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…3536384041…138

Comments

  • #1112
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.


    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.

    Yes of course I read your post. I just dont think it explains why its indocrination. They're your opinion on the burkha, thats fine, no problem with that. I would just like to hear from people who are actually affected by the ban, but nobody has asked them.


  • #1113
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    presuming that there is a direct oppressor at work.
    Are you saying that fundamentalist religious beliefs are not oppressive and do not encourage oppression? :confused:


  • #1114
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It is not just a piece of cloth, just like a set of shackles is not just a piece of metal.

    Rhetoric, great man.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why? Did I say that men cant be brainwashed?

    Your failure to do so really has no impact one way or the other on your simplistic dismissal.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Also, didn't you try to call Robin out on a call to emotion before?

    I did because it was one, it wasn't a "try".
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And here you try to straw man me so that you could the same, for shame.

    Your failure to address the deeper issues behind the human behaviour exhibited are to blame. I'd suggest putting a bit more thought into your analysis, particularily when considering the eventual consequences of the attempt at forced 'westernisation'.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you have proof of this fact?


    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/nicolas-sarkozy-to-target-muslim-prayers/story-e6frg6so-1225973565402

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/marine-le-pen-nicolas-sarkozy

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_20090627/ai_n32127125/
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-25446991.html

    etc and so on.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?

    I never said he lost votes to the right because of this, I said he brough this in as he was losing votes to right.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What is the alternative then?

    ...exactly what happened here. Let time and liberal societies influence wear it down. Seeing as theres such a small number, its hardly an urgent rush.


  • #1115
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Are you saying that fundamentalist religious beliefs are not oppressive and do not encourage oppression? :confused:

    You are even here presuming that this is a fundamentalist religous belief and not a cultural practice, and yes, there is a very marked difference. While one may be a new practice with little support in society, the other is unquestioned and there since time immemorial.

    Secondly, to hysterically shout 'fundamentalist religous oppression' at every opportunity only alienates the people that need convincing to not want to wear the veil.


  • #1116
    Moomoo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Moomoo1


    I'm religious and support the ban
    how long before all muslims in europe would have to wear a yellow crescent sown on their clothes?


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    GO_Bear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GO_Bear


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

    Albeit hypocritical taking away the choice, but how else can we contend with eternal damnation


  • #1118
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    how long before all muslims in europe would have to wear a yellow crescent sown on their clothes?
    Godwinned -- the pro-ban side wins by default!


  • #1119
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    how long before all muslims in europe would have to wear a yellow crescent sown on their clothes?


    .....we were doing so well.....


  • #1120
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    You are even here presuming that this is a fundamentalist religous belief and not a cultural practice, and yes, there is a very marked difference. While one may be a new practice with little support in society, the other is unquestioned and there since time immemorial.
    Oppression is oppression whether it's carried out for "cultural" reasons or religious reasons.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Secondly, to hysterically shout 'fundamentalist religous oppression' at every opportunity only alienates the people that need convincing to not want to wear the veil.
    Since it's oppression which is generally carried out by religious fundamentalists, I think it's appropriate to refer to it in those terms, regardless of who might get offended. Anything less is failing to call a spade a spade.


  • #1121
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How else would you do it, indoctrination, especially when its hidden behind religion and fear, is damn hard to break?

    How else you might do it is irrelevant to the issue that you won't do it this way. So one of the justifications for this ban is lost.
    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.

    If the only problem was these women simply hadn't thought about it more this wouldn't be an issue. The world is full of people doing stupid things simply because they haven't thought about it. You don't ban these things.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And banning physical assault doesn't actually stop it from occurring in abusive relationships, but you need to start somewhere.

    This isn't banning physical assault. This is banning women showing the bruises their husband gave them last night in public and fining them if they do because we find it upsetting to know this happens.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    Why?

    What does this do to free a single Muslim women from an oppressive relationship or oppressive community?


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    What does this do to free a single Muslim women from an oppressive relationship or oppressive community?
    Not much, since this legislation is aimed at oppressive clothing :rolleyes:


  • #1123
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    No.

    Do you believe that women have a right to cover their faces in public?

    If you do then this cannot be anything other than the removal of that right under the pretext that some women are being force to do this.


  • #1124
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    Not much, since this legislation is aimed at oppressive clothing :rolleyes:

    There is no such thing as oppressive clothing. There is clothing you are made wear because you are being oppressed. And this can look exactly like the cloths everyone else wears. A girl I knew in college wore what her boyfriend picked out for her, and unsurprisingly a few years later they divorced with rumours he was abusive. Would banning denim jeans have helped this women?

    Not a single Muslim women in an abusive relationship before this ban will be removed from the that abusive relationship after the ban.

    The only thing that will increase is the amount of people telling her what she should wear "For her own good".

    Think of the message this sends Muslim women, a message the far Right supporters of this ban are not ignorant of. It is a message of oppression, you are not to do what the Muslim culture tells you to do, you are to do what we tell you to do. We are your new masters.


  • #1125
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not a single Muslim women in an abusive relationship before this ban will be removed from the that abusive relationship after the ban.
    In addition to the abusive relationships that you seem exclusively concerned with, there may also be (a) men who may wish to be able to allow their wives + daughters out in public, but can't owing to social pressure (b) men + women who might genuinely think that being wrapped in a sack is somehow good for them; (c) other categories which I'm too short of time to include here.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is a message of oppression, you are not to do what the Muslim culture tells you to do, you are to do what we tell you to do. We are your new masters.
    Good heavens! Have you suddenly become a libertarian?

    Out of interest, if, say, the FLDS opened up in Dublin and enforced its own strict clothing regime, forced polygamy, forced mass-breeding etc, you'd be quite unhappy to have the state go in and do something about it?


  • #1126
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Oppression is oppression whether it's carried out for "cultural" reasons or religious reasons. Since it's oppression which is generally carried out by religious fundamentalists, I think it's appropriate to refer to it in those terms, regardless of who might get offended. Anything less is failing to call a spade a spade.


    ...yet that description lays out an unrealistic black and white scenario which does not in fact exist, and most certainly will not figure in the thinking of religous women who feel obligated to wear the burka, for any number of reasons.
    robindch wrote: »
    Out of interest, if, say, the FLDS opened up in Dublin and enforced its own strict clothing regime, forced polygamy, forced mass-breeding etc, you'd be quite unhappy to have the state go in and do something about it?

    ...you left out forced penis removal, which is suprising.


  • #1127
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Given the investigative work already done by folks on this thread, it seems women who want to cover their heads for modesty/religious/cultural reasons, still have many options in France - the only question that remains is whether they'll be allowed to wear a full face veil *under* their fencing mask, welding mask or motorcycle helmet.


  • #1128
    Rachiee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 880 ✭✭✭Rachiee


    I'm religious and support the ban
    While there is an argument that the hijab can be used by men to control and demean women, at the end of the day the law banning the wearing in public is not going to do anything to help those women, they can claim it all they like but realistically the law is introduced because of fear and racism


  • #1129
    Moomoo1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭Moomoo1


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Godwinned -- the pro-ban side wins by default!

    in this case it's a relevant analogy

    But ok, if you want to remove a powerful argument against you from the discussion, fine. Let's take the armenian genocide instead: as an Armenian I know the story too well - for centuries the turks were just content with oppressing Christianity in various forms.

    then they killed large numbers of us.

    I'd rather not take the chance of history repeating itself. These things can spiral out of control real fast.


  • #1130
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    Rhetoric, great man.

    Can you even see your own hypocrisy? I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, because you will just use calls to emotion and empty rhetoric to strawman me try and accuse me of doing the same. Go troll somewhere else.


  • #1131
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    sensibleken wrote: »
    Yes of course I read your post. I just dont think it explains why its indocrination. They're your opinion on the burkha, thats fine, no problem with that. I would just like to hear from people who are actually affected by the ban, but nobody has asked them.

    Wait now, so you have never actually seen the reasons why people say the burka is necessary, and yet you think you are qualified to tell me I'm wrong in my assessment of it? Go and read some of the reasoning and then come and tell me how I'm wrong, dont tell me I'm wrong from a point of complete ignorance.


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Wicknight wrote: »
    How else you might do it is irrelevant to the issue that you won't do it this way. So one of the justifications for this ban is lost.

