ever knew what this cookie looked like because on the street nobody could identify her. All my sister could give the police an approximate description of was the womans eyes and percieved ethnicity. And guess what they said they could not persue the matter as they had not enough to go on...


AND before I am jumped upon - NO I am not saying that women who wear Burqua etc are particularly violent but this woman was AND because she was covered from head to toe she could not be either described by the victim or found afterwards....

So end of story anyone is that anyone imo who goes around with a disguise whahtever it be a hoody or face covering for whatever the alleged reason is there is a problem waiting to happen. How the hell do airports manage with these customs, I dont know

This is one instance,hardly fair to say they should be stopped wearing them completely. how much crime is committed by women wearing the Burqa?
People who are attacked cannot always id their attacker even when their faces are not covered.

Ellis Dee

Look up "irony" in a dictionary. That's a big book that explains the meaning of words.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

af_thefragile wrote: »

You dont care much about religion but for many people their religion means a lot to them. We dont live in a fascist state which strips people of their identity.

But then we have to accept all "religions" no matter how new, widespread or outlandish. What makes a religion I make up tomorrow any less valid than one made up 2000 years ago? At the end of the day they are all made up , some just have a bigger following and stuck for a longer time.

smokedeels

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What are you implying? Say it out in plain english what you mean If you want to accuse me of racism. Im amazed you are allowed to make comments like that about another poster.

(S)he was making a point about accepting the "laws of the land" without complaint.

DanWall

If you go to their country eg Saudi Arabia, there is no religious freedom, you cannot hold religious meetings, there is a 100% check of your luggage at the airport, often newspapers and photographs a confiscated because they contain too much flesh on show or alcohol adverts, I personally know of a guy who was locked up because he was taking a bible in, women visiting their country must wear long sleeves and long skirts/Kaftan so that no flesh is showing,
men cannot take their shirts off in public. We must obey their laws, they should obey our laws.
I have seen on occasions Muslim women go to the toilet during the flight with their black clothes etc and re-appear dressed as Europeans, so it does not apply to all.

gozunda

smokedeels wrote: »

Your conclusion as I understand it is that we should suspect everybody and therefore ban all garments that cover the head. Not just for photographs but in all aspects of everyday life.
I get the point, I don't agree with it, but I get it just fine.

No you dont get do you? (to much ganja per chance?)

And by the way there is no need to suspect anyyone BUT insisting on the the wearing of Burqa/Niqab/Veils/Headscarves etc defeats any attempts at an equitable national security system.

So I will explain it again for the hard of understanding!

OK so

Scenario 1:
so take a photo for ID purposes, and lets say without a head covering of any sort- then what? How do you match this up to someone who is covered up in every other circumstance? You dont! End of story.

Scenario 2:
so take a photo for ID purposes with whatever level of covering the head insisted on - the result that at best it is difficult or at worst impossible to identify this person unless you are are psychic of course

For the purposes of policing and security insisting that anyone is somehow is outside the law and that they dont have follow the regulations that every one else have to is a null argument. Garments for the head dont need to be banned but where they hide or are used to obscure someones identidty then yes there is a problem.

Ok so maybe thats your opinion but I prefer to live in a slightly safer world than you prescribe to....

So end of story anyone is that anyone imo who goes around with a disguise whahtever it be a hoody or face covering for whatever the alleged reason is there is a problem waiting to happen. How the hell do airports manage with these customs, I dont know.

Galwayguy35

smokedeels wrote: »

(S)he was making a point about accepting the "laws of the land" without complaint.

If Irish people immigrate to other countries they must obey the laws there. Why should ireland be different.

wes

DanWall wrote: »

We must obey their laws, they should obey our laws.

The law was obeyed, as per the article. The Women did not break any law. Seems to me that far to many people, aren't actually reading the article, and are just going into full on Xenophobe mode.

smokedeels

DanWall wrote: »

We must obey their laws, they should obey our laws.

