Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That's not equality. You could say that the law would be applied to everyone equally but it's not.

let's say you outlaw Dublin jerseys. If someone from Kerry wears one, they would be breaking the law. The thing is someone from Kerry wouldn't be wearing one, just someone from Dublin. So although the law is applies equally it does affect someone from Dublin a lot more.

Remember a few years ago they tried to ban burkinis on beaches in France. they said that beaches were secular areas and you shouldn't have religious clothing on them. People pointed out that nuns were allowed on beaches. So then in one area they added nuns and priests to the legislation. Technically that's equality since it affects everyone, but it's still targeting people based on religious belief which is wrong. can you imagine banning nuns from wearing a habit in certain places? It's bad enough banning them from places like government buildings but to ban them from public spaces?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-why-is-france-arresting-muslim-women-for-wearing-full-body-swimwear-and-why-are-people-a7207971.html

A woman was forced to remove clothing whilst surrounded by officers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-swimwear-ban-france-nice-armed-police-hijab-muslim-a7206776.html

On Tuesday a 34-year-old mother of two, whose family have been French citizens for at least three generations, told French news agency AFP she had been fined on the beach in Cannes, 18 miles from Nice, for wearing leggings, a top and a headscarf.

The former air-hostess from Toulouse was issued a ticket saying she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

“I was sitting on a beach with my family,” she said. “I wasn't even planning to swim, just to dip my feet.”

After initially refusing to undress in front of the officers who were reportedly holding tear gas canisters, she was issued with an on-the-spot fine while other people on the beach allegedly shouted insults, telling her to “go home”.

Imagine that, being given a ticket for not respecting good morals and secularism? That's batsh1t crazy.

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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...

So you think we should model our laws on the laws from those countries? You want a country where women are told what they can and can't wear and are prosecuted for not dressing like they are supposed to. What exactly separates you from Islamists in that regard?



That's not what fairness means.


What business is it of yours who is under there as long as they are going about their business? If a Garda or security guard thinks they are acting suspiciously then they have the option of simply talking to them.


Don't think there's any need for that. Not like you hide it.

Captain Obvious

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.

Article 44.2 specifically allows for exceptions in regards to morality and public order. Hard to see how banning a religious head dress would fall under that.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That's not how discrimination laws work. You are still discriminating against someone based on their religion. You just also happen to be doing the same to others of different religions.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?

On the spot fines. It's a really simple point. You don't need to complicate it. If someone continues wearing the article of clothing, the fines increase. Generally people respond to a shrinking bank balance.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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."

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

How does it? If you mean others might be offended, well that's they're problem and that's something that they have to deal with.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

That's not equality. You could say that the law would be applied to everyone equally but it's not.

Sure it is. I've spoken about banning the public expression of all religions equally.

I've taken the stand consistently from a few pages back to ban all such expression, not simply the Burqas or hijabs. If you want to simply argue about those articles alone... It's not where i stand... because it's too little too late.

Duck Soup

Yeah sure, in a country that for centuries had one religion discriminated against, let's, in the 21st century, single out a religion and curtail their rights. Makes sense.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

On the spot fines. It's a really simple point. You don't need to complicate it. If someone continues wearing the article of clothing, the fines increase. Generally people respond to a shrinking bank balance.

How do you think fines are enforced in Ireland when people don't pay them?

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

You don't punish a person because their existence is repugnant to others.

IBrows89

Has anyone ever been directly affected by anyone wearing a Burqa or a Hijab?

Has it damaged your health or lifestyle in any way in Ireland?

Why can't they wear what they want? Would anyone have an issue if an Irish woman of any other religion wanted to cover up?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Article 44.2 specifically allows for exceptions in regards to morality and public order. Hard to see how banning a religious head dress would fall under that.

And when it incites people to hatred and violence? We are seeing a rapidly growing number of people in Europe who are responding to Islamic presence with anger.

[Yup. removed a followup question since I'm stepping out of this endless discussion]

That's not how discrimination laws work. You are still discriminating against someone based on their religion. You just also happen to be doing the same to others of different religions.

Okie dokie.

I'm not actually agreeing with you... I'm just tired circling this issue.

Ok. I'm done. Tired of repeating myself..

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure it is. I've spoken about banning the public expression of all religions equally.

I've taken the stand consistently from a few pages back to ban all such expression, not simply the Burqas or hijabs. If you want to simply argue about those articles alone... It's not where i stand... because it's too little too late.

Sorry, I missed that.

I don't like religion but i think it's a bit far to ban all religious paraphernalia from public. Banning habits on nuns, turbans in sikhs, headscarves on muslims, it's pretty drastic. I also think it would be impossible to remove all references from public life. Can mosques not have minarets? Do churches have to be nondescript.

Religion, whether I like it or not, is here. It's a part of peoples lives. And freedom of expression is a very important part of our society. We should limit any expressions, political or religious, which incites violence against people, but that's it.

PlaneSpeeking

Grayson wrote: »

Sorry, I missed that.

I don't like religion but i think it's a bit far to ban all religious paraphernalia from public. Banning habits on nuns, turbans in sikhs, headscarves on muslims, it's pretty drastic. I also think it would be impossible to remove all references from public life. Can mosques not have minarets? Do churches have to be nondescript.

Religion, whether I like it or not, is here. It's a part of peoples lives. And freedom of expression is a very important part of our society. We should limit any expressions, political or religious, which incites violence against people, but that's it.

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.

