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…2930323435…138

Comments

  • #932
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #933
    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.
    Nope, it's a pretty much inevitable result of a policy which places too much trust in the wisdom of unregulated markets. And I understood that libertarians typically have unbounded faith not only that such wisdom exists, but that such wisdom produces the best possible outcome for society too -- unless I'm missing something? :)

    btw, back to the burqa ban (kind of):

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67295559&postcount=902


  • #934
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    btw, back to the burqa ban

    I'll get the ball rolling again.
    BAN THE BURQA BAN!!! :D;)

    Edit; PS That tangent about liberterians was very interesting.


  • #935
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    condra wrote: »
    Stranglehold on our culture?
    Stamp it out?

    Now you're showing your true colours.

    I honestly dont know what you are getting at here? Do you think that fundamentalist religious groups aren't trying to get a stranglehold on our culture? There are some simple examples of it happening, just look at the adult cartoon south park: Jesus was shown as being addicted to internet porn, while Buddha (or Vishnu, I cant remember which) was shown taking cocaine. No one batted an eyelid. But just the possibility of showing Muhammed, had people up in arms, had death threats sent to the makers of south park and had a car bomb left outside comedy central. There is already a massive imbalance in society with what religious icons you can mock or even question, because people are afraid of "insulting" certain ethnicities. This is the stranglehold I am talking about, one that pandering to fundamentalists will get worse.


  • #936
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #937
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #938
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    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.

    Do you have a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear the burka? Because I have yet to see one. No logical questioning is made when deciding towear the burka-it is not religiously required and fails to prevent a situation that does not occur.
    Nemi wrote: »
    How is our culture so weak that it will collapse in the face of a religion that is, apparently, without merit?

    Its becoming harder and harder to mock or even question islam, while other religious are completely fair game, out of fear of retribution (see South Park, or the hotelier who was taken to court for calling Mohammed a warlord). I dont know if our culture will fall to islam, but in its biased way it protects islam from the real world that every other reilgion stands up to, it shows that it is on the road to bending even more to islam. There was talk recently of bringing in aspects or sharia law into uk law.


  • #939
    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.
    Probably best to keep this to another thread if you'd like to open one up!


  • #940
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not 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.

    Yes, motive is key, as it usually is in law. If while pulling out of my drive, I run someone over and kill them I will be commiting the same (ultimate) act as if I drove down the road and pulled onto the curb and perpusefully ran that person over. My punishment, under the law, in these cases, would not be the same.


  • #941
    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.
    So, if it has a cash value, should the state not do something to protect that investment?

    I understood from this post that you believed that the state should not outlaw blackmail.

    (though again, this is probably best kept put in another 'libertarian' thread, unless this fiber can wend its way back to the burqa ban shortly).


  • Advertisement
  • #942
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.

    ? The point is that its not a bad thing to cover your face in all cases, only the cases were you show support for a barbaric, misogynistic foreign culture.


  • #943
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    More timely news from the "modesty" police:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0806/dubai.html?RTEMAILID

    A chick gets nicked for walking around the Dubai Mall in a bikini after a woman complained.

    .


  • #944
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    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.

    Your logic here is a nonsequitor. Yes, you can deny medical treatment on yourself if you dont want it, but that doesn't mean you should be able to deny medical treatment for your child. Its the same thing as you being able to drink alcohol, but you cant give alcohol to your underage kids.
    Nemi wrote: »
    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.

    Why not? Minimum smoking and drinking ages are determined with the help of the medical community, people generally have no problem following them, with respect with their kids.
    Nemi wrote: »
    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.

    And that is were the hypocracy lies. People who advocate circumcsion claim it has benefits. Leaving aside the religious benefits that some would claim, its a claim from some that circumcision reduces the transfer rate of some STDs, notable HIV and Aids. Now these people can be wrong, but they are no more wrong that the people who dont get vaccinated because they think it causes autism. You cannot support the right of someone to be wrong in one instance , but not in the other, its hypocracy pure and simple.
    Nemi wrote: »
    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.

    Its was in repsonse to your empty emotive rhetoric, you said :
    I wouldn't miss the sight of otherwise rational people suggesting we will defeat religious extremism by adopting its intolerance.
    I pointed out other things I'm intolerant of, things that no-one has ever tried to hold against me for being intolerant of them.


  • #945
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #946
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    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????

    Ok, if my right to see your face does not exist, then why does your right to hide your face exist?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    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.

    And I pointed out the different motives associated with wearing scarfs in cold weather compaired with wearing the burka. Its the motive I disagree with.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    We are not talking about murder, killing babies, genital mutilation etc
    We are talking about the banning of a burqa,.

    We are talking about a religious act, so I gave examples of other religious traditions that we have no problem in banning and decrying as evil.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    What on earth do you mean by that???

    You think that by banning catholicism, we made it stronger. The vatican never banned catholicism, so by your argument it should be secular by now. Incidently, the vatican has recently banned certain clothes from its grounds, do you think that these banning will make people more inclined to wear them?


  • #947
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    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.

    ? The topic of this thread is in relation to the the burka ban. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.


