Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes.

While I appreciate the consistency you're showing, I can't imagine that there will be public support in forcing nuns to wear everyday clothes, or banning dog-collars.
Nevermind the shouts of "anti-semitism" you'll get for suggesting to ban kippas.
I've no love for any church or religion, but I feel by wanting to ban any visual indication of religious association you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Deleted User]

Malayalam wrote: »

I don't know, personally I can't see a problem with a Hijab, they can be very beautiful in fact and they show the whole face so there is in essence most of the whole person's expression and body language there. The person is recognisable and communicating. Plus on bad hair days I'd love to know how to wind one meself!

I don't have any issues with either the Burqas or Hijabs. In other countries outside of Europe. In Europe, they reinforce the differences between Muslims and mainstream European culture.

Danzy

Malayalam wrote: »

It seems like if other posters are correct that there may be a particular leaning to the right in those areas, so perhaps it cannot be dismissed. Plus really I don't know the debate advantage of saying ''well, the other side (lefties) were fascists too, etc.'', or ''they can be violent pr1cks too etc''....it just makes for an argument loop that drowns out a broader picture. Which is that something is wrong deep down in places like that. It might not be what one side or other hopes for, it might be too complex to work out easily. I saw a horrible short video recently - though I have no idea how to find it again - of a demo in the UK where two groups of lads met each other on an ordinary English high street, on one side white lads and on the other Muslim lads, and it scared the shyte out of me to be honest to see the absolute hatred on both sides.

50 assholes running around Chemnitz is a problem, 1000 rich kids playing revolutionary is a similar but bigger problem.

One side is framing the protests as far right.

It is purely about shutting down any views that they disagree with and that pressure will build up.

There may be class and ideology differences between the Neo Nazis and Antifa but the type of individual, the mindset is the same and they both only offer the same blood soaked, repressive destination. So it is important to call them out.

People won;t listen to the peaceful, working class, marchers in Chemnitz because it goes against their world view. They'll label them far right because it is the easy thing to do, they must be sinners.

They do not want to know and it will only cause the problem to build and build.

It is like trying to convince a Tea Party member about climate change.

[Deleted User]

Odhinn wrote: »

Attempts to ban it only give it a certain cache and are counterproductive.

I disagree. Naturally.

Shenshen wrote: »

While I appreciate the consistency you're showing, I can't imagine that there will be public support in forcing nuns to wear everyday clothes, or banning dog-collars.
Nevermind the shouts of "anti-semitism" you'll get for suggesting to ban kippas.
I've no love for any church or religion, but I feel by wanting to ban any visual indication of religious association you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We, as a society, are moving away from religion having influence beyond it's religious responsibilities. It has been pushed out of the political sphere, and socially it's influence is diminishing drastically.

For us to suggest banning the public expression of one religion, then we must do so with all religions. That way we can remove one extremely obvious source of conflict, and move on to dealing with the others.

Because with Muslims, everything returns to their religious identity. We must tackle the religious expression in association with non-believers before we can really tackle to the other forces which are preventing integration into western society.

Edit: Just to add... I don't see this happening now (as per your reasons).... but things are going to get a lot worse due to multiculturalism and people will likely become more willing to accept ways to diminish the frictions.

Malayalam

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have any issues with either the Burqas or Hijabs. In other countries outside of Europe. In Europe, they reinforce the differences between Muslims and mainstream European culture.

Ahh. Well, there we take different forks in the road. I have no problem with people being different from mainstream European culture, it is fairly diverse and heavily influenced anyway. I love to see people in their cultural garb and have no problem with places of worship of different religions being built here (with the strong caveat that they do not preach against the culture!!).
The problem I have is any attempt to foist a theocratic ideology onto mainstream European culture or to maintain little fundamentalist enclaves. Or any attempt to continue practices which undermine secularism (soft shuffling sharia law, for example) or which we Europeans have deemed to be inhumane or illegal such as FGM, child marriage, etc.
I find the full face veil - which is not at all inherent to Islam - has become associated, especially since the 1970s, with ideological extremism, religious control of women, etc. and it also prevents integration or human expression, so is not an acceptable thing. And legislatures around Europe seem to agree.

