Burka ban

robindch · 05-08-2010 04:41PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, can I conclude from this that libertarians hold that a person's reputation has no cash value?

Morbert · 05-08-2010 05:03PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

condra wrote: »

This point is in my opinion either extremely naive, or cunningly disingenuous.

It is a point that is true. But let me put it another way. Even if 99% of the pro-ban side were motivated by islamophobia, or the oppression of religious freedoms, it would have absolutely no bearing on the arguments put forth by posters here.

The rest of your post, while making some good points, was about the ban itself and not my comment, so I have ommitted it.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 06:58PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

condra wrote: »

Why should a persons right to not be raped outrank a rapists right to rape someone?

What? What has this got to do with what I said?

condra wrote: »

Firstly, don't assume anything is a right rather than s privelage

Its a priviledge now to be able to identify peoples faces on the street?

condra wrote: »

and not all rights are equal anyway.

I never said otherwise, in fact I was asking why one right outranked another.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 06:59PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Why should your right to hide your face outrank my right to see it?

You have as much right to see my face as any other part of my body which is absolutely zero. Thankfully.

Doesn't answer my question, please try again.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:02PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Next winter when you walk around the streets during a cold spell and see someone with a scarf covering their face, think of this thread, walk up to them and try exercising your "right" to see their face. Just be very carefull doing it.
I can absolutely guarantee you if an altercation ensues, you will be arrested or cautioned for harassment by a member of the garda siochana.
Lets get real folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People do not cover their faces during cold weather to hide from other people, they do it to hide from the cold weather. I think some people have a skewed idea of why people wear scarfs.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:09PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Cú Giobach wrote: »

When things of a religious nature are banned it usually makes them stronger.

Just like female genital mutilation, human sacrifice and honour killings. Oh wait...

Cú Giobach wrote: »

As I have already stated I have no love for burkas or anything whatsoever to do with religion.
Ban such a thing and you entrench the idea that it is something to fight for.

We ban murder, we ban stealing, we ban many different dangerous acts. There is no reason why anything religious should be excempt from the same processes that ban anything else.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If catholicism was not banned here for many years we would probably be living in a more secular society than we are now.

Ha, by that argument, the vatican is a secular society.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is the kind of thing that time and the fact that the younger generation don't always follow their parents "ideas" will change.

Given that we didn't have burka wearers 50 years ago, I think that some things are changing in the wrong direction.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:17PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

Again, the example is simply irrelevant to our situation.If you want your case to have any influence on me (and there is absolutely no reason why you should), you need to concentrate on these cases. You need to convince me that burka-wearing presents such a threat to Irish society that we need to impose a new restriction on what women may choose to wear.

Those middle eastern examples are the culture that the burka represents. As I have said from the start, wearing the burka is not just a fashion statement, its an unquestioning following of an unquestionable culture. Why wait for it to get a better stranglehold on our culture before we move to stamp it out?

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:29PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Really? Its now part a fundamental part of someones liberty to be allowed to take massive risks with their kids health?

Its a reasonably basic civil right that you must consent to health treatment, except where there is immediate need, yes.

I dont think that that actual responds to what i said. Is it someones fundamental right to put their kids lives in danger?

Nemi wrote: »

I don't quite see what that has to do with the medical profession not owning your life.

Who is talking about the medical profession? You said that the state shouldn't step in and force someone to get their kids vaccinated, as it infringes on someo sort of liberty. But why does this only apply to vaccination? Why not all situations where someone puts their childs life in danger? Since when does someones liberty extend to putting children in danger?

Nemi wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

So on the one hand, you have a problem with circumcision, because kids have died from it, but on the other you think that the state shouldn't interfere with people vaccinating their kids, regardless of how many kids have died from that? How can you not see the hypocracy?

I can see the complexity. Can you? Can you identify how both of those cases hinge on who can intervene in your life and in what circumstances? Should parents be allowed to pierce their baby daughters' ears? Can you see that the decision to circumcise, vaccinate and pierce are actually different degrees of much the same thing?

