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

Burka ban

1…1617192122…138

Comments

  • #542
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    THEY ARE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE. They have been told by authority figures, who they have brought up not question, that they will suffer indescribable pain fo rnot wearing the burka. Thats not freedom. .

    What do you say to the example I gave (not sure if it was this thread, perhaps in the other burqa thread) where I witnessed the Imam of the Central Mosque in London tell a woman wearing a niqab not to wear it as it is not necessary. If after being told this she still chooses to wear it (I am not aware if she still wears it or not) do you still think it is not her choice, despite an authority figure telling her not to wear it?


  • #543
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    I'm religious and support the ban
    This thread's been an interesting read and has helped me sort of make my mind up.

    Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but what would you all think of a law that forbade obscuring the face in public and semi-public places?

    I'm not in favour of a burqa-specific ban, but surely it's not too much to ask that people show their faces, is it?


  • #544
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE. They have been told by authority figures, who they have brought up not question, that they will suffer indescribable pain fo rnot wearing the burka. Thats not freedom.
    Your best point yet for NOT banning them!


  • #545
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    irishconvert wrote: »
    What do you say to the example I gave (not sure if it was this thread, perhaps in the other burqa thread) where I witnessed the Imam of the Central Mosque in London tell a woman wearing a niqab not to wear it as it is not necessary.

    That's all very nice. But you are not addressing the question on what we should do about the women where the above doesn't happen. Do you know about these women at all? I'm talking about Europe here, not the countries where you know it goes on.


  • #546
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    What do you say to the example I gave (not sure if it was this thread, perhaps in the other burqa thread) where I witnessed the Imam of the Central Mosque in London tell a woman wearing a niqab not to wear it as it is not necessary. If after being told this she still chooses to wear it (I am not aware if she still wears it or not) do you still think it is not her choice, despite an authority figure telling her not to wear it?

    Firstly I think its a great thing that the Islamic community would actively seek to limit the radicalism of its followers, something which perhaps is not highlighted enough and for they should be recommended.

    Secondly it illustrates firmly that this is a cultural issue misrepresented as a religious one.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, but the women in the burqa debate are very often not "free" in this context -- either having had their ability to think independently undermined by the religion, or by being coerced one way or another. Not to mention that having made the decision to wear it, that the woman can face consequences for choosing to stop wearing it later on. That really doesn't make the decision "free" in any liberal sense of the word.As I said in a later post, we have no choice but to trust the rolling results of the legislative, executive, judicial, media, research and other information, direction and enforcement systems that we have -- hopefully to protect people from their own or others' excesses.

    So we tackle the issue of female subjugation head on. We don't pretend that banning a silly costume is going solve any problems. We send in social workers, we organise community meetings where the issue is debated out in the open. We conduct public awareness campaigns. In the most serious cases we provide shelters for women who wish to escape, give them new identities and move them away from their abusers. We don't treat people as criminals and ostracise them from society, the only thing that will achieve is to push them further to the extreme.
    robindch wrote: »
    No, it's certainly not perfect and it's certainly open to corruption, but by constructing the different branches of a society so that their self-interest lies in watching the others and criticising them upon a strictly evidential basis, one can usually come to a reasonable consensus about what constitutes "good" and "bad". And if it's based upon evidence, and open to consensual change, then that's a lot better than the kind of difficult-to-change or irreversible decisions that religious people tend to make, based upon made-up evidence gathered from preachers or holybooks.

    What is certainly wrong though is what you correctly point out is wrong -- that certain segments of society believe that they are in possession of absolute truth. And there's an arguable case that suggests that the state should be doing more than it is to discourage this narcissistic and unhealthy human tendency which has given us such dreadful institutions as the catholic church at one end of the spectrum and the burqa most of the way towards the other.

    It's far too open to corruption. As you say yourself people can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves, what makes you think that collectively they're any more likely to make the right decision for everyone? The majority of people still believe so many stupid things, such as belief in god and astrology, are these the people that you want making the decisions for you?

