Burkas - how do you respond?

rsynnott

Dimitri wrote:

Personally i think if nothing else dressing like that must be very uncomfortable, but if thats the way you want to dress thats fine by me. On the other hand i'm totally opposed to religious symbols in state institutions and fell all cruxificies, statues, crosses, and religious attire should be completely banned.

Hmm, why? I mean, obviously it'd be inappropriate for the institution to display them, but where's the problem with individuals doing so?

Karl Hungus

Christ that's a tough question to answer. I nearly blurted out that I think it's dispicable the second this thread was posted, but thankfully I decided not to. Don't get me wrong, I do think it's dispicable, not to mention barbaric to have women vieled from head to toe, and having to walk a 'repsectfully distance' behind their husbands. But I'm happier that I've collected my thoughts on the subject, and actually thought about why I find it so distastefull.

The thing is, it's a much larger issue than simply the burkas, and it's simply not as simple was whether a woman chooses to wear it or not, because there are so many more social and theological issues, and the garment itself has social, politcal and theological implications. We have to take into consideration that people can be indoctrinated into believe things, and brainwashing isn't entirely unheard of, not to mention the very idea that a Muslim woman might be terrified of the ramifications if she actually expressed that it wasn't something she decided for herself.

I think that saying "Well, what if she chooses this" or saying it's a commitment to their faith is a fairly speculative and ambigeous thing to say, especially considering that if any one of us actually wanted to ask a woman wearing a burka if it's her decision or not, we'd get nothing as she wouldn't be allowed to speak.

Now as Simu has said, "I don't see why people should be obliged to show their faces to the world unless in a setting where this is neccessary for communication such as in a courthouse" but there's a problem, just read this.

“Up until a few years ago, women in Saudi Arabia weren’t issued birth certificates, which means they weren’t considered citizens,” Ebadi said. “Even now they aren’t allowed to drive their own cars. A law made in 1990 in Iran makes the value of the life of a woman half that of a man … and in many instances women are not allowed to speak in a court of law.”

That's pretty disgusting in my opinion.

Something that is also worrying is the effect that Muslim attitudes have on a community. I know a few people here are aware of things that are happening in largely muslim areas in countries like France and Holland, but for people who don't know, please Read this.

Take very special notice of this part of the article:

In many French cities with a growing radical Islamist population, no teenage girl can go out in the evening, at least not without a full burqa. If she does, it will mean that "she is for everybody": in short, a whore. In the same cities, every teenage girl - regardless of religion - has to wear the Muslim veil if she does not want to be harassed or killed. Almost every month, a young woman is mugged and raped in a suburb of a big city. Gang rape has become so frequent that a new word, used by the rapists themselves to define their hideous actions, is used by everybody: tournantes (revolving). To the rapists, the woman is nothing, a mere object to be thrown away after use. The people who speak about "revolving" seem to forget a human being is involved as the victim. Policemen do nothing. Every decent person knows the problem is Islam, but no one dares to say it. It could be dangerous. The streets are not safe.

Now, while the question of "What are you thoughts on Burkas" is what's being asked, I honestly think there's a more important question: What are your thoughts on young women, reguardless of their religion, being required to wear the garment unless they want to be gang-raped or murdered?

rsynnott

The thing is, lots of people believe all sorts of crazy nonsense. Only those who make their belief in crazy nonsense overly visable come under fire, generally; when you think of it, believing that gay people are "intrinsically disordered" (Christianity) or that stearic acid is perfectly acceptable if it comes from corn but against the will of god if it comes from a cow (Judaism), or that sex for pleasure is sinful (just about every bloody religion) is just as odd as believing that if one is a woman, one should wear some particular garment.

Where it becomes a problem is where the woman in question is being forced, coerced or guilted into it.

Dades

Just thinking that banning burkhas in public well might have the effect of confining some Muslim women to their homes.

But I can't see this happening unless we have a sudden spate of burkha-sporting bank robberies.

That said I believe not being allowed show your face in public is a crime against humanity.
When I'm King....

Dimitri

Hmm, why? I mean, obviously it'd be inappropriate for the institution to display them, but where's the problem with individuals doing so?