I think that you have some kind of a problem with reading whats in front of you. You say the state shouldn't interfere with vaccinations, but then say that circumsision is a much bigger problem than burkas and people should be more interested in that issue. Now you say that vaccination and circumcision are different degrees of the same thing? How can you say that one the one hand they are aspects of the same thing, but then say that the state shouldn't interfere with vaccinations, but circumcision is such a danger, everyone should be against it? The cognitive dissonance, the hypocracy is astounding.

Nemi wrote: »

But I absolutely adore the thread. I wouldn't miss the sight of otherwise rational people suggesting we will defeat religious extremism by adopting its intolerance.

I am intolerant of murderers, rapists, pedos, racists, homeopaths and pseudoscience. Being tolerant doesn't get rid of them.

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:31PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does the wearing of pushup bras and short skirts support a culture wear girls are raped simply because they decide to wear pushup bras and short skirts?

Mark Hamill · 05-08-2010 07:42PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I've said it before ad I'll say it again; you CANNOT compare burning some-one alive or mutiliating some-one or ethinic cleansing to the wearing of a Burkha. it is not even remotely the same and I wish people would stop making that argument because it just doesn't work.

You need to read the context fo the posts. The post you are responding to was itself in response to a poster who claimed if you ban anything religious, it just gets stronger and people fight for it more. The post you responded was giving examples of religious acts that were banned without them magically getting stronger.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In no way, that I can see and do correct me if I'm wrong, is the Burkha a danger to anyone.

The society it represents is a danger to everyone.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Do those arguing for the ban realise that it might actually deny women's rights and harm them even further. Supposing a particularly devout Muslim man learns his wife is no longer allowed to wear it and decides that instead he is going to lock her away in her room.....is that ok since at least her face is showing?

I find it very telling of the lack of thought on the antiban side that you can describe a situation like this, and blame the pro ban side, but not the misogynistic scumbag who thinks o little of his wife, and women in general.
The ban may not make life very easy for some people now, but by stepping out against the culture it represents we hope to make life better for future generations.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Or what if he gets violent towards her because she won't wear it, although it's for legal reasons?

The same thing happens as what would have happened preban - nothing, because if the woman hasn't realised the moment her husband expects her to wear a tent when walking outside that he doesn't respect her, she will never do anything about it. Not that that matters to the antiban side, because then she will at least be acting "freely"

condra · 05-08-2010 07:46PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wearing the burka is not just a fashion statement, its an unquestioning following of an unquestionable culture. Why wait for it to get a better stranglehold on our culture before we move to stamp it out?

Stranglehold on our culture?
Stamp it out?

Now you're showing your true colours.

ColmDawson · 05-08-2010 08:06PM

I'm religious and support the ban

condra wrote: »

Stranglehold on our culture?
Stamp it out?

Now you're showing your true colours.

Would you be saying that if he'd said something like "Why wait for Catholicism to get a better stranglehold on our culture before we move to stamp it out"?

Opposing Islam doesn't make you a xenophobe.

I'm anti-ban, by the way.

condra · 05-08-2010 08:24PM

I'm religious and support the ban

ColmDawson wrote: »

Would you be saying that if he'd said something like "Why wait for Catholicism to get a better stranglehold on our culture before we move to stamp it out"?

If he had previously been so disingenuous in his arguments, then absolutely, yes.

Opposing Islam doesn't make you a xenophobe.

I never said it did, and either way, if someone was a xenophobe, they have as much right as anyone else to express their opinions. (within the confines of the rules of this forum of course)

If someone was against Islam, or females, or disabled people or anything else, I would gladly hear them out, as long as they had the guts to be upfront about their convictions, rather than invoking arguments which they consider more palatable.

Many people, including myself, hold views that are controversial or not "politically correct". Both Dades and myslef have admitted in this thread that neither of us particularly like Islam or the culture that comes with it.

I made a point earlier in the thread that I believe many people who support a ban are using reasonable arguments to support their more controversial agendas. I stand by that.

I would have made that point regardless of which side of the fence I was sitting on, and I'm still very close to the fence anyway.

I'm anti-ban, by the way.

