Burka ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

Even accepting the above, we're not arguing the legalities of the issue, we're arguing the moralities of it. A free society is one in which people are free to believe what they want to believe or practice whatever culture they want to as long as it causes no harm. A woman choosing to wear a veil does not cause greater harm in society and should be left to her own devices, even if we disagree with her choice. A woman coerced into wearing a veil will not be helped by a ban. Whatever benefits there are in a ban, they are so heavily outweighed by the drawbacks that I don't think it deserves serious consideration.

The burka does cause harm, as does the thinking behind it. Seriously, my constant statement about the women who are forced or intimitated into it seems to constantly be ignored in favour of the women who want to wear it. Its like ALL burka wears are completely free of ANY harmful connotations at all.
The whole attitude needs challenging. The burka is the most extreme form of it. You literally cannot get more extreme unless you design a 2 meter square box like a mobile Kabba and shuffle along with it.

Also in Islam it is allowed to moderate your beliefs if you are breaking the law of the land you are in. SO YOU ARE HELPING women by banning it. Their own religion would allow for moderation, in that circumstance. This is why Islamic dress varies so much because the culture helps shape the religious practice.

magicbastarder wrote: »

If we are going to start banming things because they will offend significant proportions of society, to take a local example, both the pro choice and anti abortion campaigns would have to shut down. Offence is taken, not given. Banning a cultural practice simply because people take offence at it is rubberstamping racism, no more, no less. You may as well be arguing to have kept a ban on interracial marriage in the deep south in the 60s. I find the idea deeply disturbing.

I agree with that sentiment. Banning because others don't like it is not enough. I don't object because I don't like the fashion sense. You are right about how that attitude on other issues would also be unjustified.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

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.

Your point is literally so weak a fly could knock it over. Muslim men raping people that don't cover up? That's a problem and has to be eradicated and those people should be punished. It would be the same if I want to an Islamic-ruled state and decide to wander around the streets in just my boxers. Raises eyebrows here but not illegal, highly illegal there. That's THEIR issue and THEY should be punished accordingly. Don't think that every single Muslim women wears the burqa because of oppression. That's a fallacy. The same way not every single person doesn't think being forced to wear clothes is oppression. Some might, but some don't. And your argument hinges on the fact that every single women is forced to wear it. I know a former Christian who is now Muslim, she wears a hijab but has worn a burqa also. Is she oppressed?

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.

You clearly missed the post where I said that I said the Vit D thing to make you focus more on that. Which, to your credit, you didn't. It's a tactic in competitive debating to make a weak point which is attacked so your main points stands. Shouldn't have done it here. Secondly, it is not a security risk. Not in the slightest, the same way a person wearing a helmet walking down the street is not a security risk. You are making claims that YOU have to prove by applying them to EVERY SITUATION. I'm showing that 99/100 a woman wearing a burqa will pose no threat to security

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.

Awesome, but there are still parts of Salafism that are extreme! And that would interpret the Quran that way! You literally proved my point for me. I never said it wasn't unpleasant or it wasn't misgoynistic. Stop putting words in my mouth. I've said that if people want to wear it they should be allowed to and if they don't, they don't have to. We already have that in place in this country.

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.

And this is where I start to get mad. Not because you are saying sh*t about me, I couldn't care less what someone as ignorant as you thinks of me. I don't agree that we shouldn't push back against some forms of Islam, I do.

I'm getting mad because you are comparing FCUKING HUMAN ATROCITIES to a fcuking piece of clothing, you utter lowlife. FGM and Shira are extremely oppressive and against human rights and harm people. You're arguments are just trying to appeal to emotion rather than to freedom. Go and live in a country with Shira law and then come back to Ireland. You'll beg for women to be allowed to wear the burqa if they wish. You have no clue about how things work or how some extremists work. But not just extremists, people in generally. When people feel oppressed, they push back. When you deny them the right to their religion or say it is problematic, they push back. Has the Troubles thought you nothing? No, obviously not. Get out of here with your ad hominems and strawmen.

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.

See above. Not all muslim women are the women in this and liberal media wants to a. push Islam as a non-violent religion and b. always has to point out sexism against women. Of course they aren't going to interview women who actually want to wear the burqa. You are the naive one when you have no idea how the media works in the western world.

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.

Yes, they do get to openly advertise their religion if they want. It's part of living in a free state. They can, you know, be open about their religion. And I literally told you that I have yet to meet someone who lets their religion get in the way of their teaching. If they do they can be reported and would be dealt with for doing so. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I couldn't accept a person of faith in my class, it wouldn't even come up in a Science class and if they tried to deny evolution I would calmly and rationally tell them that we have proven that evolution has, is and will occur. I don't have to bring religion into that either, even though their parents might be pushing their views on them.

