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…8586889091…138

Comments

  • #2612
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The bolded part is your statement, not mine. You said, right there, that the burka ban is a "punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy" and that our culture should have the "wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all". You are arguing that there is something to the burka that is of benefit to our society. What is it?
    Wow. Really? So your post #2575 wasn't the first time that statement appeared in this thread?
    And again, you're trying to tell me what I'm arguing....
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok again:
    If the burka is only a physical item of clothing, sometimes worn by only a subset of muslims, and it is separate from any philosophies, then how is questioning the burka an attack on muslims?
    When questioned on the burka, you defended islam.
    Who said questioning the burka is an attack on Muslims?
    Who is questioning the burka? What questions are they asking it?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I did respond to what you said. You said:
    All perspectives can be ignored and rejected entirely. Ignoring the ones you don't like just means you understand less. Just like you chosen organisation the KKK I should think.
    What does that mean if not that you think "that rejecting the KKK is because of not understanding them"?
    Don't you think it could mean that the KKK ignore opinions they don't like and therefore understand less? If you read it just as it's written?


  • #2613
    masti123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭masti123


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    If Muslims can walk around with a burka covering their whole face why can't I walk around in a balaclava


  • #2614
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Wow. Really? So your post #2575 wasn't the first time that statement appeared in this thread?
    And again, you're trying to tell me what I'm arguing....

    Genuine question Absolam, is English your first language? Because in post #2568 you answered someone talking about the burka ban by describing it as "a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy". And in your previous post (#2609), you said that the burka ban is a "punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy" and that our culture should have the "wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all"
    For someone claiming they are not trying to argue this, you sure do keep saying it.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Who said questioning the burka is an attack on Muslims?
    Who is questioning the burka? What questions are they asking it?

    I asked how the burka and its philosophies might be of benefit to society and you, in post #2579, responded by defending Islam.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Don't you think it could mean that the KKK ignore opinions they don't like and therefore understand less? If you read it just as it's written?

    I thought it was pretty obvious that my point, in bringing up the KKK, is not how they form their perspective, but how we look at their perspective. Should we assimilate their philosophy into our society, or can we reject their perspective as invalid?


  • #2615
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Genuine question Absolam, is English your first language? Because in post #2568 you answered someone talking about the burka ban by describing it as "a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy". And in your previous post (#2609), you said that the burka ban is a "punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy" and that our culture should have the "wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all"
    For someone claiming they are not trying to argue this, you sure do keep saying it.

    So that we can be entirely clear (assuming there is a lack of English comprehension somewhere hereabouts), when you said
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The bolded part is your statement, not mine.
    did you really mean " this is how I've decided to interpret your actual statements ( above) because I have difficulty discussing the actual points"? The first step to dealing with your problem is admitting you have a problem.....
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I asked how the burka and its philosophies might be of benefit to society and you, in post #2579, responded by defending Islam
    Yes, you said that already. I already responded; I never claimed
    the burka and its philosophies might be of benefit to society, that was your 'interpretation'. Nor have I offered a defense of Islam. You have to get over making things up if you're going to move forward.


  • #2616
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I'm religious and support the ban
    masti123 wrote: »
    If Muslims can walk around with a burka covering their whole face why can't I walk around in a balaclava

    You can, if that's your thing. Who's stopping you?


  • Advertisement
  • #2617
    masti123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭masti123


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    old hippy wrote: »
    You can, if that's your thing. Who's stopping you?

    Im not allowed to walk into a shop with a balaclava on


  • #2618
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    masti123 wrote: »
    Im not allowed to walk into a shop with a balaclava on

    If you want to cover up when you go shopping you could allways wear a burka yourself, equality and all that...


  • #2619
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    So that we can be entirely clear (assuming there is a lack of English comprehension somewhere hereabouts), when you said

    did you really mean " this is how I've decided to interpret your actual statements ( above) because I have difficulty discussing the actual points"? The first step to dealing with your problem is admitting you have a problem.....

    No, when I said "The bolded part is your statement, not mine" I meant exactly what I said. I have explained it at least twice now, I will not explain it again.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Yes, you said that already. I already responded; I never claimed
    the burka and its philosophies might be of benefit to society, that was your 'interpretation'. Nor have I offered a defense of Islam. You have to get over making things up if you're going to move forward.

    You did both of those things, I have repeatedly quoted and linked to the posts where you did.

    Why post something clearly, more than once, if you are just going to pretend you didn't?


  • #2620
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, when I said "The bolded part is your statement, not mine" I meant exactly what I said. I have explained it at least twice now, I will not explain it again.
    Instead of 'explaining' why don't you just quote where I said it? Or admit it's your statement.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You did both of those things, I have repeatedly quoted and linked to the posts where you did.
    Why post something clearly, more than once, if you are just going to pretend you didn't?
    Nope, you've quoted where I said something different, and 'explained' why it means what you say. The clue is; the words are different. Surely you understand that? It works that way in most languages, not just English.


  • #2621
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Instead of 'explaining' why don't you just quote where I said it? Or admit it's your statement.

