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…8687899192…138

Comments

  • #2642
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Qs wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    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.
    Well I'd have to argue that any undue panic arising from seeing someone in a Burka is unreasonable.
    I was commenting on your apparent belief that freedom of speech implies that anybody can say anything, and that freedom of religion means that anybody can do anything so long as they believe it's their religious duty to do so.

    Moving the goalposts isn't useful.


  • #2643
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    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.
    Except that nothing in the Koran dictates that women must wear a burka. Many, many devout Muslim women don't wear burkas. Even if it were religious the Koran says there should be no compulsion in religion (2:256). The wearing of a burka is cultural, not religious.


  • #2644
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


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

    Indeed; I don't think French society is hostile to the burka, so banning it doesn't protect the wearer (actually the idea of a whole society being hostile towards a piece of clothing is quite scary in itself). But I suspect quite a lot of French society is hostile to Islam and/or Middle eastern immigrants, and a little bit of oppression towards them is seen as a good political move by politicians, especially if it's clothed in the idea of 'helping' the poor oppressed immigrants at the same time. I don't imagine French society is perceiving the Islamic version of sexism as being more contradictory to their core values than the Christain version of sexism.


  • #2645
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kylith wrote: »
    Except that nothing in the Koran dictates that women must wear a burka. Many, many devout Muslim women don't wear burkas. Even if it were religious the Koran says there should be no compulsion in religion (2:256). The wearing of a burka is cultural, not religious.

    Nothing in the bible dictates that people should protest at the funerals of gay soldiers, yet people do it in the name of Christianity. People do lots of things because of their religious beliefs that others do not think are required by those religious beliefs. I'm not saying people have a right to wear a burka because it is required by their religion; I'm saying they should have a right to express themselves, including their religion, as they please, so long as they don't harm others. And I do not consider being offended as being harmed. Being scarred for life is what happens when you're circumcised, not when you look at a veil.


  • #2646
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    I was commenting on your apparent belief that freedom of speech implies that anybody can say anything, and that freedom of religion means that anybody can do anything so long as they believe it's their religious duty to do so.

    Moving the goalposts isn't useful.

    The point I made is that if we do not allow opinions, beliefs and the expression of those beliefs then we do not have a free society. I quite clearly compared freedom of religious expression in the instance of wearing a Burka to allowing extreme right wing groups to have their voice as an example of free speech.

    You used "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" in your argument. A phrase that brings with it its own history and connotations. Very anti-free speech connotations IMO.

    Even stripped of those connotations to compare wearing a Burka to causing a panic in a theatre isn't in any way a suitable comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • #2647
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Qs wrote: »
    The point I made is that if we do not allow opinions, beliefs and the expression of those beliefs then we do not have a free society. I quite clearly compared freedom of religious expression in the instance of wearing a Burka to allowing extreme right wing groups to have their voice as an example of free speech.

    Probably worth remembering once again that freedom of speech is limited insofar as incitement to hatred is illegal. Those right wing nut jobs are more constrained than they once were, and proper order too. Do you really think society is in shackles as a result?


  • #2648
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I wouldn't be fond of that act either TBH.


  • #2649
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Qs wrote: »
    The point I made is that if we do not allow opinions, beliefs and the expression of those beliefs then we do not have a free society.
    As smacl has already pointed out, hate-speech is prohibited in most countries. And there are other restrictions too, like defamation, slander, contract dishonesty + non-repudiation etc and I don't believe that anybody believes that these seriously restrict society from being "free" in the sense that most people understand (you appear to be using the term "free" in a libertarian sense, please correct me if that's not right).
    Qs wrote: »
    Even stripped of those connotations to compare wearing a Burka to causing a panic in a theatre isn't in any way a suitable comparison.
    Um, I didn't compare "wearing a Burka to causing a panic in a theatre" :confused: I did say that "freedom of religion" does not grant a citizen the right to do whatever he/she wants to do using a religious justification.


  • #2650
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    I did say that "freedom of religion" does not grant a citizen the right to do whatever he/she wants to do using a religious justification.

