Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Burkas - how do you respond?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭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? :D

    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. :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭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. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    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! :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 :D . Though fly_agaric makes a good point in his last post it must be said.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Wibbs wrote:
    Good God Sir, are you mad? Good sense from a politician? Unlikely :D . 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. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    In some primitive societies women wander around stark naked every minute of their life. Why aren't these women coming over here and "liberating" Western women who are forced to wear clothing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,328 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    In some primitive societies women wander around stark naked every minute of their life. Why aren't these women coming over here and "liberating" Western women who are forced to wear clothing?
    Because that would be a regression dumbass Irish women would freeze to death without clothes :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,537 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Because that would be a regression dumbass Irish women would freeze to death without clothes :rolleyes:
    The slappers seem to survive Saturday night ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,328 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    Victor wrote:
    The slappers seem to survive Saturday night ....
    In nice warm sweaty clubs ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Burkas make practical sense in the mid east because they protect a woman's skin and hair from the heat of the sun. However they have since taken on other meanings. As a woman, I find it strange and nearly offensive that women choose to wear them,given what previous generations of women had to go through to fight for basic freedoms, but at the same time I can recognise that Muslim women may feel vulnerable and exposed if they are not wearing them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭Snowball


    saw a woman wearing one about a month ago. All in black and all I could see was her eyes.
    Was very odd (outwardly I just acted normal) but I was very unexpected.

    I agree with OfflerCrocGod (although not sure about the insane part) people shold be allowed to wear what they like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32 Bucephalus


    simu wrote:
    So, imagine you are walking down some street in Ireland and you see a woman covered from head to toe in a burka. What are your initial thoughts? How do you respond?

    Ought the wearing of these garments be outlawed or subject to public disapproval as the like of Kevin Myers suggests?

    Well, I think that people ought to be able to wear them if they wish and 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 or in a school, or for the taking of passport photos.

    I'm with you on the matter. I don't understand the hatred that these items of clothing inspire in people. As an atheist, I'm particularly disturbed by other non-believers going ballistic on the matter.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Bucephalus wrote:
    I'm with you on the matter. I don't understand the hatred that these items of clothing inspire in people. As an atheist, I'm particularly disturbed by other non-believers going ballistic on the matter.
    It's not a religious issue to many - it's a human rights issue.

    I'm all for religious freedom - doesn't bother me. But I do have an issue with a religion that forces it's women to completely cover their bodies in public at all times. The point is that is just wrong. And it's not just wrong when applying western values - it's just wrong on any plain of reasonable thought. Are burkha's favoured by the wearers? Or are they just used to them? If so that that doesn't stil make it right.

    We obviously have no control over the practice in Iran, Afghanistan, etc. but we do here in our own country.
    And yet, strangely, I'm still undecided on the matter. :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    But I do have an issue with a religion that forces it's women to completely cover their bodies in public at all times.

    Without trying to be smart...which religion, exactly, is that.

    I can't think of a single religion where every woman is forced to wear any specific item of clothing.

    Not every Muslim woman wears the Burka, so obviously Islam doesn't force them to wear it. You may be correct (about the forcing) when you get to extremist/fundamentalist "flavours" of the religion, but again the question still arises as to how many choose to do this, believing it to be the teachings of their God, and how many are forced to do so.

    I agree compeltely that forcing something like this on people is unacceptable, but how much is really forced?

    I know many a Catholic who abstains from eating meat on Friday. Why? Because they're told not to by their church. They (generally) don't see rhyme nor reason to it, but its the teachings of their church and they follow it. Is the Catholic Church wrong to make these people not eat meat on Friday? They're not freely choosing to not eat meat....they're doing it because they're told it would be a sin to do otherwise, and they don't wish to be sinners.

    Yes, I realise I stop short of saying they Catholics are forced to not eat meat, but its an interesting parallel. If a Muslim woman's faith/belief tells her she should wear a Burka, is she wrong to choose to do so? Is her family/Mullah/husband wrong to encourage her to do so because they believe (like Catholics eating meat on Friday) that it would be a sin to do otherwise?