[Deleted User]

Malayalam wrote: »

Ahh. Well, there we take different forks in the road. I have no problem with people being different from mainstream European culture, it is fairly diverse and heavily influenced anyway.

Ahh but here's the thing. I'm not either. We have loads of people from non-European countries who successfully integrate while keeping their own original cultural identities. As I've said before, Europe has millions of Asians who are not causing any major issues . It's when you add certain religions, that things go sideways.

I love to see people in their cultural garb and have no problem with places of worship of different religions being built here (with the strong caveat that they do not preach against the culture!!).

Neither do I. I have repeatedly placed "public" in bold to show that I don't. What worshipers do within the privacy of their own church/mosque/etc is perfectly fine, it's when it's pushed into the public areas, I would regulate far more strongly.

The problem I have is any attempt to foist a theocratic ideology onto mainstream European culture or to maintain little fundamentalist enclaves. Or any attempt to continue practices which undermine secularism (soft shuffling sharia law, for example) or which we Europeans have deemed to be inhumane or illegal such as FGM, child marriage, etc.

Completely agree.

I find the full face veil - which is not at all inherent to Islam - has become associated, especially since the 1970s, with ideological extremism, religious control of women, etc. and it also prevents integration or human expression, so is not an acceptable thing. And legislatures around Europe seem to agree.

As do I.

Shenshen wrote: »

While I appreciate the consistency you're showing, I can't imagine that there will be public support in forcing nuns to wear everyday clothes, or banning dog-collars.
Nevermind the shouts of "anti-semitism" you'll get for suggesting to ban kippas.
I've no love for any church or religion, but I feel by wanting to ban any visual indication of religious association you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I've always felt that if you ban the burka then you are just as authoritarian as the countries that force women to wear it.

Any law dictating what a woman can or cannot wear is a bad law.

Dravokivich

Grayson wrote: »

I've always felt that if you ban the burka then you are just as authoritarian as the countries that force women to wear it.

Any law dictating what a woman can or cannot wear is a bad law.

The issue with the Burka is it impeeds ones sense of identity.

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

While I appreciate the consistency you're showing, I can't imagine that there will be public support in forcing nuns to wear everyday clothes, or banning dog-collars.
Nevermind the shouts of "anti-semitism" you'll get for suggesting to ban kippas.
I've no love for any church or religion, but I feel by wanting to ban any visual indication of religious association you might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

All visual indications of religious association should be banned for civil/public servants IMO

You're a public servant, supposed to treat everyone professionally and fairly. Religious accoutrements ( as well as anything political), might make your "customer" uncomfortable, or even antagonize them.

ohnonotgmail

Dravokivich wrote: »

The issue with the Burka is it impeeds ones sense of identity.

Surely it is for the person wearing it to decide that?

Dravokivich wrote: »

The issue with the Burka is it impeeds ones sense of identity.

Not for the women who wear it. It's part of their identity.

And if you mean our ability to identify them, well I don't see any people complaining about anything else that does it. You never see a thread where people are saying that we need to ban Halloween costumes because it harms our ability to identify people.

Seriously, on halloween we'd have 100k people dressed up, many with masks on. We don't complain about them, it's the less that 100 women who wear a burka.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the burka. I think it's silly and stupid. But there's a lot of things I think are silly and stupid, especially religious stuff. However we can't start banning something just because we don't like it. And the only practical reason to stop women wearing it is identification. But since we're only picking on women who wear the burka and not every other potential face covering, we're picking on them because of their religion.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

All visual indications of religious association should be banned for civil/public servants IMO

You're a public servant, supposed to treat everyone professionally and fairly. Religious accoutrements ( as well as anything political), might make your "customer" uncomfortable, or even antagonize them.

