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…3132343637…138

Comments

  • #992
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »
    This made me think - regardless of the plain misandry - isnt the instance of wearing a veil to thwart men just waving the white towel and accepting the dominance of men?
    I'd a similar thought myself. To my eternal discredit, I actually thought "there must be easier ways to be a minger".

    I mean, it is a bit ludicrous. There's a bit in "Borstal Boy" where Brendan Behan derides his landlady's sister for saying three Hail Marys for holy purity "as if half the men in Liverpool were running after here, panting for a lick of her big buck teeth".

    But, still, its her choice. I frankly don't give a damn if she walks around with a carrot up her nose. Its nowt to do with me.


  • #993
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And? This applies to almost any claim someone can make. Its moot, as to wether we should listen to them and actually take any heed of the law.
    Oh, absolutely. I was just quibbling over your assertion that they are wrong. They very likely are.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I never said there was, I just said that I dont beleive a country should take a law system like that believes itself to be unquestionably infallible.
    But if people in the country truly believe a particular legal system is infallible, they'd be fools not to adopt it.

    On a point of detail, while clearly Islam contends God's law is perfect, the Sharia is just man's imperfect understanding of God's law.


  • #994
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »
    The most interesting aspect was the part which briefly touched on the feminist aspect of the veil - with one of the interviewed stating that men are weak and they are susceptible to image.

    This made me think - regardless of the plain misandry - isnt the instance of wearing a veil to thwart men just waving the white towel and accepting the dominance of men? If there's any feminists on here, I'd like to hear what you have to say because I simply cannot get my head around the idea of a women - in belief of superiority over men - decides to physically shield herself away from the world.

    There's a great passage in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel" where she describes her argument with some Ethiopian girls in a Dutch asylum seekers' centre. Ayaan, with her Somali upbringing, is explaining that women must cover all their skin because otherwise men will become sexually aroused to such a degree that they can't concentrate and buses will start crashing into each other.

    The Ethiopian girls say, "So, since we're living in Holland where there's naked female flesh everywhere you look, how come the buses aren't crashing here?"

    Penny drops!


  • #995
    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: »
    In all fairness this is the last time I'm going to go through this, ok?

    First; I will say, I never stated I had a legal "right" to cover, I stated there was nothing legal you could do to make me show.

    Say I am walking down the street with my face covered, which in this country I am able to do.
    It could be because I'm cold and am using a scarf or I could have a facial deformity or any number of legitimate reasons.
    Now, say you approach me and insist on seeing my face.
    If I don't want to comply with your demand the only thing you can do is use physical force in order to make me.
    In this country it is actually illegal to physically force someone to do something against their wishes.
    If this hypothetical situation were to occur, the gardaí would either arrest or caution you for harassment or assault.

    Actually this is why I am curious, if the alternative to physically forcing you to show your face is some kind of court injunction.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    To put it simply,
    If I want to cover my face I can.
    If you want to see it you can't.

    This is the situation in this country with regards to this situation.
    You can disagree with me till you are blue in the face but it won't change these facts.

    Now, if you are going to respond to this post, remember,
    this whole line of discussion started when someone stated that they had "the right to see the face of every citizen"
    and I pointed out that this was incorrect, as I have just shown by the hypothetical example above.

    So, at best, all we can conclude is that you have no legal right to hide your face, but individual private citizens have no legal right to make you show your face?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Re-read the posts and this should become clear.

    Clear that I have rebutted all your points? Yes evidently, but I want the points that you beleive that I have ignored.


  • #996
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    They very likely are.But if people in the country truly believe a particular legal system is infallible, they'd be fools not to adopt it

    They are fools to think that their law is infallible. Infallibility doesn't exist (outside of maths anyway)
    Nemi wrote: »
    On a point of detail, while clearly Islam contends God's law is perfect, the Sharia is just man's imperfect understanding of God's law.

    All aspects of any religion are just mans imperfect understanding of what they think their god wants them to do. This gets hand waved away with excuses like religious leaders claiming to be inspired by god so they have the infallible understanding (eg the pope)


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Actually this is why I am curious, if the alternative to physically forcing you to show your face is some kind of court injunction.


    So, at best, all we can conclude is that you have no legal right to hide your face, but individual private citizens have no legal right to make you show your face?


    Clear that I have rebutted all your points? Yes evidently, but I want the points that you beleive that I have ignored.

    YAWWN..... Goodbye.


  • #998
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    There's a great passage in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel" where she describes her argument with some Ethiopian girls in a Dutch asylum seekers' centre. Ayaan, with her Somali upbringing, is explaining that women must cover all their skin because otherwise men will become sexually aroused to such a degree that they can't concentrate and buses will start crashing into each other.

