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…2223252728…138

Comments

  • #722
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    ColmDawson wrote: »
    That's not how it works. I've said this before (to barochoc) and I'll say it again: we shouldn't remove freedoms in our country in retaliation against the lack of freedom in other countries.

    We are not removing freedoms. We are endowing freedoms on the women to wear what they like and to be free from being treated like chattel in the name of religion.


  • #723
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #724
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    An oppressed Muslim woman is not oppressed because she wears the burka. She wears the burka because she is oppressed.
    Yes, and the burka is the symbol of that oppression -- it's the marker that a woman must use to state publicly that she subscribes to the oppression, that she knows her political position within society (ie, one of anonymous powerlessness) and that she can therefore safely be ignored as a political threat to the totalitarianism that is the religious context within which the symbol has acquired its meaning.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Without actual choice the person is not liberated. With the choice still being made for them they are not liberated.
    Not true. All the ban is doing is neutralizing this political context and restoring to women the right to have at least some political power. They are still free to mark themselves as members of their religion by wearing a veil that does not cover the face.

    As I said above, this ban is a far from perfect solution, but it's undeniably better than letting religious supremacists take advantage of the reasonable human freedom to dress as one wants in order to express and implement their own totalitarianism. And I can't think of any more efficient, anonymizing totalitarianism than one in which half the population is coerced to put black bags over their heads, or any more silly response from the ban's detractors than to pretend that the choice to conform is "free".


  • #725
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    And they don't have the freedom not to wear them either.

    This is the classical political dilemma -- how does a polity deal with a political movement within its borders which does not respect the principles upon which the polity is built? And at what point does the polity say "Stop"? As the internal movement gains power, the state certainly must draw a line at some point, lest the internal movement become so powerful that it threatens the polity itself (as happened, say in Iran in 1979 which did fall to militant islamists which caused serious international problems which continue to this day. Or in the 1992 military coup in Algeria which didn't fall to militant islam, when the army cancelled a general election which the islamists won on a vague promise to cancel all future elections and attempt to restore an islamic caliphate; which cancellation caused problems within Algeria, but less serious than Iran's).

    There is no "freedom" when there is no choice and as a libertarian, surely you accept that?


  • #726
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,110 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    goingpostal wrote: »
    We are not removing freedoms. We are endowing freedoms on the women
    you win the orwell prize for the most imaginative use of language.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    You still haven't shown to me that the burka is harmful to society (how is it harmful to an average white male like me for instance). You still haven't shown that banning the burka would make life better for people wearing it (whereas I gave you a lot of examples of how it would make life hell).

    I have explained time and time again where the burka came from and Robin has given first hand examples of countries run by the very people who instigated it and support it. These societies are almost irrevocably damaged, they have an unbelievably long way to get back to the modern world (where they where, only 40-50 years ago-see those pictures posted a few pages back). Society is damaged by any mass acceptace of bad ideas, be it misgonystic religions, homeopathy or the media MMR hoax and you need to come up with a response better than "Lalala, I dont believe you".
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    You haven't shown that banning the burka will make certain Muslims question its neccessity as opposed to thinking 'islam is under attack let's stick to our traditions' (when any half-decent knowledge of history -eg in the USSR- would suggest that any attack on religion makes its proponents more zealous).

    More of the emotive nonsense. How do you deal with a religion that is threatening you? Do you just bend over backwards out of fear of retaliation? So after we give in on the burka, what else do we give in on? How about we make our own women wear the burka, for fear of insulting islam? Lets bring sharia in as part of irish law, hell lets replace irish law with sharia law, dont want to insult islam. Because any half decent knowledge of these islamic fundamentalist countries will show, just being non-muslim is an attack on their religion, and as any half decent knowledge of discussions with muslims (or any damn theist) will show, using reason logic is too.
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    You haven't resolved the massive contradiction in your definition of 'choice' - according to you women wearing the burka have no choice about whether to wear it (due to some form or coercion) or not at the moment but will suddenly gain their choice if it's banned (when that same coercion is still there - so pain of torture in hell will magically go away because of this ban?).

    I never said that these women would magically get the choice once the burka is banned, I said that they would have to think about the choice, as they wont be able not to. Some women may never be helped by this, they may be too far gone to listen to reason.
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    You haven't resolved the stunning hypocricy of for instance allowing people to drink alcohol (=harming themselves and others) and yet wanting to ban a garment (=no immediate harm to anyone) and the resulting implication that sometimes you have to allow people to do things that you perceive harmful to themselves.

    A) who says I dont think alcohol should be banned?
    B) People dont drink alcohol under the threat of hell
    C) People drinknig alcohol arent showing an unquestioned superseeding obediance to an external unelected power base over their own countries power base.
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    There are many intelligent, educated and informed people who wear the burka. Has it occurred to you that they might be right and you wrong?