Good for you.

Nemi · 05-08-2010 08:40PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

wearing the burka is not just a fashion statement, its an unquestioning following of an unquestionable culture.

I'm not clear on how European women converting to Islam and deciding to wear a burka constitutes unquestioning following of an unquestionable culture. They strike me as people who have both questioned and come up with an answer that suits them. So, again, I simply don't see the relevance of events outside Europe in predominantly Muslim countries.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why wait for it to get a better stranglehold on our culture before we move to stamp it out?

How is our culture so weak that it will collapse in the face of a religion that is, apparently, without merit?

magicbastarder · 05-08-2010 08:49PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People do not cover their faces during cold weather to hide from other people, they do it to hide from the cold weather. I think some people have a skewed idea of why people wear scarfs.

i suspect you weren't advancing this as a reason to go for a ban, but surely the law should only concern itself with the act, rather than the motive? so you can't allow one person to cover up their face and ban another person from doing so simply due to motive.

goingpostal · 05-08-2010 08:52PM

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect you weren't advancing this as a reason to go for a ban, but surely the law should only concern itself with the act, rather than the motive? so you can't allow one person to cover up their face and ban another person from doing so simply due to motive.

The act is sticking a knife into someone. The motive is the difference between murder or manslaughter or acquittal on the grounds of self-defence. The law concerns itself with motive all the time.

magicbastarder · 05-08-2010 08:58PM

I'm religious and support the ban

i was speaking in relation to the debate at hand, rather than the law in general; which wasn't apparent.
anyway, if it's A Bad Thing to cover your face in public, ban it outright. and hand out special licences to people who are recovering from facial burns, etc., who have had to cover their faces.

ColmDawson · 05-08-2010 08:59PM

I'm religious and support the ban

condra wrote: »

If he had previously been so disingenuous in his arguments, then absolutely, yes.

I never said it did, and either way, if someone was a xenophobe, they have as much right as anyone else to express their opinions. (within the confines of the rules of this forum of course)

If someone was against Islam, or females, or disabled people or anything else, I would gladly hear them out, as long as they had the guts to be upfront about their convictions, rather than invoking arguments which they consider more palatable.

Many people, including myself, hold views that are controversial or not "politically correct". Both Dades and myslef have admitted in this thread that neither of us particularly like Islam or the culture that comes with it.

I made a point earlier in the thread that I believe many people who support a ban are using reasonable arguments to support their more controversial agendas. I stand by that.

I would have made that point regardless of which side of the fence I was sitting on, and I'm still very close to the fence anyway.

Are you saying he's at fault for not saying straight out "I dislike Islam and that is why I want the burqa banned"?
Maybe that isn't his core argument. Maybe he thought his dislike of Islam would be easily inferred from his other points.
Either way, I don't think a strong opinion of Islam is even essential in this debate.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post about him showing his true colours, but I don't see what's so wrong about not wanting to allow any religion a stranglehold on anything. Feel free to clarify.

condra wrote: »

Good for you.

I was responding to the OP, not making a point.

Nemi · 05-08-2010 09:04PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont think that that actual responds to what i said.

It does, you just need to reflect on it some more.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is it someones fundamental right to put their kids lives in danger?

The situation is as I said. It is a pretty fundamental right that medical treatment cannot be forced on you, except in extremis. So, absolutely, its a right of parents to refuse vaccinations if they feel the risks presented by the disease are less than the risks presented by the vaccine.

Its the distinction well summarised here

Can a court force on parents who are careful and conscientious a view of their child's welfare which is rational, but quite contrary to the parents sincerely held but non-rational beliefs? The Supreme Court of Ireland has recently held that it cannot do so, and that the Irish Constitution requires that the right of the family to determine its own direction must be respected except in the most narrow of circumstances, such as an immediate threat to the life of the child or risk of serious injury.

There really is more to this issue than can be addressed by superficial shroud waving.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who is talking about the medical profession?

The implication of what you are saying is that children should be forced to undergo any treatment suggested by the medical profession. That's simply not something that fits into the complicated reality that we live in.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that you have some kind of a problem with reading whats in front of you.