    The Ethiopian girls say, "So, since we're living in Holland where there's naked female flesh everywhere you look, how come the buses aren't crashing here?"

    Penny drops!
    Good story, and isn't this the point. There's no great need to ban this stuff. Just let people make their own sense of it.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    They are fools to think that their law is infallible. Infallibility doesn't exist (outside of maths anyway)
    So we can infallibly state that there is no infallibility?

    (Outside of maths, apparently.)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    All aspects of any religion are just mans imperfect understanding of what they think their god wants them to do. This gets hand waved away with excuses like religious leaders claiming to be inspired by god so they have the infallible understanding (eg the pope)
    I'm not sure that all religions have anyone claiming an equivalent to papal infallibility. I mean, do any of the other Christian faiths have any authority claiming this power?

    (Leaving aside that, in any event, papal infallibility only applies to a handful of doctrines. Its not like he's claiming to know next weeks Lotto result.)


  • #999
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    So we can infallibly state that there is no infallibility?

    Nope, even that statement is fallible and must be open to challenge.
    Nemi wrote: »
    I'm not sure that all religions have anyone claiming an equivalent to papal infallibility. I mean, do any of the other Christian faiths have any authority claiming this power?

    Many religions believe that those who wrote their particular religious texts where divine inspired (ie god given temporary infallibility). Religions are very rarely open to new interpretations of their rules (just look at "innovation" in islam, its a sin), and this is based on the assumption that those who came up with thlaws where doing so infallibly under their gods guidance.


  • #1000
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Clear that I have rebutted all your points?

    I've had a good sleep so;

    Point 1. Banning something can increase opposition to something and can have negative results at odds with or opposite to the intended results.
    Point 2. If I want to walk down the street with my face covered I can,
    If you want to see it and I don't want you to, you can't.
    You have rebutted neither of these points.
    Mark Hamill wrote
    but I want the points that you beleive that I have ignored.

    See above.


  • #1001
    borntokill1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭borntokill1


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    It seems that the Belgian parliament has become the first (of hopefully many) the burka, with France to follow we can only hope our own government will now have the nerve to do what's right and follow suit.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8652861.stm

    BURKAS doesnt belong here in Europeicon10.gif


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Nope, even that statement is fallible and must be open to challenge.
    I'm satisfied by the implications of that.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Many religions believe that those who wrote their particular religious texts where divine inspired (ie god given temporary infallibility). Religions are very rarely open to new interpretations of their rules (just look at "innovation" in islam, its a sin), and this is based on the assumption that those who came up with thlaws where doing so infallibly under their gods guidance.
    That's all fair enough - as a general idea, I think we can accept that they might claim an ultimately infallible source. But I'd suspect that the Pope's claim to be right here and now breathing the same air as the rest of us, and to be able (in admittedly limited circumstances) to make infallible statements is not that common. I mean, outside of tiny weirdo cults.

    I should say, this is not a big deal to me particularly. It just strikes me that the Pope's claim is not that common.


  • #1003
    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: »
    I've had a good sleep so;

    Point 1. Banning something can increase opposition to something and can have negative results at odds with or opposite to the intended results.

    This line of thought is moot by itself, as it applies to anything you could ban. You have to show why you are so certain that negative results will occur (negatives that outway the positives).
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Point 2. If I want to walk down the street with my face covered I can,
    If you want to see it and I don't want you to, you can't.

    I thought we established that that was merely a priveledge, not a right? It seems that, at least in France and Belgium, this priviledge is being revoked.
    Also recognise that the ban is not just about making people show their faces in public (although the laws may be written that way). The ban is a line in the sand against the cultutre it represents and the people who support, the same people who burned down embasies and tried to kill a man after drawing Mohammed.


  • #1004
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nemi wrote: »
    That's all fair enough - as a general idea, I think we can accept that they might claim an ultimately infallible source. But I'd suspect that the Pope's claim to be right here and now breathing the same air as the rest of us, and to be able (in admittedly limited circumstances) to make infallible statements is not that common. I mean, outside of tiny weirdo cults.

    I should say, this is not a big deal to me particularly. It just strikes me that the Pope's claim is not that common.

    Is the claim that some long dead author infallibly understood gods message when writing it down, not the same kind of claim as the pope who claims infallible understanding of what god wants him to do?


  • #1005
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This line of thought is moot by itself, as it applies to anything you could ban. You have to show why you are so certain that negative results will occur (negatives that outway the positives).

    Negative results CAN occur.......... There is a very big difference between the words CAN and WILL. I am quite surprised you keep mixing up these words when you are so pedantic about the words others use.

    When you alienate a section of society that group has less respect for the society at large and you leave the way open for fundamentalist ideas to take root. This is a very common occurrence throughout history.

