Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Roger Hassenforder

Discodog wrote: »

Very good point. The alienation that immigrants felt when they came to the UK was partially due to racism - they simply felt safer in their own communities. The ones that left these areas were often professionals. People can forgive an immigrant if he happens to be a doctor.

My kids are going to the local Catholic school.
There were a couple of Pakistani/Indian looking kids in my youngest's class.
Its near a hospital, and i reckon a good shot of them are professionals' kids. But you'd never see the mothers though, and the dads huddle together in a group outside the school gate.

However, of this "race", only one makes any effort to integrate. Ever goes/comes/hosts playdates and birthday parties, despite the invitations. Some dont even bother to "RSVP".
The "one" is Hindu.
Guess what the others are.

I've news. The racist ones may not be who you think they are...

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

Seems like it's just the easiest option to pick on women and women's clothing and insist it's for their own good

That culture "picks on women" to varying degrees all the way up to being virtual cloistered prisoners of their sex. Gender "equality" in Islam is fundamentally very different to the idea of equality in the West. The disconnect gulf is wide and neither side seem to grasp the other. Ask any imam - no fire breathing mad mullahs required - on gender equality and you'll see what I mean. Your idea of gender equality will be totally alien to him. And it will be a him.

bfa1509

Of course I would not ban burkas/hijabs. I would follow Sebastian Kurz, the austrian president. He made the very valid point that Islam is more than a religion, it is a set of political ideologies (sharia law) and that it simply could not co-exist with his own government. So he closed down seven mosques and plans to expel 40 imams from the country. And before you say "Oh, that's racist. Oh freedom of religion", come back to me in 10 years when we will have much bigger problems on our hands than people wearing burkas/hijabs.

Roger Hassenforder

Discodog wrote: »

I want an Ireland that's the polar opposite of this new right wing intolerance.

This "right wing intolerance" is pathetic. Like anyone that disagrees with you is a Nazi.

I want an Ireland where everybody is treated as equal. Where people integrate and immigrants assimilate, not retain barriers from the backward culture they came from.

They are here out of choice. If there are things they dont like, like how Westem people like to communicate with a face, they're free to fcuk off somewhere else.

I'm not a GAA head, but I love to see a black lad swinging a hurley.

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

Like I said - a disappointment. I think it works fine in the UK.

It works fine in the UK? I'd not like to see your idea of not so fine. So lets all ignore the social problems, from street level and institutionalised racism, through riots, heavily skewed prison and social welfare populations, all the way up to mass killings that have stemmed directly from multiculturalism in the UK over the last 50 years? Now look at European nations with the smallest multicultural footprint. Compare and contrast. Sure, everywhere has social problems, but they didn't import more.

Banning a piece of cloth

It's not "just a piece of cloth", it's a public declaration of a culture that is out of step with the one it finds itself in.

I fully understand why people would like multiculturalism to work. I would love it to work too, but the evidence shows it doesn't to nearly the same degree as the hope involved thinks it will. I consider myself a realist and as such am fully aware of human frailties, tribalism, racism and general xenophobia on all sides, so I'd really rather this country didn't go down the same stupid road as others. And no, praying/hoping this time we'll somehow do it differently is beyond naive and borders on the idiotic.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Like I said - a disappointment. I think it works fine in the UK. I lived there for many years, sometimes with muslim neighbours. They respected me & I respected them. Same with all other religions.

The problem with your way of thinking is that it's so short-sighted. Traditionally, the first of immigrants are happy to keep their heads down, make an income and provide for their families. In the past, these people were usually fleeing persecution of one form or another and wanted the protections that western culture could provide along with the economic benefits which would allow them to work hard and to have real chance at success/prosperity.

And then the second generation comes along, grows up in a mixed environment, welcomed (to various degrees) by the western culture, but they're expected to conform to Islamic values from the familial pressures, along with the local Islamic communities. That creates confusion and resentment, especially when they visit Islamic countries and are treated neither as local muslims but also not as westerners.

Multiculturalism tends to fail on the second or third generation. And I'm a bit surprised that you haven't seen that failure in the UK, where there are violent gangs by Muslim youths, engaging in crime, or the enforcement of their own traditional cultural beliefs on to non-muslims. The Uk has been experiencing severe friction with it's past immigrants from India before the Muslims even became a major factor... and not seeing that suggests you were living/staying in rather select areas.