Like any company, school or institution, state or otherwise are represented by the people that attend/work for them. If someone is dealing with me in a statly situation they are representing that institution not themselves, if they are wearing religious attire than that institution is religiously bias in my eyes. Again what is worn in ones own time is their business.

Victor

Karl Hungus wrote:

Now as Simu has said, "I don't see why people should be obliged to show their faces to the world unless in a setting where this is neccessary for communication such as in a courthouse" but there's a problem, just read this. That's pretty disgusting in my opinion.

If you actually read the piece, she blames tribalism, not Islam.

Read this.

Nice boobs! See the irony?

Vangelis

Karl Hungus wrote:

The thing is, it's a much larger issue than simply the burkas, and it's simply not as simple was whether a woman chooses to wear it or not, because there are so many more social and theological issues, and the garment itself has social, politcal and theological implications. We have to take into consideration that people can be indoctrinated into believe things, and brainwashing isn't entirely unheard of, not to mention the very idea that a Muslim woman might be terrified of the ramifications if she actually expressed that it wasn't something she decided for herself.

I think that saying "Well, what if she chooses this" or saying it's a commitment to their faith is a fairly speculative and ambigeous thing to say, especially considering that if any one of us actually wanted to ask a woman wearing a burka if it's her decision or not, we'd get nothing as she wouldn't be allowed to speak.

These women are allowed to speak. I've seen some on tv being asked why they wear burkas and they explain why. Some of them wear darker burkas whcih cover them more, and they say that this is because they are more dedicated Muslims. That is a sign that they can choose, to me at least. However, I realise that we don't know everything that happens in a Muslim home. Muslim fathers kill their daughters if they go out with boys for example. But a Muslim woman's view on burkas differs from place to place.

Banning burkas however is equally disgusting. The West cannot push its so-called democracy and liberal attitudes on other cultures. And I hate Europe and the US for believing that they can.

Now, while the question of "What are you thoughts on Burkas" is what's being asked, I honestly think there's a more important question: What are your thoughts on young women, reguardless of their religion, being required to wear the garment unless they want to be gang-raped or murdered?

If you ask me, I think this question is irrelevant in some cases. In other cases, it's not. Not all Muslims gang-rape and murder girls if they are not wearing burkas. But those who do dominate media and make it seem like all Muslim men would do that.

utopian

Vangelis wrote:

Banning burkas however is equally disgusting. The West cannot push its so-called democracy and liberal attitudes on other cultures. And I hate Europe and the US for believing that they can.

"So-called" democracy? With which states are you comparing us? Are there any democracies in the world? Do you differentiate between the systems of government of Ireland and Saudi Arabia?

As for whether we can force democracy and liberal attitudes on other cultures which arrive here, I very much hope we can.

fly_agaric

Vangelis wrote:

Banning burkas however is equally disgusting. The West cannot push its so-called democracy and liberal attitudes on other cultures. And I hate Europe and the US for believing that they can.

Eh... Is it just me or did that not make any sense? How would Western countries be pushing anything on anybody here by deciding (democratically, one would hope) what laws their own citizens are governed by at home?

Are Western women who emigrate to Saudi and have to have be managed by a male "guardian" in their dealings with the state, can't worship in a church as they would at home, or drive, or go out on the beer, or (fill in alot of the stuff that makes life bearable in here) victims of Saudis "pushing" their illiberal values on them? Unless they were dragged off to Saudi in chains, the answer must be no.

Edit...
How is Europe forcing "other cultures" to adopt our "so-called" democracy?
What perfect state are you measuring the "so-called" democracies of Europe against because I want to move there? I have a feeling this wonderland only exists in your head though.

Karl Hungus

Victor wrote:

If you actually read the piece, she blames tribalism, not Islam.

I actually did read the peice, but I fail to see your point. Are you suggesting that I've said she was blaming Islam, or that I myself am blaming Islam itself? Because if you are, I'd like to point out that I never said any such thing, and if you look back to this part of my post, you'll see something relevant.