Lot of it about.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You say the state shouldn't interfere with vaccinations,

I say people have the right to refuse vaccinations on behalf of their children, just to be precise.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

but then say that circumsision is a much bigger problem than burkas and people should be more interested in that issue.

Absolutely.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now you say that vaccination and circumcision are different degrees of the same thing? How can you say that one the one hand they are aspects of the same thing, but then say that the state shouldn't interfere with vaccinations, but circumcision is such a danger, everyone should be against it? The cognitive dissonance, the hypocracy is astounding.

As I said, its complexity rather than hypocrisy.

The point is that circumcision, vaccinations and infant ear piercing are all examples of procedures that require consent. In the case of children, that consent has to be given by some person who purports to act in their interests. In Irish law, the assumption is that person will normally be the parent.

You are absolutely correct that sometimes people suffer as a result of vaccinations. However, there is also a potential health gain. Therefore, I'm happy enough with the idea that parents can choose which risks they would rather their child faced.

Cultural circumcision (ie, where there is no health issue) has no health benefits, only costs. And it has actually cost real lives in Ireland. Hence, I'd feel its banning is worthy of debate.

On infant ear piercing, I'm undecided. It strikes me as a completely skangery thing to do. But I'm not sure that being a skanger is necessarily an offence in itself. However, I'm open to rational argument on this, just as I'm open to a rational argument for banning burkas under Irish law.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am intolerant of murderers, rapists, pedos, racists, homeopaths and pseudoscience. Being tolerant doesn't get rid of them.

I've a feeling you might have pressed 'submit reply' before finishing your post, as I don't see how this relates at all to the point.

Cú Giobach · 05-08-2010 09:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should your right to hide your face outrank my right to see it?

If I want to walk down the street with my face covered I can and the only people on this Island who have the "right" to tell me to uncover it are the gardaí or the PSNI.
You as a member of the general public do not have any "right" to see my face nor do you have any "right" to tell me to uncover it.
Therefore your question makes no logical sense.
That is why my previous answer was " You have as much right to see my face as any other part of my body which is absolutely zero.." ie you dont have any "right" to see my face.
Something that does not exist cannot outrank or be outranked by anything.
Ok????

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People do not cover their faces during cold weather to hide from other people, they do it to hide from the cold weather. I think some people have a skewed idea of why people wear scarfs.

This discussion about scarves with another poster, was a reply to the comment
"In a secular democracy every citizen has the right to see the face of every other citizen"
I used the example of wearing a scarf as a counter argument to that comment.

We ban murder, we ban stealing, we ban many different dangerous acts. There is no reason why anything religious should be excempt from the same processes that ban anything else.

We are not talking about murder, killing babies, genital mutilation etc
We are talking about the banning of a burqa,.

Originally Posted by Cú Giobach
If catholicism was not banned here for many years we would probably be living in a more secular society than we are now.

Mark Hamill:
Ha, by that argument, the vatican is a secular society.

What on earth do you mean by that???

Given that we didn't have burka wearers 50 years ago, I think that some things are changing in the wrong direction.

The reason we didn't have burqa wearers here 50 years ago was because
the influx of muslims only happened recently. I am not saying there were no muslims in Ireland then, just that the numbers have increased greatly now.
No doubt there were a few women who would have worn a burqa here 50 years ago, just there would have been so few the chances of any one person seeing one would be very very small indeed.

magicbastarder · 05-08-2010 09:45PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given that we didn't have burka wearers 50 years ago, I think that some things are changing in the wrong direction.

given that the topic of this thread is in relation to religious tolerance, i think this remark needed more thought before committing to the debate.

robindch · 05-08-2010 10:14PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

it would be perfectly acceptable for the State to prohibit human sacrifice.