    But we are not discussing the right to do absolutely anything in the name of religion. We are talking about the rights of these women to wear a burka. If a woman walks past you in a burka on an Irish street it causes you absolutely no harm whatsoever. The burka causes her no harm either. So why are advocating a law to deny someone express themselves through their dress?


  • #2651
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Because it is not an item of dress but a mask to prevent that woman participating in the community and making contact with other citizens.


  • Advertisement
  • #2652
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    A mask is an item of clothing. Also it doesn't stop her making contact with anyone. Most of all though its her choice to wear it.


  • #2653
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    A mask is an item of clothing the way handcuffs are jewellery.
    A mask prevents a person from conversing and interacting with others which is its purpose.


  • #2654
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    A mask is an item of clothing the way handcuffs are jewellery.
    A mask prevents a person from conversing and interacting with others which is its purpose.

    I can walk out in a burka tomorrow, it won't stop me participating in the community and making contact with other citizens. I can still have a conversation and interact if I choose. The purpose of a burka, according to those who endorse it, is to preserve modesty, not to prevent conversation (which is pretty ridiculous, it's not a gag), or interaction.

    Oh, and there are people who wear handcuffs as jewelry. You can get pretty expensive ones I'm told. I guess it just takes all sorts.


  • #2655
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Let's test this. Address the next masked person you see and find out. Say something like 'excuse me, do you know where the no 46 bus-stop is?' or anything civil.
    I foolishly once offered a masked and bagged female a better view at an event unaware that her master was in front of her and was nearly assaulted by him for my pains. She turned her head to the ground. I suspect this is typical.
    The notion that the burka 'preserves modesty' is beyond comprehension. Men, of the same persuasion, don't wear them; are they immodest? The overwhelming majority of females in the world don't wear them; are they immodest?
    No, it is clearly a device to subjugate and isolate and it works.


  • #2656
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Absolam wrote: »
    Nothing in the bible dictates that people should protest at the funerals of gay soldiers, yet people do it in the name of Christianity. People do lots of things because of their religious beliefs that others do not think are required by those religious beliefs. I'm not saying people have a right to wear a burka because it is required by their religion; I'm saying they should have a right to express themselves, including their religion, as they please, so long as they don't harm others. And I do not consider being offended as being harmed. Being scarred for life is what happens when you're circumcised, not when you look at a veil.

    They can express themselves and their religion, but the burka is not part of that, or any, religion. The WBC can picket funerals in the name of Christianity but there isn't one Christian organisation that will back them up.

    If pro-burka people want to claim its cultural rather than religious I have no problem with that, but they do not have a right to enforce their culture above the law of the land.


  • #2657
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    Let's test this. Address the next masked person you see and find out. Say something like 'excuse me, do you know where the no 46 bus-stop is?' or anything civil.
    I spent most of this morning wandering Dublin city centre with a scarf covering my entire face, bar my eyes (it was a bit cold out). I had no problem communicating, nor did I feel excluded from society. I wasn't in the least bit subjucated or isolated the whole morning.
    Banbh wrote: »
    I foolishly once offered a masked and bagged female a better view at an event unaware that her master was in front of her and was nearly assaulted by him for my pains. She turned her head to the ground. I suspect this is typical.
    So why are you advocating removing her freedoms instead of his? By the way, she may have turned her head to the ground to spare you seeing the pity in her eyes for your lack of modesty; you really can't speak for her motivations.
    Banbh wrote: »
    The notion that the burka 'preserves modesty' is beyond comprehension. Men, of the same persuasion, don't wear them; are they immodest? The overwhelming majority of females in the world don't wear them; are they immodest?
    No, it is clearly a device to subjugate and isolate and it works.
    Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it untrue, or wrong. I'm not great with quantum mechanics but I'm not looking to fine physicists.


  • #2658
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kylith wrote: »
    They can express themselves and their religion, but the burka is not part of that, or any, religion. The WBC can picket funerals in the name of Christianity but there isn't one Christian organisation that will back them up.
    If pro-burka people want to claim its cultural rather than religious I have no problem with that, but they do not have a right to enforce their culture above the law of the land.

