Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheist Ireland submission on draft State report to UN on Civil and Political Rights

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    recedite wrote: »
    No, any "burden of proof" is just on whether or not a person is complying with the law. Separately, any State law has to be in accordance with democratic principles and justified by the above possible threats to the public good

    Your not understanding this.

    If you, Atheist Ireland or anyone else claims that a Muslim woman wearing a veil as an expression of their religous beliefs is a threat to publlic order etc then the onus is on you to demonstrate this.

    Surely you don't advocate removing human rights based on claims alone?
    recedite wrote: »
    Do they not have State laws in certain undemocratic Islamic States requiring women to dress in a certain way, and special "religious police" roaming the streets to enforce these laws?
    Yes, they do. Likewise certain western states have "secular police" roaming the streets "requiring women to dress in a certain way".

    But again this has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
    recedite wrote: »
    Again, such freedoms or rights are not guaranteed in an absolute way, as already discussed above. The same applies for atheists, muslims and everyone. Responsibilities come with rights.
    I assume you mean rights come with responsibilities? I absolutely agree, and have never suggested otherwise.

    [QUOTE=recedite;79654568Not sure what the census has to do with this but.......
    As far as I remember, only one person needs to fill out the census, someone commonly known as the "head of the household" or at least someone taking responsibility for the accuracy of the census form, and this person signs it. Other people can fill out their own sections if they like, but if they skip out bits or are absent on the night, the person signing the form must fill out those sections for them. Kids don't fill it out on their own.
    That is not to say this person can dictate the religion of everyone else in the house. They just ascertain the religion and tick the appropriate box.[/QUOTE]
    Okay, but your not understanding again.

    According to the Covenants the Atheist Ireland is pushing:
    4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
    Therefore this gives the parents the right to decide the religious affiliation of the children in their care and fill out the census accordingly.


  • #63
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If you, Atheist Ireland or anyone else claims that a Muslim woman wearing a veil as an expression of their religous beliefs is a threat to publlic order etc then the onus is on you to demonstrate this.
    Replies to this exact point have have been provided to you already here, here, here and here. And no doubt elsewhere in the time prior to yesterday.

    Can you please either accept the responses, or rebut them, but in either case, not continue posting as though people hadn't taken the time patiently to reply to your repetitive query?


  • #64
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Which brings us full circle. I, and many other people, do not believe that any, or at least very, very few women, actually choose to wear it.

    It is a tool of subjugation, that is not hyperbole, and due to the manner in which those who "choose" to wear it are presented with the "choice" saying they have chosen to wear it is worthless. It puts Hobson's Choice to shame.

    MrP
    Your incredulity is not an argument. Least of all an argument for removing a minorities human rights in Ireland.


  • #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    That's a bit like saying that noticing that cars sometimes knock down and kill pedestrians "fuels the negative stereotypes" about cars, and their sadly hurt feelings.

    You really will have to do better than that, in this forum at least.

    No. It actually nothing like that. I cannot "do better" than the truth of the matter. Ridiculous claims that 50% of Muslims (women) are virtual slaves to the other 50% (Muslim men) is hyperbolic nonsense which does fuel negative stereotypes which does further marginalise Muslim women and lead to anti-Muslim hate crimes.

    Read Amnesty's recent report Choice and prejudice: discrimination against Muslims in Europe if you don't believe me.


  • #66
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Brown Bomber, You’ve raised a lot of related issues, so I’ll try to respond the them separately. Dades, I know you asked earlier for discussion on the burqa ban to be conducted in a different thread, but I’ll have to touch on some meta-points about it in order to respond to BB’s questions about how we form decisions about human rights.

    General points

    (a) It doesn’t follow that a citizen or an advocacy group is abusing the conventions unless they advocate for the conventions in their entirety. States have different obligations than citizens or advocacy groups. As an analogy, it is not an abuse of the Irish Constitution for a citizen or an advocacy group to advocate for the clause that protects personal liberty, while advocating against the clause that says that women have duties in the home.