    We're lucky here in west that one of the beliefs that the majority of the population now broadly supports is individual choice. However many still have a tendency to selectively exclude a few areas were they believe choice should still be restricted. They're also a fickle bunch who ride on waves of popular opinion and they'll quickly take away ones right to choose on whim, based on some poorly researched article they read in the sun or the daily mail. The only way to ensure that populism doesn't dictate what one can and can't do on a daily basis, is to ensure that everyone is free to their own individual choice in all circumstances all the time.

    When people make a personal decision, it's based on their own circumstances, they're not guaranteed to be right, but they're far more aware of the factors that influence them as an individual and consequently they're far more likely to make the right decision for themselves then anyone else. Similarly they're not going to be as aware of all the factors involved in someone else's decision, they're certainly not better placed to make the right decision for that other person that the person themselves.

    Governments role should be to promote transparency, so people are aware of all the factors when making a decision. They should provide honest information on the scientific consensus, health warnings, alternatives and help lines. They should ensure no one is lied to or taken advantage of. They should provide help to people who seek it. They should never dictate what one can and can't do.


  • #548
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    My 16 year old sister was going to a teenage disco last night and came down the stairs in a 6" mini-skirt. My Dad told her to get back up the stairs and put a knee length skirt on or she wasn't going anywhere, she'd "have every lad in the place ogling her".

    The situations are almost identical where the man of the house is forcing the woman as to what she wears (and for the same reason). My example is hypothetical but this scenario occurs in households all over Ireland every weekend. Is the father wrong to force her to wear more cloths? He's genuinely doing it for what he believes is her own good.

    Some girls will say it's not fair... "I'm being oppressed - I want to wear the mini-skirt". But plenty of other girls will have put on the knee length skirt to begin with because they might not like the attention the mini brings.

    With the burka ban what we are doing is banning the knee length skirt in the belief it will 'free' the oppressed girl. But what about all the others who actually want to wear it? Have they no rights?

    I am in no way condoning anyone from being forced to dress in a particular way but isn't that exactly what the state is doing if this becomes law?

    In France and Belgium the bills have yet to be passed by the higher houses of parliament (In September) before becoming law and they then will be brought to the European Court on Human Rights (whose ruling is binding). I really can't see it going all the way and for the sake of MY freedom of choice (I'm neither a woman or Muslim) I sincerely hope it doesn't.


  • #549
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #550
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    the_syco wrote: »
    No-one. Wearing a balaclava also harms no-on, and thus it's legal to buy and wear a balaclava in the Republic of Ireland.

    But we are discussing the ban in France :confused:
    the_syco wrote: »
    Why should someone be able to cover their face in a bank, then, with a Burka?
    They shouldn't. But then that isn't what we are discussing. No one can cover their face when entering a bank, not just Muslim women.


  • #551
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So a law is bad if it leads to people breaking it? Do you think that people who break drug prohibition laws are somehow unable not to? Besides, its irrelevent to my point wether the laws work, my point is that intervention is needed to stop people abusing their freedom. The current intervention in drugs may not be effective, but no intervention at all would be far worse.

    I never said "do nothing", once again you're thinking 'ban it' or 'do nothing' are the only two options. Narcotics should be regulated to ensure product is what it's supposed to be and is of a regular dose just like any other pharmacological product. That will decrease the dangers of taking recreational drugs immediately by a very significant amount. Medical information should be provided as to the dangers of taking the drug, what not to mix it with, safer alternatives, what signs to look out for if someone is having a bad reaction, what first aid should be administered before the ambulance arrives should someone have a bad reaction or overdose etc,.

    Narcotics should only be sold through licences premises similar to pharmacies. They should be taxed to pay for associated medical costs. Advertising and branding should not be permitted. Under 18's must not be allowed to purchase. The most dangerous and addictive drugs such as meth and heroin should only be given to addicts on a prescription basis. Treatment for addicts who wish to break their addiction should be available.

