Burka ban

Anyone that thinks banning anything to do with religion (be it wearing a burka, hijab, a cross, whatever the Jewish hats are) is anything less than a violation of a human right (the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion) are morons. Do I agree with what women have to wear in the Islamic faith? No, it's another way to subjugate women (although some women freely choose to become Muslim so that's their choice), but that doesn't mean I have any right to say they can't wear it.

There would be uproar on here if the Government tried to introduce laws that meant atheists couldn't wear clothing from YouTube/famous atheists or anything that talks about atheism, the same should apply for religion. I may not agree with it, or what you believe in, but my glob would I die for their right to wear it and believe in what they want. Anything less and you oppose freedom and should have freedoms taken from you so you can see what it is like.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Anyone that thinks banning anything to do with religion (be it wearing a burka, hijab, a cross, whatever the Jewish hats are) is anything less than a violation of a human right (the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion) are morons. Do I agree with what women have to wear in the Islamic faith? No, it's another way to subjugate women (although some women freely choose to become Muslim so that's their choice), but that doesn't mean I have any right to say they can't wear it.

There would be uproar on here if the Government tried to introduce laws that meant atheists couldn't wear clothing from YouTube/famous atheists or anything that talks about atheism, the same should apply for religion. I may not agree with it, or what you believe in, but my glob would I die for their right to wear it and believe in what they want. Anything less and you oppose freedom and should have freedoms taken from you so you can see what it is like.

The issue goes beyond religion. Just because it has religious elements does not make it JUST about religion. Facecovering is generally prohibited anyway unless weather conditions require it (blizzards, sand storms, etc). Certainly for security reasons, where helmets, hats and scarves that cover the face have to be removed.
No one gets to wear ANYTHING THEY WANT in a society. We all conform to reasonable standards. Muslims have to do the same. That is equality.
The burka is not the same as the hijab, not by a mile, despite apologists outright deceitfully mixing the two.
As far as atheists are concerned, what if pastafarians wanted to wear oversized pasta strainers on their heads that hide their identities. If the government decided that this interferes with current best practices, banning that head gear would be completely normal practice, and reasonable.

The lack of burka in NO WAY harms muslims unless they WANT to make an issue of it. There is nothing in their religion that requires it. It is viewed as a political and social issue, with religious overtones.

Your right of freedom of expression ends where others are put at risk. If I wanted to walk around naked in a school because I feel it fits my 'religious' views on being close to adam and eve, I would also be quickly escorted off the premises and charged with indecency. Religious views don't trump other considerations.

Crosses worn overtly can be viewed as a problem in public services like healthcare as it shows preferences over patients who differ in that religion. Would a christian like a nurse to attend them while they are vulnerable who chose a big badge with a pentagon and a goats face on it? No they would find it upsetting. The role of the nurse is to SERVE the patient, not to proselytize their faith at work. I am not aware of any goal to ban small crosses worn in public (or even big ones) areas like streets or when not working like nightclubs/cafes (as clients not staff).

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The issue goes beyond religion. Just because it has religious elements does not make it JUST about religion. Facecovering is generally prohibited anyway unless weather conditions require it (blizzards, sand storms, etc). Certainly for security reasons, where helmets, hats and scarves that cover the face have to be removed.
No one gets to wear ANYTHING THEY WANT in a society. We all conform to reasonable standards. Muslims have to do the same. That is equality.
The burka is not the same as the hijab, not by a mile, despite apologists outright deceitfully mixing the two.

What? During the winter I am often wearing a neckwarmer that comes up over my nose and some hood, meaning that all that is visible is my eyes. The only place this has ever been an issue was a bank where there was money being placed in so there were armed escorts there. That's it. I've never been told to remove my neckwarmer in any shop I have been in. And yes, you can where whatever you want in society as long as it cannot be objectively provactive or offensive (you can't just walk around naked basically). Apart from that, people are entitled to wear what they want!

As far as atheists are concerned, what if pastafarians wanted to wear oversized pasta strainers on their heads that hide their identities. If the government decided that this interferes with current best practices, banning that head gear would be completely normal practice, and reasonable.

If they do more power to them! The Government has no right to decide what you can and can't wear. You are confusing a Government with someone who owns a shop/bank (AKA private property), but I have yet to see Tesco or any other shop ban Burka's in their stores! This is an awful argument.