    (b) Article 18 of the ICCPR, which relates to freedom of conscience, does not say anything about “a Muslim woman's right to wear her Burka”, nor does it “grant the parents of a child the right to decide the child's religion.” These are interpretations that you are putting on the wording of the Article, but the Article does not say either of these things. Ultimately, the balances between conflicting rights are teased out either in the negotiations leading to conventions, or by court judgments on specific issues that come before the courts.

    Burqas

    (c) I said in my original reply to you that I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions. I’m not sure how clearer I can be than “I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions”, other than to repeat it again: “I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions”. You seem to have not only ignored this, but you actually quoted the paragraph in which I said this, and added a comment to the effect that I had avoided this issue.

    (d) I also said in my original reply to you that “If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.” You responded to this by writing the single word “strawman”. I hate to break it to you (and to many other people on the Internet), but simply writing the word “strawman” does not constitute an argument.

    (e) In a later post about this, you say of me that “He begins by talking about the issue of people being forced to wear particular items of clothing which has nothing to do with anything, and then avoiding the point I raised...” Putting aside the fact that I did not avoid the point you raised (see (c) above), this is a discussion forum in which anybody can raise relevant points and have them incorporated into the discussion, not an interrogation of me by you on issues of your choosing. Actually, it is you that is avoiding the point that I raised, not vice versa. Let’s have a conversation.

    (f) It seems bizarre to suggest that the issue of women being forced to wear burqas has nothing to do with the issue of whether burqas should be banned. Do you seriously think that, if (some) Muslim men did not force (some) Muslim women to wear these garments, that human rights advocates would care what Muslim women wore? As I said earlier, I’m not sure how best to balance the principles and practicalities of this, but I’m not going to just ignore the suffering inflicted on actual women today who are being forced to wear these garments against their wishes, or the wider suffering inflicted on actual women today by the second-class citizenship that they have under Islamic law.

    Religion of children

    (h) I’m not even sure what point you are making here. If it is the trivial point that parents currently have the legal right to assign a religion to their children on the census form, then I agree that they have. If the question is whether I believe they should continue to have that right, then I believe that they shouldn’t. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

    (i) The convention does not, as you suggest, “grant the parents of a child the right to decide the child's religion.” It grants them the right “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” And as I said in my original reply to you, “There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs.”

    (j) International human rights law in this area is gradually evolving. The right to educate children in conformity with their parent’s religious beliefs was originally intended to protect minority religious communities from vanishing. Then this right came to be seen as a right of the parents themselves, rather than as agents of their religious community. Today there is ongoing dialogue on how best to vindicate the right of the child itself to his or her own religious freedom, and how to balance this with the right of parents regarding their children’s religious education.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Which brings us full circle. I, and many other people, do not believe that any, or at least very, very few women, actually choose to wear it.

    It is a tool of subjugation, that is not hyperbole, and due to the manner in which those who "choose" to wear it are presented with the "choice" saying they have chosen to wear it is worthless. It puts Hobson's Choice to shame.

    MrP

    It's amazing how conspiracy theories like this become acceptable when things fall into line with out ideological presuppositions. What you're arguing for is heavy & justifying it with such an unbelievably vague justification such as this, akin to a pope's radio broadcast in it's lack of specifics on matters so evil, is quite frankly scary. Unless you can actually justify the extremely broad claim you've made (something you've admitted in the other thread would be practically impossible to do which begs the question as to why you'd believe such humongous claims gleefully admitting you can't back yourself up with evidence) it's hard to take this seriously - though the scary thing is that a lot of people would - & by the weight of what you've said (viewed from an objective context) anyone would think it would take a heavily researched scholarly work, backed to it's teeth with impeccable references, to justify employing such authoritarian measures (as exemplified by the Choice & Prejudice article, for example, though we can find out what direction the evidence points just by reading that - which again begs the question as to why anybody would ignore the evidentially-backed claims of the "oppressed" in favour of feeling-based conspiracy theories).