Who is THEY?

The governments of some Middle Eastern countries impose religious law that nobody, Muslim or otherwise has any choice about obeying.

It's a religion, not a hive-mind, it just happens that some countries, ran by extremists have based laws on a fundamentalist interpretation of it.

Ireland is a open democracy, made up of people from different backgrounds, some of them who live, work and pay taxes are Muslim, and some of them wear garments on their heads.

Our laws (I guess by this you mean White Catholic people) are their laws too.

gozunda

hondasam wrote: »

This is one instance,hardly fair to say they should be stopped wearing them completely. how much crime is committed by women wearing the Burqa?
People who are attacked cannot always id their attacker even when their faces are not covered.

FAIL....

Do read what I wrote at least. And I quote...

before I am jumped upon - NO I am not saying that women who wear Burqua etc are particularly violent but this woman was AND because she was covered from head to toe she could not be either described by the victim or found afterwards....

Is does not matter if there is only one crime or 10,000. And btw I do love your excuse in this instance for identifying a person who is attacking someone AT LEAST there might be a chance of identifying someone in your stated scenario - something which my sister didn't - if she had tried to rip the damned thing off she would have been probably done for religous intolerance. Nice world you are advocationg there.

Btw how come someone who uses a half naked (omg - no!) avatar get away with advocating that woman should be covered up...I dont get it tbh.

Napper Hawkins

Love how so many people are missing the point completely and turning this into a "well they don't let us do such and such in their country so why should we muh muh muh dribble dribble etc."

I couldn't give a ****e if Muslim women want to wear their silly little religion on their heads if they believe it pleases their imaginary friend/stops their men raping/slapping them around the place. Wear what you like and believe what you like.

What I do give a ****e about is exactly as Keith Clancy put it and that is if it supposedly doesn't matter a fuk if they wear some type of headgear then why does it matter if I want to do the same?

One rule for everyone and if you don't like it then hop it.

End of.

smokedeels

gozunda wrote: »

Scenario 1:
so take a photo for ID purposes, and lets say without a head covering of any sort- then what? How do you match this up to someone who is covered up in every other circumstance? You dont! End of story.

Scenario 2:
so take a photo for ID purposes with whatever level of covering the head insisted on - the result that at best it is difficult or at worst impossible to identify this person unless you are are psychic of course

For the purposes of policing and security insisting that anyone is somehow is outside the law and that they dont have follow the regulations that every one else have to is a null argument. Garments for the head dont need to be banned but where they hide or are used to obscure someones identidty then yes there is a problem.

Fine, you support an outright ban on garments that cover the face, I don't but you're not alone in your opinion.

I'll leave it at that.

gozunda wrote: »

So I will explain it again for the hard of understanding!

Don't insult me dude, I respect your opinion and I didn't have a pop at you personally.

Seachmall

gozunda wrote: »

FAIL....

Do read what I wrote at least.

[...]

Btw how come someone who uses a half naked (omg - no!) avatar get away with advocating that woman should be covered up...I dont get it tbh.

Delicious irony.

gozunda

smokedeels wrote: »

Fine, you support an outright ban on garments that cover the face, I don't but you're not alone in your opinion.
I'll leave it at that.

As I have stated previously garments for the head dont need to be banned but where they hide or are used to obscure someones identidty then yes there is a problem.

I am interested in how you believe "face garments" for want of a better term would work in practical security situations such as the person at the passport desk attempting to match up with the burqa clad individual infront of him/her with the passport photo sans "face garment"?

smokedeels wrote: »

Don't insult me dude, I respect your opinion and I didn't have a pop at you personally.

I apologise for any offence given.

seanm92

hondasam wrote: »

This is one instance,hardly fair to say they should be stopped wearing them completely. how much crime is committed by women wearing the Burqa?
People who are attacked cannot always id their attacker even when their faces are not covered.

