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

Hijab wearing muslim "attacked" on street

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,986 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    darkpagandeath wrote:
    I know quite a lot think having lived in the ME watching women covered up walking behind their husbands. Sitting in the back of the car. Nowhere in the book says a woman has to wear any of these items. It was brought in a subjugation plain and simple.

    But you aren't talking about the woman who want to cover their head or the shame they feel that another man has seen their head. If you have lived there then you should see it from the victims side. I don't like the covering of the head. I do believe that it's to keep the woman in line but I respect a woman's beliefs. There's always a severe shortage of empathy on After Hours.


  • Options
    #273
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    I see absolutely nothing wrong with the BBC reporting this.


  • Options
    #274
    lawlolawl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    No one want so seem to grab the nettle of men not having to wear it. Speaks volumes.

    I've decided you should wear a nuns habit.

    Get on that immediately.


  • Options
    #275
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    So? What relevance does that have to me or my posts? This thread is about whether this incident should be considered an assault or not. I have asserted that it should. Because it was. I don't give a shît what the article says about religion.

    It's not being treated as assault though is it..


  • Options
    #276
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    lawlolawl wrote: »
    I've decided you should wear a nuns habit.

    Get on that immediately.

    Cool I will wear it for Halloween.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Why the entire thread is a hypothetical as no one has been caught charged and we don't even know the motivation.

    I was referring to your post about why men don't wear a hijab.
    Maybe you should start a thread about that.
    Seeing as how it's nothing to do with this one


  • Options
    #278
    lawlolawl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I know quite a lot thanks having lived in the ME watching women covered up walking behind their husbands. Sitting in the back of the car. Nowhere in the book says a woman has to wear any of these items. It was brought in a subjugation plain and simple.

    Never crossed your mind that the women were ok with all that because of their culture/religion, no?

    Not everything has to be the same as the western world but i'm sure you already know that because you lived in the Middle East for a bit.


  • Options
    #279
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I was referring to your post about why men don't wear a hijab.
    Maybe you should start a thread about that.
    Seeing as how it's nothing to do with this one

    Oh right, So if it was a scarf the religious angle would be no issue then yes ? Many here are treating it as an attack on Islam.


  • Options
    #280
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    Reported for trolling.

    LOL seriously? I'll take my chances with that one.

    You have been calling relevant equivalent examples whataboutery. I seriously don't think that you know what the word means.


  • Options
    #281
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    It's not being treated as assault though is it..

    Again, what relevance does that have to me?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    Jayop wrote: »
    LOL seriously? I'll take my chances with that one.

    You have been calling relevant equivalent examples whataboutery. I seriously don't think that you know what the word means.

    What exactly about whataboutery do you not understand?


  • Options
    #283
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,986 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    SimonTemplar wrote:
    I see absolutely nothing wrong with the BBC reporting this.

    A lot of anti Muslim people don't want to see it being reported. Mating pandas in the zoo or a report from the local flower show is fine but you can never report an attack on a Muslim person. Muslims are supposed to be the bad guys and that's all we want to see in the news. Sounds like Trump is president already


  • Options
    #284
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    lawlolawl wrote: »
    Never crossed your mind that the women were ok with all that because of their culture/religion, no?

    Not everything has to be the same as the western world but i'm sure you already know that because you lived in the Middle East for a bit.

    You are comparing women who have a kind of choice even though they can still get harassment here from men in their communities.

    To women who have zero choice. I find it very grating people championing oh look what happened here when far worse happens in countries where the pointy hats are in full control. I guess wearing a head piece is a bit better than getting the genitals mutilated.


  • Options
    #285
    Arthur.beaker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 179 ✭✭Arthur.beaker


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    A lot of anti Muslim people don't want to see it being reported. Mating pandas in the zoo or a report from the local flower show is fine but you can never report an attack on a Muslim person. Muslims are supposed to be the bad guys and that's all we want to see in the news. Sounds like Trump is president already

    Presumably the same people who suppressed the Stuttgart New Year's Eve attacks?


  • Options
    #286
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Again, what relevance does that have to me?

    You are treating it as an assault it's not being treated as an assault.


  • Options
    #287
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Arthur.beaker wrote: »
    What exactly about whataboutery do you not understand?

    Reported for trolling ;)


  • Options
    #288
    LiamoSail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭LiamoSail


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I'm sure you contacted the UK authorities with your information in regards to the motivation of alleged attack ?