    Also I gave an answer to your question here - I'd assumed it answered your concerns but obviously not so if you want to flesh that argument out I'm game :cool:


  • #68
    whatdoicare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭whatdoicare


    I'm confused as to how a thread about the rights of secular parents being denied despite concerns by the UN has turned into a discussion about Burkas? :confused: Surely that would be a thread for the Muslim section?


  • #69
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Ridiculous claims that 50% of Muslims (women) are virtual slaves to the other 50% (Muslim men) is hyperbolic nonsense which does fuel negative stereotypes which does further marginalise Muslim women and lead to anti-Muslim hate crimes.
    I think most people, save you, have been using the term "second-class citizens" to describe the status of women in islam. It's hyperbole to assert, as you do here, that everybody is claiming that "50% of Muslims (women) are virtual slaves to the other 50% (Muslim men)". That's a straw man.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Read Amnesty's recent report Choice and prejudice: discrimination against Muslims in Europe if you don't believe me.
    On page 5 of that text, Amnesty claims:
    Amnesty International wrote:
    For example, if they ("public officials and those seeking political office") portray Islam as a system of values which denies gender equality or a violent ideology, they help foster a climate of hostility and suspicion against people perceived as Muslim which can lead to discrimination.
    I am at a loss to understand how somebody could write such a silly of sentence. In honest debate, it certainly does not "foster a climate of hostility and suspicion" to point out the very obvious fact that islam consigns women to secondary status, and it's quite insulting to those of us who wish to have an honest debate, to claim so.

    At what point is something sufficiently awful, that Amnesty will drop their fear that somebody listening to the debate might get upset or pissed off?

    Do you think that the state should avoid, say, discussing or legislating on domestic violence because it fosters "a climate of hostility and suspicion" against women-beaters?


  • #70
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    whatdoicare wrote: »
    I'm confused as to how a thread about the rights of secular parents being denied despite concerns by the UN has turned into a discussion about Burkas? :confused: Surely that would be a thread for the Muslim section?
    Not necessarily the Islam section, but there already is a thread for it.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055898112


  • #71
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Just to get this out of the way - thank you for your considered and detailed response. I hereby apologise and withdraw my claim against you of making half-arsed responses and for what it's worth I do support your campaign for secular schools in Ireland and the removal of religious oaths by the judiciary.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    General points

    (a) It doesn’t follow that a citizen or an advocacy group is abusing the conventions unless they advocate for the conventions in their entirety. .
    I'm afraid it does. Advocacy of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes agreement with all it's articles.
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Preamble
    "Agree upon the following articles"
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art18:
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    States have different obligations than citizens or advocacy groups. As an analogy, it is not an abuse of the Irish Constitution for a citizen or an advocacy group to advocate for the clause that protects personal liberty, while advocating against the clause that says that women have duties in the home.
    Agreed; but you advocating for and apparently against the same article (art 18) at the same time depending on what best serves your agenda.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (b) Article 18 of the ICCPR, which relates to freedom of conscience, does not say anything about “a Muslim woman's right to wear her Burka”, nor does it “grant the parents of a child the right to decide the child's religion.” These are interpretations that you are putting on the wording of the Article, but the Article does not say either of these things. Ultimately, the balances between conflicting rights are teased out either in the negotiations leading to conventions, or by court judgments on specific issues that come before the courts.

    Ah come on Michael, now you're being disengenuous. This is article 18 in full:
    <H5>Article 18

    1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

    2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
    4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
    </H5>It is quite clearly implicit in point 1 that "everyone" (including Muslim women opting to wear veils) have the human right to manifest their religion or beliefs in public as they so wish.