    Why should they have to claim anything other than it's what they want to do? Other than in very specific circumstances, a burka affects no one but the wearer. Why should the law of the land be constructed to deliberately oppress women who belong to a particular religion?


  • #2659
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Absolam wrote: »
    Why should they have to claim anything other than it's what they want to do? Other than in very specific circumstances, a burka affects no one but the wearer. Why should the law of the land be constructed to deliberately oppress women who belong to a particular religion?

    Burkas do effect people other than the wearer, remember a few years ago there was a case where a teacher had been asked not to wear it as it upset the children?

    Why should anyone not be able to walk into a bank in a helmet if they want to? Why should anyone not be able to walk into a shop in a balaclava? Because it renders the wearer unidentifiable. Because, culturally in the west, it is seen as suspicious to hide your identity.

    Personally I think that working towards a world without burkas is the exact opposite of oppression. IMO a culture which insists that women be rendered identical and unidentifiable is the one which is oppressive.

    And no-one is oppressing women of a particular religion anyway because a burka has nothing to do with religion except by association. Are Islamic countries discriminating against Christian women by not allowing them to show their shoulders and knees, or are they simply saying 'This style of dress is not acceptable in this country', the same as concealing your identity is seen as unacceptable in Western countries?


  • #2660
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    By the way, she may have turned her head to the ground to spare you seeing the pity in her eyes for your lack of modesty
    My lack of modesty? In offering a woman who is smaller than me a better view of an event by letting her go to the front? Modesty? You can't just make up meanings for words.

    And I also don't believe this: "I had no problem communicating, nor did I feel excluded from society." How did these alleged conversations and inclusive interactions go down with the people who were talking to a bag with eyes, and I presume your eyes were on the ground for the sake of modesty?

    Pull the other one.


  • #2661
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Banbh wrote: »
    My lack of modesty? In offering a woman who is smaller than me a better view of an event by letting her go to the front? Modesty? You can't just make up meanings for words.

    And I also don't believe this: "I had no problem communicating, nor did I feel excluded from society." How did these alleged conversations and inclusive interactions go down with the people who were talking to a bag with eyes, and I presume your eyes were on the ground for the sake of modesty?

    Pull the other one.

    And did Absolam speak to any unrelated people of the opposite gender while so attired? I'm betting that not being able to talk to 50% of the population would be pretty isolating, not to mention having a relative there to make sure.


  • Advertisement
  • #2662
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    I spent most of this morning wandering Dublin city centre with a scarf covering my entire face, bar my eyes (it was a bit cold out). I had no problem communicating, nor did I feel excluded from society. I wasn't in the least bit subjucated or isolated the whole morning.

    But a scarf is not a burqa, as has been discussed already, hence demonstrating again that it is the symbolism that is offensive more so than the garment. Also important is the context. Concealing your face inside a warm shopping mall for example is not the same as doing so outdoors in the howling wind and rain, much the same a wearing a balaclava hiking in the Wicklow hills is not the same as wearing one visiting a rural post office or police station in Belfast.


  • #2663
    Qs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I'm religious and support the ban
    The Burqa is a religion garment. That is a simple fact. Maybe your interpretation of the Qur'an is different from those who chose to wear the burqa, thats fine you are entitled to translate those books as you wish.


  • #2664
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    you are entitled to translate those books as you wish.
    So what's the point of using them to justify anything? And you could take any meaning out of them you choose as they don't actually make sense.


  • #2665
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,953 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Qs wrote: »
    The Burqa is a religion garment. That is a simple fact. Maybe your interpretation of the Qur'an is different from those who chose to wear the burqa, thats fine you are entitled to translate those books as you wish.

    So why do such a tiny minority of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa? Even before the ban in Belgium, the number of women wearing the burqa was less than 0.1% of the female Muslim population.

    I'm not big on religious texts, having read neither the Qur'an nor the Bible, and have no immediate plans to do so. I have read interviews of Muslim women who choose to wear the burqa, and I don't doubt for many of them it is a matter of personal choice as an expression of their religious zeal. If wider society finds that unacceptable however, they need to reconsider their stance. Freedom of religious expression does not excuse one from behaving in a socially unacceptable manner in public.