    Sure, if she still says no and is subsequently forced to wear it against her will, then I'm all with you in opposing it. But up until that point, I don't see that its anyone's business to intercede and say that she should not / cannot take this action that her religious beliefs tell her is right. To force her against her wishes to not wear it would be no less of a travesty, surely?

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Suppose I was to wear a Burkha?

    Say it was all white instead of black with just two small eye-holes, suppose the headress part was pointy, suppose it had a discrete little red cross on the left breast with the same letter repeated 3 times...

    Could I walk the streets in that? Would that be acceptable?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭rsynnott


    Hagar wrote:
    Suppose I was to wear a Burkha?

    Say it was all white instead of black with just two small eye-holes, suppose the headress part was pointy, suppose it had a discrete little red cross on the left breast with the same letter repeated 3 times...

    Could I walk the streets in that? Would that be acceptable?

    A Burkha is not, per se, a symbol of hatred, nor is it the uniform of a terrorist organisation. The KKK uniform is. On a related note, Those wacky white supremacists!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    I don't think that they are proscribed in Ireland.
    They view their choice of clothing as appropriate within their own social circle.
    Much like the Muslims do.

    Does that mean we have to accept either form of dress in our society?

    I'm not saying I support either of them in any way either!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Hagar wrote:
    Suppose I was to wear a Burkha?

    Say it was all white instead of black with just two small eye-holes, suppose the headress part was pointy, suppose it had a discrete little red cross on the left breast with the same letter repeated 3 times...

    Could I walk the streets in that? Would that be acceptable?

    Well, you'd get away with it if you left out the KKK symbolism. Same as it's okay to wear a Family Guy t-shirt, say, but considered offensive to wear one with swastikas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    Indulge me a little here, I realise you make think I'm stetching a point a bit, maybe I am.

    Two well respected people have so far jumped to the conclusion the 3 letters were KKK. I never actually said they were.

    Try "CCC" http://www.acbr.com/religion.htm a perfectly harmless organisation.

    If you can make assumptions, two in this case, Hagar is white (you can only see my eyes :D ) and the three letters are KKK, why can Muslim people not understand that their misplaced mode of dress will cause assumptions by other reasonabley minded people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    If it's any other letters, no one will care.

    Geez, you could use the same argument to say that Irish people who wear Celtic tops should understand why ignorant people might think they are IRA supporters. Nothing reasonable about it tbh.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    bonkey wrote:
    Sure, if she still says no and is subsequently forced to wear it against her will, then I'm all with you in opposing it. But up until that point, I don't see that its anyone's business to intercede and say that she should not / cannot take this action that her religious beliefs tell her is right. To force her against her wishes to not wear it would be no less of a travesty, surely?
    Absolutely.

    Hence my hesitation to support a ban. I don't really understand the thinking, nor do I know the percentage of willing burkha wearers versus those forced to do so.
    Hagar wrote:
    why can Muslim people not understand that their misplaced mode of dress will cause assumptions by other reasonabley minded people.
    What assumptions??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    There are many assumptions that could and would be made by many people.

    I would be stupid to list them as many of them could be contrued as racist.
    So I must decline to answer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭rsynnott


    Question: would those supporting a ban on the Burkha also support a ban on the Christian cross, the Jewish skullcap and other religious attire? If not, why?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    I live in France where all those are already banned in all schools.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,537 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    In Ireland they force school girls to wear skirts and pinafores.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    Doesn't it also amount to men not being permitted to look at women's bodies?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Yeah right. I just heard a statistic that said Ireland has the highest percapita readership of Playboy in the world.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    bonkey wrote:
    I agree compeltely that forcing something like this on people is unacceptable, but how much is really forced?

    I know many a Catholic who abstains from eating meat on Friday. Why? Because they're told not to by their church. They (generally) don't see rhyme nor reason to it, but its the teachings of their church and they follow it. Is the Catholic Church wrong to make these people not eat meat on Friday? They're not freely choosing to not eat meat....they're doing it because they're told it would be a sin to do otherwise, and they don't wish to be sinners.

