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…3435373940…138

Comments

  • #1082
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Nor will the burka ban do anything for these women. You aren't going to convince someone they are being oppressed by oppressing them.

    How else would you do it, indoctrination, especially when its hidden behind religion and fear, is damn hard to break? Cults are illegal , so its not like we dont have precedence oppressing people out of oppressive situations. And who knows, they might actually engage a little more in thinking about what they are doing if they are forced to think about it more.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is the point. They have to escape, and they have to be given support to escape. Again this ban does nothing for these women.

    It is like banning the use of the word "slave" from 18th century America and sitting back congratulating yourselves for freeing the slaves.

    These women end up exactly where they were before. They are in exactly the same abusive oppressive relationships and community they were before. But now the outside world can pretend it ain't happening any more.

    And banning physical assault doesn't actually stop it from occurring in abusive relationships, but you need to start somewhere. Dont get me, nobody should be patting themselves on the back after this as if they have accomplished anything major, it is only a step. But it did need to be made.


  • #1083
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,626 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


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

    For me, my biggest concern would be security. I saw a fully veiled women walk into a shop in Dundrum town centre. Now I am completely certain she did NOT intend on doing anything illegal. But if someone did decide to take advantage and decide to shoplift, CCTV would become useless as you can't see their face.

    Currently if I walked into that same shop with a balaclava on I would be refused entry to the shop and possibly kicked out of the centre. Security Guards have confronted people for wearing their hoodies with the hood up in the shop. They were told to pull down the hood. Everyone should be treated equal.


  • #1084
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    ]If you can prove its for a real event?? It mentions nothing of this in the act. It simply says the law does not apply if the covering is artistic. Simple as.

    The act says that you can wear a mask if its for artistic reasons (which is one of the things I as event, the others being carnival and the like), if you are just wearing it around town, then its not for artistic reasons.


  • #1085
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    IngazZagni wrote: »
    For me, my biggest concern would be security. I saw a fully veiled women walk into a shop in Dundrum town centre. Now I am completely certain she did NOT intend on doing anything illegally. But if someone did decide to take advantage and decide to shoplift, CCTV would become useless as you can't see their face.

    Currently if I walked into that same shop with a balaclava on I would be refused entry to the shop and possibly kicked out of the centre. Security Guards have confronted people for wearing their hoodies with the hood up in the shop. They were told to pull down the hood. Everyone should be treated equal.

    There is an arguement for that. But its not the arguement being put forward for this law.

    Has anyone actually asked the women their opinion. Or have we just decided that their oppressed, have no voice of their own, and therefore it is up to the menfolk to tell them their oppressed. Because thats a little weird


  • #1086
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The act says that you can wear a mask if its for artistic reasons (which is one of the things I as event, the others being carnival and the like), if you are just wearing it around town, then its not for artistic reasons.

    What if youre a human statue. Or whatever the french version of those guys who stand around waving at people dressed as leprechauns.

    What about mimes. They cover their face in makeup about town so why should those annoying shítes get away with it just because the french love mimes


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Which is like banning the word "slave". It simply removes any visible signs of slavery to the outside world, while keeping slavery alive and well.

    Again I really can't see how it is a start to anything?

    You dont see how banning a tool of oppression is a start to getting rid of the oppression?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Can someone run me through the senario they have in their head about how an oppressed Muslim women who has just been told she will be arrested if she wears the veil is more "free" because of this ban?

    I see it as a social thing, that that kind of subjugation wont be tolerated by law will impact on society as a whole and force the people who oppress to start changing what they do (their women will need to be allowed out to shop and pick up the kids, the men wont be able to do everything).

    Can anyone else explain the scenario they have in their head about how an oppressed burka-wearing Muslim woman is more free simply because their are more shelters and social workers?


  • #1088
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,626 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    There is an arguement for that. But its not the arguement being put forward for this law.