    All your say is based on conjecture and supposition, and assumption of what certain people feel and think. That's why I stand by my original diagnosis of 'stunning arrogance'

    And there have been many intelligent and educated people who believe that the world is 6000 years old. Their are such things as confirmational bias and selective reasoning. All people, intelligent or otherwise are capable of suffering from ignoring that facts they dont like.
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    I really do think that all the arguments to ban the burka on the grounds of 'creating more freedom' are spurious. The real reason for wanting the ban is good old Islamophobia - or at least hatred of religion.

    BS and you know it. This constant calling of everyone who wants to ban the burka islamophobia is just its own form of racism.


  • #728
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    goingpostal wrote: »
    We are endowing freedoms on the women to wear what they like and to be free from being treated like chattel in the name of religion.

    Not if they want to wear the burka.

    As I said to Robin even if they don't want to wear the burka being told they can't is insulting and oppressive, just like a Muslim woman who is happy to wear the burka is still oppressed by her husband making her wear it.

    The whole debate is about choice, choice that is being denied by both sides.


  • #729
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, and the burka is the symbol of that oppression
    But you don't remove the oppression by simply removing the symbol.

    The burka itself is just a head dress. I wore a burka at a fancy dress a few years ago, I wasn't oppressed when I had it on.

    A Muslim woman who takes off the burka because she is forced to by the State is no less oppressed by her husband that she was before. She is no just oppressed by the State as well.

    The whole debate over the burka is missing the wood for the trees.
    robindch wrote: »
    Not true. All the ban is doing is neutralizing this political context and restoring to women the right to have at least some political power.
    How does not wearing a burka give you more political power?

    She is still just as oppressed by the people who were oppressing her before hand.

    She just now thinks the State gets to tell her what to think as well as her husband.

    Basically all this bill does is remove one way that a man can oppress a woman. There are still a million other ways. Oppression is an act of power, power someone has over someone else. That does not disappear or even easy simply because you remove one instrument of the oppression.

    As I said earlier in the thread millions of western women are oppressed every day by western men who don't need to use a burka to do this.

    The only way you can combat this is to show the women they have rights and liberty.

    You don't do this by dictating to them that you do not respect their choices and have decided to make them for them, because that is exactly what the original oppressors were doing.

    If a Muslim woman thinks that both her family and society in general think she is incapable of making free choices herself how are you ever going to inspire her to break the cycle of oppression. Because after all she is the only one who can refuse to be oppressed, fight against those who would oppress her.


  • #730
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    many of those burka-wearing women in our country are white, have been brought up in the west and converted to Islam... many more still whilst being ethnically from Asia were born and brought up in the West.

    Any evidence for this claim?
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    I'd say that those women have a much more objective view of their predicament and the reasons they chose to wear the burka than you. For the simple reason that they were there and you are speaking from afar.

    Oh, why ist that? Have you spoke to every single one of them to make this claim? Have they given you their objective views? Because I've seen the arguments of the irish converts like those on mpac.ie, and its plain to see that they haven't thought of their decisions, all they do is make baseless claims. (you can see a thread where the muslims of the muslim forum here on boards took one to task, right here on boards)


  • #731
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    When france bans plastic surgery and porn I'll believe they are interested in women's lib. This has nothing to do with womens lib.

    France wants to make them uncomfortable and to assert its secularity, when they should take the bull by the horns and close the borders.


  • Advertisement
  • #732
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The whole debate is about choice, choice that is being denied by both sides.
    And believing -- as you appear to -- that the degree of oppression is the same on on both sides of the debate, is quite unrealistic. And claiming that lifting the marker used to signal this oppression constitutes a separate oppression is to ignore the fundamental political reason for the debate and simply plays into the political tactics used by the islamic supremacists.

    I don't know whether you've travelled very much to places like the Middle East where the burka is commonly required, but if you've not, and if you did, then then I suspect you'd have quite a different view on this topic. Of the one or two local women who did bring up the topic with me directly, being forced to wear islamic clothing to avoid being threatened with violence or worse, the requirement to wear islamic clothing is viewed, in my experience, simply as a freedom-denying act of political totalitarianism and with an incandescent hatred.


  • #733
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If a Muslim woman thinks that both her family and society in general think she is incapable of making free choices herself how are you ever going to inspire her to break the cycle of oppression.
    By the state stepping in to help her by denying the tribal marker.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because after all she is the only one who can refuse to be oppressed, fight against those who would oppress her.
    And get acid thrown in her face? :confused:


  • #734
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Wk,

    In fairness she really can't refuse.


  • #735
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,110 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10728912


  • #736
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    And believing -- as you appear to -- that the degree of oppression is the same on on both sides of the debate, is quite unrealistic.

    Believing that the only way Muslim men oppress women is by making them wear burkas is the unrealistic bit.

    This law only increases oppression. The woman remains oppressed by her husband but now she is also oppressed by the State.
    robindch wrote: »
    And claiming that lifting the marker used to signal this oppression constitutes a separate oppression is to ignore the fundamental political reason for the debate and simply plays into the political tactics used by the islamic supremacists.

    I don't really git this fixation with the burka as a symbol of oppression. Do you honestly all think that if the burka is no longer worn the woman in her day to day life is any less oppressed?