I would entirely agree with that. As a civil servant, you represent the state. And a state should not promote any one religion over any other, it should be entirely neutral on the subject. Consequently, so should its representatives, at least while at work.

Roger Hassenforder

Grayson wrote: »

Not for the women who wear it. It's part of their identity.

And if you mean our ability to identify them, well I don't see any people complaining about anything else that does it. You never see a thread where people are saying that we need to ban Halloween costumes because it harms our ability to identify people.

Seriously, on halloween we'd have 100k people dressed up, many with masks on. We don't complain about them, it's the less that 100 women who wear a burka.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the burka. I think it's silly and stupid. But there's a lot of things I think are silly and stupid, especially religious stuff. However we can't start banning something just because we don't like it. And the only practical reason to stop women wearing it is identification. But since we're only picking on women who wear the burka and not every other potential face covering, we're picking on them because of their religion.

Pure comparison in fairness.
The whole point of a Halloween mask to disguise ones true identity.
For kids

Something rather disquieting about an adult in a mask.

Why not ban all face coverings unless its a piece of safety equipment?
I'd be ok with that.

To cover your face is more than an expression of identity or religious association. If the latter wear a hijab. It will signify you are Muslim.
To wear a burka indicates a rejection of the world outside. A rejection of you, your culture.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Pure comparison in fairness.
The whole point of a Halloween mask to disguise ones true identity.
For kids

Something rather disquieting about an adult in a mask.

Why not ban all face coverings unless its a piece of safety equipment?
I'd be ok with that.

To cover your face is more than an expression of identity or religious association. If the latter wear a hijab. It will signify you are Muslim.
To wear a burka indicates a rejection of the world outside. A rejection of you, your culture.

That's an interesting way to read that. I know that a nun's habit is meant to express the same thing, a rejection of worldly affairs in favour of godly ones.

But personally, I always get a slightly different message (though by now means a better one). By hiding away in as much clothes as possible, a message is being sent to all men that the female hidden in the clothes does not trust them not to give in to their base desires and rape the female in question, should she show so much as an inch of skin. I always thought of the niqab and the burqa as deeply, deeply misandric.

Cabaal wrote: »

Used to be a catholic tradition to cover your head in church if you were a women,
Many older women that attend mass still believe this

So, do you want to ban these women from wearing them or is it just muslims?

I have not seen a head scarf worn in a church since I was a little boy. And that's a long time ago.

Do I want to Ban the burka?
I couldn't have been more clearer. Absolutely,it and the other restrictive head garments have no place in Irish society. And neither has Islam for that matter.

fxotoole

“Those who trade freedom for security will have neither” - Benjamin Franklin

suicide_circus

Shenshen wrote: »

This. We don't force people to either cover or uncover their heads, we leave the choice to them. That's why I choose to live here.

if you currently lived in France, Denmark or Switzerland, would you emigrate?

fxotoole

dennispenn wrote: »

I have not seen a head scarf worn in a church since I was a little boy. And that's a long time ago.

Do I want to Ban the burka?
I couldn't have been more clearer. Absolutely,it and the other restrictive head garments have no place in Irish society. And neither has Islam for that matter.

Which sect of Islam?

DChancer

dennispenn wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Used to be a catholic tradition to cover your head in church if you were a women,
Many older women that attend mass still believe this

So, do you want to ban these women from wearing them or is it just muslims?

I have not seen a head scarf worn in a church since I was a little boy. And that's a long time ago.

Do I want to Ban the burka?
I couldn't have been more clearer. Absolutely,it and the other restrictive head garments have no place in Irish society. And neither has Islam for that matter.

So you want to ban Islam?
Are you for real?

suicide_circus

fxotoole wrote: »

“Those who trade freedom for security will have neither” - Benjamin Franklin

good quote. the difference between America and Western Europe in this context is that The US still has a modicum of self esteem and a belief in the value of its way of life.