    Do all that and you will significantly reduce the risks associated with taking drugs. You will also eliminate criminal gangs revenue stream, eliminating that which fuels the violence and murder on our streets.

    Remember the purpose behind making drugs illegal in the first place. It was a health & safety measure taken to protect people and it is failing miserably. Time we tried a new strategy.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why does it work for people who drink drive? Because of the similiarities and differences between the cases. All these situations require intervention. The nature of that intervention is depended on the individual case. Locking up suicidal people is ineffective. Locking up drink drivers is not.

    Locking up drink drivers protects other road users and pedestrians from drink drivers. People who drink and then take risks with their own lives will always find some way of putting themselves in danger. Whether it's climbing a tree while inebriated or swimming in the sea, why don't we lock those people up too?

    The law should be used to protect people from the harmful practices of others as in the case of drink drivers. Not to protect people from themselves as that is purely a health and safety matter.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm saying that people need to be thought how to make decisions for themselves, as objectively as possible. Kids in school cant do this, as they havent learned how, so we dont teach them creationism in the unquestioning manner advocated by creationists. People who advocate burkas cant do this, because they have been convinced by a tyrannical dictatorship, which squashes questioning of it, that they will go to hell for not wearing burkas.

    So we teach them how to be sceptical, how to use logic and reasoning, how to think for themselves. Not what they should think, but how to think. Then present them with the evidence and some theories which explain the evidence and let them loose. Creationism would be exempt as it doesn't explain the evidence, it flat out contradicts it.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    sink wrote: »
    So we teach them how to be sceptical, how to use logic and reasoning, how to think for themselves. Not what they should think, but how to think.

    +1

    I don't know how people think we teach Muslim women to practice their freedoms by telling them what to do.

    You have the freedom to do what you like so long as you do what we say.

    That sentence could be used interchangeably between a Muslim father telling his daughter to wear a burka and the French State telling a Muslim woman not to wear a burka.


  • #553
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mikhail wrote: »
    I've been performing a thought experiment: I've been reading this thread while mentally replacing "burka ban" with "public nudity ban". It's ****ing hilarious. No, really, try it. It has me questioning a lot of my assumptions.

    No one though pretends a public nudity ban is to protect women who are being forced to go nude by men. The public nudity ban is because we are uncomfortable by naked bodies. And it is applied universially.

    If people want to argue that they are uncomfortable with people out in public who have their face covered that is fine, lets debate that. But it should be applied universally if it actually is the cause of the discomfort.


  • #554
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No one though pretends a public nudity ban is to protect women who are being forced to go nude by men. The public nudity ban is because we are uncomfortable by naked bodies. And it is applied universially.

    If people want to argue that they are uncomfortable with people out in public who have their face covered that is fine, lets debate that. But it should be applied universally if it actually is the cause of the discomfort.

    I would also be against a ban on public nudity. There are many regions and cities were public nudity is 100% legal and yet almost everyone chooses to wear clothes. Barcelona and the state of Oregon come to mind. Private premisses including business can set their own dress code and very few shops would allow someone to be nude in their store. Sexual harassment laws deal with anyone who exposes themselves as a sexual kink. You'll find their societies are quiet able to cope.


  • #555
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    irishconvert wrote: »
    What do you say to the example I gave (not sure if it was this thread, perhaps in the other burqa thread) where I witnessed the Imam of the Central Mosque in London tell a woman wearing a niqab not to wear it as it is not necessary. If after being told this she still chooses to wear it (I am not aware if she still wears it or not) do you still think it is not her choice, despite an authority figure telling her not to wear it?

    The niqab is not the burka. Different thing. Besides, its not possible that she didn't recognise that particular imams authority?


  • #556
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The niqab is not the burka. Different thing.
    Both cut from the same cloth so to speak *boom boom*


  • #557
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sink wrote: »
    I never said "do nothing", once again you're thinking 'ban it' or 'do nothing' are the only two options.