    I am not going to go into great detail on this as I am sure (hope) you have the brains to get the gist.
    The ban is a line in the sand against the cultutre it represents and the people who support, the same people who burned down embasies and tried to kill a man after drawing Mohammed.

    Donald Rumsfeld would be proud of you.
    Islam is the present day "enemy" in the game of "politics of fear" used to control people and erode civil liberties. It's a "game" of power that has been used for centuries and is as real today as when Julius Ceasar wrote the words "Divide et impera" Divide and rule.
    We have nothing to fear from Islam here UNTIL we start to alienate members of that community. Although that said, we (Europe) are so far down the road of conflict, due to the gullible masses on both sides swallowing/gulping down the rhetoric of their leaders, it could be too late.
    I thought we established that that was merely a priveledge, not a right?

    That was a statement of fact.


  • #1006
    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: »
    Negative results CAN occur.......... There is a very big difference between the words CAN and WILL. I am quite surprised you keep mixing up these words when you are so pedantic about the words others use.

    :confused: Honestly, what the hell are you on about? I have repeatedly pointed out to you that can and will are not the same, that anything bad can happen from any good intended action and that you need evidence for anyone to take your fearmongering seriously.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    When you alienate a section of society that group has less respect for the society at large and you leave the way open for fundamentalist ideas to take root. This is a very common occurrence throughout history.

    I am not going to go into great detail on this as I am sure (hope) you have the brains to get the gist.

    And agian, we do it all the time. We alienate the drink driving sections of society by banning drink driving, we alienate the drug taking sections of society by banning drugs, we alienate certain religious sections of society by banning FGM and honour killings. The point is at no stage should we let the fear of fundamentalists reacting stop us from doing whats right, its just not worth it. And we certainly shouldn't let the fact these are peoples religious beliefs stop us from treating them like any other activity that we ban people from doing - religion should get no special treatment.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Donald Rumsfeld would be proud of you.
    Islam is the present day "enemy" in the game of "politics of fear" used to control people and erode civil liberties. It's a "game" of power that has been used for centuries and is as real today as when Julius Ceasar wrote the words "Divide et impera" Divide and rule.
    We have nothing to fear from Islam here UNTIL we start to alienate members of that community. Although that said, we (Europe) are so far down the road of conflict, due to the gullible masses on both sides swallowing/gulping down the rhetoric of their leaders, it could be too late.

    You dont think that this fundamentalist section of islam exists? You dont think like all religions, it drives for its own propagation? You dont recognise the actions of the fundamentalists who burnt down danish embasies in the middle east after those pictures were published a few years ago? These people exist and should be stopped. I dont care what country they are in and what country I am in, as where you are born is a fluke of biology, not some divine destiny. They are hurting people and should be stopped. Its not politics that drives me, its disgust.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    That was a statement of fact.

    Doesnt even begin to actual respond to what I said on a meaningful level. Please try again:
    I thought we established that that was merely a priveledge, not a right? It seems that, at least in France and Belgium, this priviledge is being revoked.
    Also recognise that the ban is not just about making people show their faces in public (although the laws may be written that way). The ban is a line in the sand against the cultutre it represents and the people who support, the same people who burned down embasies and tried to kill a man after drawing Mohammed.


  • #1007
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    :confused: Honestly, what the hell are you on about? I have repeatedly pointed out to you that can and will are not the same, that anything bad can happen from any good intended action and that you need evidence for anyone to take your fearmongering seriously.

    If you know the difference between these words then when I write CAN, do not Claim I am saying WILL as you have done in numerous posts.

    Since anyone with the most basic grasp of history or sociology understands that when legislating it must be taken into account that laws can and do often have results at odds with what is intended, and that in order to legislate properly then this Must be taken into account, then I must accept that you do not have sufficient knowledge to actually understand my point.
    Since I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you the basics of either of these subjects, and because the negative results of one section of society imposing its will on another are well documented elsewhere, this discussion is now over.
    May I suggest a trip to your local library to improve your knowledge of these quite interesting subjects.
    Doesnt even begin to actual respond to what I said on a meaningful level. Please try again:
    I thought we established that that was merely a priveledge, not a right? It seems that, at least in France and Belgium, this priviledge is being revoked.
    Also recognise that the ban is not just about making people show their faces in public (although the laws may be written that way). The ban is a line in the sand against the cultutre it represents and the people who support, the same people who burned down embasies and tried to kill a man after drawing Mohammed.

    Since I never claimed this was a legal right, and the comment was used to counter a point by another poster who claimed that he had "a right to see the face of every citizen" . You are just "running around in circles, chasing your own tail" by commenting on it further.