    She is any less likely to be ordered around the house, told where to go and who to see, told who she can meet and when she can meet them, what she can read and watch?

    Men have never needed a burka to oppress women, nor have they ever needed a symbol of oppression to oppress women.
    robindch wrote: »
    Of the one or two local women who did bring up the topic with me directly, being forced to wear islamic clothing to avoid being threatened with violence or worse, the requirement to wear islamic clothing is viewed, in my experience, simply as a freedom-denying act of political totalitarianism and with an incandescent hatred.

    That is because these women are having their freedom denied, they are met with hatred and oppression. You don't change that by simply removing one symbol of that oppression.

    The key point is the view of the men doing the oppressing. Replace burka with not talking to men who aren't family members. Or replace burka with not being out after 10pm. Or replace burka with viewing a western novel or movie.

    Oppression is the issue, not the burka. The burka is simply one of the vast array of methods that men oppress women. It is ridiculous naive in my opinion that you gain freedoms for these women by removing it and a far worse outcome in my view is that you confirm for these women that no they don't have the right to choose.
    robindch wrote: »
    By the state stepping in to help her by denying the tribal marker.

    This isn't helping her deny anything. She isn't doing anything, the State is telling her what she can't do. If anything this law is simply going to confirm to Muslim women what oppressors have already been telling them, that you are incapable of making your own decisions so we are going to make them for you.
    robindch wrote: »
    And get acid thrown in her face? :confused:

    This law doesn't prevent that happening.

    Either the woman does nothing, simply lets the law dictate to her what to do and continues to be oppressed by the Muslim man, in which case this law has done nothing to free her and she as oppressed as she always was just no not wearing a burka.

    Or she stands up for herself against the Muslim man and suffers all the consequences of that action that would be the same with or without this law. And the more the State confirms to Muslim women what the oppressive Muslim men have been saying to them, that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, the less likely this is going to happen.

    What the State can do is provide all the help to education networks to inspire Muslim women to break oppression and all the help and support networks necessary for women who do stand up to oppression from Muslim men, which is what women's refugee groups have been doing in the west for decades.


  • #737
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Wk,

    In fairness she really can't refuse.

    Then she will continue to be oppressed. This law does nothing to change that.


  • #738
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This law only increases oppression. The woman remains oppressed by her husband but now she is also oppressed by the State.
    Been over this repeatedly, so no point in continuing to go around in circles :)
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I don't really git this fixation with the burka as a symbol of oppression.
    I think that's the issue that you're really missing in all of this, so all I can say is go travel in the area and see how the burka, the veil and all the rest of it pans out in practice. Go chat with a few women, if it's safe for you both to do so, and try find out whether they think being freed from the necessity to wear the burka constitutes "oppression" as you claim it does.


  • #739
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I've been reading a lot of the posts here for a while now, still not sure about where I stand on this. Found one of pat condells videos that I think sums up nicely some of the views stated here in support of the ban. It's worth a look if anyones interested



  • #740
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,110 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    i find that man tedious beyond belief.
    pun intended.


  • #741
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I too am growing sick of Condell, he has no tact, even speaking as someone who can agree with some of his points, his irl caps lock makes him hard to take, much less be taken as a voice of reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Standman wrote: »
    Found one of pat condells videos that I think sums up nicely some of the views stated here in support of the ban.
    Some of what Condell says is true, but he shoves the useful stuff in amongst so much bile, angst and drivel that it's rarely worth listening to the guy. If he were a poster in A+A, he'd have been perma-banned long ago.


  • #743
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    you win the orwell prize for the most imaginative use of language.

    Cool. Does the prize involve a substantial cash prize? Or some burqa-porn? Or a large vat of green jelly? If I had a choice, I would go for the jelly.


  • #744
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    [IMG][/img]zl8zfp.jpg


  • #745
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,110 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10744040

    another rather absurd law.
    what happens if you wipe your arse with a piece of white cloth? that's one third of the french flag, so you should be hit with one third of the fine.


  • #746
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    Been over this repeatedly, so no point in continuing to go around in circles :)

    Agreed. I understand your points, I just don't agree with them. The privilage of both being atheists I guess :)


  • #747
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/veiled-women-not-allowed-on-a-bus-2034331.html

    Would the transport company be so quick to launch an urgent inquiry if the bus driver refused to let me onto his bus because I was wearing a balaclava? The only difference between balaclava-clad Irishman and veil-wearing Muslim? I don't have a ridiculous religion to "justify" covering my face.


  • #748
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.slate.com/id/2253493/

    Christopher Hitchens is on my side.


  • #749
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html

    Leave the burqa's at home when you go go-carting!!


  • #750
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    goingpostal wrote: »
    zl8zfp.jpg

    In fairness she looks pretty amazing.


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,409 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    goingpostal wrote: »
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html

    Leave the burqa's at home when you go go-carting!!

    Prior to driving she was warned of the dangers of lose clothing.

    Refused to wear helmet also.

    Go Kart park supervisor was pressured with "discrimination" if she wasn't allowed to drive.

    Warning, the surgeon general says "wearing a burka blocks out all common sense"


Advertisement