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.

Hahahahahahahahaha oh that's funny. I am literally saying the kid was trying to insult the fact I had long hair and a long beard by equating me to a monkey. Because he was a kid, and believed that calling someone a monkey was bad. My glob you'll try and twist anything to make another person look bad. You don't even understand kids man. I didn't explain to the child that we didn't come from monkeys, I laughed and told him that's right and he got annoyed that it didn't faze me. I am well aware we share DNA and ancestry with apes (we aren't apes or monkeys by the way, we have evolved past those classifications, but we are primates. Taxonomy is awesome, do check out why we aren't apes or monkeys, it's really cool). And it is literally going to be my job to teach evolution, something I firmly accept to be true.
Yes, when it comes to teaching I am more of an expert than you, the same way that because of your study of the Quran you are more of an expert than me on that. You tried to make a point that people who were religious will somehow be incapable of teaching things their religion doesn't agree with which is simply not true, and my experiences have shown me that.

But I am done arguing with you. You are entrenched in your beliefs and are clearly not going to move and will twist someones words to make them look silly to win the argument and I won't engage with someone like that, as it's not discourse, it's just arguing. G'luck.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Your point is literally so weak a fly could knock it over. Muslim men raping people that don't cover up? That's a problem and has to be eradicated and those people should be punished. It would be the same if I want to an Islamic-ruled state and decide to wander around the streets in just my boxers. Raises eyebrows here but not illegal, highly illegal there. That's THEIR issue and THEY should be punished accordingly. Don't think that every single Muslim women wears the burqa because of oppression. That's a fallacy. The same way not every single person doesn't think being forced to wear clothes is oppression. Some might, but some don't. And your argument hinges on the fact that every single women is forced to wear it. I know a former Christian who is now Muslim, she wears a hijab but has worn a burqa also. Is she oppressed?


You clearly missed the post where I said that I said the Vit D thing to make you focus more on that. Which, to your credit, you didn't. It's a tactic in competitive debating to make a weak point which is attacked so your main points stands. Shouldn't have done it here. Secondly, it is not a security risk. Not in the slightest, the same way a person wearing a helmet walking down the street is not a security risk. You are making claims that YOU have to prove by applying them to EVERY SITUATION. I'm showing that 99/100 a woman wearing a burqa will pose no threat to security



Awesome, but there are still parts of Salafism that are extreme! And that would interpret the Quran that way! You literally proved my point for me. I never said it wasn't unpleasant or it wasn't misgoynistic. Stop putting words in my mouth. I've said that if people want to wear it they should be allowed to and if they don't, they don't have to. We already have that in place in this country.


And this is where I start to get mad. Not because you are saying sh*t about me, I couldn't care less what someone as ignorant as you thinks of me. I don't agree that we shouldn't push back against some forms of Islam, I do.

I'm getting mad because you are comparing FCUKING HUMAN ATROCITIES to a fcuking piece of clothing, you utter lowlife. FGM and Shira are extremely oppressive and against human rights and harm people. You're arguments are just trying to appeal to emotion rather than to freedom. Go and live in a country with Shira law and then come back to Ireland. You'll beg for women to be allowed to wear the burqa if they wish. You have no clue about how things work or how some extremists work. But not just extremists, people in generally. When people feel oppressed, they push back. When you deny them the right to their religion or say it is problematic, they push back. Has the Troubles thought you nothing? No, obviously not. Get out of here with your ad hominems and strawmen.

See above. Not all muslim women are the women in this and liberal media wants to a. push Islam as a non-violent religion and b. always has to point out sexism against women. Of course they aren't going to interview women who actually want to wear the burqa. You are the naive one when you have no idea how the media works in the western world.

Yes, they do get to openly advertise their religion if they want. It's part of living in a free state. They can, you know, be open about their religion. And I literally told you that I have yet to meet someone who lets their religion get in the way of their teaching. If they do they can be reported and would be dealt with for doing so. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I couldn't accept a person of faith in my class, it wouldn't even come up in a Science class and if they tried to deny evolution I would calmly and rationally tell them that we have proven that evolution has, is and will occur. I don't have to bring religion into that either, even though their parents might be pushing their views on them.