Karl Hungus wrote:

The thing is, it's a much larger issue than simply the burkas, and it's simply not as simple was whether a woman chooses to wear it or not, because there are so many more social and theological issues, and the garment itself has social, politcal and theological implications.

Let me just say that I did mention social issues first and foremost here.

Indeed though, while I do say theology is part of it, it's almost opening another can of worms entirely. Can a religion be blamed for acts carried out by it followers? Is one religion nessicarily more presupposed to violence than another? Should a religion be accountable, or the so-called goobers and bad apples who take it too dangerous levels?

Vangelis wrote:

If you ask me, I think this question is irrelevant in some cases. In other cases, it's not. Not all Muslims gang-rape and murder girls if they are not wearing burkas. But those who do dominate media and make it seem like all Muslim men would do that.

I find it ironic that you'd take me up on this and insunuate that I've said all Muslims would do this kind of thing, when I didn't say or mean any such thing, yet ironically you say yourself that "Muslim fathers kill their daughters if they go out with boys for example."

So, on one hand you're saying that Muslim father kill their daughters, and this isn't 'Many' Muslim father, or 'Some' Muslim fathers, this is simply "Muslim Fathers" - that's an absolute. Yet on the other hand, you're taking the moral high ground and telling me how not all Muslims are gang rapists and murderers. :rolleyes:

Please, get off your high horse.

And you know something else? I'm actually fairly tired of people who are almost excusing the actions of some people by saying "Well, it's not all of them who do this." Thanks for that glimmer of perspective, I'm sure the parents of a young girl who was raped and left to die in a gutter feel a lot better in knowing that it's not everybody does that kind of thing. I guess that makes it all ok then, doesn't it?

"It's not all of them" may seem fairly noble, but it excuses and ignores those who do commit such acts. Now I'm suggesting anything like the whole of a demographic should be accountable, infact far from it, all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be shrugged off, excused and ignored with lines like "It's not all of them" either.

Vangelis

Karl Hungus wrote:

I find it ironic that you'd take me up on this and insunuate that I've said all Muslims would do this kind of thing, when I didn't say or mean any such thing, yet ironically you say yourself that "Muslim fathers kill their daughters if they go out with boys for example."

So, on one hand you're saying that Muslim father kill their daughters, and this isn't 'Many' Muslim father, or 'Some' Muslim fathers, this is simply "Muslim Fathers" - that's an absolute. Yet on the other hand, you're taking the moral high ground and telling me how not all Muslims are gang rapists and murderers. :rolleyes:

And you know something else? I'm actually fairly tired of people who are almost excusing the actions of some people by saying "Well, it's not all of them who do this." Thanks for that glimmer of perspective, I'm sure the parents of a young girl who was raped and left to die in a gutter feel a lot better in knowing that it's not everybody does that kind of thing. I guess that makes it all ok then, doesn't it?

"It's not all of them" may seem fairly noble, but it excuses and ignores those who do commit such acts. Now I'm suggesting anything like the whole of a demographic should be accountable, infact far from it, all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be shrugged off, excused and ignored with lines like "It's not all of them" either.

Hey calm down my friend! I didn't mean any offense. It's clear that you have strong opinions on this matter. Perhaps you know more than me. I respect that. Maybe I exaggerated this about ALL Muslim fathers etc, and I take that back. It is important not to GENERALISE as I felt you did in your own statements.

I did not intend to excuse or defend the Muslims who mistreat women for "misbehaving". It's not okay to me at all that Muslim women are endangered this way, but ALL I am saying... is that there is no reason to condemn ALL Muslims. Some have more liberal views and empathy. That is admireable I think in spite of how the Qua'ran tells men to treat women.

So you have a good point and I have a good point. Truce?

Karl, I'm interested in hearing your viewpoint on prohibition of burkas!

Karl Hungus

Vangelis wrote:

I did not intend to excuse or defend the Muslims who mistreat women for "misbehaving". It's not okay to me at all that Muslim women are endangered this way, but ALL I am saying... is that there is no reason to condemn ALL Muslims. Some have more liberal views and empathy. That is admireable I think in spite of how the Qua'ran tells men to treat women.