    Has anyone actually asked the women their opinion. Or have we just decided that their oppressed, have no voice of their own, and therefore it is up to the menfolk to tell them their oppressed. Because thats a little weird

    I would say that even though it wasn't part of the proposal, it was an external influence that favored the proposal. The more "reasoning" you put behind your proposal the more points that could come up for debate and delay any such advancements. Now you could argue the other way too. Just look at the healthcare debate in the States. Many politicians are stalling legislation based on one paragraph just because they can when in reality they don't oppose that paragraph but rather the overall bill. You may say that this is off topic, but if you think about it I don't think it is.


  • #1089
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Has anyone actually asked the women their opinion. Or have we just decided that their oppressed, have no voice of their own, and therefore it is up to the menfolk to tell them their oppressed. Because thats a little weird

    It never ceases to amaze me that the posters in this forum dont understand what indoctrination does to people. Have you heard of the arguing for the burka? I have and it doesn't make a like of sense (it makes worse the problem it over estimates in the first place). Its indoctrination and trying to defend it with accusations of sexism is nonsense.


  • #1090
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    What if youre a human statue. Or whatever the french version of those guys who stand around waving at people dressed as leprechauns.

    What about mimes. They cover their face in makeup about town so why should those annoying shítes get away with it just because the french love mimes

    I dont actually know what the law interprets face paint as, whether it counts as an actual facial covering or just a type of make up which doesn't count. You would need to ask a french judge. (Although, it would be funny if was covered under the law as well, as then you could outlaw fake tan :D.)


  • #1091
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    it is only a step. But it did need to be made.
    Criminalising these women is not the answer. It's like criminalising a slave for being a slave.

    I don't believe this law has anything to do with oppression though. I believe it's simply an anti-Islam law. Nothing more.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It never ceases to amaze me that the posters in this forum dont understand what indoctrination does to people. Have you heard of the arguing for the burka? I have and it doesn't make a like of sense (it makes worse the problem it over estimates in the first place). Its indoctrination and trying to defend it with accusations of sexism is nonsense.

    Again, are you sure your not assuming indoctrination. rather than religious or cultural identity

    It doesnt make sense to me either, neither does wearing a cricifix or wearing ug boots in the snow. I wouldnt criminalise it though


  • #1093
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Any reasonable freedom can be subverted by fanatics if they convince you to do it or oppress you into do it.
    Yes, it's part of an uberphenomenon called the Red Queen Effect:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

    And simply because fanatics have subverted a freedom to their own ends, doesn't mean that the state shouldn't step in to reassert the freedom.

    BTW, it would be interesting -- regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation -- to try to figure out how many women will be locked up at home to protect their modesty and how many will venture outside either viewing the ban positively or negatively (now and in five years time). Not that it's going to be possible to get a true figure from the people who do make it outside, bearing in mind that the the women who would normally wear the burka are not likely to be allowed either to go outside without a male "chaperone", to speak to an opinion-pollster, or both.


  • #1094
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Again, are you sure your not assuming indoctrination. rather than religious or cultural identity

    It doesnt make sense to me either, neither does wearing a cricifix or wearing ug boots in the snow. I wouldnt criminalise it though

    Many forms of indoctrination are cultural or religious, thats no excuse not to point them out as indoctrination. Not only does the burka make no sense (in terms of what its supposed to prevent) but it aggravates the problem by creating a society were the burka is seen as necessary. It is a tool that in the oppressive cases, reinforces the idea that women are less than men, that its their fault and their problem that men are attracted to them, and in the the supportive cases, reinforces the idea that men are expected to be almost uncontrollably attracted to you regardless of what you actually look like (which contradicts the notion of the burka being a tool for modesty).


  • #1095
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Morbert wrote: »
    That is exactly my point. It is not islamophobic to support the ban, as some Muslims support the ban too.

    Furthermore, even if islamophobes do support the ban, that is entirely incidental, and in no way related to the validity of the ban itself.