The so called problem is the one dreamed up by Boris, Farage etc. It was used to spread fear & resulted in Brexit. I want an Ireland that's the polar opposite of this new right wing intolerance.

The UK has been experiencing social instability from immigration long before the current wave of migration into Europe. Do some searches on the "melting pot" regarding the UK in the 80s/90s... and the concerns about the social instability and the increases in racial/religious violence. It all died down in the media during the economic boom period, but it was hardly gone from their society.

Ireland shouldn't ban anything unless it's really necessary. Banning a piece of cloth for the sake of a tiny number of people is just dumb.

Well, to relate to your Nazi comment, while we don't ban the Swastika in Ireland, the Gardai can enforce the laws regarding the incitement of hatred to force its removal. We should consider the behavior of minorities and whether their behavior does increase the risk of violence to either party.

Again, it comes down to the short vs long term view. Right now, the numbers of Muslims in Ireland is very small, but that's set to increase dramatically over the next two decades. And secondly, while Ireland doesn't have any particular dislike of Islam (or resentment), it is growing in Europe, and depending on how Ireland deals with the situation, those feelings could easily transfer to here. Not just by Irish people but also by the population of Europeans living here.

coffee_cake

Second generation is it. They didn't make the choice to move, they don't have somewhere to "go back to", they're trapped between family culture and the rest of the country.
Who has the answer, i don't, but i think more proactive positive things that they all must do, rather than things that only 50% must not do, would be a better approach. And i think it will be a lot more subtle than this one public image

Taytoland

riffmongous wrote: »

timthumbni wrote: »

Union flag you mean. A jack is ones that are on ships. Sashes are rarely worn nowadays by orange men. They wear collarettes mostly. Deflection is becoming a habit for you.

And I’m still very interested on exactly what forum on here you are a mod. I would assume there wasn’t any other volunteers.....

Are you happy to defend outdated and sadistic Islamic practices or just happy to have a dig at the brits again.?

Yeah I think everyone's heard that before a few times now but everyone still calls it the union jack don't they.

I'm just an ordinary poster here timmy like everyone else, if you don't like what I post either report it or get over it

Option 2 definitely, when our resident backward ideology supporters come out so strongly in favour of banning another backwards ideology it's hard to just ignore it

You tried to deflect, that's all.

Roger Hassenforder

Intetesting short article from a Muslim women
(And a brief account of its rise In "popularity"

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/the-right-to-ban-the-veil-is-good-news-for-everybody-including-muslims/amp


"Not until recent years has the idea taken root that Muslim women are obliged by their faith to wear a veil.
It’s a sign, I think, not of assertive Islam, but of what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a western culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offence. This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years. But at last there are signs that it is ending."

One eyed Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

Sorry I disagree with you here in a big way.

You're right of course that sexism isn't solely an Islamic concept and that women in all countries face hurdles and systemic barriers. No argument there. But if you're suggesting that those hurdles and oppressions are as explicit and severe in somewhere like Germany as they are in Morocco or Bangladesh then you're codding yourself.

In Iran, a tremendously complex place, while women are the majority in the professions ad university - they're legally obliged to wear a hijab. Women are being jailed today for heavy sentences for removing it as an act of protest. When I was on the plane out of Tehran the first thing the women did was pull off their hijabs.

In many Islamic countries the official role of women is as of wives and mothers of the nation, pigeonholed into a category due to their gender. I think feminism has huge validity the world over, but I also think this liberal tendency to try and equivocate the position of women in some Islamic societies with people here is just lunacy.

FTA69 wrote: »

My Nan would probably eyeball you for wearing a short dress as well. Wouldn't say we should ban her from Waterford though.

Conservatism isn't unique to Muslims.

I hadn’t meant to suggest that the barriers and oppression women in mainly Islamic societies are subject to isn’t more severe than the barriers and oppression faced by women in Western societies. I was making the point that’s more like your second post there, in that it’s a matter of perspective. Many women in mainly Islamic societies would equally be as likely to raise an eyebrow at Western cultural norms as their male counterparts. I’m saying that there are parallels can be drawn (even just in Ireland alone we have the women’s place in the home baked into our Constitution, same goes for blasphemy, and a few other things I can think of that would be equally comparable, but obviously not to the same degree).