    No, i'm just waiting to hear of any alternative in the case of the burka. You go here (i didn't quote) about what we need do to improve drug laws (and I would mostly agree with it, but its off topic to discuss the intracies of drug laws in of themselves), but these dont transfer to the argument of the burka.
    sink wrote: »
    Whether it's climbing a tree while inebriated or swimming in the sea, why don't we lock those people up too?

    We do lock them up. Its illegal to be drunk and disorderly in a public place.
    sink wrote: »
    The law should be used to protect people from the harmful practices of others as in the case of drink drivers. Not to protect people from themselves as that is purely a health and safety matter.

    Health and safety are matters of the law. I, by law, have to wear a lab coat in a lab, or a safety helmet on a building site.
    sink wrote: »
    So we teach them how to be sceptical, how to use logic and reasoning, how to think for themselves. Not what they should think, but how to think. Then present them with the evidence and some theories which explain the evidence and let them loose. Creationism would be exempt as it doesn't explain the evidence, it flat out contradicts it.

    Thats all well and good for creationism, as we control (mostly) the schools that the creationists teach in. We do not control the places that teach this bs about the burka (and all the barbaric, condescending, insulting bs it accompanies) for fear of people calling "islamophobes".
    Its no use saying that we should educate these women when they cannot get the education for the same reason they havent figured out the nonsense about the burka themselves-they wont be allowed to.


  • #558
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Your best point yet for NOT banning them!

    You can question the government and even if you go against the law, a fine and imprisonment is hardly the match for time in hell.


  • #559
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #560
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You can question the government and even if you go against the law, a fine and imprisonment is hardly the match for time in hell.

    How does the State telling a Muslim woman that she cannot wear a burka stop her believing that she is displeasing her god by not wearing it?

    If she genuinely believes she is going to hell then surely the State forcing her not to wear a burka is a form of mental torture?

    Once again I'm failing to see how this ban is actually helping oppressed Muslim women.


  • #561
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    That's all very nice. But you are not addressing the question on what we should do about the women where the above doesn't happen. Do you know about these women at all? I'm talking about Europe here, not the countries where you know it goes on.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The niqab is not the burka. Different thing. Besides, its not possible that she didn't recognise that particular imams authority?
    You think she didn't recognise the authority of the Imam of the main mosque in the UK? She was coming to him for advice. I think she recognised his authority alright.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    That's all very nice. But you are not addressing the question on what we should do about the women where the above doesn't happen. Do you know about these women at all? I'm talking about Europe here, not the countries where you know it goes on.

    It depends. I think it is up to Muslims who are well versed in Islamic law to educate these women and explain the reasons it is not necessary. If the woman is being forced to wear it, then it becomes a little more difficult. We can outlaw forcing someone to wear it but I think it is unlikely she will testify against the person forcing her to wear it. A bit like how many wives will not testify against their husbands who beat them.


  • #563
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You cant just let people do anything they want whenever they want. People are too greedy and stupid to be allowed without leashes.
    Grand, except this is generally where you find religious types turning up, saying this is exactly why atheism is unsustainable.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Muslim women do not make this decision lightly. They do it under duress, either immediate physical duress from relatives, or spiritual duress, from the belief that they will go to hell if they dont (which to many , would be an immediate physical duress).
    This would be grand, if there wasn't a parallel discussion where women state that (for the sake of argument) Barbie dolls similarly force them into a corner.

    What's so special about the Mattel Corporation that its right to expression is more worthy of protection than a major religion?


  • #564
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, i'm just waiting to hear of any alternative in the case of the burka.

    I already did.
    sink wrote: »
    So we tackle the issue of female subjugation head on. We don't pretend that banning a silly costume is going solve any problems. We send in social workers, we organise community meetings where the issue is debated out in the open. We conduct public awareness campaigns. In the most serious cases we provide shelters for women who wish to escape, give them new identities and move them away from their abusers. We don't treat people as criminals and ostracise them from society, the only thing that will achieve is to push them further to the extreme.