    [....but the fact that muslims support the ban doesn't negate the fact that its raison d'etre has nothing to do with the welfare of muslim women, and that it does nothing to address a good deal of the issues its supposed to.
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    So if someone thinks that something is apart of their religion they should be allowed do it?.

    Within reason. A piece of cloth is hardly a life or death matter for the non-believer.
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    Wouldn't be the first case of brainwashed people fighting against those trying to help them. Kind of like battered wives syndrome on a large scale.
    .

    I recall it was about a million women took part in the protests against it. I do believe your failure to address why they might do so in other than a flippant, dismissive manner would be read by many as sexism.
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    Was claiming that Sarkozy only pushed this through for votes not an appeal to emotion?
    .

    No, it was a statement of fact. Much the same reasoning was behind his targeting of the roma.

    So wait
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    , Sarkozy brings in a(...........)who might be swayed, politically, to the other side? .

    Sarkozy has brought in a law which targets a tiny minority of women in order to pander to the right. The small numbers that wear it means it is indeed an insignificant issue with regards to integration or the lack thereof.
    Robindch wrote:
    ........subverted by fanatics so that they can enforce a self-aggrandizing ideology .......

    ...more hysterical assumptions? Dear me.
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    ................ And who knows, they might actually engage a little more in thinking about what they are doing if they are forced to think about it more........

    Of course. Thats why this country turned protestant.

    'Ye know the mass is illegal'
    'Aye...now I haven't been, I'm beginnin to doubt the whole transubstantiation business....'
    'God bless the Brits...'


  • #1096
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,626 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Again, are you sure your not assuming indoctrination. rather than religious or cultural identity

    It doesnt make sense to me either, neither does wearing a cricifix or wearing ug boots in the snow. I wouldnt criminalise it though

    These are completely different things. Covering ones face hides your identity and that's the issue on hand. Wearing a crucifix or waring ugg boots is neither here nor there.


  • #1097
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Criminalising these women is not the answer. It's like criminalising a slave for being a slave.

    No its criminalising the idea of slavery and punishing all those who support it, regardless of whether they are slave or owner.


  • #1098
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Criminalising these women is not the answer. It's like criminalising a slave for being a slave.

    I don't believe this law has anything to do with oppression though. I believe it's simply an anti-Islam law. Nothing more.

    Well firstly, something being cultural or religious does mean we are obliged to tolerate it, so "anti-" doesn't imply bad or inappropriate. Secondly, even *if* the law is backed by mindless islamophobes, that is incidental, and in no way impacts on the validity of a ban.

    I agree that the woman should not be criminalised. It should, of course, be the household. And nobody is claiming it is the answer. Merely part of the answer. It is a statement that the disempowerment of women, while the norm is some cultures, will not be tolerated here. If it could be coupled to a vigorous anti-ghettoisation campaign then it would be great.


  • #1099
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    I believe it's simply an anti-Islam law.
    You believe wrongly.

    While people have a right to believe whatever they want to, they do not have a follow-on right to enact their beliefs, particularly when this enacting directly impinges upon the free rights of others.

    This act outlaws the enacting of certain fundamentalist interpretations of certain religious beliefs.

    It's no more "anti-islam" than is anti-terrorist legislation aimed at discouraging or preventing suicide bombers who are motivated by their own similarly fundamentalist and anti-social interpretations.


  • #1100
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Many forms of indoctrination are cultural or religious, thats no excuse not to point them out as indoctrination. Not only does the burka make no sense (in terms of what its supposed to prevent) but it aggravates the problem by creating a society were the burka is seen as necessary. It is a tool that in the oppressive cases, reinforces the idea that women are less than men, that its their fault and their problem that men are attracted to them, and in the the supportive cases, reinforces the idea that men are expected to be almost uncontrollably attracted to you regardless of what you actually look like (which contradicts the notion of the burka being a tool for modesty).

