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…7980828485…138

Comments

  • #2432
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Piliger wrote: »
    I find it deeply offensive to equate the permanent public erasing of a woman's very identity ... to some kind of 'dress code', like uggs or midi skirts or little black dresses.

    Your capacity for finding something you don't like (or perhaps language you haven't interpreted correctly) to be "deeply offensive" is entirely a matter for yourself, but I would suggest that it is a convenient means of excusing yourself from a more detailed analysis of the issues involved - and it does seem to be a weak excuse for illiberal lawmaking.

    I can understand why individuals who have a distaste - for whatever reasons - for the way some people dress might want to make laws that force them to conform with their views on how they should dress. I am merely pointing out that a society that would make such laws has to question whatever attachment it claims to have to the vindication of personal liberty.

    What did you think of the article?


  • #2433
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I too didn't read the article and I'm afraid I found your post too convoluted to understand.

    Dehumanising women by obliging them to conceal themselves when in public should be a crime. It has nothing to do with dress codes and is more akin to electronic tagging.


  • #2434
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    I too didn't read the article

    Why not read it and see what you think?

    Banbh wrote: »
    Dehumanising women by obliging them to conceal themselves when in public should be a crime.

    Why do you believe that the answer to that is to criminalise them if they wear something that you believe to be unacceptable?

    What do your Muslim friends think of your view?


  • #2435
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    I too didn't read the article and I'm afraid I found your post too convoluted to understand.

    Dehumanising women by obliging them to conceal themselves when in public should be a crime. It has nothing to do with dress codes and is more akin to electronic tagging.

    How different is it from dragging them through the streets in handcuffs and chains ? Anyone who calls it 'dress code' has clearly some kind of hatred for their mother and all women. It is abominable and grotesque.


  • #2436
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    UnitedWeStand wrote: »
    ..... its essentially catholicism in the 80's, 2.0 with updates.

    In fairness, having experienced Catholicism in the 1980s - even the Irish variety - I'd rather try my luck with that than a lot of what I see in today's Islam. :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #2437
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I'm probably swimming against the stream on this one, but I don't have an issue with it.

    What I do have a problem with is it resulting in preferential treatment for the religious.

    If I walk into the post office, or a bank or almost any other public space wearing a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet or any other full face covering, I'm expected to take it off.

    Should be no different for someone wearing a niqab.


  • #2438
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Piliger wrote: »
    How different is it from dragging them through the streets in handcuffs and chains ?

    How do your Muslim friends respond when you say this to them?
    Piliger wrote: »
    Anyone who calls it 'dress code' has clearly some kind of hatred for their mother and all women. It is abominable and grotesque.

    My mum's fine. She's a Catholic, by the way, but to her credit she doesn't express any upset at my atheism. In fairness, she would be very mistrustful of people wearing burkas and the like (because, like me, she'd rather see people's faces). I don't know if she thinks they should be banned, but I will ask her the next time we go out for lunch.


  • #2439
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    If I walk into the post office, or a bank or almost any other public space wearing a balaclava or a motorcycle helmet or any other full face covering, I'm expected to take it off.

    I agree, but in fairness that is not a legal requirement; it is because of the policy of the owner of the premises.

    I don't believe it would be reasonable, for example, to ban the wearing of balaclavas or motorcycle helmets by law.


  • #2440
    UnitedWeStand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭UnitedWeStand


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In fairness, having experienced Catholicism in the 1980s - even the Irish variety - I'd rather try my luck with that than a lot of what I see in today's Islam. :eek:

    Atleast you can retreat to the pub in a catholic world! Those poor sods on the other hand...


  • #2441
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    What do your Muslim friends think of your view?
    We've been around the block enough on this topic to see where this is going but what the hell, I'll play...

    Well Fatima and Mohammad who drink in Kellys on Friday nights have no problem with it though Fatima says it a bitch when she's playing the flute in the session. Mohammad also finds his unkempt beard a bit of a hindrance with the fiddle but, as he says himself, it's god's will. To be fair to Fatima she always buys her round and she says you get used to the pints through the straw after a while.
    Maryam who plays camogie with my little sister hates always having to play in goal but the oul burka will slow up the forwards and the girls are a bit put out by the two guys that have to follow her to the dressing-room door. One is her brother and the other she thinks is going to be her husband but she's not sure as her da hasn't told her yet. But sure we're all great pals and as the girls say if Allah didn't want them to be covered up in public, he wouldn't have made them women.