My point is that this idea of women as “second class citizens” in either society is ridiculous in terms of how either society actually functions and women’s place within that society. Differences in social circumstances aren’t based upon gender, but rather based upon social class.

I’m certainly not liberal either, not even in the “classic” sense of the term that many social conservatives appear to want to apply to themselves these days so they can differentiate themselves from the more lunatic fringes on the left.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Second generation is it. They didn't make the choice to move, they don't have somewhere to "go back to", they're trapped between family culture and the rest of the country.
Who has the answer, i don't, but i think more proactive positive things that they all must do, rather than things that only 50% must not do, would be a better approach. And i think it will be a lot more subtle than this one public image

Traditionally, it was the second generation, or third generation. However, we have seen a shift in those seeking immigration into Europe. There is a growing trend of immigration coming from people who do not see their original culture as being negative. They're not fleeing social/cultural problems... they're fleeing economic problems (or war). As such, we are seeing a rise in the numbers of immigrants who are not coming here for western cultural benefits.... and will want to bring their own cultural/social habits with them, and establish communities run by those habits, rather than the western culture.

This can be seen in France, and Spain. Past generations mingled with the general population, for the most part, spreading themselves around. There weren't any particularly large concentrations of Muslims in these countries compared to the local French or Spanish populations. However, in the last twenty years, we have seen these communities arise, which do enforce their own culture on the local inhabitants. It takes time but it is happening.

Western culture is weak to external influences. The belief that western culture can and will stand up to other cultures who compete within western law, is flawed. We've seen the cases across Europe where western culture is being replaced by Islamic beliefs, first on a social level, but lately, the push to bring Islamic influence into the law itself. AND not applied to the minority, but to be applied to the whole.

For there to be stability of society, there must remain a dominant primary culture which provides the main framework for the majority. There can, and are, subcultures, but there needs to be recognition that the primary culture is more important. It makes logical sense that the original and local culture should be that primary culture. Hence the push to keep western culture primary, and bringing in measures to limit the influence of subcultures.

For those who are 2nd gen immigrants, they have the choice to stay or leave (and most important, to return), depending on their cultural preferences. That is the choice for all westerners. We don't have any laws which prevent Europeans from leaving Europe. I've lived in Asia for the last decade, and will live there more, because I don't particularly want to live in Europe. Those 2nd/3rd gen have the same option that I do.

suicide_circus

can woman who wear the burqa full time be involved in the ordinary workforce?

Wibbs

Yep, it's the second and third generation that both feel the failure of multiculturalism and react against it. I understand why they might too. I know I would, or strongly suspect I would in their position. They feel British/French/Whatever, but they're made to feel slightly less British/French/Whatever by the dominant population and culture. They're not quite true blue examples of their own origin culture either. Swinging on a rope between the two. A bloody horrible position to be in.

Now at this point the notion of more tolerance and more acceptance comes into play and it seems like the right idea and it is. As an idea. In practice it ignores basic human nature. Basic human nature will bite you every time. It also looks like pandering(to both sides), even condescending. Doubly so to people who already consider themselves British/French/Whatever. By acknowledging the gap, too often you increase it. In steps the radicals and the traditionalists who promise a place for them, a sense of pride. One that's apart from both the dominant culture and the origin(though wears the clothes of the latter). If I was swinging on that rope I'd see that as a welcome foothold. From there it's hardly a leap to getting stabby or bomby in a crowded place of people you don't consider your own(these people also blow up folks from their "own kind").

bluewolf wrote: »

Who has the answer, i don't, but i think more proactive positive things that they all must do, rather than things that only 50% must not do, would be a better approach. And i think it will be a lot more subtle than this one public image

My "answer" would be pretty simple; don't import the problem in the first place. The problems of multiculturalism are massively reduced by massively reducing multiculturalism in the first place. The last few years of opening Europe up to the many hundreds of thousands from very different cultures is to me beyond moronic. And no amount of emotively harsh pics of a poor dead kid on a Greek beach* - who wouldn't be there if the door weren't open in the first place - is going to change my mind on that front.