    Yeah but Mark I dont know what your basing this idea that theyre indoctrinated on. Its clear in France that the muslim community dont see it as neccessary in the fact that 2000 out of millions wear the thing, and nobody has asked them their opinion?

    I am 100% in favour of gender equality, id even call myself a feminist, but I draw the line at telling women what to wear for their own good


  • #1101
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Morbert wrote: »
    If it could be coupled to a vigorous anti-ghettoisation campaign then it would be great.
    And education and opportunity too.

    +1.


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    While people have a right to believe whatever they want to, they do not have a follow-on right to enact their beliefs, particularly when this enacting directly impinges upon the free rights of others.
    Is that not exactly what the French government are doing?


  • #1103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    I draw the line at telling women what to wear for their own good
    But you support men who tell women what to wear "for their own good"?


  • #1104
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Scotty # wrote: »
    Is that not exactly what the French government are doing?
    No.


  • #1105
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    IngazZagni wrote: »
    These are completely different things. Covering ones face hides your identity and that's the issue on hand. Wearing a crucifix or waring ugg boots is neither here nor there.

    Hiding your identity is not the reason behind this ban in fairness


  • #1106
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    But you support men who tell women what to wear "for their own good"?

    No im not supporting you or the men who came up with this law.

    If someone can show me anybody asking the women who wears the burka their opinion I'd be glad to support it


  • #1107
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No its criminalising the idea of slavery and punishing all those who support it, regardless of whether they are slave or owner.

    ..which presupposes the existence of both in all circumstances.
    Robindch wrote:
    But you support men who tell women what to wear "for their own good"? .

    ...and again, presuming that there is a direct oppressor at work.


  • #1108
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Within reason. A piece of cloth is hardly a life or death matter for the non-believer.

    It is not just a piece of cloth, just like a set of shackles is not just a piece of metal.
    Nodin wrote: »
    I recall it was about a million women took part in the protests against it. I do believe your failure to address why they might do so in other than a flippant, dismissive manner would be read by many as sexism.

    Why? Did I say that men cant be brainwashed?
    Also, didn't you try to call Robin out on a call to emotion before? And here you try to straw man me so that you could the same, for shame.
    Nodin wrote: »
    No, it was a statement of fact. Much the same reasoning was behind his targeting of the roma.

    Do you have proof of this fact?
    Nodin wrote: »
    So wait

    Sarkozy has brought in a law which targets a tiny minority of women in order to pander to the right. The small numbers that wear it means it is indeed an insignificant issue with regards to integration or the lack thereof.

    You said he lost votes to the right by bringing in this law. Are you now saying the opposite? That he won votes because of it?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course. Thats why this country turned protestant.

    'Ye know the mass is illegal'
    'Aye...now I haven't been, I'm beginnin to doubt the whole transubstantiation business....'
    'God bless the Brits...'

    What is the alternative then?


  • #1109
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Yeah but Mark I dont know what your basing this idea that theyre indoctrinated on.

    Did you not even read my post? Its explained clearly why i think the burka is indoctrination, I explain why I dont think it does what its supposed to do, go back and read the post.
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Its clear in France that the muslim community dont see it as neccessary in the fact that 2000 out of millions wear the thing, and nobody has asked them their opinion?

    Did you? Because I've heard plenty of reasoning and I covered it in my last post to you. Unless you hear of something new, I dont see how I'm wrong.


  • #1110
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No its criminalising the idea of slavery and punishing all those who support it, regardless of whether they are slave or owner.
    |Err NO, it isn't. Criminalising the oppressed does not criminalise the oppressor.

    There is an article in the act which gives a €30,000 fine to anyone who forces a woman to wear the veil. Why not just have this if it's about oppression??? and let the women who want to wear it wear it (yes, there are some!).


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    ..which presupposes the existence of both in all circumstances.

    :confused: And if it does... so what?
    Besides, I would see it as allowing for the existence of both in all circumstances.


Advertisement