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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Burka ban

12467…83

Comments

  • #152
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You're absolutely correct, I stand corrected.
    Not that I believe that invalidates either their reason which is purely practical or the reason I gave erroneously attributed to them. One I suspect is a sub-text to the proposed bans elsewhere.


  • #153
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I could give a cop-out answer and say yes, the government does prevent BDSM games if they are done in public.

    But on a more serious note, it is well established that BDSM games are just that... games. If these games and odd fetishes ever evolved into genuine torture and humiliation then the government would certainly step in. The burqua, unlike BDSM, is not simply a prop for people with strange but harmless fetishes. It is a tool explicitly designed to conceal women from the public, to mark them out as second class citizens and the property of men.

    As you said yourself, Belgium is a very liberal country when it comes to clothing. What does that tell you about what the burqua represents if it is banned in such a country?

    [edit to add]-
    donegalfella wrote:
    Nothing here about protecting women's rights.

    "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

    That sentence is about womens' rights.


  • #154
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Morbert wrote: »
    "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

    That sentence is about womens' rights.

    You could say that sentence is about anything you choose since it is obviously nonsense.

    An open, liberal, tolerant society does not dictate to its members what they may, or may not wear. Belgium's male-dominated parliament is dictating to women that they may not wear a burka even if it is their willing choice to do so. You can dress that up (pun intended) any way you want - but it's hardly a case of standing up for women's rights.

    In Belgium western men are telling immigrant women what they can or cannot wear.


  • #155
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    You could say that sentence is about anything you choose since it is obviously nonsense.

    An open, liberal, tolerant society does not dictate to its members what they may, or may not wear. Belgium's male-dominated parliament is dictating to women that they may not wear a burka even if it is their willing choice to do so. You can dress that up (pun intended) any way you want - but it's hardly a case of standing up for women's rights.

    In Belgium western men are telling immigrant women what they can or cannot wear.

    You say it is nonsense, but it is not nonsense. And you say I am dressing it up, but I am not dressing it up at all. As I have said before, this is not about dictating a fashion statement, oppressing religious practise, or preventing sensibilities from being offended. They are all unfortunate but incidental. It is about protecting the rights of women against vicious practises, and any cursory glance into the history of the burqua will testify to this. It may seem extreme to say that the right to wear the burqua is on par with the 'right' to be beaten by a husband, but I say it unreservedly.

    1,000 women losing the 'right' to wear the burqua is insignificant if it means even one woman is no longer pressured to hide herself from the public.


  • #156
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I don't want to venture too far down this side of the argument because that part of my answer wasn't serious. The important part of my answer was, as soon as BDSM stops being "fun and games" then the government certainly steps in.
    I think it tells us more about the direction in which Europe is going than it does about the burqa, to be honest. It tells us that people are deeply threatened by minority groups like Muslims, and are resorting to authoritarian tactics, such as banning items of clothing, to force them to "fit in."

    It's important to separate the minority group from the practise. I know many muslims, and none of them would ever dream of supporting the practise of wearing the burqua. In fact, they would be the ones most vehemently against the practise, probably because they have the most experience with the true motive behind the practise. So I must make it perfectly clear that this is not an attack on muslims, but rather a gesture of intolerance enforced by many muslim nations.
    The problem is, however, that liberal societies are supposed to be pluralistic and tolerant. In the USA, What Not to Wear is a TV show. In Belgium, it's a law.

    Again, it is not about fashion. That is only incidental. The same way a law banning public nudity incidentally prohibits the birthday suit as a fashion statement. Plus, I think we can both agree that the veil is not worn for fashion.


  • #158
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Galt, portrayed appropriately as a social autistic, could never have understood -- let alone dealt with -- the subtle, but enormous, power of social coercion and psychological manipulation.
    Why put forward such an obviously tendentious opinion? Are you hoping no one has actually read Atlas Shrugged? The points you raise are central themes of the book. John Galt cried out for people to fight 'social' coercion more than anything else (his giant speech covered this in detail). Regarding the psychological manipulation, did you miss the part about what happened to the twentieth century motor company and Galt's role in it? I know it's only ficton but your analysis of Galt is so wrong as to seem almost ironic; to anyone who has read the book anyway.