Well seeing as I didn't condemn all Muslims, it's a moot point.

Vangelis wrote:

So you have a good point and I have a good point. Truce?

Truce? Well I suppose so, but it's not like it was a battle.

Vangelis wrote:

Karl, I'm interested in hearing your viewpoint on prohibition of burkas!

Honestly, it's a terrible idea.

That would be like in France when they banned headscarfs in schools, which to me seemed like nothing more than a last ditch attempt at getting in some authority to the situation, and it was a miss-guided attempt at that. I don't think that for one second that you can just force something like that on people who believe their theological viewpoint to be the correct one (which is something instilled in the religion itself, an absolute sense of we're right, you're wrong) and expect them to go along with it. You just can't do that.

I think people have to learn for themselves and come to certain conclusions on their own. Take a look at Ireland for example, in the last century views and attitudes have changed quite rapidly altogether with concern to the Catholic Church, and now for example, Ireland realise just how wrong it was to bung women who've had a child out of wedlock in some Catholic run hell-hole. What would've happened if another culture started telling our forefathers how wrong that kind of thing was? I imagine devoted catholic would quite simply not hear the truth.

Now, on the other hand, this is our country and if people want to come and live in our country shouldn't they live here under our laws and try to understand our morals? That said, I honestly don't think that kind of approach will happen, because it seems very un-PC to expect someone else to change for you, it's you who should bend over backwards to accomidate them, reguardless if they have any respect for your culture or not, and right now, attitudes in Ireland are zealously Politically Correct.

It's a dilly of a pickle really, and I don't see how it would be possible to say to the Muslim world "Stay in your room untill you've calmed down" so to speak.

The only solution I can see that is feasable is that if someone wanted to live in Ireland (Be they immigrant, or refugee) they should be required to take a class. This class would consist of teaching about Ireland, it's culture, it's people, perhaps some history, understand other religions that are practiced in Ireland, such as wicca, buddhism and so forth, and teach tolerence of other people's views, understanding certain traits (Such as the Irish sense of humour, which I think can lead to people of other culture's taking things up wrong), and quite importantly, understanding other cultures that might be living in Ireland, Ireland's laws, because people coming from other countries can have totally different laws and be very unaware of our laws. We shouldn't expect people to come along and have an understand of our ways. Now, as is most relevant to this thread, this class should also educate people of their rights, and give information on how to get help in the case of spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, and provide contact numbers for helplines and suchlike.

I think that Political Correctness is asking of us, what it does not expect of others, in that it preaches for us to be tolerant, yet requires no such thing of other parties. As such this class I'm proposing would teach understand and tolerance among those who wish to live in Ireland. I think it would also go a long way to avoid the ghettoization of certain communities, and as such make multiculturalism a far more realistic idea, as all parties will have a mutual respect and understanding of each other, without feeling intimidated and would probably ease down any tensions between communities that might arise in the future. We should also encourage immigrants and refugees who have already settled to take this class also with a payment akin to a FAS scheme.

Aswell as that, I think such a class might weed out certain extremists and frauds, as I'd imagine the kind of person who would refure to take such a class, probably wouldn't belong in the country in the first place, or could be a danger.

At least, that's my solution. It probably wouldn't be put into practice at all though as the PC brigade all so rampant and they just love shouting "It's all your fault!" at the Irish, while shoving their fingers in their ears and pretending nobody can be intolerant but us Irish. Such a class would go against everything they believe in, rather like certain Catholic zealots I mentioned previously.

Anyway Vangelis, a little long winded I know (Yes, I have put a lot of thought into this), but I hope that answers your question and then some.

Beruthiel

nice post ken

I've seen plenty of burkas, my friend has been with an Algerian Muslim for 7 years now, but the less I say about him the better. I cannot tar them all with the same brush.
However, I have learned enough to know that women should know their place. That’s fine, if they are happy with that, if wearing a burka is their religious choice, then no probs.
I think it’s fair to say though, that for a good percentage they wear them cos they would get no end of grief if they didn’t, especially in places in the boonies of Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria to name but a few.