  • #948
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,112 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    my point was that there's more religious tolerance in ireland now than there was 50 years ago.


  • #949
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Dades wrote: »
    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.
    I don't think you can compartmentalise it that easily. The point I'm making is the absence of any real harm that justifies banning a burka. Reminding people of all the ways that we allow people to inflict real harm on themselves and others is clearly relevant to that, as its illustrating just how gaga this concentration on a handful of burka wearers is.


  • #950
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Did many Irish women take out enough six-figure mortgages to destabilize the economy?
    I'd expect far more than wore burkas, yes.
    robindch wrote: »
    The discredited office of the Financial Regulator is being wound down and a new, much tougher, outfit has been announced by Brian Lenihan.
    Indeed, with the consumer protection function being downgraded and shipped off elsewhere.
    robindch wrote: »
    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.
    Interesting. Just who do you see as the ultimate guide to what restraints we need to inflict on people?

    And, yes, I do think this question is very pertinent to the matter in hand.


  • #951
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you have a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear the burka?
    No. Nor do I see why anyone needs to present a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear the burka.

    Nor do I see why anyone needs to present a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear short shorts.

    (I like short shorts.)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I dont know if our culture will fall to islam, but in its biased way it protects islam from the real world that every other reilgion stands up to, it shows that it is on the road to bending even more to islam.
    Similarly, I've no idea if our culture is so chicken**** that it will fall to islam. I just suspect if we feel so vulnerable that we have to ban the burka, we might as well throw in the towel right now.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There was talk recently of bringing in aspects or sharia law into uk law.
    That's quite a different issue. In fairness to the UK, I thought the intention was just to allow voluntary application of the Sharia where it did not conflict with State law. You could actually do that anyway, as you can contract to anything lawful.

    From left field, when Merkel banned naked short selling in Germany, she was sort of apply a concept from Sharia commercial law. And, in our current circumstances, the risk sharing embedded in Sharia home finance products could have done a lot to mitigate our property bubble. But that's another story.


  • Advertisement
  • #952
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes, you can deny medical treatment on yourself if you dont want it, but that doesn't mean you should be able to deny medical treatment for your child.
    The child cannot give informed consent, so someone has to decide on behalf of the child. The doctor is not a disinterested party, so it must be someone else. That someone else is either the parents or the Courts.

    This simply is a basic civil right. I've posted you the link explaining the Supreme Court ruling in the PKU test. That article went on to say that no country in Europe makes the test compulsory. I'm actually at a bit of a loss to know what more needs to be said. This is not some weird and way-out view that I'm expressing. Its what the boring old legal types who sit on our Supreme Court say.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Leaving aside the religious benefits that some would claim, its a claim from some that circumcision reduces the transfer rate of some STDs, notable HIV and Aids. Now these people can be wrong, but they are no more wrong that the people who dont get vaccinated because they think it causes autism.
    False analogy. Religious circumcision is not justified on health grounds. Its justified because God wanted Abraham's foreskin.

    If it was a question of circumcision being, like vaccination, something promoted for some health gain with risks associated with both sides of the choice, then you would be absolutely right that it would fall to parents to make the call.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its was in repsonse to your empty emotive rhetoric, you said :
    I wouldn't miss the sight of otherwise rational people suggesting we will defeat religious extremism by adopting its intolerance.
    I pointed out other things I'm intolerant of, things that no-one has ever tried to hold against me for being intolerant of them.
    Interpreters, please?


  • #953
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok, if my right to see your face does not exist, then why does your right to hide your face exist?

    As far as I know there is no legal right to be able to cover your face, but because any person can and does cover their face in a number of situations there would be a "de facto right" to be able to do this.
    As I have stated over and over again on this thread, if I want to cover I can and there is nothing any member of the general public can do about it, this is a fact on this Island and whether anyone agrees, likes or dislikes it, it will not negate that fact.
    As I stated this comment was used as a reply to the comment about every citizen having a "right" to see the face of every other which was incorrect.
    And I pointed out the different motives associated with wearing scarfs in cold weather compaired with wearing the burka. Its the motive I disagree with.
    Ok ;
    But just to be clear, I quite simply and unambiguously used the example/motive of wearing a scarf in cold weather. Nothing more.
    You think that by banning catholicism, we made it stronger. The vatican never banned catholicism, so by your argument it should be secular by now.

    You are totally correct the vatican did not ban catholicism (which would be a very strange thing for a catholic organisation to do), that honour belonged to the British Government.
    Not strictly a ban on the religion itself as that would be impossible but according to the penal laws , among other things, Catholics were forbidden to practice their religion, Mass or any kind of public worship was banned.
    The result of this was to actually strengthen the resolve of the people towards their religion and was one of the reasons we had/have a society totally dominated by the catholic church up to the 21st century.
    edit; BTW Just because I say banning something can actually strengthen resolve to do it, does not imply that not banning it will weaken it. To assume this is actually rather naive.
    Incidently, the vatican has recently banned certain clothes from its grounds, do you think that these banning will make people more inclined to wear them?

    If they are banned people can't wear them.