    But my main concern with the law is it's own efficacy. I believe the ban will have no positive effect and instead will radicalise people in opposition to the law.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    We do lock them up. Its illegal to be drunk and disorderly in a public place.

    It's a public order offence to be so extremely drunk that one becomes a nuisance. It's not an offence to be drunk so long as one is not being a nuisance. It's not an offence to climb a tree or swim in the sea after at such a level of intoxication, even though though for the participant it's about as dangerous as driving while under a similar level of intoxication.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Health and safety are matters of the law. I, by law, have to wear a lab coat in a lab, or a safety helmet on a building site.

    They're both work related health & safety concerns and so would fall under employment legislation. We're talking about what one does in ones own free time, the two are not the same. Say you set up an amateur lab in your own home or built a wall or shed on your own private property, the same regulations would not apply. Just like professional chefs have to wear special footware, clothing and hats, but you are not required to do the same when cooking at home.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Thats all well and good for creationism, as we control (mostly) the schools that the creationists teach in. We do not control the places that teach this bs about the burka (and all the barbaric, condescending, insulting bs it accompanies) for fear of people calling "islamophobes".
    Its no use saying that we should educate these women when they cannot get the education for the same reason they havent figured out the nonsense about the burka themselves-they wont be allowed to.

    FYI not all creationists are Christians. Creationism is more prevalent in Islam and Hinduism. We can only educate them in our countries, same as we can only ban practices in our countries.


  • #565
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    But these failures did happen, people were unable to control themselves and so we find ourselves where we are.
    Clearly there were regulatory failures. But what I'm trying to identify is the difference between a woman saying she's wearing a burka because her husband told her to and one of these endless queue of women that RTE insist on giving a platform to, who tell us they borrowed hundreds of thousands because the banks told them to.

    Someone who borrows hundreds of thousands because they were told to is simply not capable of making financial decisions for themselves. If they need banks or regulators to tell them whats right, then they should not have the right to sign a mortgage contract.

    So, just as we cannot allow women to freely choose to wear a burka, we also need to prevent women from freely choosing to take out mortgages. Bearing in mind that the horde of women who took out mortgages have done far more damage to our society than the few who choose to wear a burka.
    robindch wrote: »
    We have no choice but to trust the rolling results of the legislative, executive, judicial, media, research and other information, direction and enforcement systems that we have -- hopefully to protect people from their own or others' excesses, whether it's somebody's contrived desire to place a black bag over their head before they go out, or their deluded willingness to blow half a million euro on a hovel in Ringsend.
    Grand, except you'll appreciate that we've just removed any rational basis for regulation. You've (to my mind) actually given up on attempting to justify a burka ban, and just invited us to accept whatever vague ideas happen to be floating in the breeze. So, for the sake of argument, we stop women cover up their faces even if they want to but allow parents to circumcise their male infants, and decide not to prosecute when those infants die as a direct result. All because male circumcision is still a bit of a taboo, but anti-burka sentiment is in season.


  • #566
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    How does the State telling a Muslim woman that she cannot wear a burka stop her believing that she is displeasing her god by not wearing it?

    It doesn't. It cant tell her what to believe and it isn't trying to. All it does is tell her what she can do. If the state did try telling her what to believe, there would be an uproar from muslims about a non islamic state interfering with islamic issues (which is whats happening anyway). The case we have though, is the state we dont care what you believe, we have decided you cant do it.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If she genuinely believes she is going to hell then surely the State forcing her not to wear a burka is a form of mental torture?

    Its mental torture to not let a suicidal person kill themselves (I'm talking clinically depressed people, not euthinasia here) even though they may truely believe they have nothing to live.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Once again I'm failing to see how this ban is actually helping oppressed Muslim women.