    The motivation of the attackers isn't hugely relevant to the consequence faced by the victim. The consequence was an attack on her beliefs and her person

    If a woman's skirt is removed by someone in public, would she be comforted to know the motivation was 'banter' rather than sexual? Should she she feel better about it? No, because it's not hugely relevant to the consequence.

    I'm absolutely astonished at the attitude of those defending these attackers. What the hell is wrong with people that they can find it in themselves to condone two men publicly interfering with a woman in such a personal, intrusive manner


  • Options
    #289
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    LiamoSail wrote: »
    The motivation of the attackers isn't hugely relevant to the consequence faced by the victim. The consequence was an attack on her beliefs and her person

    If a woman's skirt is removed by someone in public, would she be comforted to know the motivation was 'banter' rather than sexual? Should she she feel better about it? No, because it's not hugely relevant to the consequence.

    I'm absolutely astonished at the attitude of those defending these attackers. What the hell is wrong with people that they can find it in themselves to condone two men publicly interfering with a woman in such a personal, intrusive manner

    Who would that be now ? I assume you think it should not be a hate crime off the bat yes ?


  • Options
    #290
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    The fact of the matter is that there are two guys scumbags in the North London area who are targeting Muslim women.

    If I had a Muslim friend or family member in North London, I'd be glad that the BBC reported it so that they may decide to be extra vigilant, travel in groups etc.

    Likewise, if Irish people were being attacked in a particular area, I'd certainly want the media to report it.


    Now, if people really want to discuss the newsworthiness of a story, how about.... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-34084116


  • Options
    #291
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    You are treating it as an assault it's not being treated as an assault.

    Cool, can you just back that up with a link to an official press-release from the police in the U.K. that states categorically that they're not treating is as an assault?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    You are treating it as an assault it's not being treated as an assault.

    How do you know it's not?
    I'd imagine the police are treating it as assault


  • Options
    #293
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nervous Wreck wrote: »
    Cool, can you just back that up with a link to an official press-release from the police in the U.K. that states categorically that they're not treating is as an assault?

    I only have the article to go on unfortunately will look for you.


  • Options
    #294
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    bubblypop wrote: »
    How do you know it's not?
    I'd imagine the police are treating it as assault

    Very odd seems as the religious item is the centre issue.


  • Options
    #295
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/09/woman-has-hijab-pulled-down-in-racist-attack-in-london-6180887/

    Does that help ?
    Detective Constable Ben Cousin of Haringey Community Safety Unit said: ‘The was a shocking attack in broad daylight in the middle of a busy street.

    ‘Racially and religiously-motivated crimes will not be tolerated. I would appeal to anyone who witnessed this attack to contact police. ‘

    Anyone with information is asked to contact Haringey Police via 101 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.


  • Options
    #296
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/09/woman-has-hijab-pulled-down-in-racist-attack-in-london-6180887/

    Does that help ?

    That says religiously motivated attacks.
    Attack= assault.
    Edit, sorry crimes!
    Assault is a crime, so religiously motivated crime, ie a religiously motivated assault.
    It's still an assault and is treated as such


  • Options
    #297
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,933 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Very odd seems as the religious item is the centre issue.

    The police are calling it an attack

    'Racially and religiously motivated crimes will not be tolerated I would appeal to anyone who witnessed this attack to contact police.'


  • Options
    #298
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    And I got called out for semantics .. Jesus. :eek: Why mention race or religion then ?


  • Options
    #299
    LiamoSail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,294 ✭✭✭LiamoSail


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Who would that be now ? I assume you think it should not be a hate crime off the bat yes ?

    I believe it was a hate crime and certainly believe those trying to trivialise the matter are doing so on the basis of their own prejudice.


  • Options
    #300
    Nervous Wreck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    I only have the article to go on unfortunately will look for you.

    Don't bother; they haven't released one. But instead, maybe stop making assumptions about what other people may or may not think so that you have something to argue about. It doesn't make for an engaging thread; it just drags everything off-course.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    LiamoSail wrote: »
    I believe it was a hate crime and certainly believe those trying to trivialise the matter are doing so on the basis of their own prejudice.

    Apparently its not now. I have been corrected. Have no idea why the Religion was reported as no motivation has been reported either.


Advertisement