A timely article about the dangers of a state adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards coercive religion, of which burqa-wearing is one of the more publicly visible symbols:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10855565

Some Girl wrote:

I didn't have a plan and I didn't know how I was going to do it. But I had so much anger inside me. I wanted to be heard. I thought I could do that through violence, by becoming the country's first female suicide bomber.

magicbastarder · 05-08-2010 10:19PM

I'm religious and support the ban

do you not suspect that a burka ban would play far more into the hands of the extremist recruiters than it would into the hands of the authorities in this sort of crime?

condra · 05-08-2010 10:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Agreed, and as I mentioned before, there really aren't many women in Ireland who wear the burka. I've seen 2 in my whole life. There are however about 100,000 (correct me if I'm wrong) Muslims in Ireland. I think a burka ban here would be more a gesture of dominance and oppression than anything else.

robindch · 05-08-2010 11:00PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

do you not suspect that a burka ban would play far more into the hands of the extremist recruiters than it would into the hands of the authorities in this sort of crime?

You're playing the percentages in this debate -- my understanding of how religion operates suggests that once a line is drawn, the line will generally be respected. This appears to be how it's operating in France and Belgium who have large populations of islamic religious believers, and where the state is doing something to stop the spread of coercive religion.

In the UK, on the other hand, where the state is ostentatiously and continually talking about "islamic communities" (playing into the hands of people who put themselves forwards as "community leaders") and bending over backwards to "accommodate" them, I believe that the fundamentalists are taking advantage of this to expand their influence.

That's simply how religion works and what it's for -- nothing more than the acquisition of influence by whatever amoral means it can evolve.

Nemi · 05-08-2010 11:27PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

A timely article about the dangers of a state adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards coercive religion, of which burqa-wearing is one of the more publicly visible symbols:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10855565

A rather tenuous argument, surely?

As I said many posts back, who in recent years did more to undermine the stability of Irish society. Irish women who wear burkas, or Irish women who took out six figure mortgages?

What do you suggest we do about the dangers of a state adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards women paying too much for stuff?

condra · 06-08-2010 12:34AM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

In the UK, on the other hand, where the state is ostentatiously and continually talking about "islamic communities" (playing into the hands of people who put themselves forwards as "community leaders") and bending over backwards to "accommodate" them, I believe that the fundamentalists are taking advantage of this to expand their influence.

That's simply how religion works and what it's for -- nothing more than the acquisition of influence by whatever amoral means it can evolve.

While I'm still opposed to a burka ban, I think this was a well made point.

And I agree that the UK is on a dangerous path. Same can be said of Sweden. You cannot walk the streets of Malmo dressed in Jewish attire because you run a high risk of being attacked by a mob of Muslims. If you don't believe me, I suggest you go try it.

Dades · 06-08-2010 10:20AM

Nemi wrote: »

As I said many posts back, who in recent years did more to undermine the stability of Irish society. Irish women who wear burkas, or Irish women who took out six figure mortgages?

What do you suggest we do about the dangers of a state adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards women paying too much for stuff?

Citing a second example of something else that has in theory harmed the State doesn't change any validity of the first example, no?

There are many things that society may need to address. This thread is a hypothetical one about allowing Burkas.

robindch · 06-08-2010 10:47AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nemi wrote: »

who in recent years did more to undermine the stability of Irish society. Irish women who wear burkas, or Irish women who took out six figure mortgages?

Did many Irish women take out enough six-figure mortgages to destabilize the economy? I'd have thought not. Regardless of that, the state, via the Financial Regulator, should certainly have done far more than it did to rein in easy credit and the appearance of 100% 40-year mortgages. In that, the state unfortunately adopted the same disastrous laissez-faire attitude as Alan Greenspan, whose libertarian "invisible hand of the market" turned out not only to be invisible, but dead too.

The discredited office of the Financial Regulator is being wound down and a new, much tougher, outfit has been announced by Brian Lenihan.

Anyhow, this is irrelevant to the burqa debate, other than to illustrate that allowing people and institutions to make unrestrained decisions can, and does, lead to greater, longer-term problems for society as a whole.

condra · 06-08-2010 04:27PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Dades wrote: »

This thread is a hypothetical one...

My whole life is a metaphor!

Heheh just kidding, sorry, it just sounded funny!

Burka ban

Comments