    By not letting be oppressed with the burka, wether they realise it or not.
    irishconvert wrote: »
    You think she didn't recognise the authority of the Imam of the main mosque in the UK? She was coming to him for advice. I think she recognised his authority alright.

    Recognised it enough to ignore it?
    Nemi wrote: »
    Grand, except this is generally where you find religious types turning up, saying this is exactly why atheism is unsustainable.

    So what? They are (demonstratably) wrong. I'm not saying that people should have no freedom, or that any rules we bring in cant be changed, but an elected government making changeable laws in order to best keep a country running, is far different from an unelected religious oligarchy, who's laws are considered the word of god.
    Nemi wrote: »
    This would be grand, if there wasn't a parallel discussion where women state that (for the sake of argument) Barbie dolls similarly force them into a corner.

    What's so special about the Mattel Corporation that its right to expression is more worthy of protection than a major religion?

    Last time I heard, Barbie dolls spoke of shopping and boys, not going to hell, so its not an apt comparison.
    sink wrote: »
    I already did.
    So we tackle the issue of female subjugation head on. We don't pretend that banning a silly costume is going solve any problems. We send in social workers, we organise community meetings where the issue is debated out in the open. We conduct public awareness campaigns. In the most serious cases we provide shelters for women who wish to escape, give them new identities and move them away from their abusers. We don't treat people as criminals and ostracise them from society, the only thing that will achieve is to push them further to the extreme.

    How do you think this will work? How do you think women, either so under their husbands thumb that they are forced to wear the burka, or so indoctrinated to not recognise the tool of oppression that is, will actually get to see these campaigns? Do you think we should send social workers to every burka wearing household just in case there is immediate oppression going on? I'm sure the muslims would love that: "Instead of outright banning the burka, we will just work under the assumption that every household with one is abusing the women and put them under social worker examination".
    sink wrote: »
    It's a public order offence to be so extremely drunk that one becomes a nuisance. It's not an offence to be drunk so long as one is not being a nuisance. It's not an offence to climb a tree or swim in the sea after at such a level of intoxication, even though though for the participant it's about as dangerous as driving while under a similar level of intoxication.

    As long as you are drunk in public, you can be arrested for being drunk in public. You dont have to be doing anything, its just that generally, its only the people who are doing something stupid that are noticed and that need to be arrested.
    sink wrote: »
    They're both work related health & safety concerns and so would fall under employment legislation. We're talking about what one does in ones own free time, the two are not the same. Say you set up an amateur lab in your own home or built a wall or shed on your own private property, the same regulations would not apply.

    Actually they would. Try and import labratory grade ethanol as a private person and see how far you get. There are only far workable levels of legislation can go, for sure, but these days you cannot even buy 2 boxes of paracetemol in the same transaction in the shops.
    sink wrote: »
    FYI not all creationists are Christians. Creationism is more prevalent in Islam and Hinduism. We can only educate them in our countries, same as we can only ban practices in our countries.

    And what do you do when they say "creationism is a part of our heritage, we should be allowed to teach it in our schools" (and it will be "our schools")? Can we let that slide? What happens when these people try to get a job and are told they aren't qualified because the only education they get in their denominational schools is a "cultural education"? Do you think they will take that well? If the burka slides, then more and more will slide under the guise of "culture" and "religion" and it needs to stop be fore our culture turns into these cultures that the burka wearers are trying to emulate.


  • #567
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It doesn't. It cant tell her what to believe and it isn't trying to. All it does is tell her what she can do.
    You mean what she can't do, right? The law isn't saying that she can choose not to wear the burka if she likes. It is telling her she cannot decide for herself, she has to not wear the burka.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The case we have though, is the state we dont care what you believe, we have decided you cant do it.

    Ok, so how does this help a woman who believes due to her religion, that she has to wear the burka or she will end up in hell?