Danzy

Malayalam wrote: »

(with the strong caveat that they do not preach against the culture!!).

The Burqa debate is a proxy for this key issue.

It is one that has been lost years ago in many Mosques across Europe and with good reason to suspect in Dublin and reason to suspect lost to a greater level than most other parts of Europe, given we had the highest per capita rate of people going abroad to fight in Islamist orgs. from Europe.

In Britain, over half of Mosques are controlled by fundamentalist groups, with the % in England higher again.

It is not just back street Mosques or a rented hall on Friday, it is main Mosques, ones that cater to thousands at a time.

For many the Burqa is just a harsh symbol of that mindset, in a way it is not about wearing Religious garb at all but the mindset it represents.

Look at Didsbury Mosque in Manchester, capacity 1000, preachers there calling for armed Jihad, that is not unusual, Channel Four said it readily found extremist material in Mosques and their book stores.

Let the Burqa be, I dislike it but it is not on my radar. I would like to see places of worship that disseminate views calling for violence,repression of women, Gays, Jews, advocating criminality etc closed down.

To enforce that without fear or favour would bring parts of Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands to civil disorder.

It still needs to be done, though everything suggests it would lead to further violence. A blind eye has been turned for too long.

When the Police and establishment in Britain did not start arresting people for calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie, even if it meant charging thousands, it lost the initiative.

It showed that views that were acceptable in the Middle East or elsewhere but which were at direct odds with Enlightenment values would have a blind eye turned, even including tens of thousands calling for the murder of a man who wrote a poor enough book.

The significance of the Rushdie affair and the response to it, is I think one of the defining moments in British history in the last century. The wrong choice was made and they will pay for it for years to come.

suicide_circus wrote: »

if you currently lived in France, Denmark or Switzerland, would you emigrate?

I would not go to live there now.

suicide_circus

Shenshen wrote: »

fair enough

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Pure comparison in fairness.
The whole point of a Halloween mask to disguise ones true identity.
For kids

Something rather disquieting about an adult in a mask.

Why not ban all face coverings unless its a piece of safety equipment?
I'd be ok with that.

To cover your face is more than an expression of identity or religious association. If the latter wear a hijab. It will signify you are Muslim.
To wear a burka indicates a rejection of the world outside. A rejection of you, your culture.

Loads of adults get dressed up for halloween.

As for the bolded bit, are you saying that when a Saudi woman wears a hijab she's rejecting Saudi culture? Because that's a bit mad.

I'm not going to attempt to explain why a woman wears a Burka. I'm sure there's many reasons and it can vary from woman to woman. I'm also sure it probably doesn't have anything to do with a rejection of themselves. Maybe for one or two but not most.
The one thing I'm 100% certain of is that neither you nor I can speak as to why every woman who wears a burka does so.

fxotoole wrote: »

Which sect of Islam?

Islam. The whole lot of it is incompatible with the western world.

dennispenn wrote: »

Islam. The whole lot of it is incompatible with the western world.

You need to get off brietbart and those dodgy facebook groups.

DChancer wrote: »

So you want to ban Islam?
Are you for real?

Do you think that I am kidding?

Is Islam compatible with Western society?

I've a feeling that you know very little about It and it's teachings. Islam will eat itself up when It conquers the world. Look for ancient map's of Islamic countries,then compare it to modern day maps.

DChancer

dennispenn wrote: »

fxotoole wrote: »

Which sect of Islam?

Islam. The whole lot of it is incompatible with the western world.

That's just plain silly posting

DChancer

dennispenn wrote: »

DChancer wrote: »

So you want to ban Islam?
Are you for real?

Do you think that I am kidding?

Is Islam compatible with Western society?

I've a feeling that you know very little about It and it's teachings. Islam will eat itself up when It conquers the world. Look for ancient map's of Islamic countries,then compare it to modern day maps.

I know plenty about it being that my niece two grand nieces are Muslim as are my barber my book keeper and several friends.
You need to cop on and calm down