    Post #2614 already did.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Nope, you've quoted where I said something different, and 'explained' why it means what you say. The clue is; the words are different. Surely you understand that? It works that way in most languages, not just English.

    Except the words aren't different, again I've explained this with quotes in post #2614, as well as previous posts.

    At this stage it is clear that you are taking the piss. If you disagree, then you might as well get a mod to intervene, because its going to head that way anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #2622
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Ok then, I'll play along. Post 2614 you quoted this as your where I made the statement;
    Absolam wrote: »
    Legislation is by its' very nature prohibitive; laws rarely say 'you must', they generally say 'you must not', that's kind of their purpose. That's not quite the same thing as banning; the prohibition of incitement to hatred legislation for instance doesn't ban freedom of speech, it prohibits speech intended to cause hatred. I'd freely support legislation that prohibited wearing a burka with the intent to cause hatred. I would not support legislation prohibiting speech that was offensive (such as our appalling blasphemy law).
    I agree, the legislation of societies is often as much about what is banned as anything else; I suspect you can easily identify tolerant, inclusive societies by how little they ban compared to more oppressive societies.
    Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?
    So where exactly in that post did I say that an
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all?
    We'll keep it nice and simple for you and deal with your first assertion before moving on to the others. Feel free to ask a Mod to help you match the words up if you like.


  • #2623
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Folks, there's a major coolant loss going on. Mods will intervene with spray cans, bottles of fizzy water and perhaps even cards and whistles if the leakage isn't plugged and normality resumes.


  • #2624
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I'm religious and support the ban
    masti123 wrote: »
    Im not allowed to walk into a shop with a balaclava on

    Is wearing a balaclava part of your religious and cultural beliefs?


  • #2625
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    masti123 wrote: »
    Im not allowed to walk into a shop with a balaclava on

    Doesn't that depend on the shop? I have a feeling this time of year there are a few shops used to seeing people wearing balaclavas and more walk in. Maybe not BT2s but some shops...


  • #2626
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Doesn't that depend on the shop? I have a feeling this time of year there are a few shops used to seeing people wearing balaclavas and more walk in. Maybe not BT2s but some shops...
    Well, in France one cannot wear one into the shops, or in the streets for that matter.

    MrP


  • #2627
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Ok then, I'll play along. Post 2614 you quoted this as your where I made the statement;

    So where exactly in that post did I say that an
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all?

    Right there, at the end:
    Absolam wrote:
    smacl wrote:
    It is interesting that these burka bans affect so few people directly ( < 1% of France's, Belgiums or the Netherlands Muslim women wear burqas or naqibs AFAIK). This is why I think the bans are primarily about visibly and publicly taking a stance against the encroachment of more extreme branches of Islam in those societies.
    Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?

    smacl was talking about the burka bans, which you then described as "a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy", and then claimed that society should "having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all".
    This equates to saying that an "aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all"

    If that is not what you meant, it sure as hell was what you said.


  • #2628
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Right there, at the end: smacl was talking about the burka bans, which you then described as "a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy", and then claimed that society should "having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all".
    This equates to saying that an "aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all"
    If that is not what you meant, it sure as hell was what you said.
    There you go!
    What I said is what you quoted. What you think it equates to is what you're making up. It sure as hell isn't what you quoted, you can tell by the way the words are different. To save you some effort, we can deal with your next two points the same way; I said what I said, what you think it equates to is just what you think.


  • #2629
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    There you go!
    What I said is what you quoted. What you think it equates to is what you're making up. It sure as hell isn't what you quoted, you can tell by the way the words are different. To save you some effort, we can deal with your next two points the same way; I said what I said, what you think it equates to is just what you think.

    So what did you mean, cos I am with Mark on this. Using any reasonable interpretation of your words, within the context they are in, you seem to be saying that there is something positive about the burqa. Seriously, can you not see that?

    MrP


  • #2630
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Not at all; what I was saying is that societies benefit from absorbing new philosophies. A society that rejects and punishes difference is not likely to grow ethically or morally. The burka itself is not the issue; it could be a turban, a balaclava, a beret. All it is is a visible indicator of someone who is choosing to express their religion.


  • #2631
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    All it is is a visible indicator of someone who is choosing to express their religion.
    And around we go again.

    No it is not. The only 'someones' are female; if males also did it then you might have an argument. So it is an indicator that the person is a female adherent of Islam, that she therefore is a vassal of this male-only association and is to be excluded from society by being unable to communicate with other citizens in the community.


  • Advertisement
  • #2632
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    And around we go again. No it is not. The only 'someones' are female; if males also did it then you might have an argument. So it is an indicator that the person is a female adherent of Islam, that she therefore is a vassal of this male-only association and is to be excluded from society by being unable to communicate with other citizens in the community.

    Really? I can put on a burka today, and I won't magically become a vassal of a male-only association. I won't be excluded from society (though I may get some funny looks), and I'll still be able to communicate perfectly well with the other citizens in the community. Luckily, since I'm not in France, I won't get fined for what I'm wearing either.
    The burka does nothing other than cover my face. If you exclude someone from society for wearing one, if you don't communicate with them, if you fine them and place them outside society as lawbreakers, that's down to you, not the burka.