    It does nothing for that, correct, other than force her to stay at home or face hell?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its mental torture to not let a suicidal person kill themselves (I'm talking clinically depressed people, not euthinasia here) even though they may truely believe they have nothing to live.

    But you are claiming this ban will help these women. Again how does that happen? If she believes that he God will punish her for not wearing the burka, how does forcing her not to wear the burka help her?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    By not letting be oppressed with the burka, wether they realise it or not.
    You are missing the wood for the trees here.

    Oppression is when what you are supposed to do or supposed to think is dictated to you by others in power above you. The details of how that happens are some what irrelevant. It is the position of power over someone else that is the relevant bit.

    For example if one of these women's father suddenly decided that now he and his family were going to be Scientology and he told his daughter to stop wearing the burka and never wear it again even if she actually wanted to, she would be no more free than she was before.

    We wouldn't all think Oh thats ok now, he is just telling here where to spend her money, how to go into labor, who to marry, but he isn't making her wear a burka, so she is free now.

    The issue here isn't whether these women do or don't wear a burka, it is whether they are oppressed or not.


  • #568
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Oppression is when what you are supposed to do or supposed to think is dictated to you by others in power above you.
    So is being forced to wear one thing more or less oppressive than being forced to wear anything but one thing?


  • #569
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    So is being forced to wear one thing more or less oppressive than being forced to wear anything but one thing?

    Oppression is oppression.

    You can't free someone through oppressing the options you don't think they should have and only allowing the options you think they should have.

    No one is physically harmed by wearing a burka. The burka is simply a outer face of the mental oppression that can take place in religions such as Islam.

    You don't remove that mental oppression by simply swapping it for a different kind.

    From the context of the mental oppression there is zero difference between a Muslim man telling a Muslim woman she has to wear a burka and the State telling a Muslim woman she can't wear a burka.

    It is exactly the same mental oppression. And that is what actually matters, not whether or not a burka is being worn.

    Like I said to Mark if tomorrow an oppressed Muslim woman's father decided that they were all going to be Scientologists and started oppressing his daughter in line with that religion she isn't any more free now simply because in this mode of oppression she isn't required to wear a burka.

    It is like the old parable of the slave chained up in the barn of a slave owner in America.

    He looks out the door and goes "I wish I was free to go outside"

    The slave owner brings the slave outside and chains him to a railing and says "Happy now"

    It isn't the "outside" bit that is important, it is the "free" bit.

    You are all focusing on the outside bit, ignoring the free bit.


  • #570
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Oppression is oppression.
    There are degrees. Which one is worse?


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    There are degrees. Which one is worse?

    It is impossible to say in any meaningful way without any sort of context.

    In general though I would say it is worse to be forced not to wear something. In general people tend to wear things for a reason, they tend to express personality or identity through what they wear.

    Being forced not to wear something can strip the person of that identity which can lead to resentment and feelings of oppression, particularly if stripping identify is the actual purpose of being forced not to wear it.

    People also tend to wear different levels of clothing for a reason. Being forced not to wear something you want to can greatly embarrass, such as being forced to wear what the person considers immodest clothes or be naked. This is something torturers such as the American soldiers in Iraq used to do, humiliation as a interrogation tactic. But even pushing your child out into a swimming pool can result in great humiliation if they have issues about their body or feel uncomfortable being, what they consider, exposed.

    I'm not saying that being forced to wear something can not be bad as well, but given your very abstract hypothetical then being forced not to wear something is worse.

    I would point out as well that which is worse is not in anyway the basis of my argument. If you think that being forced to wear something is worse than being forced not to wear something that isn't relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not condoning Muslim women being forced to wear the burka. I'm saying you cannot combat that by simply swapping it for a different form of oppression, even if you think that form of oppression is marginally not as bad as the first form.

    The issue as far as I can see with oppression of Muslim women is Muslim women being told what to do and think by Muslim men. You don't help that by simply replacing "Muslim men" with "The French State"


Advertisement