    Yes, I realise I stop short of saying they Catholics are forced to not eat meat, but its an interesting parallel. If a Muslim woman's faith/belief tells her she should wear a Burka, is she wrong to choose to do so? Is her family/Mullah/husband wrong to encourage her to do so because they believe (like Catholics eating meat on Friday) that it would be a sin to do otherwise?

    Is it a free choice or is it forced - that's the question isn't it?
    Imagine this little scenario of a young muslim woman in Ireland - unlikely seeing as I've never actually seen anyone in a burka in Ireland:

    Say her whole family expects her to wear the burka. She's not forced but still, you don't want to píss off your family too much now do you? Her imam tells her she should wear it or she is succumbing to "Western corruption" and setting out on the wrong path. People back home (the country her paents are from) wear it, and if she goes there she will have to wear it too - or risk her personal safety. All this pressure and you say she is making some kind of free choice? :confused:

    If you want to go with the Catholics and meat on Fridays (Vatican II got rid of this I thought?) or, to take another example, mass on Sunday - well, it's a basically a free choice now becuase no one in Ireland gives a crap if you eat meat on Fridays or not or go to church on Sunday. There is no social pressure, no negative consequences. At one point, you would face disapproval for not sticking to the Catholic "rules" so the choice wasn't as free. Now the pressure is almost in the other direction as regards going to mass on Sundays (Sunday is the holy shopping day:) and you are a bit of an oddball wasting an hour in church instead of contributing to the economy).

    These women have been conditioned to ways of thinking which results in them wearing the burka. They are under external pressure from their society. What kind of choice is that anyway?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    rsynnott wrote:
    Question: would those supporting a ban on the Burkha also support a ban on the Christian cross, the Jewish skullcap and other religious attire? If not, why?
    Why do posters, in EVERY thread continue to make analogies that are irrelevant. (See the abortion thread for more ridiculous comparisons). It's not a religious issue.

    That fact that Burkhas are a symbol of religion has nothing to do with this thread. They could be a national custom and the issue would still be the same. The intent is not to deny freedom of religion. The point that is being argued is that they are repressive, and a restriction on the human rights of those forced to wear them.
    fly_agaric wrote:
    These women have been conditioned to ways of thinking which results in them wearing the burka. They are under external pressure from their society. What kind of choice is that anyway?
    Good post, fly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    ]The point that is being argued is that they are repressive, and a restriction on the human rights of those forced to wear them.

    Thats two points, and I'm not just being pedantic.

    Of course they are a restriction on the human rights of those forced to wear them, but that doesn't address how many women are forced to wear them, how many choose to, and how we can distinguish between the two.
    fly_agaric wrote:
    These women have been conditioned to ways of thinking which results in them wearing the burka.
    Ah, I see. Thats how we're supposed to do distinguish between the two. We argue that even those who claim to have made a free choice haven't actually done so, because its really some sort of cultural indoctrination. In short, we deny that free choice exists for anyone who claims to have freely made this choice. How enlightened of us. Why address the question of whether or not a choice was freely made when you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

    Tell me, if an Irish woman (or woman of another "Western" nation) were to convert to Islam and choose to wear the Burka, what then? Should we decide she was forced into it even if she says otherwise, should we decide that its her Western culture which has conned her into believing she made a free choice, or should we just come up with another "this scenario doesn't exist" denial-based-refutation.
    All this pressure and you say she is making some kind of free choice?
    Yes, I do.

    Nowhere where the freedom to choose is enshrined as a right does it suggest that this freedom prevents others from trying to convince you to do otherwise.

    Freedom of choice has never equated with freedom from reprecussion.

    Now if she was to be cast out of her home for making the choice, or something to that effect, I would completely agree there was an attempt at unacceptable coercion....but freedom of choice has never protected people from others voicing displeasure at a decision and/or attempting to convince you to do otherwise.
    At one point, you would face disapproval for not sticking to the Catholic "rules" so the choice wasn't as free

    And we dealt with this issue (as you see it) how?