Karl Hungus

Beruthiel wrote:

nice post ken

Thanks muchly. It's been a while since I got a chance to get so long winded and philosophising, so I put in a good effort.

bonkey

Karl Hungus wrote:

That would be like in France when they banned headscarfs in schools, which to me seemed like nothing more than a last ditch attempt at getting in some authority to the situation, and it was a miss-guided attempt at that.

More correctly, the banned all overt religious items, of which headscarves happen to be the one (perhaps the most common) that a fuss was kicked up about.

I'm just waiting for the parents of a Muslim child to take a teacher to court in France for wearing a wedding ring.

Now, on the other hand, this is our country and if people want to come and live in our country shouldn't they live here under our laws and try to understand our morals?

Don't our laws grant freedom of religion, and - as long as that practice does not contravene other laws - freedom of relgious practice?

The problem doesn't seem to be with our laws, but rather that we've discovered our laws don't always sit so well with our morals.

We have laws against incitement to hatred. Whats needed is that these get applied not only to "traditional" Irish banging on against newly-incumbent cultures which make them uncomfortable, but also to said newly incumbent cultures when they incite hatred amongst themselves or against others.

The only solution I can see that is feasable is that if someone wanted to live in Ireland (Be they immigrant, or refugee) they should be required to take a class.

And you really believe that would solve the problem? That people would either decide "no, I'm not moving there", or would change their attitudes about their own religion etc?

If it was me, I'd take the class, nod and say yes at the appropriate places, sign any document needed at the end, and then get on with my life as though it had never happened once I was done.

I think that Political Correctness is asking of us, what it does not expect of others, in that it preaches for us to be tolerant, yet requires no such thing of other parties.

Isn't that exactly what tolerance is? Its not a reciprocal respect....its the decision to put up with something that you would prefer to be otherwise.

You seem to be suggesting that tolerance is a bad thing*, and that what we really need is a "trade of respect" instead, where you only accord the other side as much respect as they accord you.

jc

* Maybe I should say "not the ideal course" instead of "a bad thing".

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

More correctly, the banned all overt religious items, of which headscarves happen to be the one (perhaps the most common) that a fuss was kicked up about.

I'm just waiting for the parents of a Muslim child to take a teacher to court in France for wearing a wedding ring.

That's a bit of a stretch tbh :rolleyes: . As you pointed out they banned all overt religious items. A wedding ring is hardly religious anymore. It had entered the common vernacular of marriage. Headscarves/burkhas are a highly overt manifestation of a culture that to western eyes at least seems to deem women unequal. The extreme of that is an opinion that seems to deem women who don't follow the practice to be little more than whores.

Trade of respect is not such a bad thing, otherwise the perception might be that our tolerance might be mistaken for weakness.


BTW nice post on the subject by Karl Hungus

Vangelis

Karl Hungus wrote:

Anyway Vangelis, a little long winded I know (Yes, I have put a lot of thought into this), but I hope that answers your question and then some.

Yup, that was a good post, Karl! I have nothing to add or contradict.
Just one thing.. Do you by any means happen to be a social worker?

Hagar

bonkey wrote:

I'm just waiting for the parents of a Muslim child to take a teacher to court in France for wearing a wedding ring.

Keep waiting.
I live in France and wear a wedding ring, it is a piece of jewelry.

I have two. Both bought by my wife. The same woman, not one of four. I've put on a few pounds over 24 years, but she seems to think I was worth the investment.
There are notices up at my son's school asking all observers of Ramadan to make themselves known to the the school staff so that their dietery needs may be accommodated.
Has this been done in Dublin?
Is anything done in the ME to facilitate Christian strict observance of Lent?

Sand

Burkas are designed to remove women from life, to make them indistinguishable non-entities and make them dependant on men as liasons with the real world. The argument that they choose to wear them doesnt make a whole lot of sense - did everyone in the 50s feel it was best to send the pregnant woman to jail (effectively) or was it just that a lot of people were intimidated into silence through fear of ostracisation by that pillar of the community, the parish priest? Effectively, any young Muslim girl can be forced through family pressures into wearing a burka, cutting her off from any "external" contact or influences.