    When I travelled around Bosnia I didn't see even one woman in a niqab or a burka. I talked to many muslim women in both Sarajevo and Mostar and they didn't seem downtrodden or oppressed. In fact they were about as muslim as I am roman catholic.


  • #159
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Good question. Not having travelled there, nor read much about them, I'm far less familiar with these communities and how they operate than I am with islamic-dominated societies. Hence, I can't really answer the question with any degree of certainty.

    However, I'm much more familiar with a vaguely similar religious group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- a mormon outfit whose religious ramblings legitimize polygamy and pedophilia -- and I certainly would support a move by the federal government to rein in them. Though as I mentioned in this thread before, that's not going to happen. Mainly because they are numerous and well-armed and because the last time the US tried to deal with some of their more extravagantly outrageous religious wingnuts, the world learned that Texas christians don't give up without a fight.

    To ask you a question, do you fully support the right of FLDS leaders to have upwards of twenty or thirty wives (ranging in age from 12 upwards), between fifty and one hundred kids, and keeping their wives in a state that is not a million miles from sexual slavery? More on that in this excellent documentary and the follow-up. And in this book.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    However, if a Christian woman in Western society chooses, for religious reasons, to subjugate herself entirely to her husband in every conceivable way, the state allows her that choice. It does not regulate what she wears, or how she behaves, or what decisions she makes or does not make.
    I'm fascinated -- why do you keep ignoring the central fact in all of this -- that the choice is not freely made?


  • #160
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Pace the Guarniad and Bacquelaine's ropey command of English, he's has said rather more than they've quoted there. From here:
    Daniel Bacquelaine wrote:
    I think that niqab and burka are symbols of fundamentalism [...] and also I think it means that women are under men; it's not possible to consider equality between men and women [...] and I think that to prohibit the niqab and burqa is in fact to give, to provide, freedom for these women.


  • #161
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    I'm fascinated -- why do you keep ignoring the central fact in all of this -- that the choice is not freely made?
    What is your definition of a freely made choice? How do you know if someone is not making a free choice?

    What differentiates thirty muslim women in Belgium choosing to wear a niqab and some kid feeling compelled to buy an Abercrombie hoody because that's what all the cool kids have? I think it is fallacious to assume that libertarian principles are only moral insofar as the choices people make are completely 'free'. I can't see a way to clearly define a purely 'free' choice; we're getting into the determinism and free will argument there. You don't know that they are being threatened so why do you assume their motives have a nefarious antecedent? Are you not denying them their individuality slightly?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #163
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    That's your presumption, although you consistently offer no evidence that any of the 30 Belgian women who wear the full veil have been coerced into doing so.

    They do so because, I'll hazard a guess and say, they've been brought up that way, indoctrinated even. But just because someone is brainwashed doesn't mean the rest of society has to accomodate them. There are laws which state you can't walk around naked in public, even if that's your thing and aren't coerced into doing it.

    One might say it's illegal because it could be abused, children could be subjected to it and be psychologically harmed as a result. But you could wonder about the whole thing and ask, why are we as a people so ashamed of our naked bodies? Anyways...
    prevented from doing so by the authority of an overbearing, paternalistic state.

    I hear ya, I mean, why can't I wear my motorcycle helmet into the bank or the post office? It's bleedin' ridiculous! Nanny state.


  • #164
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #165
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #166
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But can you legally walk around a park in Belgium wearing a motorcycle helmet now? How has the law been worded? It doesn't specifically mention "a full Burka" does it? I was under the impression that the law, if applied, would mean you could not wear a helmet around in a park anymore than you could wear a Burka with veil?


  • #167
    Dublinstiofán
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Dublinstiofán


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    If you wanna talk to anybody in the Gaeltacht you gotta speak Irish.

    If you wanna go to Belgium you can't wear your burka.

    Gotta be rules i'm in full aggreement that if you want to go to a place that is not your home. You gotta live by their rules.


  • #168
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Dublinstiofán wrote: »
    If you wanna talk to anybody in the Gaeltacht you gotta speak Irish.