  • #954
    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.
    Because, as far as I can make out, libertarians value most of all, the appearance of being able to make an unencumbered choice; second up is cash value. In such a polity -- as in any polity -- the state will generally support through law what the state believes is most valuable.

    Hence, the very limited central government in a libertarian state should, in the first instance, guarantee that people should be able to appear to make a free choice (hence libertarian support for "choosing" to wear the burqa). Secondly, the government should do its best to ensure that cash value is respected, lest the central medium of exchange within society become degraded. And since you agree that reputations do have cash value, I'd have thought that a libertarian state would do something to protect them from arbitrary violence and loss of value through defamation, blackmail and so on.


  • #955
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    Just who do you see as the ultimate guide to what restraints we need to inflict on people?
    In broad terms, utilitarianism. Libertarianism is certainly arguable at the individual level, but its fatally naive flaw is its basic assumption that people are well-enough informed and sufficiently unbiased to make decisions whose mass effects are good for society as a whole. Sometimes the state really does need to stop the worst excesses of corporations and individuals.


  • #956
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #957
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #958
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0807/1224276368541.html

    Beyond the Veil......women talk about wearing the veil.....From The Irish Times today.

    Worth a read especially for those who believe it symbolises opression.....you'll find the reality is very different.


  • #959
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    No. Nor do I see why anyone needs to present a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear the burka.

    Nor do I see why anyone needs to present a logical and rational reason for why somesone should wear short shorts.

    People here claim that these women are wearing the burka based on their own free will choice, not because they were brain washed. I'm not saying its conclusive, but the lack of anything aproaching a logical reason points toward a complete lack of autonomous thought on behalf of those wearing the burka.
    Nemi wrote: »
    Similarly, I've no idea if our culture is so chicken**** that it will fall to islam. I just suspect if we feel so vulnerable that we have to ban the burka, we might as well throw in the towel right now.

    I dont get this. We must be chickensh*t and vulnerable to want to protect ourselves from a domineering foreign culture? Do you not recognise how islam is treated totally different in the media in the west? How you can say pretty much what you like about any religion bar islam? At what stage should we stand up to them?
    Nemi wrote: »
    That's quite a different issue. In fairness to the UK, I thought the intention was just to allow voluntary application of the Sharia where it did not conflict with State law. You could actually do that anyway, as you can contract to anything lawful.

    It was a start, first its voluntary, then its compulsive for muslims, then its compulsive for anyone dealing with muslims, then its complusive for all.
    Nemi wrote: »
    From left field, when Merkel banned naked short selling in Germany, she was sort of apply a concept from Sharia commercial law. And, in our current circumstances, the risk sharing embedded in Sharia home finance products could have done a lot to mitigate our property bubble. But that's another story.

    The problem with sharia is that considers itself infallible from god. Anything like that, anything that considers itself infallible and above change is incredible dangerous and should not be enshrined in our law.


  • #960
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    The child cannot give informed consent, so someone has to decide on behalf of the child. The doctor is not a disinterested party, so it must be someone else. That someone else is either the parents or the Courts.

    This simply is a basic civil right. I've posted you the link explaining the Supreme Court ruling in the PKU test. That article went on to say that no country in Europe makes the test compulsory. I'm actually at a bit of a loss to know what more needs to be said. This is not some weird and way-out view that I'm expressing. Its what the boring old legal types who sit on our Supreme Court say.

    False analogy. Religious circumcision is not justified on health grounds. Its justified because God wanted Abraham's foreskin.

    it was a question of circumcision being, like vaccination, something promoted for some health gain with risks associated with both sides of the choice, then you would be absolutely right that it would fall to parents to make the call.

    See, you just digging yourself into a hole. To people who believe in god, giving him your childs foreskin is a health benefit. Sure they are wrong, but no more wrong than those who think autism is caused by MMR. From the point of view of the parent who believes, these two situations are exactly the same.
    Nemi wrote: »
    Interpreters, please?

    Dont play innocent. You tried some emotive bs debating, but it doesnt hold up to scrutiny, let it go.


  • Advertisement
  • #961
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    As far as I know there is no legal right to be able to cover your face, but because any person can and does cover their face in a number of situations there would be a "de facto right" to be able to do this.

    So you rright to hide your face doesn't exist? Its a defacto right, a privilege if you will.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    You are totally correct the vatican did not ban catholicism (which would be a very strange thing for a catholic organisation to do), that honour belonged to the British Government.
    Not strictly a ban on the religion itself as that would be impossible but according to the penal laws , among other things, Catholics were forbidden to practice their religion, Mass or any kind of public worship was banned.
    The result of this was to actually strengthen the resolve of the people towards their religion and was one of the reasons we had/have a society totally dominated by the catholic church up to the 21st century.
    edit; BTW Just because I say banning something can actually strengthen resolve to do it, does not imply that not banning it will weaken it. To assume this is actually rather naive.

    Its naive to assume banning something about a religion will always make it stronger, especially when we have so much evidence (like our banning of female genital mutilation, honour killings and the like) to the contrary.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    If they are banned people can't wear them.

    But by your argument, banning something makes people want to do it more, does this only apply to religion then?


Advertisement