    If I wished to be equally disingenous I could say that "nowhere does it say that..." Irish judges shouldn't have to take religous oaths.
    Burqas
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (c) I said in my original reply to you that I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions. I’m not sure how clearer I can be than “I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions”, other than to repeat it again: “I support the right of anyone to wear clothes based on their own decisions”.
    As it's what we are discussing you could say "In accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights I support the rights of Muslim women in Ireland who choose to wear Islamic veils as an extension of their right of freedom to manifest their religion".
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (d) I also said in my original reply to you that “If it was possible to criminalize the (some, incalculable) Islamic men who force (some, incalculable) Islamic women to wear these garments, that would be the ideal mechanism. But I'm not sure how practical that would be, so I am personally undecided on the relative merits, on balance, of an outright ban.” You responded to this by writing the single word “strawman”. I hate to break it to you (and to many other people on the Internet), but simply writing the word “strawman” does not constitute an argument.
    It was a strawman; I had no inclination to respond to it farther as it was not what we are discussing. I'm blue in the face saying this but some hypothethical Muslim men infringing on the personal freedoms of some hypothethical Muslim women, albeit detestable, has absolutely nothing to do with a Muslim womans human rights being respected by the state, and is certainly not a reason to remove them.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (e) In a later post about this, you say of me that “He begins by talking about the issue of people being forced to wear particular items of clothing which has nothing to do with anything, and then avoiding the point I raised...” Putting aside the fact that I did not avoid the point you raised (see (c) above), this is a discussion forum in which anybody can raise relevant points and have them incorporated into the discussion, not an interrogation of me by you on issues of your choosing. Actually, it is you that is avoiding the point that I raised, not vice versa. Let’s have a conversation.
    I'm sorry you feel this way and apologise for any unintentional misunderstandings I may have caused.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (f) It seems bizarre to suggest that the issue of women being forced to wear burqas has nothing to do with the issue of whether burqas should be banned. Do you seriously think that, if (some) Muslim men did not force (some) Muslim women to wear these garments, that human rights advocates would care what Muslim women wore? As I said earlier, I’m not sure how best to balance the principles and practicalities of this, but I’m not going to just ignore the suffering inflicted on actual women today who are being forced to wear these garments against their wishes, or the wider suffering inflicted on actual women today by the second-class citizenship that they have under Islamic law.
    It has nothing to with the human right of Muslim women under the conventions to choose to wear Islamic garments as an expression of their religous beliefs if they choose to do so.

    I'm quite sure that an individual forcing another individual to act in a manner against their will is already banned.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Religion of children

    (h) I’m not even sure what point you are making here. If it is the trivial point that parents currently have the legal right to assign a religion to their children on the census form, then I agree that they have. If the question is whether I believe they should continue to have that right, then I believe that they shouldn’t. I don't think children should be assigned as holding any religious belief until they are capable of making a reasoned decision themselves.

    No. Not the "legal right" but the human right as per the conventions you are pushing.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (i) The convention does not, as you suggest, “grant the parents of a child the right to decide the child's religion.” It grants them the right “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” And as I said in my original reply to you, “There is a difference between ensuring that a child is educated in conformity with your religious beliefs, and assuming that the child holds those religious beliefs.”
    Yes, and in the context of democracy, a census and education in Ireland the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grants the right of the parent to register their children according to how they are raised and how they would like the state to interact with them.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    (j) International human rights law in this area is gradually evolving. The right to educate children in conformity with their parent’s religious beliefs was originally intended to protect minority religious communities from vanishing. Then this right came to be seen as a right of the parents themselves, rather than as agents of their religious community. Today there is ongoing dialogue on how best to vindicate the right of the child itself to his or her own religious freedom, and how to balance this with the right of parents regarding their children’s religious education.
    Okay, but a discussion for another thread I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law ............and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your not understanding this.
    If you, Atheist Ireland or anyone else claims that a Muslim woman wearing a veil as an expression of their religous beliefs is a threat to publlic order etc then the onus is on you to demonstrate this.
    You are the one not understanding. Currently there is no law banning veils in Ireland.
    If Atheist Ireland were proposing such a law, then it would be up to them to show the justification. But they aren't. They are supporting the UN declaration quoted above, which as you point out, acts to safeguard religious people from being unfairly victimised.