    If you wanna go to Belgium you can't wear your burka.

    Gotta be rules i'm in full aggreement that if you want to go to a place that is not your home. You gotta live by their rules.

    It's a little more complex than that though surely? ("It is complex and stop calling me Shirley"). There are places in the world where if you travelled there with your daughter and she slept with a man that wasn't her husband, the rules would say that she would be buried up to her neck and stoned to death. If you lived in Germany in the late 30's and your family happened to be Jewish, or you were homosexual, the rules you would have had to live by were that you and your family would have been imprisoned and murdered.....


  • #169
    Dublinstiofán
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Dublinstiofán


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    strobe wrote: »
    It's a little more complex than that though surely? ("It is complex and stop calling me Shirley"). There are places in the world where if you travelled there with your daughter and she slept with a man that wasn't her husband, she would be buried up to her neck and stoned to death. If you lived in Germany in the late 30's and your family happened to be Jewish, or you were homosexual, the rules you would have had to live by were that you and your family would have been imprisoned and murdered.....

    It is more complex. That's why i was trying to keep it simple.

    They do have the choice at the end of the day. If you wear a Burka you have a choice whether you go to Belgium or not. Nobody is forcing you. But if you choose to go there you cant wear it, Simple. Obey the rules or get out!


  • #170
    Waking-Dreams
    Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I don't think you can argue convincingly that Muslims are any more or any less "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" than members of any other religion. And yet members of Christian religions are not being targeted by law.
    Christians don't seem to treat women with as much contempt or disrespect (any more). Muslim women have a long history of oppression. Accomodating a tradition routed in age-old sexism just seems silly. That some Muslim women want to wear it comes across like a form of Stockholm syndrome.


    I mean, haven't you ever wondered why a wife would ever tolerate an abusive husband for years and years? You could say, “That's her right if she chooses to stay”, but the state can and does intervene. If we had to accomodate that kind of carry on because of religious beliefs what kind of a messed-up society would we live in?


  • #171
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Dublinstiofán wrote: »
    Obey the rules or get out!

    Really???

    I'm not talking about the Burka/Belgium situation here in particular, but do you really believe in that? In that as a concept? "The rules are the rules. These are the rules. Accept it or leave?"


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    initially i disagreed with the ban, not because i wasn't happy to see one of the more oppressive and misogynistic aspects of islam being cracked down on, but because i don't think that governments should be able to control what people wear on the street. in banks, airports, places with security issues, yes. and under no circumstances should religious belief be a free pass to bend the rules of professional dress codes - a teacher who argues that she should be allowed to teach her class while hiding behind a sheet is taking the piss. but walking around in public, i would usually believe that people should be able to wear whatever.

    but at the moment i'm seeing it more as a secular, progressive country kicking political correctness to the kerb and taking a stand against a repressive religion that is at odds with their laws and culture, so i'm agreeing with it. the burqa is symptomatic of a religion that oppresses women, simple as.

    there are two ways to look at it - if women feel they have to wear it, then their religion and/or culture is sexist and repressive. if they "choose" to wear it, then it can't be a massive issue if it's banned.


  • #173
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #174
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    We share an opinion -- at last!
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Whatever about the 12yo's, the adults in the FLDS are largely there by their own choice -- granted that choice is almost certainly not a "free" one inasmuch as they've been brainwashed since birth and emotionally and functionally unable to make a free choice.

    In which case, we agree again and we're no longer debating about whether state intervention should take place, but the conditions under which it should.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    ...and they've argued that it acts to repress women, which is the point that you denied. I'm sure a longer google search will produce a more complete picture, but your assertion that the Belges are doing this simply to increase societal cohesion by having people walk around with their faces uncovered is unfortunately not supported by the facts of the case.


  • #175
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #176
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    This is the crux of the matter. When people say makeup etc. represses women, they are being vague and disingenuous (not to mention incorrect). But there is no such ambiguity with the burqua. You only need to look at its history. It is specifically used by regimes as a weapon against womens' rights.