The lack of burka in NO WAY harms muslims unless they WANT to make an issue of it. There is nothing in their religion that requires it. It is viewed as a political and social issue, with religious overtones.

It does harm them though. It goes directly against their religious practices and could make them feel hated by their Government and by their "God". As we have seen in France, stuff like this does lead to more extremist views. When you say to someone that we don't respect you or your beliefs, they become more radical.

Your right of freedom of expression ends where others are put at risk. If I wanted to walk around naked in a school because I feel it fits my 'religious' views on being close to adam and eve, I would also be quickly escorted off the premises and charged with indecency. Religious views don't trump other considerations.

The Adam and Eve point is so ridiculous it doesn't even warrant being rebutted, you know you are making a strawman, I'll just let the wind blow it over. There is nothing that puts others at risk by wearing a burka and I believe that saying otherwise is Islamphobia by another name.

Crosses worn overtly can be viewed as a problem in public services like healthcare as it shows preferences over patients who differ in that religion. Would a christian like a nurse to attend them while they are vulnerable who chose a big badge with a pentagon and a goats face on it? No they would find it upsetting. The role of the nurse is to SERVE the patient, not to proselytize their faith at work. I am not aware of any goal to ban small crosses worn in public (or even big ones) areas like streets or when not working like nightclubs/cafes (as clients not staff).

I've been in school where there were crosses in each class room and the few times I have had to stay overnight in hospital I have been served by nurses who wear a cross. I have never had a problem as I don't believe that their beliefs impact there ability to do their job. Saying otherwise is silly and shows that you have bigoted beliefs and you are the one with the problem.

magicbastarder wrote: »

while i'm in agreement with most of the rest of the things you are saying, your point re the government not meddling in what people should wear gets muddled when you consider (going on the above) you're OK with state funded schools displaying a preference for one particular religion. the government should have no hand, act nor part in sending messages about whether or whom to worship, so crucifixes should not belong in schools.

and given recent scandals or problems involving women's reproductive rights, i would certainly understand if a woman would have no objection to an overt display of faith if they're having say a mole checked on their arm, but being uncomfortable if it's an issue related to reproduction and the nurse has chosen to openly display a symbol of his or her religion.

I don't think it's right that schools should have a preference for one religion, I was making the point that just because someone identifies with one religion doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing a job, probably should have put that across more clearly though.

Qs wrote: »

Some of these laws though, such as this latest burkini one have no real security reason. Its just plainly a law to attack Muslims for not conforming to local social mores.

I never mentioned Burkinis. Not once. I don't support a ban either on them on beaches. I agree with you that it can be viewed as discriminatory.

Qs wrote: »

So what if its not religious (and thats a stretch anyway). Why shouldn't people in a free secular society be able to wear a burkini if they choose to?

Burkinis are a recent invention. Nothing in their religion REQUIRES it. Its political and social issue (using religion as an excuse). However I agree that people can wear it, as long as the face is uncovered. I could argue that it goes against islamic values as it shows the shape of the woman to men (at least the pics I saw), which is viewed as indecent and immoral under strict islamic practice.

Qs wrote: »

Is there a large element of risk with women wearing burkinis on beaches in Cannes?

Not to my knowledge. I never brought this item up.

Qs wrote: »

Tough ****. A Muslim lady was the midwife who delivered my son. She had some sort of hijab on her but it made no difference to how she did her job, she was excellent. Why should anyone care what religion the staff attending them in a hospital is as long as they're doing their job properly.