    A small bit of advice.
    For a person to believe their world view is the correct one and dismissing all others is both childish and naive and is the cause of a hell of a lot of conflict in the world today. It takes all sorts to make up human civilization. ;)


  • #1008
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Is the claim that some long dead author infallibly understood gods message when writing it down, not the same kind of claim as the pope who claims infallible understanding of what god wants him to do?
    Yes, that's precisely what's on my mind. The Pope is claiming to inherit a level of infallibility that, in Islam, is reserved for Mohammed or which in other Christian sects might be reserved for the authors of the Gospels.


  • #1009
    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 you know the difference between these words then when I write CAN, do not Claim I am saying WILL as you have done in numerous posts.

    Since anyone with the most basic grasp of history or sociology understands that when legislating it must be taken into account that laws can and do often have results at odds with what is intended, and that in order to legislate properly then this Must be taken into account, then I must accept that you do not have sufficient knowledge to actually understand my point.

    At this point I'm not sure even you knoiw what you are arguing against. I understand the point you are trying to make, and yes, when you legislate against something, their is the possibility of backlash by those who supported it in the first place. But, even after several times being asked, you have not shown that this possibilty is big enough to warrent consideration, or if it is big enough to warrent consideration, why that should be a reason to not do what we know what is right. Why should we let the fear of fundamnetalist retaliation stop us from doing whats right? Is that not just giving in to them?
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Since I never claimed this was a legal right, and the comment was used to counter a point by another poster who claimed that he had "a right to see the face of every citizen" . You are just "running around in circles, chasing your own tail" by commenting on it further.

    But you then used this line of argument in a post to me as for why we cant ban the burka. Thing is it doesn't hold up. There is no right here, just a generally unchallenged priviledge. However now certain governments are taking away that priviledge. Using the line of arguiment that we used to have this priviledge therefore we should still have it is a non-sequitor, it doesn't hold up.
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    A small bit of advice.
    For a person to believe their world view is the correct one and dismissing all others is both childish and naive and is the cause of a hell of a lot of conflict in the world today. It takes all sorts to make up human civilization. ;)

    A small bit of advise: dont patronise me.
    The cause of a hell of a lot of conflict is people unwilling to subject their worldview to the same rigures and examination that they subject to other peoples world views. Also, as a consequence of most world views being contradictory, it means most must be wrong (or atleast, there are some which are better than others). People have the freedom to devise their world views, and they have the freedom to be wrong.


  • #1010
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The French Senate has approved the ban:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0914/breaking58.html

    I think it needs to be signed into law by Sarkozy, then there's a six-month induction period, and then it's the law.


  • #1011
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Then it goes to the European Court on Human Rights, who's decision is binding.


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,113 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I'm religious and support the ban
    the french are proving themselves to be controversial these days on matters of human rights.


  • #1013
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The psychotic prezzident of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, doesn't like kidnapping very much, but does approve of burkas:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11495177

    ...and the find chaps who've been driving around around Grozny since June shooting paintballs at women who don't make the free choice to wear the burka.

    In flyers which litter the city, these guys claim:
    Some Islamics wrote:
    Today we have sprayed you with paint, but this is only a warning!!! Don't compel us to have recourse to more persuasive measures!
    BTW, Grozny (Грозный​ in Russian) means "terrible" or "violent", as in Ivan the Terrible who's known as Иван Грозный​ in the FSU.

    Anybody interested in how Kadyrov is running Chechnya should read Asne Seierstad's grim The Angel of Grozny.


  • #1014
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I'm religious and support the ban
    It looks like Geert Wilders is getting it banned in The Netherlands....

    I think the European court of human rights will eventually overturn the Dutch and French bans, although it will certainly take a few years.


  • #1015
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The ban comes into force

    Fun to see three of the main news outlets in the UK and Ireland having to use different photos of the same lady!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0411/breaking15.html
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/11/uk-france-veil-ban-idUKTRE7393CF20110411


  • #1016
    Moomoo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Moomoo1


    I'm religious and support the ban
    A sad day.


  • #1017
    Bloody Nipples
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 917 ✭✭✭Bloody Nipples


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Halloween is going to be shít in France this year :(

    It's just prejudice as far as I'm concerned.


  • #1018
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Bloody Nipples wrote: »
    It's just prejudice as far as I'm concerned.
    Have a read back over this thread which goes through some of the arguments for and against -- it's certainly not a simple case of prejudice, though it's easy to mistake it for one.


  • #1019
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Interesting that the police can fine the woman but can not actually make her remove the veil.

    So the people of France, all people - not just Muslims, are now told how they can and can't dress. A sad day indeed.


  • #1020
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    ....more cynical pandering to the right than prejudice, though whether that makes Sarkozy better or worse is a matter of debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    So the people of France, all people - not just Muslims, are now told how they can and can't dress. A sad day indeed.

    I know, I can't walk around naked in public either


Advertisement