    We didn't ban anything.
    We didn't prevent the Catholic church from attempting to sway people. We didn't tell people that it was wrong to choose to do what their religious leaders tell them is the right thing for the faithful to do.

    We didn't do any of those things.

    We let them instead choose whether or not to do what they were told. We left people their freedom of choice, rather than attempt to take it away leaving only the choices we want them to have.

    Why is the wearing of a Burka any different?

    jc


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    bonkey wrote:
    Why is the wearing of a Burka any different?
    Because not eating meat on a Friday shades into insignificance when compared to wearing a Burkha.

    Leave religion out of the equation for just one minute and look at the practice. It's a travesty that in the 21st Century that people should have to live their public lives covered head to toe in black, for fear of whatever.

    Unfortunately it is a religious tradition, which only means we can't interfere. Doesn't mean we can't empathise however.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32 Bucephalus


    It's not a religious issue to many - it's a human rights issue.

    I'm all for religious freedom - doesn't bother me. But I do have an issue with a religion that forces it's women to completely cover their bodies in public at all times. The point is that is just wrong. And it's not just wrong when applying western values - it's just wrong on any plain of reasonable thought. Are burkha's favoured by the wearers? Or are they just used to them? If so that that doesn't stil make it right.

    I've seen a variety of clothes worn by Muslim women, so I'd say while it may be a matter of compulsion in some sects, I'd say no in general.

    After all, if you start banning that, where do you stop? Soccer jerseys can be controversial (I'm thinking of Rangers or Celtic tops here).
    We obviously have no control over the practice in Iran, Afghanistan, etc. but we do here in our own country.
    And yet, strangely, I'm still undecided on the matter. :confused:

    I'm also thinking of human rights too - what right do I have to tell a woman to wear?

    Imagine if some group tried to prevent Irish people wearing jeans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    I've never seen anybody wear a burkha (which I understand to be a shroud like garment that covers the entire body including the face except the eyes) in Ireland.

    Has anybody else?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Bucephalus wrote:
    After all, if you start banning that, where do you stop? Soccer jerseys can be controversial (I'm thinking of Rangers or Celtic tops here).
    Round and round and round we go. ;)

    The proposal isn't to ban Burkhas because they cause controversy. It's because to force someone to wear one is fundamentally wrong. The question now is whether wearers are forced or not, and/or whether we can infringe on religious freedom no matter how ridiculous the practice is.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    It's because to force someone to wear one is fundamentally wrong.

    Then surely to force someone not to wear one is equally wrong?

    I don't think it is really been shown that the majority of muslim women are forced to wear them, and I would imagine that the minority that are "forced" aren't forced any more than any other women are forced to wear what their parents/husband/society feels is approprate dress. Do we ban parents/husbands from saying "you are not going out dressed like that"?

    How many times have you seen a group of Irish people tut-tut a group of young Irish girls dressed up like Britney Spears, cause they are giving out the "wrong message" (or as one of my female friends said "if you dress like a slut the world will treat you like a slut").

    The reality is the dress seems to reflect more our own stereotypes than what the woman underneath the dress is actually like. Just as a 14 year old has very little concept of the sexual overtones we adults think of when we see her wearing a pink top and short skirt (or sex in general for that matter), we have no idea if the muslim woman under the burkas is actually being forced or abused into wearing the vail.

    I think it is unfair to project our own stereotypes, of what they or their life must be like, on to someone because of the way they dress. And dictating by law the way women should dress, in an effort to protect them, is doing just that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    bonkey wrote:
    Ah, I see. Thats how we're supposed to do distinguish between the two. We argue that even those who claim to have made a free choice haven't actually done so, because its really some sort of cultural indoctrination. In short, we deny that free choice exists for anyone who claims to have freely made this choice. How enlightened of us. Why address the question of whether or not a choice was freely made when you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

    Well, I think you have me there.:) Talking of "cultural indoctrination" is dodging the issue I suppose. In cases where there is no active coercion such as you mention later in your post it just comes down to whether we will accept the pressure of burka-wearing indoctrination from family, friends, religious figures etc competeing with the pressures coming from our society to not wear it. Or are we going to resort to laws. I think in France they have decided that they can't ever prove that undue coercion is going on and legislate in case it is.
    bonkey wrote:
    Tell me, if an Irish woman (or woman of another "Western" nation) were to convert to Islam and choose to wear the Burka, what then? Should we decide she was forced into it even if she says otherwise, should we decide that its her Western culture which has conned her into believing she made a free choice, or should we just come up with another "this scenario doesn't exist" denial-based-refutation.