  • Advertisement
  • #2442
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I agree, but in fairness that is not a legal requirement; it is because of the policy of the owner of the premises.

    I don't believe it would be reasonable, for example, to ban the wearing of balaclavas or motorcycle helmets by law.

    That's kind of my point. If the one can't be made illegal, but is under restrictions on where and when it can be worn, then the same should be said for the other.


  • #2443
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    But sure we're all great pals......

    There. Isn't humour a tad more healthy than self-righteous indignation? ;)


  • #2444
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    That's kind of my point. If the one can't be made illegal, but is under restrictions on where and when it can be worn, then the same should be said for the other.

    I can see the point in that. But that is a bit different to criminalising the wearing of items of clothing just because "we" object to them.


  • #2445
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm religious and support the ban
    UnitedWeStand wrote: »
    Atleast you can retreat to the pub in a catholic world...


    Except, of course, during *ahem* holy hour, which IIRC existed on weekdays until the late 1980s and survived on Sundays for a lot of the 90s.


  • #2446
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can see the point in that. But that is a bit different to criminalising the wearing of items of clothing just because "we" object to them.

    I think we're agreeing without knowing it. I don't agree with criminalizing the wearing of items just because I might object to them.


  • #2447
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    Mohammad also finds his unkempt beard a bit of a hindrance with the fiddle but, as he says himself, it's god's will.

    As opposed to the rest of the band, whose unkempt beards are nothing short of an abomination. Nice having Mo on board as the nominated driver though.


  • #2448
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Except, of course, during *ahem* holy hour, which IIRC existed on weekdays until the late 1980s and survived on Sundays for a lot of the 90s.

    The good old lock-in, where some of the best craic in the pub was to be had. Much the same way as good Friday is Irish Catholic binge at home festival. To be fair, trying to chuck everyone out of the pub once in awhile doesn't do much harm.

    I for one enjoyed the Will Self article, so thanks for posting.

    I tend to agree with Kaiser2000s last post, that if you move to a new country, you have an obligation to adopt local values in terms of what it is and is not ok to wear. You really have no option but to do so travelling around many Islamic countries, which makes me think tolerance to cultural dress preference should not be an automatic right anywhere else. The fact that burqas and naqibs seem to make so many people deeply uncomfortable in this country is reason enough to allow the question whether we find them acceptable in any and every context. I seriously doubt such a ban would aid the emancipation of any Muslim women anywhere, or even limit the spread of Islam in this country to any extent, but there you go.


  • #2449
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I'm religious and support the ban
    UnitedWeStand wrote: »
    Atleast you can retreat to the pub in a catholic world! Those poor sods on the other hand...

    Not so; I've been to the pub on a number of occasions with muslim friends here in London and at home. Granted, they were not wearing anything that people might raise an eyebrow at but some muslims are not adverse to the occasional drink.

    There were two ladies in my local last night, both wearing hijabs, leather jackets and having a gas old time together. I have no idea if drink was involved...


  • #2450
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    We've been around the block enough on this topic to see where this is going but what the hell, I'll play...
    Banbh, welcome to A+A!


  • #2451
    UnitedWeStand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭UnitedWeStand


    old hippy wrote: »
    Not so; I've been to the pub on a number of occasions with muslim friends here in London and at home. Granted, they were not wearing anything that people might raise an eyebrow at but some muslims are not adverse to the occasional drink.

    There were two ladies in my local last night, both wearing hijabs, leather jackets and having a gas old time together. I have no idea if drink was involved...

    What part of London? As I can't imagine such a thing in West London atleast. Again, the girl and her friends that I knew were completely Western, however, they cannot even touch alcohol.

