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

Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Options
1…1819212324…34

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Giraffe Box
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Giraffe Box


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.

    'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp


  • Options
    #603
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,510 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp

    No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.


  • Options
    #604
    Giraffe Box
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Giraffe Box


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.

    Very similar views though.


  • Options
    #605
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,643 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Giraffe Box wrote: »
    Very similar views though.

    Similar in an opposite kind of way though.


  • Options
    #606
    dennispenn
    Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭dennispenn


    Dannyriver wrote: »
    Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.

    She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.

    You know you're always welcome here in after hours :)


  • Options
    #608
    Dannyriver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dannyriver


    dennispenn wrote: »
    She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.

    Google the Lebanese civil war and then google what her detractors say about her account of what happened ... If you re gonna spent your life on info wars and Paul Joseph watson s twitter you re going to always be a tad ill informed.


  • Options
    #609
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,643 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    thebull85 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZS9fcWJo


    Its prayer time, so f**k everyone else on the road.

    Corduffistan

    Stuff like that is going out of the way to whizz down on people.

    Saw the same in the Netherlands, blocking the road when there was no need, calculates insult.


  • Options
    #610
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,183 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Danzy wrote: »
    There are other polls, by reputable and State wide polling companies in Britain that give even worse percentages on those issues.

    28% of young Muslims in Britain say it is justifiable to kill for the faith, same % roughly, said the murder of the Charlie Hebdo activists was justified.

    In France there is about 30% as well with those views.

    This is not a small problem.

    On average the Islamic community is more conservative than the host community, but many are to the right of the inquisition.

    Armed extremism is small but extremist views are not small.

    On those %s it will not take much for armed extremism to become a serious issue in large parts of England.

    That is another issue though, it does not take from the Islamic community have a severe regressive belief system.

    If a third of Catholics had views that were at home in Franco's Spain it would be a major story and rightly so, when near the same of the Islamic community in much of Europe have views that are of many magnitudes more extreme, it is a down played.

    They only time a modern Left wing politician will shake hands with a person who calls for Jews and gays to be killed, who advocates wife beating, who will sit in gender segregated meetings is if that person is from the Islamic Community.

    The modern Left looks at the skin, many of us look at the culture and beliefs behind this.

    Got any links for those studies? because I'm used to people posting studies and not understanding what the results mean or misinterpreting them. So I'd like to see the results for those studies.


  • Options
    #611
    Sassygirl1999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 409 ✭✭Sassygirl1999


    Skinhead Kane wrote: »
    Greetings guys and girls,

    I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and have yet to make a real judgement on what truly would be a correct answer. If were to go to a country populated by the Muslim community we would be asked to cover up and follow their religious procedure.

    Therefore in Britain and Ireland I believe we are within our rights to ban something that isolates woman and was made by men to oppress them. If I were to show my hair/head in their countries, I would be seen as obscene.

    Recently came back from a trip and had some female friends been told by locals to cover their arms and legs as well as hair before entering out of the city centre areas. It was a very aggressive approach to and almost demanded 'or we leave the country' type of attitude. Now not using this as a reason or motive to make this topic, but it has however got me thinking.

    If I could vote on it, I would ban burqas and possibly hijab.


    What's your take on this guys?

    Regards,

    Sk

    niqabs are fine, can the rest


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Sassygirl1999 wrote: »
    niqabs are fine, can the rest

    Do you mean hijab that covers only the hair ?

    Mist niqabs cover the eyes also with only enough space to see.

    Agreed if so, no issue with a headscarf - the grandmother sure she wore one to Mass every time, not a big deal.

    Had she gone out looking like a dalek put away for the Winter - that would be a big deal.


  • Options
    #613
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.


    How would you enforce it?


  • Options
    #614
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    How would you enforce it?

    Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

    Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.


  • Options
    #615
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    How would you enforce it?

    on the spot fines? :D


  • Options
    #616
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

    Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.


    First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.


    Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?


  • Options
    #617
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Deleted User wrote: »
    on the spot fines? :D


    How would you know who you are fining?


  • Options
    #618
    DChancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭DChancer


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

    Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.

    Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.


  • Options
    #619
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.


    Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?

    This again, Jesus.

    It is perfectly legal to ask anyone to remove a face covering, hoodie, baseball cap, balaclava, bike helmet - etc when going into a post office, bank or shop.