We should either operate like France and all is banned, or all is allowed (within reason).

Incidentally, students here from the UAE and Kuwait were allowed to miss classes last year to celebrate their national days, handing out sweets and giving out cards containing "prayers" (could have literally been anything) and messages from their founders.

No one else was allowed to, and recently an Orthodox Jewish student wanted to be allowed to leave before dark on the Fridays in winter - she was told no.

The unfairness and differing treatment is what most have an issue with.

Captain Obvious

IBrows89 wrote: »

Has anyone ever been directly affected by anyone wearing a Burqa or a Hijab?

Has it damaged your health or lifestyle in any way in Ireland?

Why can't they wear what they want? Would anyone have an issue if an Irish woman of any other religion wanted to cover up?

klaz is fearful that someone will get so enraged by seeing a woman in a particular item of clothing they will become violent and, in order to prevent that, women should be banned from wearing that item of clothing for the greater good and so as not to upset these violent psychopaths.

Deleted User wrote: »

And when it incites people to hatred and violence? We are seeing a rapidly growing number of people in Europe who are responding to Islamic presence with anger.

Then you punish those people for being violent and protect the freedoms of the innocent person. You're victim blaming is shameful.

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.

So sue your work.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.
.

I am assuming you are a teacher?
You work for the school, you are an employee, I don't know what kind of school you work for, but that is their right.
You hardly expect a school to dictate to parents what they should & shouldn't wear.

SnakePlissken

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

I am assuming you are a teacher?
You work for the school, you are an employee, I don't know what kind of school you work for, but that is their right.
You hardly expect a school to dictate to parents what they should & shouldn't wear.

No, I work in a University.

PlaneSpeeking

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Yep - kings of the double standards they are so.

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Fill your boots Snake. You may fall foul of that blasphemy law though.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No, I work in a University.

OK, same applies though, your employer has the right to dictate what you can & cannot wear.
They don't have that right over people that do not work there.
I don't see any issue with that? Seems normal enough

PlaneSpeeking

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Just walk round with a t-shirt showing the names of those murdered by the morons and "killed for a f**king CARTOON" on it.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

OK, same applies though, your employer has the right to dictate what you can & cannot wear.
They don't have that right over people that do not work there.
I don't see any issue with that? Seems normal enough

You don't see an issue where people in their own country have to hide their beliefs lest they cause "offence" and yet we welcome people into the place who are allowed to display theirs ?

You honestly see no double standard there ?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

klaz is fearful that someone will get so enraged by seeing a woman in a particular item of clothing they will become violent and, in order to prevent that, women should be banned from wearing that item of clothing for the greater good and so as not to upset these violent psychopaths.

Ahh... violent psychopaths. Way to go making whatever I suggested unlikely and unreasonable.

And that's why I bowed out of this debate. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with certain posters because they seek to deal with the extremes and at the same time ignore the changes that are sweeping Europe. Even when I state that I'm looking at problems that will occur in the future (within a decade or so), they persist in pushing everything into the short-term. To match their own outlook. Box everything down to the most simplistic and deny the need for anything to change. lalalala I can't hear you. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

And of course, when things go to ****, you can take comfort in knowing that you are a victim and therefore not, in the slightest way, responsible for what happens. Those who argued against you are responsible because they didn't use the right arguments to convince you. At least, you championed a fair and just society for everyone, and that matters! Yay!

Then you punish those people for being violent and protect the freedoms of the innocent person. You're victim blaming is shameful.

Ahh yes, because if someone wears a SS uniform at a Jewish wedding, it's obviously the fault of the Jewish people that they're offended and might turn to violence.

Thread un-followed. Typical nonsense that happens in these threads after a bit.

(Oh! and if you do want to know what I thought, you could go back a few pages, not many, and read some of my longer posts. Not need to have a poster reinterpret them for you.]

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You don't see an issue where people in their own country have to hide their beliefs lest they cause "offence" and yet we welcome people into the place who are allowed to display theirs ?

You honestly see no double standard there ?

Bit you don't have to hide your beliefs in your own country, which is great! You can wear any religious emblem you want.
Your employer, however, is entitled to forbid employees to wear whatever they want at work.

There are a lot of rules when we go to work, bit fortunately for you, you can do what you want outside of working hours.

There's absolutely no double standards.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

Bit you don't have to hide your beliefs in your own country, which is great! You can wear any religious emblem you want.
Your employer, however, is entitled to forbid employees to wear whatever they want at work.

There are a lot of rules when we go to work, bit fortunately for you, you can do what you want outside of working hours.

There's absolutely no double standards.

I know you dearly want to believe that but there clearly is.

One branch of religion is forbidden to display symbols - another is not.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah yes, because if someone wears a SS uniform at a Jewish wedding, it's obviously the fault of the Jewish people that they're offended and might turn to violence.
.]

Compares a Muslim woman wearing a burka to a SS officer.................

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I know you dearly want to believe that but there clearly is.

One branch of religion is forbidden to display symbols - another is not.

Who forbids you from displaying symbols of your religion? Your employer.
You do realise your employer is not in charge of people that do not work for it?

Grayson

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

There is a difference. One isn't designed to offend you. Any offence you may feel is a by product. Whereas the Mohammad one is designed to offend muslims. It's effectively trolling through your clothes.

Neither should be banned in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't think someone wearing that shirt is an asshole.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

Compares a Muslim woman wearing a burka to a SS officer.................

I'd show a similar lack of trust to both.