And the Burka isnt an Islamic form of dress - plenty of Islamic women either content themselves with a headscarf or dressing like anyone else ( and "Western" dress for women isnt bikinis by default either, the impression I get from some is that the burka is the only other option for modesty to your birthday suit). The burka is derived from the culture it comes from - desert tribes. Which is where the problem and the solution lies.

As Karl has said, attempts to force people not to wear the burka by law will probably be counter productive. Instead the government should cut off or close down any insititution that is in anyway funded or connected to the Saudi government, and refuse visas or entry to any Immans sent by the Saudis to speak in Ireland. With their oil money theyve been busy funding the spread of the most puritan, hostile and hateful brand of Islam throughout the Islamic and western world, destroying countless "local" variants of Islamic practise. If we let the Saudis dictate the religious/social standards of Islam in Ireland we will only create trouble for ourselves and our children down the line. Let Irish muslims determine Irish islamic practise, without outside interference. The British tried a live and let live strategy with hardline immans and they got the tube bombings and alienated muslim ghettos.

Banning burkas however is equally disgusting. The West cannot push its so-called democracy and liberal attitudes on other cultures. And I hate Europe and the US for believing that they can.

Like others, I would love to hear the "actual" democracy youre comparing us to? And secondly, if we dont push our so called democracy and liberal attitudes on immigrants, were going to have tens of millions of undemoractic and illiberal people in our nations, who will most likely ( and already are in some cases) forge a common identity in opposition to the democractic and liberal attitudes you hate so much. Hardly a recipe for social calm is it?

Or we could work a multi-cultural compromise, for example an Irish woman can seperate from her husband under Irish law, unless shes a muslim in which case she must take her chances with Sharia law....

That said, I honestly don't think that kind of approach will happen, because it seems very un-PC to expect someone else to change for you, it's you who should bend over backwards to accomidate them, reguardless if they have any respect for your culture or not, and right now, attitudes in Ireland are zealously Politically Correct.

True, most people look for the nearest supposed moral highground and its a race to climb it first. Doesnt matter if an action is right or wrong, its whether its *seen* to be right or wrong thats important. Your idea of an introduction class would be literally savaged if it was ever proposed as a realistic policy. People would be far too busy establishing they were holier than thou to actually exam the issue of bedding immigrants into what will be a very different society in most cases.

I recently saw a programme about immigrants in the Netherlands, specifically an arab man marrying his dutch wife. They were looking at a government tape the Dutch had for immigrants, and when it came to showing blocks of flats the wife said something about the tape subvertly telling immigrants that these flats are where youre going to live, houses are too good for you etc etc - finding that moral high ground. It took her husband, the guy who immigrated, to point out that the flats were miles better than what most immigrants came from.

pretty*monster

Victor wrote:

Do you support streakers rights?

Well, yes if it comes down to it I suppose I do.


The problem with the burka is not the item of clothing, it is the attitude behind it that says that there is something about a woman's body that must be covered up.

To me this suggests to one of two things.
Either the female form is somehow dirty or disgraceful and must be hidden away.
Or men are so unable to control themselves that women must hide themselves away to avoid getting raped.

I find both these views highly offensive.
But they can't be changed by simply banning burkas.

Karl Hungus

bonkey wrote:

Don't our laws grant freedom of religion, and - as long as that practice does not contravene other laws - freedom of relgious practice?

The problem doesn't seem to be with our laws, but rather that we've discovered our laws don't always sit so well with our morals.

We have laws against incitement to hatred. Whats needed is that these get applied not only to "traditional" Irish banging on against newly-incumbent cultures which make them uncomfortable, but also to said newly incumbent cultures when they incite hatred amongst themselves or against others.

You seem to miss-understand that particular quote there, as I said it merely to illustrate "The other face of the coin" as it were, and how it would be impossible to impliment what some people seem to be suggesting. My main point here is that you certainly cannot force a change in beliefs. Perhaps I should've fleshed that out a bit more, and explained that it's a reference to the hypothetical question of should burkas be banned?