Your point doesn't make sense IMO hondasam. You say that people often can't ID attackers, but this is not always the case, more than likely this is quite rare. In this case the victim had no chance of identifying the woman in question other than by height or build simply due to the fact they were wearing a burqa. It may not even have been a woman or a muslim. How can you expect the person who committed the crime to be brought to justice in a situation like this? or will they say that "this is just 1 instance" and let it slide?

Doc Ruby

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

One rule for everyone and if you don't like it then hop it.

The law applies to all or it applies to none.

I don't see how the hijab is an issue TBH. I have alopecia and wear a wig, should I remove my wig for photos? The burkha is another thing, that hides the face. The hijab only covers the hair. I can't see it being any different to me wearing a wig?

I met a couple who's little boy has alopecia, he's 10. He wears a hat all the time. He was asked to remove it at the airport which caused him a lot of stress. I know many women with alopecia who don't wear wigs, they wear headscarves, same issue.

I agree that full facial coverings are an obvious no-no, religion or not, but head coverings should be allowed?

Goldfingers

In a statement, the Garda press office said issues may arise when new procedures are put in place. “Management at the Garda National Immigration Bureau are committed to working with individuals and members of any community to address concerns in order to achieve satisfactory outcomes for all parties,” it said.
This is a direct quote from the newspaper article.Unless I'm missing something I don't see any legally definitive statement one way or another.Perhaps the presumptive nature of the Muslim representative irked people.The official statement infers that its open for discussion.I think some people jumped the gun and perhaps inadvertently given one side something they could use in their favour.

Fluorescence

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see how the hijab is an issue TBH. I have alopecia and wear a wig, should I remove my wig for photos? The burkha is another thing, that hides the face. The hijab only covers the hair. I can't see it being any different to me wearing a wig?

I met a couple who's little boy has alopecia, he's 10. He wears a hat all the time. He was asked to remove it at the airport which caused him a lot of stress. I know many women with alopecia who don't wear wigs, they wear headscarves, same issue.

I agree that full facial coverings are an obvious no-no, religion or not, but head coverings should be allowed?

Exactly, which is why one set of rules for "them" and another for everyone is so very wrong. Either make it so that head coverings (that don't obscure the face) are allowed for all or for none.

jblack

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I couldn't give a ****e if Muslim women want to wear their silly little religion on their heads

What I do give a ****e about i
End of.

A Shiite?

DanWall

This reminds me of an incident that happened in the UK some years ago when Sikh bus conductors where allowed to wear turbans, all the other employees turned up for work with funny hats.

Scruffles

-there shoudnt be a issue as long as the guards offer reasonable accomodations/allowances in making sure muslims can get their photos taken for ID without the disallowed head/face coverage,they have to do it for passports over here so it cannot be breaking any muslim ruling.

though a slightly different case and country,years ago when was still just about able to access the trafford centre,due to disability it meant having to wear a thick hood with ear defenders over the top;otherwise the sensory overload lead to serious problems [health,physical injury,behavior and seizures].
the TC at that time unknowingly brought in a rule which said anyone wearing items which covers all but the face-such as a hood [regardless of how far back it was] woud be made to take it off or excorted off the premises.

had gone there with family and we only just got in the door when was suddenly surrounded and almost cut off from family by a huge pack of red coats [the staff],they said either take off what was wearing or will be physicaly excorted out the building.
regardless of family explaining how the hood and ear defenders were requirements of disabilities and the only way was going to be able to access the place,the redcoats still acted in a threatening way,they said the rule was because the security cameras cannot see peoples faces when they are wearing any such head gear.

we had to leave- surrounded by this pack of goons.
as we were going towards the exit-a group of muslim women walked past us with the full face/body covering native wear and the tiny slit for seeing through [not sure of the name];they werent given any attention from the redcoats-felt so peed off it was unbelievable,had thought how can they ignore the rights of access of disabled people through the DDA [disability discrimination act] yet think religeon is a more valid reason to allow any level of head coverage?