Hahahahahahahahaha oh that's funny. I am literally saying the kid was trying to insult the fact I had long hair and a long beard by equating me to a monkey. Because he was a kid, and believed that calling someone a monkey was bad. My glob you'll try and twist anything to make another person look bad. You don't even understand kids man. I didn't explain to the child that we didn't come from monkeys, I laughed and told him that's right and he got annoyed that it didn't faze me. I am well aware we share DNA and ancestry with apes (we aren't apes or monkeys by the way, we have evolved past those classifications, but we are primates. Taxonomy is awesome, do check out why we aren't apes or monkeys, it's really cool). And it is literally going to be my job to teach evolution, something I firmly accept to be true.
Yes, when it comes to teaching I am more of an expert than you, the same way that because of your study of the Quran you are more of an expert than me on that. You tried to make a point that people who were religious will somehow be incapable of teaching things their religion doesn't agree with which is simply not true, and my experiences have shown me that.

But I am done arguing with you. You are entrenched in your beliefs and are clearly not going to move and will twist someones words to make them look silly to win the argument and I won't engage with someone like that, as it's not discourse, it's just arguing. G'luck.

1. My argument does not hinge on every single muslim ...anything. Just that the mentality for the burka, religiously and politically, is not benign and yes the issue if you researched it is "forced to wear" unless you are talking about some recent converts in a secular western country who do it for style or to rebel.
As far as your ex christian friend is concerned, why not ask why she wore the burqa and also why she stopped, and chose the hijab instead.
The fact that some women don't see it as oppression does not mean its not. There was a gay man on RTE that argued that the ban on marriage for gays was not oppression, for bad reasons. It does not mean it wasn't a form of oppression.
I am on the side of those that DO see it as oppression, because they are being threatened into it, while others (like your friend) have a choice. They could choose to NOT wear it to help their sisters who are trapped.

2. How is a form of clothing that completely hides your identity not a security issue? A person who choose to walk down a street with a fully visor down helmet is a security risk. That is why they are asked to remove their helmets in shops and businesses.
All it takes is 1 out of 100 to be a problem. Why do you think OTHER forms of full head covering are banned or viewed as suspect. The helmet for motorcycles is a necessity for their health on the road, that stops once they step off the bike.
The reasons for a head covering have to be justified. Its not arbitrary.

3a. I was discussing Islamic reasons, but any rule can be justified through religion using your logic. ISIS and Saudi Arabia are extremist versions of Salafism. You don't cater to that level of extremism JUST BECAUSE they hold it. Christian Science believers are arrested for neglect of their children, and they try that defense. Jehovah Witnesses die in their tens of thousands due to refusing blood transfusions, but if they let their child die, they still get into trouble.
I did not put "words in your mouth".
The level of extremism is tied to what they can get away with. Islam allows for modification of their practices to align with the law of the land (of nonbelievers) as long as muslims are the minority.
This means that a ban would free those stuck under the ban by giving them a legal and religious get of of jail card that their clerics would have to accept. To refuse would be criminal. To not ban it means they can be as extreme as they want and enforce that extremism on women under their control. Sure some do like it, but they say they have a choice. Others do not. You abandon the others in favour of those that choose their own oppression.
Listento their reasons for wearing it in the West, its fuzzy babble " makes me feel closer to god" "empowers me" "makes me feel in control". This all comes from the doctrines in the extremist camp and the political agenda to justify their practices by playing on the rhetoric of feminism (which they abhor). Its like when they say Mohammed was the greatest feminist and he gives loads of rights to women. Delusional nonsense, but well meaning non-muslim people eat it up.

3b. I didn't sat anything about you (other than call you naivé). You on the other hand are not so respectful to me. I used your argument on other Islamic practices that use the same logic you were defending. "Awesome, but there are still parts of Salafism that are extreme! And that would interpret the Quran that way!"
You are getting emotional because you don't understand the topic under discussion.
How is FGM extremely oppressive in your view, using your logic. There are plenty of muslim communities that practice it. It happens in Ireland, illegally.
The muslims that defend it don't see it that way, they see it as liberating, wonderful, a coming of age process like confirmation or getting your first car.
Some are oppressed, but you seem to be happy to be concerned about those that say they are NOT oppressed. If muslims called for it to be allowed, because their religious interpretations of Islam called for it, would you side with them. After all, its their views and not being cut is harmful to them as they cannot marry and see themselves as dirty and loose. I study this stuff when debating about Islam. I study Islamic justifications so I DON'T react like you do, all emotional and hurt.
Or lets move on to Sharia. Whats wrong with that? Do you even know what the word means? IT refers to living according to Allah's commands. Basically BEING muslim (one who submits).
So you object to the very essence of being Muslim, but not to a tiny extremist political expression that is NOT supported by the faith.
The reason Sharia is not supported by minority muslims in many countries in the west is due to the fact that it cannot be enforced as a minority. This is why Sharia gets pushed for when you have a Muslim majority.
Finally its not "piece of clothing" anymore than FGM is a form of personal hygiene or Sharia is living "according to best moral practices". You can strip away the context, history, social issues and political agenda all you want but its a symbol and not a good one. It just happens to be a symbol one wears rather than print on a flag or wear on a red armband.
The rest of what you say is rambling nonsense. You cannot get more extreme than a burka.
If their "right" to their religion is harmful, it is stopped. If they push back, so what. You keep playing the threat card. I remind you that we are not oppressing muslims, we are seeking to limit EXTREMISM.