  • #2666
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kylith wrote: »
    Burkas do effect people other than the wearer, remember a few years ago there was a case where a teacher had been asked not to wear it as it upset the children?
    Why should anyone not be able to walk into a bank in a helmet if they want to? Why should anyone not be able to walk into a shop in a balaclava? Because it renders the wearer unidentifiable. Because, culturally in the west, it is seen as suspicious to hide your identity.
    . I did say except in certain specific circumstances. However, culturally in the west it's a nonsense to say it is seen as suspicious to hide your identity (excepting, again, certain specific circumstances). There are plenty of masked festivals, people wear scarves and hats all the time. More accurate to say that recently in the west some people are uncomfortable with middle eastern individuals not being easily identifiable.

    kylith wrote: »
    Personally I think that working towards a world without burkas is the exact opposite of oppression. IMO a culture which insists that women be rendered identical and unidentifiable is the one which is oppressive.
    Personally I'd have an issue with a culture that insists that all individuals be readily identifiable for no good reason.....
    kylith wrote: »
    And no-one is oppressing women of a particular religion anyway because a burka has nothing to do with religion except by association. Are Islamic countries discriminating against Christian women by not allowing them to show their shoulders and knees, or are they simply saying 'This style of dress is not acceptable in this country', the same as concealing your identity is seen as unacceptable in Western countries?
    But they are looking to remove that woman's right to choose what she wears, regardless of why she chooses to wear it. Yes Islamic countries discriminate against femaie Christians/westerners by telling them what they may or may not wear. Their bad does not make our bad good.


  • #2667
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    But they are looking to remove that woman's right to choose what she wears,
    No. We are talking about face coverings or masks, not clothing.


  • #2668
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    My lack of modesty? In offering a woman who is smaller than me a better view of an event by letting her go to the front? Modesty? You can't just make up meanings for words.
    Actually, I was saying you may have appeared to her to have been dressed immodestly, and she didn't want to be seen to be judging you, but you've pretty much made my point; you had no idea what she was thinking or why she might react as she did.

    Banbh wrote: »
    And I also don't believe this: "I had no problem communicating, nor did I feel excluded from society." How did these alleged conversations and inclusive interactions go down with the people who were talking to a bag with eyes, and I presume your eyes were on the ground for the sake of modesty? Pull the other one.
    You don't believe I can hold a conversation and be a part of society with a scarf over my face. I can't believe that would stretch your credulity... it's only a scarf. And no one I spoke to called me a bag with eyes, so I must say they seemed pretty comfortable. I don't know why you're presuming my eyes were on the ground? Pretty strange presumption....


  • #2669
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kylith wrote: »
    And did Absolam speak to any unrelated people of the opposite gender while so attired? I'm betting that not being able to talk to 50% of the population would be pretty isolating, not to mention having a relative there to make sure.

    I did... However you seem to be missing the point (on purpose?). A burka does not prevent a woman from speaking to men, nor does it force a woman to be accompanied by a relative. If you have issues with How some cultures treat women, feel free to make the case, but don't pretend banning a piece of cloth will fix it.


  • #2670
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    But a scarf is not a burqa, as has been discussed already, hence demonstrating again that it is the symbolism that is offensive more so than the garment. Also important is the context. Concealing your face inside a warm shopping mall for example is not the same as doing so outdoors in the howling wind and rain, much the same a wearing a balaclava hiking in the Wicklow hills is not the same as wearing one visiting a rural post office or police station in Belfast.
    So, you feel the burka symbolises something you find offensive. So what? Why should someone have how they dress proscribed just to avoid reminding you of something that offends you? It doesn't harm you, you lose or gain nothing by it, yet you would limit someone's freedom just so you don't see something you don't like?


  • Advertisement
  • #2671
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    So what's the point of using them to justify anything? And you could take any meaning out of them you choose as they don't actually make sense.

    This is the A&A forum; the general consensus is that religion justifies nothing. Freedom of expression is not a product of religious justification though; it's a hallmark of civilised society. Limiting that freedom because people are expressing things you don't like is regressive.


Advertisement