  • #73
    whatdoicare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭whatdoicare


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Not necessarily the Islam section, but there already is a thread for it.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055898112

    This thread has gone too far off topic.


  • #74
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    "Human Rights" from a secular viewpoint apply to everybody.
    Its valid to rebut any suggestion to the contrary.


  • #75
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    recedite wrote: »
    "Human Rights" from a secular viewpoint apply to everybody.
    Its valid to rebut any suggestion to the contrary.
    Then a secularist, in theory, should support a Muslim womans human right to express her religion as she desires. Right?

    This was exactly my point from the beginning.
    recedite wrote: »
    You are the one not understanding. Currently there is no law banning veils in Ireland.
    Correct.
    recedite wrote: »
    If Atheist Ireland were proposing such a law, then it would be up to them to show the justification. But they aren't. They are supporting the UN declaration quoted above, which as you point out, acts to safeguard religious people from being unfairly victimised.
    Yes it does. Baring in mind that no justification has been shown to actually justify a ban why can't Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland state unequivocally that he supports the right of Muslim women in Ireland to manifest their religion as they so wish?


  • #76
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ...........

    Yes it does. Baring in mind that no justification has been shown to actually justify a ban why can't Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland state unequivocally that he supports the right of Muslim women in Ireland to manifest their religion as they so wish?

    I support the right of people to more or less do whatever they want and as far as I'm concerned, he did.


  • #77
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Brown Bomber, thanks for your response and your apology. I was going to respond in some detail to that post, but your most recent post contains the kernel of our disagreement so I will just respond to that.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Baring in mind that no justification has been shown to actually justify a ban why can't Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland state unequivocally that he supports the right of Muslim women in Ireland to manifest their religion as they so wish?

    I do support the right of anyone to manifest their religion, including the right of Muslim women to wear veils if they choose to do so. I have repeatedly stated this throughout this discussion. You seem to accept this, then ignore it.

    The right to manifest your religion is not an absolute right. It is a qualified right. It can be restricted on a number of grounds. One of the grounds on which it can be restricted is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

    I have not formed an opinion on how the law should best balance the rights of Muslim women who wish to wear veils to do so, and the rights of Muslim women who do not wish to wear veils to be protected from being forced to wear them.

    Because I have not formed an opinion on how the law should best balance these conflicting rights, I am not advocating or justifying or rejecting any legal measure regarding Muslim women wearing veils.


  • #78
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    b.b. asks a very simple question.

    even michael is struggling with it. ( i believe michael has no mal intent here).

    the law should protect one identity and one identity only.

    the reason we find ourselves in an outhouse of confusion....is because we drift from this...

    and from there, we try to protect/defend sub identities through more and more legislation.

    on the burka issue, ( soz mods) i would say that we need to give muslims the clear understaing that people can wear whatever clothing they like. they also cannot be forced to wear any clothing against their own wishes.

    any coercion is where we step in to protect your freedom from those who would abuse it.

    in the balance between both positions and security provided for both positions....i feel common sense will just dress for the weather.

    a ban on burkas does not protect freedom.....it is a legislation born of fear.

    freedom has nothing to fear.


  • #79
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    on the burka issue, ( soz mods) i would say that we need to give muslims the clear understaing that people can wear whatever clothing they like. they also cannot be forced to wear any clothing against their own wishes.
    Except that people can't go around naked and school kids are frequently forced to wear school uniforms. Nobody seems all that worried at either of these clothing restrictions.
    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    a ban on burkas does not protect freedom
    Debatable, but it's certainly better to ban the burka and remove an instrument of oppression, rather than allow religious men to continue to coerce women, subtly or otherwise, to wear it.

    The burka debate thread is here.


Advertisement