    Interesting. No, unless there were the types of coercion you mention involved, I admit you can't say she was forced into it. She has made a choice (a bad one IMO) and gone against the pressures and expectations of our society and culture which are pushing in the opposite direction.
    bonkey wrote:
    (Do you think her choice is 'free'?):
    Yes, I do.

    Nowhere where the freedom to choose is enshrined as a right does it suggest that this freedom prevents others from trying to convince you to do otherwise.

    Freedom of choice has never equated with freedom from reprecussion.

    Now if she was to be cast out of her home for making the choice, or something to that effect, I would completely agree there was an attempt at unacceptable coercion....but freedom of choice has never protected people from others voicing displeasure at a decision and/or attempting to convince you to do otherwise.

    Fair enough. I was thinking of "freedom of choice" as being able to make the choice without major negative consequences, which has led to a misunderstanding on my part. You set a higher threshold for what could be considered undue coercion.
    bonkey wrote:
    And we dealt with this issue (as you see it) how?

    We didn't ban anything.
    We didn't prevent the Catholic church from attempting to sway people. We didn't tell people that it was wrong to choose to do what their religious leaders tell them is the right thing for the faithful to do.

    We didn't do any of those things.

    We let them instead choose whether or not to do what they were told. We left people their freedom of choice, rather than attempt to take it away leaving only the choices we want them to have.

    Why is the wearing of a Burka any different?
    jc

    I actually agree with you. As I said earlier in this thread, I wouldn't hold with banning the wearing of the burka. I don't like them (beacuse of my 'cultural indoctrination' if you will). They give me a severe case of the creeps (an emotional reaction, I know). I don't approve of people wearing them in Ireland. I certainly would not like to see the wearing of burkas granted any kind of protections in our law as part of freedom of religious expression.
    Good post, fly

    I though it was okay too, till it got ripped to tatty shreds.:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    bonkey wrote:
    Of course they are a restriction on the human rights of those forced to wear them, but that doesn't address how many women are forced to wear them, how many choose to, and how we can distinguish between the two.

    Ah, I see. Thats how we're supposed to do distinguish between the two. We argue that even those who claim to have made a free choice haven't actually done so, because its really some sort of cultural indoctrination. In short, we deny that free choice exists for anyone who claims to have freely made this choice. How enlightened of us. Why address the question of whether or not a choice was freely made when you can just pretend it doesn't exist.

    Hmm... But is a choice really a choice if there's no other choice?

    Speculatively speaking, it could be more of an only option to go along with it, or if there is a choice there, maybe it's just the choice to like it (or lump it) so to speak?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Hmm... But is a choice really a choice if there's no other choice?

    No, but so far teh only argument I've generally seen as to there being no choice is more or less along teh lines of "well, if they had a chioce, they wouldn't be wearing it, would they".

    In other words, we appear to be assuming that womon would never freely choose this form of clothing, and concluding that their wearing of it must therefore indicate coercion.

    When no coercion can be clearly shown, we simply decide that it must be peer pressure of some description - potentially even unspoken.

    In short, we appear to be fishing around for a justification of the conclusion we've already formed.
    Speculatively speaking,
    Exactly my point.

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 42 U$ername


    Burkas get as much as a response from me as Man Utd fans wearing red shirts or KKK clan members wearing white pillowcases....

    What they wear is part of what they believe in, Im sure the women wearing the burkas are aware that no one in Ireland will bat an eyelid if they decide to wear them or not.

    Im sure the more important question you should be asking is why do large, obviously unfit people wear track suits or expensive trainers when all they appear to do is eat, as this clothing was designed for those who like exercising..:confused:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement