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…6263656768…138

Comments

  • #1922
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Did we lose a tolerant free society by banning FGM?

    So if it was in favour, then it would be an issue for you? We can only ban things people dont want anyway?
    The thought of FGM disgusts me, and as in my previous, I don't really know if it might compromise my secularism. As for what I'm bringing in to the discussion, it is, after all, only my sentiments. The law isn't going to be changed according to what I say were it put to a vote. By looking at the poll here, it suggests things would go a different way. As does the poll that I think I posted here shows.

    A law should prevent a harm. The harm of a person reading a ancient book and thinking it means something is not a law that needs to be made. A law protecting people from coercive elements, familial or societal I think already has a framework. There already is a means for addressing these things.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The only equivalence I am claiming is that there are people who want to do X, but that didn't stop us from banning X. I'm showing that people wanting to do something hasn't stopped us from justifiably banning it , therefore people wanting the burka shouldn't, in of itself, make a difference to whether we should ban it.
    If all you have is a hammer, soon problems seem to look like nails.
    You think the burka doesn't inherently have misogynistic contradictions? Can you explain what you understand as the justifiable reasons for the burka?
    Again you bring up this type of reasoning. Does it have to have a justification we can explain? Again, ash on the forehead on ash wednesday or any other religious practice... No religious practice is really "justifiable" and it doesn't really have a bearing on the discussion.
    There is an equivalence in that they are analogous. Physical abuse is very analogous to mental abuse.
    So, your concern is the actions of people, familial, societal, et cetera, rather than the book?


  • #1923
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    And there we have it at last.

    Anyone who makes a choice you differ with is "brainwashed". If you don't know they've made a choice, you presume they were coerced.

    So she isn't brainwashed? She is just stupid?
    There are different types of brainwashing that can lead to theism. If I remember correctly, the woman believes that morality exists as an actual objective entity, not just a concept. Sounds like a severe suspending of critical faculties to me.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Does this only apply to women?

    :confused: Can only women be brainwashed? Of course not, I've said as much, several times before. You can't keep giving me specific examples of women and then complain I'm being sexist.

    Does the lack of response to the rest of my post means you agree with it then?


  • #1924
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So she isn't brainwashed? She is just stupid?
    There are different types of brainwashing that can lead to theism. If I remember correctly, the woman believes that morality exists as an actual objective entity, not just a concept. Sounds like a severe suspending of critical faculties to me.

    ....because she reached a different conclusion than you. Once more I fail to see the point in disdaining holy writ if we're to replace with this kind of nonsense.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    :confused: Can only women be brainwashed? Of course not, I've said as much, several times before. You can't keep giving me specific examples of women and then complain I'm being sexist.

    Does the lack of response to the rest of my post means you agree with it then?


    No, it does not. It means that I'm straining to deal with horrific authoritarian arrogance and remain within the forums charter.


  • #1925
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Before I respond, I think it is worth taking a time out for considering how many muslims are there in Ireland...

    The numbers are largely irrelevant. Why should we wait until a larger amount of people are hurt by this before intervening?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    What we do know is that we have a society in which the freedom to wear or not wear is permitted

    And that freedom is being usurped by an ideology that indoctrinates women that they dont have that freedom.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Tell that to women such as these

    I've discussed that viewpoint in a thread on the Islamic forum. In short, it doesn't make sense to say the burka is empowering seeing as its purpose is to remove the power the womans body seemingly has on men. It reduces the wearers personality, character and contribution to society to something that can't possibly not be overshadowed by her physical appearance. It reduces women to their physical appearance, covering it up to the point of emphasising it.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I don't feel the person who has an interpretation of their holy books needs to be protected from themselves.

    That interpretation isn't just a position on themselves, its on women in general. You aren't just protecting them.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Doesn't mean we need to hasten things along with a blunt instrument.

    Should we not try to hasten it though?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    As for the question: Well, if you wish to say a person who decides for themselves forces it on themselves, then that is your right to do.

    Is there anyone who decides this for themselves though? Has anyone ever decided to wear the burka before converting to Islam?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    This is true, but it isn't informative in the actual context of the burqa discussion for me.

    It debunks the argument "these people want the burka, therefore we cant tell them they cant have it". I have actually said that I dont really care about whether or not people want the burka (I've only been discussing this aspect because its the only thing I could a response from people on the other side of the argument), it is (imo) damaging to society and that is why society should step in and stop it.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    What brainwashing are you concerned with? Is it the type that is done on the basis of an individuals interpretation of their holy book?

    You really think that the burka is an individual's interpretation of the quran? Burka wearers all read the quran individually, decide on the burka individually all without conversation with any common religious adviser?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    If so, again, you may as well be advocating for banning all religion. If the harm is the brainwashing, then say you wish to ban all religion. If a woman is wearing the burqa and is doing so on the strength of that, what you or I say of the matter is irrelevant.

    The harm is what the brainwashing makes people believe. Yes all religion involves brainwashing, but it would not be practical to ban all of it, some is better off combated with education. However we can ban the worse stuff, like FGM or honour killings, because they hurt people too much in the mean time.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I reiterate, my concern isn't what an individual presumes their holy book says but in what people enforce on unwilling people. Persons coercing another in to wearing the burqa or any other form of abuse is what I'd be concerned with.

    Get people young enough or gullible enough and you can make them willing.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I wouldn't look at it from areas where it isn't bad. I'd be concerned with looking for places where it is bad. The default is places that are good, and the bad places are ones where there might be a security concern as a for instance.

    You really believe that the default is that the burka is good and that you need to be convinced that its bad? So do you believe that all women should, in some situations, wear the burka?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    A dictatorship only has to have the say-so of the dictator. I guess maybe tyranny of the majority would seem to be more accurate if we were to look at the poll results.

    But its still how every law is made.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You already made the point that it is something that will be found in muslims, and no one else. We know it is down to an interpretation of their holy books that makes people wear the burqa. Did this need be asked?

    But its a cultural interpretation of the quran, hence so few muslims wear it (outside a few countries where all are made wear it).
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I don't know if one is being entirely consistent by doing so, that is for anyone who ponders the question to decide for themselves. We are after all, people, and we think about these issues, and don't necessarily fit in to neat little boxes of what particular words might mean in terms of politics or any other sphere.

    So you are saying that you cant be secularist if you are anti-FGM :eek: That is nuts.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I would say FGM is a very different case as there is no choice in the matter on behalf of the unlucky female in question. I could also point out that it isn't something that has favour in Islam. I could point out that, while obviously not as bad as FGM we don't seem to be making much of a deal of male circumcision.

    There is no choice on behalf of the unlucky children indoctrinated from birth that they have to wear the burka. FGM has favour in certain regions in Islam, just like the burka does (not necessarily the same regions, but both are cultural traditions that have been amalgamated into religious practise). The difference between FGM and male circumcision is the extent of what is removed and the effect it usually has on sexual activities later in life. That said, I am against (religious required) male circumcision as much as FGM.


  • #1926
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    The thought of FGM disgusts me,

    So you agree with banning FGM just because you dont like it?
    Sound familiar?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    A law should prevent a harm. The harm of a person reading a ancient book and thinking it means something is not a law that needs to be made.

    No-one is saying these people can't believe what they like (I don't even know how such a law could be workable). The point is to stop them acting according to the belief because it brings unjustifiable harm.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    If all you have is a hammer, soon problems seem to look like nails.

    :confused: Eh nice sound-bite and all, but not really relevant to the point I made.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Again you bring up this type of reasoning. Does it have to have a justification we can explain?

    Yes, if you claim it does. Look I am not saying everything has to have justifiable reasons for people to be allowed do them (I do understand the point made by about things being irrational and we dont ban them). But I am arguing that the burka brings a level of harm with it that requires us to act against it. And I am arguing that this is based on its irrationality and lack of justification. Now plenty of people have argued that there is/could be justifiable reasons for the burka. But in order for me to take that on board, you need to give examples.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    So, your concern is the actions of people, familial, societal, et cetera, rather than the book?

    Yes. What book?


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I think the burqua ban has been enforced for practical reasons such as well,someone could easily dress up in a full burqua and be hiding pretty much anything beneath it,also its for idenitifcation of said or alleged person,for all we know it could be a guy wielding a knife under there or a gun or a grenade..

    People have to be pracitcal and if it is banned in that capacity i see no problem with it,if the woman still wants to wear an islamic scarf across her shoulder then she still can as long as it doesnt cover the entire face and eyes and body,as you could be concealing your identity and your intentions..

    Although i think a lot of politicians have been pushing for the ban to save face,and thats not right..it doesnt deal with the actual problems


  • #1928
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    ....because she reached a different conclusion than you. Once more I fail to see the point in disdaining holy writ if we're to replace with this kind of nonsense.

    Saying she reached a different conclusion to me is pretty moot, its obvious by virtue of having a different opinion to me. Nothing about her reaching a conclusion means she did so free of some sort of brainwashing or severe lack of critical reasoning. Do you agree with this womans conclusions?
    Nodin wrote: »
    No, it does not. It means that I'm straining to deal with horrific authoritarian arrogance and remain within the forums charter.

    Ah great, back to the ad hominems :rolleyes:


  • #1929
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Saying she reached a different conclusion to me is pretty moot, its obvious by virtue of having a different opinion to me. Nothing about her reaching a conclusion means she did so free of some sort of brainwashing or severe lack of critical reasoning. Do you agree with this womans conclusions?


    No. However not having supplanted myself into the position previously believed to have been held by God, I don't feel the need to denigrate her choice or intelligence.

    Who brainwashed you?


  • #1930
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    No. However not having supplanted myself into the position previously believed to have been held by God, I don't feel the need to denigrate her choice or intelligence.

    Still with the ad hominems? Or do you really think that no one anywhere can ever have an opinion on someone else's opinion. Do you have no opinion whatsoever on her opinion? You are either atheist or theist, so you have to think she is either right or wrong, so which is it?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Who brainwashed you?

    No one.


  • #1931
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That interpretation isn't just a position on themselves, its on women in general. You aren't just protecting them.
    Is your point here coercive elements in the form of people forcing the burqa? I'd rather see that issue addressed in another way. It is the coercion of religious people, forcing religious practices on others that we ought to be focused on. Not an individuals private belief. I think we are at an impasse on the point, and we aren't going to convince the other.
    Should we not try to hasten it though?
    Another impasse, you say yes, I say no.
    Is there anyone who decides this for themselves though? Has anyone ever decided to wear the burka before converting to Islam?
    I don't know. It is irrelevant though. Private religious belief isn't something that I deem worthy of trying to stamp out. Coerced, mandated by people of faith on people of faith or no faith is my concern. The distinction is an important one.

    Imagine for a moment a coercive family environment where an individual is being forced to wear the burqa against their will. Do you suppose it likely that this is the only coercion this person is under? I would rather this be the reason for intervention, the against a persons will. If there is an abusive environment, removing the burqa doesn't make it a better enviornment. In fact, it can be an extra warning for authorities, I'd hope ideally. It can be another flag if a person is being forced against their will to wear it.
    You really think that the burka is an individual's interpretation of the quran? Burka wearers all read the quran individually, decide on the burka individually all without conversation with any common religious adviser?
    I think enough would to render the "ban it" idea unpalatable.
    You really believe that the default is that the burka is good and that you need to be convinced that its bad? So do you believe that all women should, in some situations, wear the burka?
    According to their wishes, it wouldn't be my place to tell them otherwise. It isn't my place to tell people what to to as a general statement, really. And that is the important point. It isn't important what we think or believe of the fabric, but what we think we have the right to tell others.
    But its a cultural interpretation of the quran, hence so few muslims wear it (outside a few countries where all are made wear it).
    You are sort of arguing against yourself here. If the brainwashing campaign were effective, you'd suppose it'd be a very commonplace thing.
    So you are saying that you cant be secularist if you are anti-FGM :eek: That is nuts.
    No, I would consider myself a secularist, but being that I'm anti-FGM I was readying myself for accusations of being a hypocrite for taking one stance on one thing, and one on another. Figured the conversation would end up going another way based on what I said. I guess because I wanted to stop that accusation, it was going to go this way.


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you agree with banning FGM just because you dont like it?
    Sound familiar?
    Yes, there it is. Was expecting that. A horrible practice that is, by design not done with consent as it is done on one incapable of providing it. You think this is a good analogy for the burqa. It really isn't, and it is slightly worrying you'd think it was.
    christmas2012 wrote: »
    I think the burqua ban has been enforced for practical reasons such as well,someone could easily dress up in a full burqua and be hiding pretty much anything beneath it,also its for idenitifcation of said or alleged person,for all we know it could be a guy wielding a knife under there or a gun or a grenade..
    At banks, or for other security checks, the burqa can easily be removed. The security issue isn't really hard to address.
    People have to be pracitcal and if it is banned in that capacity i see no problem with it,if the woman still wants to wear an islamic scarf across her shoulder then she still can as long as it doesnt cover the entire face and eyes and body,as you could be concealing your identity and your intentions..
    One doesn't need any face covering to hide their intentions. Not really a compelling point for banning people from wearing something according to their convictions.
    Although i think a lot of politicians have been pushing for the ban to save face,and thats not right..it doesnt deal with the actual problems
    There certainly is growing popularity for it. Look at this poll, for instance.


  • #1933
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Still with the ad hominems? Or do you really think that no one anywhere can ever have an opinion on someone else's opinion. Do you have no opinion whatsoever on her opinion? You are either atheist or theist, so you have to think she is either right or wrong, so which is it?.


    I gave my opinion above. I managed to do so without bringing in the two choices you seem limited to.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No one.

    ....but everybody who makes a choice you disagree with seems to be.

    Why is that?


  • #1934
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Is your point here coercive elements in the form of people forcing the burqa? I'd rather see that issue addressed in another way. It is the coercion of religious people, forcing religious practices on others that we ought to be focused on. Not an individuals private belief. I think we are at an impasse on the point, and we aren't going to convince the other.

    My point is that the burka is not just a personal opinion on someones own appearance, its an opinion on women in general
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Another impasse, you say yes, I say no.

    Why though? What about the children left behind?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I don't know. It is irrelevant though. Private religious belief isn't something that I deem worthy of trying to stamp out. Coerced, mandated by people of faith on people of faith or no faith is my concern. The distinction is an important one.

    Its not irrelevant, it debunks the notion that its a private personal believe that people come up with themselves if the only ones who have it are those who are raised to believe it. Also, banning the burka is not banning the believe (its not possible to ban a belief), its combating the belief by banning an action justified by that belief.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Imagine for a moment a coercive family environment where an individual is being forced to wear the burqa against their will. Do you suppose it likely that this is the only coercion this person is under? I would rather this be the reason for intervention, the against a persons will. If there is an abusive environment, removing the burqa doesn't make it a better enviornment. In fact, it can be an extra warning for authorities, I'd hope ideally. It can be another flag if a person is being forced against their will to wear it.

    But the burka is inherently tied into those other coercions, banning the burka combats those other coercions.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I think enough would to render the "ban it" idea unpalatable.

    How many is enough?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    According to their wishes, it wouldn't be my place to tell them otherwise. It isn't my place to tell people what to to as a general statement, really. And that is the important point. It isn't important what we think or believe of the fabric, but what we think we have the right to tell others.

    We have the right to tell others anything we please. We have the right to ban them from doing something if that thing is damaging to society, never mind damaging to them. You said the default position is that the burka is good, not that the burka is neither good nor bad. How is it ever good?
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You are sort of arguing against yourself here. If the brainwashing campaign were effective, you'd suppose it'd be a very commonplace thing.

    Its quite common in the countries where it goes on and in the households where it goes on.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    No, I would consider myself a secularist, but being that I'm anti-FGM I was readying myself for accusations of being a hypocrite for taking one stance on one thing, and one on another. Figured the conversation would end up going another way based on what I said. I guess because I wanted to stop that accusation, it was going to go this way.

    So now you are saying you can be anti FGM and secularist at the same time? Do you know what secularism is? Its not just that laws don't favour any religion, its that laws see religion as no inherent unquestionable excuse for anything. Religion is just another thing people want to do and which is applied to laws no different than any activity. There is zero conflict in being anti FGM or anti burka and being secularist.


  • #1935
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Yes, there it is. Was expecting that. A horrible practice that is, by design not done with consent as it is done on one incapable of providing it. You think this is a good analogy for the burqa. It really isn't, and it is slightly worrying you'd think it was.

    Why not? The burka is indoctrinated into kids from birth, by design not done with consent as it is done on one incapable of providing it.


  • #1936
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    I gave my opinion above. I managed to do so without bringing in the two choices you seem limited to.

    So you think she is wrong, correct? But that is totally different from me thinking she is wrong? Because ...:confused:... you don't know why you think she is wrong?
    Nodin wrote: »
    ....but everybody who makes a choice you disagree with seems to be.

    Even if that where true, how would that imply I was brainwashed?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Why is that?

    It is'nt. Where did I say everyone who makes a choice I disagree with is brainwashed? Brainwashing isn't the only way people make stupid decisions, but its the most likely one when that decisions has been indoctrinated into them since birth.


  • #1937
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    My point is that the burka is not just a personal opinion on someones own appearance, its an opinion on women in general
    Do you think it is expressed in any other ways?
    Why though? What about the children left behind?
    Left behind by their understanding or the coercion of people in their lives?
    But the burka is inherently tied into those other coercions, banning the burka combats those other coercions.
    That's ridiculous. If there is a coercive environment where a family has this perspective of a woman being worth less than a man, you aren't going to make the situation liveable by the removal of the burqa. Hostile family environments are multifaceted, and we aren't really thinking harm reduction by isolating the burqa. It assumes the abuse that matters is what you see, and not the types that really undermine a person.
    We have the right to tell others anything we please. We have the right to ban them from doing something if that thing is damaging to society, never mind damaging to them. You said the default position is that the burka is good, not that the burka is neither good nor bad. How is it ever good?
    Again, which aspect is damaging to society? The interpretation or the person who forces the burqa on people? I'd say a person forcing the burqa on someone is doing an ill. Not the one who has the interpretation.

    Telling others is one thing, but bringing in fines and penalties for deviating from the standard is a whole other thing.

    To me, secularism would mean the onus isn't on the government to step in to dictate anything where the burqa is involved.
    Its quite common in the countries where it goes on and in the households where it goes on.
    You are saying the burqa is very common in other countries, but not here, right?
    So now you are saying you can be anti FGM and secularist at the same time?
    I was only saying what my position was. It isn't really important to me what label that puts me under. Because I figured some people might feel it puts me at odds with secularism, I wanted to address that.
    Do you know what secularism is? Its not just that laws don't favour any religion, its that laws see religion as no inherent unquestionable excuse for anything. Religion is just another thing people want to do and which is applied to laws no different than any activity. There is zero conflict in being anti FGM or anti burka and being secularist.
    The harms of FGM are clear. There isn't really a debate about that.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why not? The burka is indoctrinated into kids from birth, by design not done with consent as it is done on one incapable of providing it.
    In much the way people on this forum were indoctrinated to Catholicism, but later discard it, or people who discard particular aspects of Catholicism if they remain so. Heck, there are people who've lost so much of Catholicism they are closer to atheists, but still call themselves Catholic. Indoctrination is strong, but it should be blindingly obvious it isn't absolute.


  • #1938
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So you think she is wrong, correct? But that is totally different from me thinking she is wrong? Because ...:confused:... you don't know why you think she is wrong?.


    I made perfectly clear I disagreed with her reasoning. You, however, said she was "brainwashed". Dismissive arrogance in a nut shell.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It is'nt. Where did I say everyone who makes a choice I disagree with is brainwashed? Brainwashing isn't the only way people make stupid decisions, but its the most likely one when that decisions has been indoctrinated into them since birth.

    So far all I see is you claiming authority and the high ground based on your reasoning alone, and dismissing all others as coerced or brainwashed, despite not having a jot of proof that its as simple as that.

    Wheres your proof of coercion/brainwashing in Western dwelling muslims wearing the Burka? Its one or the other according to you, so we should have evidence of it.

    And no, you saying "its obvious" or "it has to be because..." doesn't cut it. Third party research, peer reviewed/from a reputable source. No quibbles, ifs or buts, please.


  • #1939
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Without reading through 130 pages, why should the burka be banned ?
    Personal freedom etc., let them wear whatever they want, no ?


  • #1940
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Burt, try read the last 100 posts or so, to get a good handle on the discussion. You don't really need to read the lot. I actually only got involved in the discussion at post #1862, and I think by not having read through the thread, kinda made people restate their arguments. Reading 1800 posts or so is a bit much, but 100 or so isn't really that bad. Though, the posts can be fairly lengthy so there is that.


  • #1941
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    why should the burka be banned?
    Because it signals the public oppression of women.
    Burt Lancaster wrote: »
    Personal freedom etc., let them wear whatever they want, no?
    Because the choice to wear is never appears all that free, and it's certainly the frequent subject of coercion.

    Given that people differ enormously from person to person, does it not strike you as odd that in some societies, every single woman chooses to wear exactly the same thing? Does that look like a free choice?


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Do you think it is expressed in any other ways?

    In the other beliefs that usually accompany the burka. Many wearers can't go out without some sort of male minder. They may be able to partake in sports, even women only sports, or be allowed to achieve a high level of education.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Left behind by their understanding or the coercion of people in their lives?

    Left behind because they are indoctrinated because passive change is so slow.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    That's ridiculous. If there is a coercive environment where a family has this perspective of a woman being worth less than a man, you aren't going to make the situation liveable by the removal of the burqa. Hostile family environments are multifaceted, and we aren't really thinking harm reduction by isolating the burqa. It assumes the abuse that matters is what you see, and not the types that really undermine a person.

    You force change by removing the burka. You force re-evaluation. Nothing you have suggested so far has actually been different from what is already going on to combat the burka and its associated ideologies, the burka ban is an addition to those to speed up the effect. These environments are multifaceted, but the burka is the most visible and needs addressing.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Again, which aspect is damaging to society? The interpretation or the person who forces the burqa on people? I'd say a person forcing the burqa on someone is doing an ill. Not the one who has the interpretation.

    The unchallenged misogyny is damaging society. Its all well and good to say the burka ideology is misogynistic, if you dont do anything to combat it, it makes it look like that its not important that its misogynistic. Also, its not valid to call it an interpretation as most burka wearers are told from birth what interpretation to have.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You are saying the burqa is very common in other countries, but not here, right?

    I'm saying brainwashing (that leads to the burka) is common in countries where the burka is enforced and in households (in non burka dominant countries) where the burka is worn.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    I was only saying what my position was. It isn't really important to me what label that puts me under. Because I figured some people might feel it puts me at odds with secularism, I wanted to address that.

    The only one whose posts would put you at odds with secularism is you.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    The harms of FGM are clear. There isn't really a debate about that.

    But, imo (and in the opinion of others) the harms of the burka are clear.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    In much the way people on this forum were indoctrinated to Catholicism, but later discard it, or people who discard particular aspects of Catholicism if they remain so. Heck, there are people who've lost so much of Catholicism they are closer to atheists, but still call themselves Catholic. Indoctrination is strong, but it should be blindingly obvious it isn't absolute.

    It should be blindingly obvious that the level of indoctrination here and the level of indoctrination involved in the burka are massively different. The methods and the specific religious/cultural memes are massively different too. Even moderate Islam is a massively different religion to Catholicism in terms of how it passes itself on to the later generations.


  • #1943
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Nodin wrote: »
    I made perfectly clear I disagreed with her reasoning. You, however, said she was "brainwashed". Dismissive arrogance in a nut shell.

    Ad hominem. The only difference between my disagreeing with her and your disagreeing with is that I am not afraid to call her reasoning what is.
    Nodin wrote: »
    So far all I see is you claiming authority and the high ground based on your reasoning alone, and dismissing all others as coerced or brainwashed, despite not having a jot of proof that its as simple as that.

    Actually I have presented that reasoning repeatedly. All you have done is respond each time with ad hominems concerning arrogance as if most atheist posters here don't believe large swathes of the planet aren't indoctrinated (hell, most theists believe it about those who believe other religions).
    Nodin wrote: »
    Wheres your proof of coercion/brainwashing in Western dwelling muslims wearing the Burka? Its one or the other according to you, so we should have evidence of it.

    The evidence is in the lack of rational reasoning for the burka from them. Unless you are saying there is rational reasoning for the burka, then you must admit that their choice is insincere. Now, of course this isn't, by itself, reason to directly intervene in the burka. But the ideology inherently associated with the one (the ideology that is of the opinion that women are inherently less than men and shouldn't even by noticeable in public) is bad for society and that requires intervention.
    Nodin wrote: »
    And no, you saying "its obvious" or "it has to be because..." doesn't cut it. Third party research, peer reviewed/from a reputable source. No quibbles, ifs or buts, please.

    Your request is insincere and you know it. Does anyone have any third party researched peer reviewed material on any ideology being brainwashed into people? I dont see you calling for peer review research when people complain about the level of indoctrination in Irish schools or when talking about the oppression Scientology's hierarchy inflicts on ex-members. I dont need peer review for my opinion, when my opinion is that there opinion makes no sense (and I explain why it makes no sense). Debunk my reasoning and my argument falls apart. Why do you keep running away from doing that?


  • #1944
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Because it signals the public oppression of women.Because the choice to wear is never appears all that free, and it's certainly the frequent subject of coercion.

    Given that people differ enormously from person to person, does it not strike you as odd that in some societies, every single woman chooses to wear exactly the same thing? Does that look like a free choice?

    Is that the reason its been banned in some countries, if not what's the official reason ?


  • #1945
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ad hominem. The only difference between my disagreeing with her and your disagreeing with is that I am not afraid to call her reasoning what is.

    Ha. I give her credit for being a human being capable of making her own decisions. You, however, are denigrating her as a woman and a human being.

    Explain how shes been "brainwashed".
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Actually I have presented that reasoning repeatedly. All you have done is respond each time with ad hominems concerning arrogance as if most atheist posters here don't believe large swathes of the planet aren't indoctrinated (hell, most theists believe it about those who believe other religions).

    You, however, are the only one here who limits human choice to a simple "brainwashed or coerced".

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The evidence is in the lack of rational reasoning for the burka from them. Unless you are saying there is rational reasoning for the burka, then you must admit that their choice is insincere. Now, of course this isn't, by itself, reason to directly intervene in the burka. But the ideology inherently associated with the one (the ideology that is of the opinion that women are inherently less than men and shouldn't even by noticeable in public) is bad for society and that requires intervention.

    You are correct that irrationality is no reason for a ban. You are incorrect in saying that it (the burka) is "bad for society".
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Your request is insincere and you know it. Does anyone have any third party researched peer reviewed material on any ideology being brainwashed into people? I dont see you calling for peer review research when people complain about the level of indoctrination in Irish schools or when talking about the oppression Scientology's hierarchy inflicts on ex-members. I dont need peer review for my opinion, when my opinion is that there opinion makes no sense (and I explain why it makes no sense). Debunk my reasoning and my argument falls apart. Why do you keep running away from doing that?

    So still nothing to back up your position.

    What "reasoning"? Were I to present endless accounts from women in the West gladly wearing the burka, you'd just type "brainwashed" after each and every one.


  • #1946
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Given that people differ enormously from person to person, does it not strike you as odd that in some societies, every single woman chooses to wear exactly the same thing? Does that look like a free choice?
    I think this isn't really a fair analysis of the situation. The societies where the burqa is worn by all are hardly ones you'd fairly classify as having a choice. Bahrain has already been cited as an example in this thread of progress of people not wearing the burqa as the choice was available. It's cognitive dissonance to be fair. Surely you see that? You use the "When they have the choice, they will choose not to wear it more than to wear it" and then "they don't have a choice so they do wear it".
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    In the other beliefs that usually accompany the burka. Many wearers can't go out without some sort of male minder. They may be able to partake in sports, even women only sports, or be allowed to achieve a high level of education.
    Do these apply in Ireland? I wouldn't suppose they do. And, much like the burqa, I think these particular issues need to be addressed on the element of coercion from people.
    You force change by removing the burka. You force re-evaluation. Nothing you have suggested so far has actually been different from what is already going on to combat the burka and its associated ideologies, the burka ban is an addition to those to speed up the effect.
    Do you think there is no one who would be ill effected by this restriction on their freedom of what to wear? Do you think there will be some unlucky ones caught in the cross fire?
    These environments are multifaceted, but the burka is the most visible and needs addressing.
    Visibility isn't the measure of abuse/something worth taking steps to correct. It is the depth/magnitude of the abuse. Child protection services would have the knowledge on these matters more than we, and it is with them I'd like to see solutions.
    The unchallenged misogyny is damaging society. Its all well and good to say the burka ideology is misogynistic, if you dont do anything to combat it, it makes it look like that its not important that its misogynistic.
    I guess it makes all the difference exactly what perspective you are looking at this from. I'm trying to look at it from two directions.

    1) The burqa wearer who is following an interpretation of their choosing who the ban will negatively effect.
    2) Actual coercive environments with burqa wearing enforced. Protections should be in place for such people.
    Also, its not valid to call it an interpretation as most burka wearers are told from birth what interpretation to have.
    The catholic church has had to modernise a lot or else it knew it was going to lose a lot of followers. This is a common theme for religion. Ireland isn't exactly an environment for radicalised islam. We don't have exact figures for burqa wearers, and even if we did I'd suppose you'd discard them as you see it as abuse inherently, and what matter if one or a million.
    I'm saying brainwashing (that leads to the burka) is common in countries where the burka is enforced and in households (in non burka dominant countries) where the burka is worn.
    You presume this is the more common type, whereas I would think otherwise. In the case of the households where the burqa is enforced, we very likely are looking at an environment where child protection services would be need to intervene on some other issue were the burqa ban enforced.
    But, imo (and in the opinion of others) the harms of the burka are clear.
    If as per the above, well, as per the above. We aren't really going to convince the other, as no amount of burqa wearers doing so by choice would satisfy you.


  • #1947
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    The societies where the burqa is worn by all are hardly ones you'd fairly classify as having a choice.
    No, and the hermetically-sealed subcultures that exist within western countries mirror the tyranny of more oppressive polities elsewhere. That's how religion works and that's what the burka is for -- to block communication, to seal off the individual off, to signal the control of one human by another.

    When was the last time you spoke with some girl wearing a burka here in Ireland? Hell, when was the last time you heard somebody wearing a burka speak English? Do you feel these women are fully-partaking in Irish culture, or are they like weird ghosts from some other culture's 13th century?

    For various reasons, I drop out to Newbridge House from time to time and every time I do, save for the trees, I could be back in Riyadh. Quite frankly, that's a feeling I can do without. If you haven't been there, then I recommend you pop out there sometime and try to estimate out how much "choice" and "freedom" resides in what you see.


  • #1948
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    No, and the hermetically-sealed subcultures that exist within western countries mirror the tyranny of more oppressive polities elsewhere. That's how religion works and that's what the burka is for -- to block communication, to seal off the individual off, to signal the control of one human by another.
    Ok, good, so your concern is religious people, or the coercion of a religious person forcing a burqa on one who does not wish to wear it. This is the aspect that we ought to be worried about. Not those who wear it according to their wishes.

    Suppose there was a woman who was wearing the burqa and was coerced in this manner by another person. She is given a fine, and refuses to pay, or doesn't have the money to pay, or the coercer refuses to pay on her behalf. She has to go to prison much like the woman in this story:
    Militant Muslim woman Hind Ahmas, 32 - dubbed France's first 'burka martyr' - is currently facing two years in prison for wearing the veil after refusing to pay a £35 fine for the offence.
    Explain to me the justice that is done in circumstances like the above.

    Edit: Oh, a point was made "only muslims wear the burqa" as if that were an important point. I'm a bit cautious to bring up illustrations in another country of this not being the case, but in case it matters in any way to the discussion, I might as well link this: http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/02/jewish-women-wearing-burqa-a-disturbing-trend.html
    Edit 2: Oh, an important point was raised in the article about the woman facing imprisonment, at the bottom of the article...
    Leaders of Al Qaeda's North African network have vowed to seek revenge on France for enforcing the law.

    They wrote on an Islamic extremist website: 'We will seek dreadful revenge on France by all means at our disposal, for the honour of our daughters and sisters.'


  • #1949
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Ok, good, so your concern is religious people, or the coercion of a religious person forcing a burqa on one who does not wish to wear it. This is the aspect that we ought to be worried about. Not those who wear it according to their wishes.
    My concern is that women are being coerced, by a variety of means, to wear the burka. The state is stepping in to ban the burka in public as the simplest way of rendering that force pointless. It's far from a perfect solution, but it is easy to enforce. Also while the law restricts the right to wear what one wants to (a right which is restricted elsewhere without complaint by anybody), on the other side it should cut down on various kinds of coercion or the threat of it -- this seems an equitable balance to me.

    I believe the number of fully uncoerced women who choose to wear the burka fully freely is effectively zero.


  • #1950
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Just as an interesting tangential point, what's the difference between being forced to wear a burka in public and being forced to wear regular clothes in public? Aren't they both just aspects of social norms of a given environment?


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Improbable wrote: »
    Just as an interesting tangential point, what's the difference between being forced to wear a burka in public and being forced to wear regular clothes in public? Aren't they both just aspects of social norms of a given environment?

    The in-group standards of modesty
    To avoid offending the public in general, public authorities maintain what are sometimes called "standards of decency". What falls outside these standards are usually termed "indecent exposure", or similar terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity
    are more sacred than the out-group standards of modesty.


Advertisement