  • #2633
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    The burka does nothing other than cover my face. If you exclude someone from society for wearing one, if you don't communicate with them, if you fine them and place them outside society as lawbreakers, that's down to you, not the burka.

    But why would you wear a burka. By wearing a burka in the knowledge that doing so is upsetting to your fellow citizens, you're actively causing social tension. The burka ban doesn't exclude anyone from society, it limits what is socially acceptable, much the same way as public decency laws don't exclude nudists from society. Remember, over 99% of Muslim women in the west don't wear burkas, so than ban can't reasonably be described as a sweeping attack on Islam, just a rejection of archaic oppressive symbolism.


  • #2634
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Not at all; what I was saying is that societies benefit from absorbing new philosophies. A society that rejects and punishes difference is not likely to grow ethically or morally. The burka itself is not the issue; it could be a turban, a balaclava, a beret. All it is is a visible indicator of someone who is choosing to express their religion.

    It's not always a benefit absorbing new philosophies. Some should be rejected as abhorrent (I'm not referring to any specific philosophy here). A society that were to reject and punish all differences would be unlikely to grow ethically or morally, but rejecting some philosophies is beneficial.


  • #2635
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I'd completely agree that the Burka is a sexist tool of control and repression but then again so is any law trying to ban it.

    I can understand why people hate it so much they want to ban it. It falls under the same category as wanting to ban extremist groups like neo-nazis or the BNP but for free speech or freedom of religion to really exist we have to accept ideas and expression that we don't agree with.


  • #2636
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Qs wrote: »
    [...] for free speech or freedom of religion to really exist we have to accept ideas and expression that we don't agree with.
    Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does freedom of religion give people the right to behave as they wish.


  • #2637
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    But why would you wear a burka. By wearing a burka in the knowledge that doing so is upsetting to your fellow citizens, you're actively causing social tension. The burka ban doesn't exclude anyone from society, it limits what is socially acceptable, much the same way as public decency laws don't exclude nudists from society. Remember, over 99% of Muslim women in the west don't wear burkas, so than ban can't reasonably be described as a sweeping attack on Islam, just a rejection of archaic oppressive symbolism.

    Why I might want to wear a burka is really up to me; why my society would bar me from that bizarre choice of self expression is what worries me. My fellow citizens might be upset that I haven't washed for the last seven years, or that I'm wearing a posing pouch and chaps in mid December, it may even cause some social tension on the bus, but I won't get fined for it, it's not an legal offense(ok, maybe the posing pouch if you're a stickler), yet I have far more sympathy for those offended in those instances than those offended by me wearing a burka.

    The burka neither excludes people from society, nor does it limit what is socially acceptable; only people reacting to it does that. Nudists are excluded from behaving as nudists in general society, and to be honest I think that's just as bad. If you want to walk down grafton st stark naked on Christmas Day, I don't see why I or anyone else should tell you you can't.
    I never said it was a sweeping attack on Islam, but I don't think it's a rejection of archaic oppressive symbolism either. I think people would like it to be, because it's a nice easy way to look like you're doing something. But let's be honest; it does nothing to help anyone who may be oppressed, it just attacks people who choose to express themselves (alongside, I agree, people who are being forced to express someone else's opinion, but it's not helping them either is it?).


  • #2638
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    gaynorvader wrote: »
    It's not always a benefit absorbing new philosophies. Some should be rejected as abhorrent (I'm not referring to any specific philosophy here). A society that were to reject and punish all differences would be unlikely to grow ethically or morally, but rejecting some philosophies is beneficial.

    Sure, but if philosophies are suppressed in the first place then no one gets to choose what is abhorrent and what they can reject. I'd rather choose for myself than have someone else decide what is appropriate for me to choose from.


  • #2639
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does freedom of religion give people the right to behave as they wish.

    Freedom of religion, in theory at least, gives people the right to worship as they wish, as long as it doesn't harm others, just like freedom of speech allows us to say what we wish as long as it doesn't harm others (and even then, there's a fair bit of leeway...).
    In this case, a woman (or person) wearing a burka does no harm to anyone.
    I get that someone forcing a woman to wear a burka is doing harm, my point is, legislate against that someone causing harm, not the woman (person) causing none.


  • #2640
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does freedom of religion give people the right to behave as they wish.

    Well I'd have to argue that any undue panic arising from seeing someone in a Burka is unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #2641
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,952 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    But let's be honest; it does nothing to help anyone who may be oppressed, it just attacks people who choose to express themselves (alongside, I agree, people who are being forced to express someone else's opinion, but it's not helping them either is it?).

    Yes and no. If someone goes outside in a society that is hostile to the burqa, preventing them from wearing the burqa will ensure they avoid that hostility, so from a purely pragmatic point of view, the ban does indeed help them. The ban hence also helps them to adapt to being part of society.

    But as I've repeated, I'm not convinced that the ban is there for the good of burqa wearing women in the first place. I think it is there for the greater good of a society that wishes to limit the display of oppressive symbolism. As per gaynorvaders post, I think what we're seeing are societies that are rejecting certain philosophies as being contradictory to that societies core values, and the burqa ban is being used to highlight that stance.


Advertisement