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly that laws against incitement to hatred should be applied to newly incumbent cultures.

bonkey wrote:

And you really believe that would solve the problem? That people would either decide "no, I'm not moving there", or would change their attitudes about their own religion etc?

If it was me, I'd take the class, nod and say yes at the appropriate places, sign any document needed at the end, and then get on with my life as though it had never happened once I was done.

No, no and no! You seem to disreguard exactly what I'm saying that it would be impossible to make someone change their attitudes about their own religion, and that's something that such a class should and certainly would avoid doing.

As I've said, such a class would be something that would promote understanding, educate people on Ireland, and provide information. It wouldn't be something where you'd have to renounce anything, or sign anything, and it wouldn't be something where you could just nod and say yes at appropriate places. It would be something that quite simply would tell people what to expect, how laws here would be different to what they were used to, and what would be the best ways to interact (Possibly through role-play) and so forth. Importantly it would give various females information on how to get help in the case of their rights being infringed, and educate them on such rights.

At no point should such a class ask someone to recant, or attempt to change someone's beliefs.

bonkey wrote:

Isn't that exactly what tolerance is? Its not a reciprocal respect....its the decision to put up with something that you would prefer to be otherwise.

You seem to be suggesting that tolerance is a bad thing*, and that what we really need is a "trade of respect" instead, where you only accord the other side as much respect as they accord you.

jc

* Maybe I should say "not the ideal course" instead of "a bad thing".

I think you got it fairly spot on there. Perhaps I wouldn't even be as polite to say "Not the ideal course" in this situation. What's thought of as tolerance in today's moral fashions is an absolutely ridiculous double standard, in the sense that promoting tolerance seems to be being intolerant to certain viewpoints.

I mean, a lot of people who claim the moral high ground in such situation hold a policy of "No platform for fascists" and go a long way to ensure they disrupt any valid point of view. Such as the shambles of a "Debate" suggested by the Literary & Historical society of UCD, and it was suggested that the society should be closed down. I can't find what happened after that, but it illustrates the one-sidedness and outright refusal to hear out the other side. It's an approach that's almost like robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.

Aswell as that, we've got groups like Residents Against Racism, who are actively campaigning to keep criminals and frauds from being deported. I've actually posted comments on www.indymedia.ie when there was a RAR protest announced to "Stop racist deportations" and I posted asking to know just why they were being deported in the first place, and if RAR was trying to keep criminals and frauds in the country. To my suprise, quite a number of comments actually supporting my question, and demanding to know just who they're expected to protest for? A day later, I check back and all comments had been deleted expect for two fist-shaking "Damn racist government" style blurbs.

"Tolerence" seems to be total miss-information and denial of any problems, so damn right I think it's "A bad thing."

"Trade of respect" as you put it, bingo tbh.

I'll give you an example. I'm planning to head to Japan next year, and I'm attempting to learn the lingo, and get an understanding of what's considered polite and what is rude. I'm going there because I have a genuine interest in it, and I want to show my respect and understanding as best I can, rather than a fat obnoxious American tourist who'll expect everyone speak their particular butchered drawl of English, and carry on in whatever matter they see fit, in complete ignorance of the culture.

That said, I don't expect that anyone who would want to live and work to Ireland to show that kind of respect, but it would be nice. I suppose I'd like an understanding at least.

Vangelis wrote:

Do you by any means happen to be a social worker?

Nope, I'm not. Why do you think so?

sand wrote:

Your idea of an introduction class would be literally savaged if it was ever proposed as a realistic policy. People would be far too busy establishing they were holier than thou to actually exam the issue of bedding immigrants into what will be a very different society in most cases.

Indeed, and it's a pity.

Vangelis

Sand wrote:

Like others, I would love to hear the "actual" democracy youre comparing us to? And secondly, if we dont push our so called democracy and liberal attitudes on immigrants, were going to have tens of millions of undemoractic and illiberal people in our nations, who will most likely (and already are in some cases) forge a common identity in opposition to the democractic and liberal attitudes you hate so much.