    You seem to constantly be of the mind that Article 44.2 somehow precludes a ban ? The full face covering the burka and niqab is not demanded anywhere in the Quran and so as a cultural and not a religious garment, there's no religious aspect.

    Besides - all 44.2 states is "2 - The State guarantees not to endow any religion." That's it.

    If women wearing are happy to be told what to wear by their ignorant, insecure men then fine - none of my business. But don't expect to walk round wearing it when a kid has to take off his hoodie in the same place.


  • Options
    #620
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    How would you know who you are fining?

    Here's an idea - ASK THEM THEIR NAME!

    Works perfectly well on the LUAS.


  • Options
    #621
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    DChancer wrote: »
    Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.

    Sadly - for you - you're wrong.

    That style dress is not demanded as a religious right - as the Sikh turban etc (which is why there are driving exceptions for those who must wear it).

    It is purely cultural and not covered by the Equal Status Act (the correct name btw).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.

    I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing.
    Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?

    You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.


  • Options
    #623
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing.



    You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.

    Ah would you stop with the truth and logic!!

    No place for that here lol!!!!


  • Options
    #624
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    How would you know who you are fining?

    Pretty "obvious" considering what they're wearing.


  • Options
    #625
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    DChancer wrote: »
    Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.

    Discrimination? If the law/ban is applied to everyone equally, where is the discrimination?


  • Options
    #626
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    This again, Jesus.

    It is perfectly legal to ask anyone to remove a face covering, hoodie, baseball cap, balaclava, bike helmet - etc when going into a post office, bank or shop.

    You seem to constantly be of the mind that Article 44.2 somehow precludes a ban ? The full face covering the burka and niqab is not demanded anywhere in the Quran and so as a cultural and not a religious garment, there's no religious aspect.

    Besides - all 44.2 states is "2 - The State guarantees not to endow any religion." That's it.

    If women wearing are happy to be told what to wear by their ignorant, insecure men then fine - none of my business. But don't expect to walk round wearing it when a kid has to take off his hoodie in the same place.


    Constantly? I just posted on this thread for the first time.


    44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."


    Not sure why you skipped that part.


    Your argument seems to be that those particular items of clothing are not religious because they aren't mentioned in the Quaran. I don't think that would really hold up. There is nothing in the Bible requiring a priest to wear a collar or a bishop to wear his garments but they are religious garments none the less. They are worn for the purpose of practicing the religion. I don't think your argument would hold up in court. And that's before you get into any freedom of expression arguments.


    Out of curiosity, what benefit do you think banning these items of clothing and fining and locking up women who wear them would bring to the country?


  • Options
    #627
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Pretty "obvious" considering what they're wearing.


    Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?


  • Options
    #628
    Sassygirl1999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 409 ✭✭Sassygirl1999


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?

    niqab only


  • Options
    #629
    DChancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭DChancer


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Sadly - for you - you're wrong.

    That style dress is not demanded as a religious right - as the Sikh turban etc (which is why there are driving exceptions for those who must wear it).

    It is purely cultural and not covered by the Equal Status Act (the correct name btw).

    Wrong!

    But go ahead, try discriminating on basis of religion and see how much it costs you.


  • Options
    #630
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Constantly? I just posted on this thread for the first time.


    44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."


    Not sure why you skipped that part.


    Your argument seems to be that those particular items of clothing are not religious because they aren't mentioned in the Quaran. I don't think that would really hold up. There is nothing in the Bible requiring a priest to wear a collar or a bishop to wear his garments but they are religious garments none the less. They are worn for the purpose of practicing the religion. I don't think your argument would hold up in court. And that's before you get into any freedom of expression arguments.


    Out of curiosity, what benefit do you think banning these items of clothing and fining and locking up women who wear them would bring to the country?

    A sense that you can't just walk in to a country and act how you want - when the country you've come from lock people up for showing their shoulders off.

    Fairness - we say what we can do, you say what you can do.

    Security - you have zero clue who or what is under there.

    Loads more but you've form and I imagine the next thing is to call me racist, so...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    DChancer wrote: »
    Wrong!

    But go ahead, try discriminating on basis of religion and see how much it costs you.

    You might want to get a grown up to help with the reading there dear.

    This is not a religious right demanded, therefore not covered by religious discrimination clauses.

    We're not closing down the South Circular mosque ffs - just levelling the playing field and doing what their countries always do, tell visitors what they can and can't do or wear.


Advertisement