And here we go with the anecdotes.
First off "doing their jobs properly" has nothing to do with expressing their religion while at work. They are supposed to represent the hospital or whatever public service as neutral public servants or employees.
A muslim can have any job they like, they have to wear the same uniform as everyone else, and they have to do the same job as everyone else. Yet that is not what happens. Same with christians. Suddenly their religion begins to supersede their job and you get demands for accommodation.
Their religious sensibilities are their problem, not everyone elses. By making their religion overt, they push it on others, at work, and in some cases, at the expense of their clients or employers.
A muslim can wear a hijab outside of their work hours, or wear an equivalent if the job has that as part of the uniform (like a headscarf or chef hat to keep hair out of the way, etc). Its like the demand for canadian mounties to allow sikhes to wear their turbans instead of the standard uniform hat. Its bull and its only done for religious reasons, which are not essential to doing the job.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I already mentioned weather conditions, so your point is moot there.
Also you can be asked to remove it ANYWHERE and you would have no problem doing so, would you. If a shop assistant asked you to remove the scarf so he can identify your face, you would do it without hesitation, because you ONLY wore it for weather protection and you are now indoors.
This is not the same with religious garb. The 'freedom' to wear it is a lie.
Women are conditioned to believe they have to wear it by their family, local imman or local community. They are shamed into it. To remove it causes distress, because they were shamed into wearing it. Their religion does not require it (hence why many muslim women oppose it in countries where they are not fanatical. The recent liberation of a city in Syria from ISIS shows women happily burning their burkas with relief.). Its a way for men to control their women and seek to demonstrate how puritanical they are by having their daughters/wives wear extremely restrictive clothing.

I never denied I'd be unwilling to take it off if asked, even though it would annoy me, but the point still stands. You didn't rebut the fact that in all but one instance I have not been asked to remove it. If most shopkeepers, bank tellers etc are happy enough for me to have most of my face covered during the winter, I doubt they would have any problem with muslim women wearing there burka. I also agreed that it is oppressive to women, I said that in my original post but if women in this country want (and they do) to wear it, they should have the freedom to do so. You are trying to impose your beliefs and wishes upon other people which is an awful and oppressive thing to do, especially in a country that has freedom of speech and expression.

The government is charged with protecting the public. Clothing that is a security risk can be banned. Clothing that is viewed as dangerous to one's health can also be restricted (burkas in countries can cause health problems due to covering up all sun exposure all the time resulting in Vit D deficiencies). That is why we HAVE governments, to govern us. Private stores can restrict entrance on grounds that they decide is appropriate (like not wearing shoes, or not wearing a tie).

I don't see how the Burka is a security risk. You are getting dangerously close to saying that people who wear burkas are more likely to be criminal, which is both bigotted and idiotic. Also, that's not the reason the Government would ban it and you know full well it isn't. And the Government only has a right to a point to decide what is safe and unsafe. The amount of Muslim women in both Ireland and around the world who suffer massive Vit D defiences is the same as most people. They can still get their Vitamin D as, believe it or not, black clothes actually absorb more of the suns rays, meaning that they will still be getting their requirements anyway

Utter bull. Their religion does not require burkas. That is tradition, not religion. Otherwise why is it that the majority of muslim women DON'T wear the burka. Only the recent risk of fundamentalist extremism has lead to a change where some muslims (often recent converts) decide to be as extreme as possible to showcase their faith in public.
You are basically saying that if we don't acquiesce to extremist muslims they turn violent. That is a threat they use to get their way. That is like being afraid to draw mohammed, in case muslims go on a rampage and murder dozens of people in retaliation. You seem to think that muslims cannot be moderate in how they express their religion BECAUSE they are muslim. That is a form of bigotry of 'lower expectations'.
Wearing a hijab is perfectly fine to accommodate what the koran requires. Going more than that is based on seeking to imitate Mohammed's wives attire in the middle-east in the 7th century to show off how fanatical they are.

Firstly, you are wrong. Salafism is a branch of Islam that is traditional and follows the Quran to the letter, and in the Quran it says that women should be clothed in a burka. So, it is the traditional branch of Islam and is one of the most common forms of Islam around the world. If you are going to call bull, at least make sure that you actually have an understanding of the different branches of Islam. And yes, Salafism is definitely the more extreme version of Islam but that doesn't mean most Muslims who practice Salafism is extreme.
How is it bigotted in any way? I am making a point that these have happened in countries that have since experienced Islamic terrorism. I'm not saying that the people you ban from having the burka are going to commit terror attacks, but it will make Ireland a target to people who don't want to see western ideals forced upon Muslims. I don't agree with violence but when you oppress a group (and banning something belonging to one religion and one religion alone is a form of oppression, as is telling women when they marry they have to give up work, as we did before in this country) you are no better than IS and are making the people you oppress more likely to want to retaliate. That's just how humans work!

