Burka ban

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

Oh the irony. The whole purpose of the burka is a form of sexism and a claim of (false) purity. It encourages the idea that women are the primary cause of their rapes. This attitude results in problems when men try to integrate in cultures that DON'T cover up. Hence the rise of sexual assaults in places like Sweden from immigrants.
The use of the burka is a form of political attire. That attitude is also FORCED on women and young girls. This is why they get so upset about taking it off. If it was a 'choice' then removing it would be no big deal rather than a huge problem for them AND their society. Of course new converts might try it out out of naivity and stupidity, but by allowing it you encourage that form of repression.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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

Ha, strawman. More namecalling. If you have a form of accepted dress that COMPLETELY hides your identity that is a security risk. You have NO idea who that person is. I am not sure you even know what a burka is when you come out with this nonsense. As far as the vit D issue. You have no idea how this works do you? Black absorbs the light, NOT your skin. Your clothes don't make Vit D. FYI.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

I study Islam, I know what Salafism is. I read their scriptures. The quran does not support the need for a burka. That requires the MOST extreme interpretation (not just a literal interpretation, but to take it to the most extreme). I saw your post on what you think the quran says. It does not require covering the face or eyes. It requires MODESTY and covering the hair. There are plenty of variants of Salafism too, mate. Not all are super extreme.
Wearing such garb is extremely unpleasant, especially in summer. It restricts movement, breathing, vision, communication and interaction. Again these criticisms are FROM muslims and exmuslims who experienced this attire.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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!

So your 'defence' is out of fear of how muslims will react to 'restrictions' that most muslims are happy to 'restrict' themselves. Maybe we should be ok with FGM, afterall some muslim women WANT it, as their religious and traditional views tell them they are virtuous with it and will be more desirable to men. Your argument would be that if we don't allow that then muslims will turn violent and target little Ireland. Maybe child brides is ok too, afterall some Muslim women want it, as it makes them feel secure. Same argument follows. What about implementing Sharia? Don't want to rock the boat do we. Might cause friction.
You don't decide on our policies based on fear of what muslims will do if they don't get their way all the time. THAT is bigotry.
As for comparing ME to ISIS. Seriously? I don't throw acid in the faces of young girls for wearing the burka. ISIS/other muslim extremists do for those that don't.
You wish to cater for the extremists with stupid equivocations because you are afraid of being viewed as a bigot. Yet you display bigotry by not knowing enough about their religion to see through the bull**** excuses for extremist clothing and other demands. By catering to extremists you allow such views to grow. Everytime any pushback against Islam occurs, suddenly threats emerge and "well you asked for it" attitudes are used to explain it.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

you are extremely naivé. Just because the government don't force a muslim woman to wear it does not mean she is free to choose to wear it, if she is part of an extremist branch of Islam. Her husband, their mosque, their muslim neighbours all can play a part in making SURE that the pressure is on to wear it. You might wish to listen to actual muslim women who oppose the burka and see why they see it as oppressive.
As far as communication is concerned, most of our communication (in person) is non verbal. Try that with a burka. You don't even know what a burka is do you? Its not a hijab or chadoor, or even a niqab. To compare it to a hoody is hilarious.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

Really? So a teacher gets to openly advertise his religious preferences when teaching in a public school by hanging crosses on classroom walls. You don't think this might be viewed as biased when dealing with OTHER religions.
And to be clear, I am drawing a distinction between BEING religious and ADVERTISING your religion publically at work. I have no problem with the first and object to the second.
Lets put it this way, If a teacher put a big red letter A on his classroom wall with "there is no god" on his t-shirt and was teaching young children that come from muslim, catholic or hindu families, you think that is acceptable behaviour? I don't. Its not part of his job and it pushes his religious views (or lack of) onto his charges, without the permission of the faculty or parents.

But perhaps, even as an atheist myself, that makes me a bigot against atheists, maybe you want to call me more names and compare me to some mass murderer.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

And here we go with the equivocations, where you like to pretend that BEING religious is what I am objecting to. I am not. I am against BRINGING it into the classroom and forcing that onto your students.
And finally, since you are naivé, saying you evolved from a monkey is meant as an insult. We didn't. Its a creationist insult. So way to go proving my point. We are primates, we are apes, we share common ancestry.
This insult can be found online by creationists all the time. "you came from a rock" "your father may be a monkey but mine is not". etc.
So next time you might wish to explain to the child that we didn't come from a monkey. Perhaps you might teach them some facts instead.
Finally your 'experience' trumphs mine how? you don't know my experiences? My link with muslims? my history? my knowledge or years of study into religions. You met a muslim teacher, so you are suddenly an expert. Woohoo.

Mr.H wrote: »

I am all for people doing whatever they want in their own homes. But in public society, to make living together easier we must have common rules to keep everyone safe

This isn't in any way liberal. "People can do what they want in their own homes" is the sort of argument people make against PDAs by gay people. If we want to live in a liberal society then we have to accept peoples beliefs even if we think they are ridiculous or even offensive. Public displays of religion that are not directly harming others should not have to be confined to ones own home. Obviously they should be removed from state affairs but banning them from all public places is about as illiberal as it gets.

Mr.H wrote: »

I'm not talking about two lads making out in public although I think that should be banned too. Not because it's gay but because people shouldn't be making out or practically riding in public streets anyway regardless of sexual orientation

Liberal, you say?

Mr.H wrote: »

There are man hunts Europe wide for terrorist!!!!

If we had a rally and people were masked why couldn't these people hide in plain sight?

You eliminate a problem before it happens. Not after

That happened during the Occupy protests.

It also happens at Halloween, should we ban Halloween? And would we ban it as its an overt display of paganism or because of the thread posed by masks?

Mr.H wrote: »

By the way to be liberal it doesn't mean you have to be naive and forget actual threats that exist in society.

I suppose you would advocate the right to have guns too yea?

People do have the right to buy guns in Ireland. They are controlled and licensed because they are dangerous.

People kissing in public however is not dangerous. Nor is covering your head with a breathable fabric.

Mr.H wrote: »

Kinda meant it a bit tongue-in-cheek (pardon the pun)

I was talking more the drunken morons who practically have sex in public every Friday or Saturday night



Yea I would stop any form of religious provocative behavior.

As far as atheist are concerned. These days that has ironically become a religion. It is as phrase of the week as feminism.

Why can't people just stop showing religion beliefs/non-beliefs down each others throats.

The only way to do it is ban it from public domain.

As a (conservative sided) liberal (if that's what you wanna call me) I think it's the best way to ensure harmony and security.

It's a non question really

You seem to think harmony is achieved by everyone following your rules for society. That is not going to work.

And no you are not a "conservative sided liberal", bizarre oxymoron that that is, You are not a liberal at all. What you are advocating for is fascism.