    Doing something is better than nothing. The ban is a bit of a brute force and ignorance approach to the problem, but not doing anything is only going to allow things to get worse.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If the only problem was these women simply hadn't thought about it more this wouldn't be an issue. The world is full of people doing stupid things simply because they haven't thought about it. You don't ban these things.

    Pyramid schemes are banned. Speeding is banned. If we deem something as being sufficiently damaging to people or society we ban peoples freedom to do them to protect everyone.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This isn't banning physical assault. This is banning women showing the bruises their husband gave them last night in public and fining them if they do because we find it upsetting to know this happens.

    No its not. If a woman is forced to wear the burka, she can go to the police and tell them, she wouldn't get fined if she said she was forced. If she is indoctrinated, then fining her (a tiny amount compared to what a male opprsor would get) will at least get her to stop hurting herself even if she still wants to.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why?

    What does this do to free a single Muslim women from an oppressive relationship or oppressive community?

    It makes a particular tool of oppression illegal, like I said its a first step not the final or full solution.


  • #1133
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Wait now, so you have never actually seen the reasons why people say the burka is necessary, and yet you think you are qualified to tell me I'm wrong in my assessment of it? Go and read some of the reasoning and then come and tell me how I'm wrong, dont tell me I'm wrong from a point of complete ignorance.

    Stop being so touchy. I never said you were wrong or anything else

    Its quite impossible to have a civilised conversation with you without you over reacting.

    Just grabbing one quote, from a woman I might add

    "This law infringes my European rights, I cannot but defend them, that is to say my freedom to come and go and my religious freedom,"


  • #1134
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Rachiee wrote: »
    While there is an argument that the hijab can be used by men to control and demean women,
    That isn't just "an argument", it's the main reason why this ban is being introduced.

    BTW, the law bans the burka which covers a woman's face completely. The hijab is basically just a headscarf and the law doesn't mention it.
    Rachiee wrote: »
    at the end of the day the law banning the wearing in public is not going to do anything to help those women,
    Quite false. The law outlaws the thing which men use to signals the successful subjugation of a woman. As such, women can no longer be marked in public as lesser citizens.

    There's also the political reason which I mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread and which the BBC's Gavin Hewitt restated succinctly yesterday:
    Gavin Hewitt, BBC wrote:
    This law is about putting down a marker. As I have written before, many European leaders now believe that multiculturalism can lead to parallel, segregated communities. A new emphasis is being placed on minority communities integrating into the society they join, rather than just living as they did before. So Western societies are becoming more assertive about the values they uphold and the ones they expect others to respect.

    Jean-Francois Cope, the French MP who has taken a lead over the burka ban, argues that seeing someone's face is key to human beings understanding each other. He sees the law as a step against separation.
    Rachiee wrote: »
    they can claim it all they like but realistically the law is introduced because of fear and racism
    Racism? You do realise that lots of islamic believers have skin which is the same color as us Europeans, don't you?


  • #1135
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    in this case it's a relevant analogy
    It's a ridiculous analogy, and a very poorly-chosen one.

    If you think that it's a relevant one, then you're going to have to explain why using the burka to mark out in the first place is not equivalent to using yellow stars to mark out jews.
    Moomoo1 wrote: »
    Let's take the armenian genocide instead: as an Armenian I know the story too well - for centuries the turks were just content with oppressing Christianity in various forms. then they killed large numbers of us. I'd rather not take the chance of history repeating itself. These things can spiral out of control real fast.
    Are you genuinely suggesting that the French -- by banning exactly the kind of oppressive marker that you seem to object to -- have taken the first steps to murdering islamic believers in large numbers? :confused:


  • #1136
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Are you genuinely suggesting that the French -- by banning exactly the kind of oppressive marker that you seem to object to -- have taken the first steps to murdering islamic believers in large numbers? :confused:
    I think he's suggesting that a country making laws that specifically target one community, ethnicity, race, tribe, religion, is a bad thing. I agree.