    Muslim guys are different, a fair few do show willingness to drift away from their cultural ideals, however, I must say i express doubt over the hijabs part where you mention two ladies talking in the pub. Purely because alcohol is such a detested substance in the culture, and wearing a hijab is a thing most women do out of affection for their religion, and both contradict. I express doubt not personally at you but because I know the culture.


  • Advertisement
  • #2452
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I'm religious and support the ban
    UnitedWeStand wrote: »
    What part of London? As I can't imagine such a thing in West London atleast. Again, the girl and her friends that I knew were completely Western, however, they cannot even touch alcohol.

    Muslim guys are different, a fair few do show willingness to drift away from their cultural ideals, however, I must say i express doubt over the hijabs part where you mention two ladies talking in the pub. Purely because alcohol is such a detested substance in the culture, and wearing a hijab is a thing most women do out of affection for their religion, and both contradict. I express doubt not personally at you but because I know the culture.

    Well, as I said, they may not have been imbibing but they were certainly on the premises and in a good mood. West London is correct. I've enjoyed a pint or two with a female friend who is Muslim but she would not be devout, as they say. My male Muslim friends back home were fond of the odd pint or 3; this is going back 20 years or so...


  • #2453
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    European Court of Human Rights to rule on France’s full-face veil ban

    http://www.thejournal.ie/france-full-veil-1194357-Nov2013/

    Most of the comments on thejournal seem to support the ban.


  • #2454
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    robindch wrote: »
    Most of the comments on thejournal...
    /shudder


  • #2455
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    There were a few anti-women/pro-mask comments but in the tiny minority.


  • #2456
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Banbh wrote: »
    There were a few anti-women/pro-mask comments but in the tiny minority.

    Anyone who who wishes to dictate through fear of reprisals what a woman can or cannot wear is "anti-women". Any man (or woman) of any stripe who does this directly with any women under their influence falls into this category. Likewise, anyone who wants the state to punish a woman based on her choice of clothing is equally "anti-women".

    Therefore the "anti-women" comments were not in any minority.


  • #2457
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    By referring to masks as clothing, you are missing the point, probably deliberately.
    Face masks are as much clothing as handcuffs.


  • #2458
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Anyone who who wishes to dictate through fear of reprisals what a woman can or cannot wear is "anti-women". Any man (or woman) of any stripe who does this directly with any women under their influence falls into this category. Likewise, anyone who wants the state to punish a woman based on her choice of clothing is equally "anti-women".

    Therefore the "anti-women" comments were not in any minority.

    Yes they are. It is Islam that is dictating what these abused women can and cannot wear.


  • #2459
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Banbh wrote: »
    By referring to masks as clothing, you are missing the point, probably deliberately.
    Face masks are as much clothing as handcuffs.

    No matter how much you try and twist it with hyperbole the burqa is an item of clothing,
    burka

    Pronunciation: /ˈbəːkə, ˈbʊrkɑː/
    (also burkha, burqa)
    Translate burka | into French | into German | into Italian noun

    a long, loose garment covering the whole body from head to feet, worn in public by women in many Muslim countries.
    garment

    noun [C] /ˈɡɑː.mənt/ [Removed Image] /ˈɡɑːr-/ formal C1 a piece of clothing
    Like I said
    Likewise, anyone who wants the state to punish a woman based on her choice of clothing is equally "anti-women".


  • #2460
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Piliger wrote: »
    Yes they are. It is Islam that is dictating what these abused women can and cannot wear.

    So there are no Muslim women capable of making decisions for themselves? Is it nor abuse for a state to use it's police force to punish women based on their choice of clothing?

    So is it all women you've given yourself the entitlement to what they can or cannot wear? Are you only entitled to tell minorities whar they can or cannot wear? Or is it only Muslim women you want to uniquely punish?


  • Advertisement
  • #2461
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So there are no Muslim women capable of making decisions for themselves? Is it nor abuse for a state to use it's police force to punish women based on their choice of clothing?

    So is it all women you've given yourself the entitlement to what they can or cannot wear? Are you only entitled to tell minorities whar they can or cannot wear? Or is it only Muslim women you want to uniquely punish?

    Yes. We are entitled to free all women from the tyranny of anyone forcing them to erase their identity. Yes. We are entitled.


Advertisement