*and before the gales of outrage kick off. Name him. Go on. No google allowed. Funny how our wailing emotions are so transient and amnesiac.

One eyed Jack

wakka12 wrote: »

Second class citizen would mean more restrictive laws governing one group differently to another
Which happens many muslim women, such as not having been able to drive
Western world has no such laws
Western world treat women a lot better, it just goes without saying

Just to pick two recent examples in AH alone off the top of my head, there’s a woman on trial by social media for having too many children, and how she is nothing more than a leech and a drain on society, and then there is the more recent thread about a woman whom I gather there are a few posters would only wish she would wear a burqa to cover herself up :pac:

Like I said - it’s a matter of perspective, and we’re no better or worse in the West as a society than they are in the Middle East.

LirW

bfa1509 wrote: »

Of course I would not ban burkas/hijabs. I would follow Sebastian Kurz, the austrian president. He made the very valid point that Islam is more than a religion, it is a set of political ideologies (sharia law) and that it simply could not co-exist with his own government. So he closed down seven mosques and plans to expel 40 imams from the country. And before you say "Oh, that's racist. Oh freedom of religion", come back to me in 10 years when we will have much bigger problems on our hands than people wearing burkas/hijabs.

Look, what you see here is a free-standing idea of a foreign politician. I grew up over there and still have family there and am quite knowledgeable about the political climate over there. If you know and see the bigger picture of the political situation you might think differently about that. What happens there at the moment is a political segregation of the society with cheap populistic methods where people are forced to either take a far right or far left stance, because there are lots of troubles brewing over there. The political middle ground completely vanished over there and a lot of these proposals are covers for introducing higher taxes and cutting welfare benefits because "it targets the foreigners".
Make yourself familiar how the last blue-black coalition left the country in absolute shambles before the foreign party lost almost all of their voters.
Also Kurz is Chancellor, the president is a former Green party member.

Roger Hassenforder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just to pick two recent examples in AH alone off the top of my head, there’s a woman on trial by social media for having too many children, and how she is nothing more than a leech and a drain on society, and then there is the more recent thread about a woman whom I gather there are a few posters would only wish she would wear a burqa to cover herself up :pac:

Like I said - it’s a matter of perspective, and we’re no better or worse in the West as a society than they are in the Middle East.

Neither of those would be on Middle East social media!!

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

My "answer" would be pretty simple; don't import the problem in the first place. The problems of multiculturalism are massively reduced by massively reducing multiculturalism in the first place. The last few years of opening Europe up to the many hundreds of thousands from very different cultures is to me beyond moronic.

Well, I'm slightly different with you on this. Immigration has been happening for thousands of years without any huge conflicts, however, the numbers of people involved were more controlled. People didn't travel. They went, possibly, to the next country beside them, but were more likely just to bear the crap of their own countries.

We need to take a more balanced perspective when it comes to modern immigration and multiculturalism. Numbers matter. But more importantly, religion matters. The West is moving rapidly away from western Religion(s) having any strong influence in the running of society... but in many countries around the world, the opposite is happening. Religion in Muslim countries is gaining influence rather than losing it... and the people who immigrate to Europe from Muslim countries, are not separate to that movement to increase religious influence.

When it comes to Islam, Hinduism, etc you cannot separate religion from culture. We can when it comes to Christianity, but we shouldn't be applying the same standards or logic to other faiths.

Multiculturalism works when it is primarily culture that is involved. Chinese people moving to Western countries don't cause any major conflicts. Japanese with their rather lackluster approach to religion also don't cause any issues, and the numbers of Asians from non-religious countries in Europe far outweigh the numbers of Muslims. And little to no trouble with Asians (apart from organised crime and minor incidents of racism).

Religion is the key factor here, and we need to step up to recognize that. This pandering to religious groups is not working. It isn't. It's denial of the facts of the situation.

Personally, I have no issue with Islam. I've been to Iran three times, and found it to be a wonderful experience each time. It suits that country. It makes sense. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that Islamic culture/religion makes sense to be tolerated, or more accurately, encouraged in Europe. And it is being actively encouraged.