Our countries(the democracy I was talking about) are no better if they force Islamic countries to undergo a deep liberalisation. Why do we feel that we have to do this? It seems to me that we believe we are the only ones who are right - we're perfect. But there are many sides of liberal democratic countries that are not so good.

Karl: I was just wondering. You seem to be so opinionated in regards to social matters.

Karl Hungus

Vangelis wrote:

Karl: I was just wondering. You seem to be so opinionated in regards to social matters.

You think I'm opinionated on social matters? ****, you should see me when I get going on the film board!

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

Our countries(the democracy I was talking about) are no better if they force Islamic countries to undergo a deep liberalisation. Why do we feel that we have to do this? It seems to me that we believe we are the only ones who are right - we're perfect. But there are many sides of liberal democratic countries that are not so good.

Forcing democracy on another country is a different argument altogether. The point is whether to "force" it on citizens who choose to live in our democracy.

One of the tenets of democracy is equality. And there's nothing equal about being required to cover your entire face and body when walking in public, simply because you were born a woman.

But this is religious freedom (irony) issue, which is why it's so hairy.

fly_agaric

The Atheist wrote:

One of the tenets of democracy is equality. And there's nothing equal about being required to cover your entire face and body when walking in public, simply because you were born a woman.

But this is religious freedom (irony) issue, which is why it's so hairy.

It's more of a pickle for Western politicians and governments than it is for the muslims at the core of the issue.
The irresistible force of feminism slams into the immovable object of tolerance for difference/respecting others' cultural mores. Or to mix metaphors, which sacred cow will get it in the head with a bolt?

Vangelis

The Atheist wrote:

Forcing democracy on another country is a different argument altogether. The point is whether to "force" it on citizens who choose to live in our democracy.

One of the tenets of democracy is equality. And there's nothing equal about being required to cover your entire face and body when walking in public, simply because you were born a woman.

Then.. are we doing it out of love or because we are we-are-the-best-besserwissers who come to correct others' lifestyles. Maybe it doesn't matter that we do something to "save" the people in other undemocratic countries because we are not doing it wholeheartedly and with passion, but only with grief, hatred and arrogance.

Karl, I expect to see you as a politician on TV some day!

Wibbs

Vangelis wrote:

Karl, I expect to see you as a politician on TV some day!

Good God Sir, are you mad? Good sense from a politician? Unlikely . Though fly_agaric makes a good point in his last post it must be said.

Vangelis

Wibbs wrote:

Good God Sir, are you mad? Good sense from a politician? Unlikely . Though fly_agaric makes a good point in his last post it must be said.

That will be MISS! And I am not mad, unless you are Santa.

Karl Hungus

Vangelis wrote:

Karl, I expect to see you as a politician on TV some day!

Dear god no! I detest politics, and while I'm happy to speak my mind on an internet discussion board, in person is a whole different thing, as Sand puts it "People would be far too busy establishing they were holier than thou to actually exam the issue of bedding immigrants into what will be a very different society in most cases." And I'd be setting myself up for nothing more savage scrutiny by the various PC Zealots who like to run around and make a fuss about everything.

Politics is probably one of the last things I'd want to do with my life, there's not a politician out there that I don't detest, and quite frankly I'd rather be a janitor. Although it is heart-warming to think I'd have some people behind me, and thanks for thinking I have sense Wibbs.

And I agree, fly_agaric does make an excellent point.

Dades

fly_agaric wrote:

The irresistible force of feminism slams into the immovable object of tolerance for difference/respecting others' cultural mores. Or to mix metaphors, which sacred cow will get it in the head with a bolt?

Heh. I like it.

Vangelis wrote:

Then.. are we doing it out of love or because we are we-are-the-best-besserwissers who come to correct others' lifestyles. Maybe it doesn't matter that we do something to "save" the people in other undemocratic countries because we are not doing it wholeheartedly and with passion, but only with grief, hatred and arrogance.

Enough with the other argument - other countries! That's a whoooole other issue. What we're talking about here is people who voluntarily move to our country they know to be a democracy.

TBH I don't think I know enough about Muslim societies to make an informed judgement, even though I know what I'd like to happen.