Ah the islamophobia statement. Nothing I said was Islamophobic. I asked that muslims not be exempt from the same rules everyone else lives by. Burkas are not harmless, they are anti-social, misogynistic, misandristic, health and security risks worn for bad reasons and moderate muslim women and ex-muslim women would agree with me.

The great thing about living in Ireland is that these Muslim women don't have to wear the burka if they don't want to. I know Muslim women who don't wear a burka (they either wear a head-scarf or don't cover there head in any way), but some Muslim women want to wear the burka. That is their right and choice and their way of expressing their religious beliefs. There are no health and security risks, I've yet to see a Muslim women do anything criminal while wearing a burka. And they are not anti-social, that is ridiculous. I can converse with a woman in a burka the same way I can converse with a person with a hoody and neckwarmer.

Tell that to anyone trying to get an abortion in such places. Or seek advice on such sensitive issues. Or on contraception. You are extremely naivé.
Public funded schools showing favouritism towards a religion is a problem. Having a religion in a school attended by other people not of that religion causes problems, or funded by taxes by the general public. You might wish to listen to people who have to put up with the negative side of such situations. Religious people who are behind such symbolic displays rarely stop there, but seek to push their religion as much as they dare, until the law steps in. Then they cry discrimination.

Well, abortions are not permitted in Ireland, so that point is moot (don't make a strawman out of that line either, I believe abortion should be legal in Ireland). But, if they do not give you advice on sexual health or contraception then they are not doing their job and should be reported. But I have yet to see a doctor or nurse wearing/having something to do with their religious beliefs and not doing their job.
I don't agree that a school itself should have a religious belief or stand-point, I believe the opposite. But I also think that if a teacher wants to hang a cross in their room then so be it! That's their choice and as long as it doesn't affect their teaching, then that's fine.

How much trust do you have that your science teacher who likes to demonstrate how much a 'true christian' he is at every opportunity, is going to give you an unbiased education. Or how about in history or sex ed or any class that steps on the toes of religious sensibilities in some way.
Also saying that if I disagree with you I am a bigot is not helpful in discussing this issue.
Finally YOUR experience in these situations does not make it true for everyone else. You don't get to mandate that if you don't care no one else should.

I am training to be a teacher, I have been at summer camps and doing tutorial classes. I am an atheist, but I would never let that interfere in what I am doing. Similarly, in the 2 schools I have done teacher training at, some of the teachers had different beliefs but didn't let that interfere with their class. Hell, at an Educate Together school, where I did my 6th class placement in 1st year, one of the teachers was a Muslim woman who wore a burka. But that didn't interfere with her ability to be a teacher! Her class loved her as a teacher and one of the kids came up to me when I was on duty and told me about how I had evolved from a monkey (a kids way of calling me a monkey due to my beard).
My experiences aren't everyones experience but as someone who is a teacher in training, my experiences in education on both sides give me a better viewpoint than you. And people's experience don't decide whether or not someone gets to wear what they want.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh dear... :rolleyes:

Yes they absorb more light, that's the point. They absorb the UV light so very little of it penetrates the fabric to the skin beneath. In Australia you can buy clothing with an SPF factor indicated on the label.

Good, good, thanks for proving that the rest of the argument is pretty sound. I like doing that when I competitively debate, throw a bad line or two in there so that gets attacked meaning the rest of my points stand....which they do. I am aware that women in full-veil are more likely to suffer from Vitamin D issues but sure it's there body and they can do what they want.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Good, good, thanks for proving that the rest of the argument is pretty sound. I like doing that when I competitively debate, throw a bad line or two in there so that gets attacked meaning the rest of my points stand....which they do. I am aware that women in full-veil are more likely to suffer from Vitamin D issues but sure it's there body and they can do what they want.

There's an original approach!

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Good, good, thanks for proving that the rest of the argument is pretty sound.

Silence isn't endorsement any more than it is consent.

I like doing that when I competitively debate, throw a bad line or two in there so that gets attacked meaning the rest of my points stand....which they do.

Yeah right.

Mr.H wrote: »

You wouldn't trust a guy walking into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on, or a teen in a shop with a big hoodie covering his face..... so why would you not expect everyone to not hide their identity for security purposes.This is not a racial or religious thing. This is basic common sense

Is the guy with the motorbike helmet ok to wear it on the street? Can the teen wear a big hoodie covering his face in the park?