We do need to look at religion and acknowledge that this is the primary difference that distinguishes between those who integrate, (or even exist without friction), compared with the very obvious friction that is occurring in Europe today. And... to bring in laws/regulations/social rules which limit the influence of religion (any religion) in our society.

emo72

I remember a holiday in Spain sharing a communal pool. There was a woman head to toe in some black plastic suit swimming. Yeah it's none of my business but I had a strong reaction thinking this is so wrong. Just couldn't reconcile that a woman had to do this to get a swim.

I get the feeling these women aren't fully interacting when they leave the sanctuary of their homes. Horrible way to exist. These women need our help.

suicide_circus

didn't the Turks figure out many moons ago that the only way to successfully marry democracy and Islam was to repress all public displays of devotion. A policy which Erdogan is steadily reversing...and is turkey getting better or worse for it?

FTA69

emo72 wrote: »

I remember a holiday in Spain sharing a communal pool. There was a woman head to toe in some black plastic suit swimming. Yeah it's none of my business but I had a strong reaction thinking this is so wrong. Just couldn't reconcile that a woman had to do this to get a swim.

I get the feeling these women aren't fully interacting when they leave the sanctuary of their homes. Horrible way to exist. These women need our help.

Have you ever spoken to a woman in a hijab or niqab? The idea that you’re going to help a woman by forcing her to tog off at the pool is loopy mate.

Muslim women aren’t dopes. They also happen to believe in Islam and often have deep concepts of modesty. They don’t want or need you to insist they wear a bikini for their own good.

emo72

emo72 wrote: »

I remember a holiday in Spain sharing a communal pool. There was a woman head to toe in some black plastic suit swimming. Yeah it's none of my business but I had a strong reaction thinking this is so wrong. Just couldn't reconcile that a woman had to do this to get a swim.

I get the feeling these women aren't fully interacting when they leave the sanctuary of their homes. Horrible way to exist. These women need our help.

And I was recently at a pool resort in Spain, where there was a group of M.Eastern men (ethnicity) living in the area (learned through conversation), who insulted or made obviously inappropriate gestures towards the women in their bikinis or more modest swimsuits.

Women wearing Burqa's, Hijabs, and all-covering swimwear doesn't solely affect the women themselves. It affects those around them. Allowing such habits, encourages Muslim men (and women) to retain their attitudes (learned/developed in their original country/culture) while living in the West. It reinforces the difference, and encourages a dual attitude towards perception regarding behavior.

Wearing a bikini on a beach, a short skirt on a street, or a sexy outfit while out for dinner, is all part of western culture. Most people would see such, and ignore it beyond their own appreciation (internalized or vocalized)... but we have laws to reduce the harassment that women receive... because it's wrong. It shouldn't be happening.

However, allowing a subculture to dress differently due to their religious beliefs encourages that belief to be pushed on to others. After all the reasons why the Burqa or Hijab are worn is not to do with the garment itself... it is what is to be hidden. To show modesty. To show respect.

Malayalam

(Finding it hard to write this post...so its a bit jumbled.)

The Burqa isn't just a piece of cloth. It is saying quite a few things very loudly. It is very much a moralistic and theological symbol. Often what it supposedly means is couched in very soft scriptural terms like female modesty and the desire to be close to Allah like the pure wives of Allah who took the veil.

But in a modern context, the burqa is actually saying women have to cover up or otherwise they are in essence lacking virtue. Just because of their embodiment. That's mad. It separates women into the virtuous and the unvirtuous. It divides a supposedly greater state from a lesser. For a woman to display their natural forms, clothed normally, is to be of lesser virtue. It is wanton. Deserving of disrespect. Or at the very least it is to be in an unprotected state that may casually invite disrespect, that may thus be excused.

The burqa is saying that it is up to women to avoiding invoking the lust inherent in men, by covering themselves. It is saying that a unveiled woman is fair game for the uncontrolled lustful attention of men who will not discipline themselves where there is no veiling. It is saying women have the responsibility not to provoke lust. That otherwise they bring violation upon themselves.