4. Conspiracy thinking. Yes they DO interview women who want to wear the burka. I listened to several. The justifications are like new age justifications, nonsense. The mindset is paranoid about men, mistaken theology or misapplied feminist rhetoric. Please link me to somewhere that justifies it with some sound reasons that are not just weak excuses to hide the problem.

5. Not at work (unless self employed or something similar). Again I have not said that religious people cannot do any particular job, including science. I said that if they prioritize their faith during their job, especially in school, this can be a problem. We have examples of this being a problem, lots of them.
Just because you have a sample of ONE person, does not mean it works across the board.

6. I am not "entrenched". I have updated my views from my experiences. You have to present arguments that are good before I change my mind.
You were wrong about the theology. I pointed that out. Do you expect me to agree with you regardless of the evidence?
Finally on the evolution part. How did we evolve past those classifications? I agree we are not monkeys. But apes, while an outdated term perhaps, refers to our ancestry. If our common ancestor was an ape, we are too. Although hominoids is more accurate nowadays. You can message me with a link for me to research. I like taxonomy.

smacl wrote: »

You could in part, but terrorist organisations haven't been slaughtering members of the general public under the banner of gay rights.

If you want to legislate against terrorist outrages, be my guest. But if you want to claim that regulating women's swimwear is a measure directed at terrorist organisations - well, don't make me get sick into my own scorn.

smacl wrote: »

Also, your sexual orientation or the colour of your skin is not a matter of choice, whereas the clothes you choose to wear is, so these things are in no way comparable.

Interesting. You're defending the ban on the basis that the women concerned have a choice about what they wear, while Akrasia is defending it on the basis that they have no choice about what they wear. My liberal instincts lead me to oppose this ban, and my instincts are confirmed by the incoherence of the arguments used to rationalise it.

Plus, sexual orientation may not be a choice, but engaging in public displays of affection certainly is. If you engage in public displays of affection with someone who hasn't chosen to do so, smacl, we call that sexual assault.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting. You're defending the ban on the basis that the women concerned have a choice about what they wear, while Akrasia is defending it on the basis that they have no choice about what they wear. My liberal instincts lead me to oppose this ban, and my instincts are confirmed by the incoherence of the arguments used to rationalise it.

There is still a choice to wear the burka or not wear it, but it is not a free choice, It is a choice often dominated by coercive factors and so even the most libertarian person should recognise that it's not really a free choice for a lot of women.

A woman could choose to not wear the burka, but that choice might mean that she becomes exiled from her community. It is a choice, but its one with severe consequences. Other women choose between wearing the burka or being allowed to leave their home. It's a choice, but it's not a free choice.

There need to be a way to fight back against the subjugation. France has chosen to fight the outward displays of subjugation in the hope that it will reduce the social pressure to conform amongst members of this community. They're hoping that it will give women an excuse to wear less oppressive clothing without having to outwardly defy their religious subjugators. I don't know if this will work, but I can't think of any better ways of breaking this cycle so I think it is worth a try.

Deleted User wrote: »

Apply this same logic and 'test' to any other garment whatsoever and see if you get anywhere near this type of 'result'.

Ok, what would happen if you couldn't wear the clothes you're currently wearing?

Would you be beaten or would you feel so ashamed you couldn't leave the house?
Or would you just pick something else to wear?

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a Jewish friend who confided in me that if he had married anyone other than a Jew, that his mother and family would have all-but-abandoned him. ('Luckily' for him he's found a fantastic Jewish partner and they're due to be married in January)

Should we legislate against this too?

I don't think we can legislate for this, but we can try to make it socially unacceptable.

The first thing that needs to go is 'cultural sensitivity' that would prevent someone like me from calling this woman a monster for even suggesting that she would abandon her own child for such a petty and bigoted reason.