  • #1137
    Scotty #
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    That isn't just "an argument", it's the main reason why this ban is being introduced.
    Oppression has nothing to do with it. The ban is about "protecting French values" according to Sarkozy.
    robindch wrote: »
    BTW, the law bans the burka which covers a woman's face completely. The hijab is basically just a headscarf and the law doesn't mention it.
    Neither are mentioned in the law. The law bans anything that covers the face. Unless... it's in the context of sport, health, safety, art, or carnival. Note religion and tradition are excluded.
    robindch wrote: »
    Racism? You do realise that lots of islamic believers have skin which is the same color as us Europeans, don't you?
    Racism is not always about skin colour.
    robindch wrote: »
    It's a ridiculous analogy, and a very poorly-chosen one.
    It's not really. Not if you believe the ban is nothing more than an anti-muslim law as many of us here do.

    I think if Sarkozy had his way he'd round up the ghettos (most of which are Muslim) and ship them all off somewhere. Maybe that's what would have happened years ago.


  • #1138
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    That isn't just "an argument", it's the main reason why this ban is being introduced.

    BTW, the law bans the burka which covers a woman's face completely. The hijab is basically just a headscarf and the law doesn't mention it.Quite false. The law outlaws the thing which men use to signals the successful subjugation of a woman. As such, women can no longer be marked in public as lesser citizens.

    ....that it is contended that men use to signal the successul subjugation of a woman.
    robindch wrote: »
    There's also the political reason which I mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread and which the BBC's Gavin Hewitt restated succinctly yesterday/............................

    As regards Mr Hewitts comments - they don't do "multiculturalism" in France. Never have. This, however, moves from banning distinction by the state to banning the individual expression of difference. Nor do I accept, as explained earlier, any macro explanation out of this, save Sarkozys electoral plight.
    robindch wrote: »
    :Racism? You do realise that lots of islamic believers have skin which is the same color as us Europeans, don't you?

    ....but do many supporters of this ban in France, I wonder?


  • #1139
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Is it sign of freedom or an act of tyranny. Supporter of freedom are infact supporter of tyranny. Hijab is right of muslim women and this right is being violated by those who are saviors of rights? What an irony? As long as men believe in tyranny they will practice tyranny on earth. Nothing can be more absurd than the idea that of supporting tyranny and supporter of tyranny are more than supporter of freedom?

    Is freedom = tyranny?


  • #1140
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Doing something is better than nothing.

    No it isn't, not when the thing you are doing enshrines in law the exact opposite principle of the one you are trying to invoke.

    Lets not kid ourselves here, this law makes it illegal for a women to practice something that should be a normal right.

    The argument that we are doing it for their own good does not negate that fact.

    The argument then just becomes what is the difference between the French government restricting women's freedoms for their own good, and the Muslim men restricting their freedoms for their own good.

    What the argument should actually be is Hey Muslim women, look at the freedoms you have to decide yourself what you want to do.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The ban is a bit of a brute force and ignorance approach to the problem, but not doing anything is only going to allow things to get worse.
    This doesn't make anything better for oppressed women, nor is that the point of this law. The point of this law is to make a point to Muslim immigrants that visual displays of Islam are not welcome in France.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Pyramid schemes are banned. Speeding is banned. If we deem something as being sufficiently damaging to people or society we ban peoples freedom to do them to protect everyone.

    Covering your face is not damaging.

    The damage is causes by male oppression of Muslim women, and shockingly simply telling women what to do doesn't help that problem.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No its not. If a woman is forced to wear the burka, she can go to the police and tell them, she wouldn't get fined if she said she was forced.

    If she can go to the police and say she is being forced to wear the burka in the first place then this law isn't needed. Forcing someone to do anything is illegal.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If she is indoctrinated, then fining her (a tiny amount compared to what a male opprsor would get) will at least get her to stop hurting herself even if she still wants to.

    Wearing a burka does not physically hurt her, and being forced to not wear the burka does nothing for the indoctrination she feels or the fear she feels due to the pressure in the Muslim community.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It makes a particular tool of oppression illegal, like I said its a first step not the final or full solution.

    That is ridiculously naive. The burka is not a tool of oppression. If a woman is forced to wear a burka the tools the husband uses are manipulation, intimidation and threat of mental or physical violence. None of which goes away because she isn't wearing the burka any more.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Anyone else get a slight quiver of unpleasantness running through them when they saw that dead one was in agreement with them?


Advertisement