Inherent implications such as these are fundamentally against the culture we have built up in the west. Which took time and effort, so to cede it seems idiotic. We see men and women as equal before the law, as equally deserving of protection, we see women as not being responsible for any sexual violence enacted against them by virtue of their appearance.

It is fine for people to be religious - I get it. But the burqa is not inherent in Islam at all. It is in many ways a political instrument, or rather a symbol of theocracy.

I cannot understand people supporting burqa being permitted if they also value the human equalities and rights we have accrued over the past few hundred years in our culture. I really cannot understand it.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

Have you ever spoken to a woman in a hijab or niqab? The idea that you’re going to help a woman by forcing her to tog off at the pool is loopy mate.

Agreed. In many cases, Muslim women are the biggest defenders of such garments, and not the men... but women talking on the subject aren't going to want to promote that fact.

It's not about helping the Muslim women. The vast majority anyway. Sure, there will be a minority who want to be "freed", but I think many here don't understand the power of cultural conditioning. Perhaps because Ireland has moved away from it so much within the last 20-30 years.

Nope. The argument shouldn't be that we are helping the Muslim women. The argument should be that we are helping western societies...

Muslim women aren’t dopes. They also happen to believe in Islam and often have deep concepts of modesty. They don’t want or need you to insist they wear a bikini for their own good.

Completely agree. I know Muslim women, and have dated a few of them. They know their own minds, and are fully capable of achieving what they wish. Admittedly, the options are rather limited in poor areas or in Muslim countries themselves, but any Muslim woman has full choice when they're in a Western country, and the majority are not shrugging off their religious habits.

bfa1509

Deleted User wrote: »

And I was recently at a pool resort in Spain, where there was a group of M.Eastern men (ethnicity) living in the area (learned through conversation), who insulted or made obviously inappropriate gestures towards the women in their bikinis or more modest swimsuits.

Women wearing Burqa's, Hijabs, and all-covering swimwear doesn't solely affect the women themselves. It affects those around them. Allowing such habits, encourages Muslim men (and women) to retain their attitudes (learned/developed in their original country/culture) while living in the West. It reinforces the difference, and encourages a dual attitude towards perception regarding behavior.

Wearing a bikini on a beach, a short skirt on a street, or a sexy outfit while out for dinner, is all part of western culture. Most people would see such, and ignore it beyond their own appreciation (internalized or vocalized)... but we have laws to reduce the harassment that women receive... because it's wrong. It shouldn't be happening.

However, allowing a subculture to dress differently due to their religious beliefs encourages that belief to be pushed on to others. After all the reasons why the Burqa or Hijab are worn is not to do with the garment itself... it is what is to be hidden. To show modesty. To show respect.

There was a Pakistani guy in my class in college. Any girl who wore a skirt or dress higher than the knee was a either a slut or a whore. I never once heard any of my irish classmates hold a view this backward. Now, it's perfectly fair to argue that he is not representative of the wider muslim community but if 1/100 or even 1/1000 held the same view, that is too much for me.

It is bizarre how liberals think we should tolerate an inherent intolerance.

timthumbni

It’s amusing reading Irish people (from mostly a catholic background) defending Islamic bonkers practices..

The story of Nero playing the fiddle whilst Rome burned springs to mind.

Odhinn

For a few hundred years being a catholic was a great disadvantage in this country. Look how that worked out.

CinemaGuy45

Don't care about religion but this is a safety issue.

Wanderer78

Odhinn wrote: »

For a few hundred years being a catholic was a great disadvantage in this country. Look how that worked out.

im agnostic, and i think we re doing grand

timthumbni

Odhinn wrote: »

For a few hundred years being a catholic was a great disadvantage in this country. Look how that worked out.

Rampant child abuse? You are a winner sir...

Franz Von Peppercorn

FTA69 wrote: »

Have you ever spoken to a woman in a hijab or niqab? The idea that you’re going to help a woman by forcing her to tog off at the pool is loopy mate.

Muslim women aren’t dopes. They also happen to believe in Islam and often have deep concepts of modesty. They don’t want or need you to insist they wear a bikini for their own good.

Where does this extreme modesty come from? Are they born with it, or does a religion impose itself on them as they are reared?

Choice is a dubious term here, and many in fact wouldn’t choose it if it were up to them, even after the conditioning.