  • #177
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    I'm religious and support the ban
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7676367/Muslim-woman-fined-430-for-wearing-burka-in-Italy.html
    He said his wife would continue to wear the full-length item of clothing because he did not want her to be seen by other men, but in future she would be forced to stay at home most of the time.

    Womens freedom improved by the burka ban, wait a second...


    Lets break this down;

    - Muslim women are under their husbands control, forced to wear burka.

    - Burka is banned to 'liberate' these women

    - Muslim women who are under their husbands control(hence burka in the first place) are no longer able to go out in society.

    - They are more trapped than before.


  • #178
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Even in a publication as carefully prescriptive as the Daily Telegraph, I've never seen the burqa described as "expressive"! :)

    Seriously -- go to some place in the Middle East, I recommend Tehran for the greatest sense of tension -- walk down any street city and come back here and tell us that you have seen nothing but free women.


  • #179
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    robindch wrote: »
    Even in a publication as carefully prescriptive as the Daily Telegraph, I've never seen the burqa described as "expressive"! :)

    Seriously -- go to some place in the Middle East, I recommend Tehran for the greatest sense of tension -- walk down any street city and come back here and tell us that you have seen nothing but free women.

    Actually, how many women will you see? I thought it was mostly men on streets?


  • #180
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Has this news piece been posted yet?

    Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm


  • #182
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, and I'm saying that while I'm no fan in general of slippery slope arguments, I think in this case, they're appropriate. I've been to these places and seen what a somewhere under religious control is like and I'm fully with the Belges in not wanting this on my doorstep.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, I've said before that there must be some portion of the female population who do wear it fully freely. However, I would expect the percentage to be very low and I don't see why we should oblige an unpleasant custom for the sake of that percentage, while discommoding the far greater portion of the population who either object to it but have no choice but to wear it, or who are incapable of making a free choice in the first place.


  • #183
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #184
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    iUseVi wrote: »
    Actually, how many women will you see? I thought it was mostly men on streets?
    There are some women out walking, but only when "guarded" by their husband or a close male relative. Western women are not allowed out on their own, or in groups, without a western man (they don't check that you're related or married). And if western women did go out on their own, my contacts told me that they'd be heckled or worse back to their hotels in short order either by the religious police or their street lackeys -- it was regarded as a dangerous thing to do.

    Things are faintly more relaxed behind closed doors, but not in public and I'll never forget the heart-stoppingly beautiful woman who sat at the next table to me in the hotel restaurant one evening, and who took off her veil -- though it was only perched precariously on the back of her head -- and was immediately asked to put it back on by the waiter. The look of pure venom she shot him could have done for a thousand ranting mullahs.


  • #185
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Not from becoming Tehran -- which is what a religiously-controlled city looks like -- but as I make quite clear in this post, from Belgium becoming Holland where film-makers and politicians have been murdered, and where the far-right is on the march in response.

    Again as I said before, pretending that this debate is about a single principle, while ignoring the wider social context within which this principle is supposed to be applied, is not a very useful approach.


  • #186
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Has this news piece been posted yet?

    Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm

    The husbands response has been recorded in the daily mail:
    Unemployed Ben Salah Braim, 36, said: 'I just don't know where we are going to get 500 euros to pay the fine.

    'We thought as she was going to the mosque she was OK to wear the burka.

    'We knew about the law and I know that (the law) is not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can't have other men looking at her.

    'If the law says she can't wear one then she will have to stay inside night and day. There is nothing I can do.'


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    We knew about the law and I know that (the law) is not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can't have other men looking at her.

    This is testament to the fact that the burka is not a religious practise, but rather the invention of socially maladjusted, unhealthy males with the security and self-esteem of a particularly small pomeranian.

    If his ass isn't locked up for false imprisonment then a protest of some sort is definitely in order. It has to be made perfectly clear that this attitude towards women is entirely unacceptable.


  • #188
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banning the Burka is a cosmetic solution to a very deep problem.

    Apart from the fact that I feel states shouldn't have the power to dictate dress to people (and this goes both ways-I think nudity laws should be abolished), a point I'm sure Donegalfella has articulated well, I don't think a ban actually addresses the problem, which is that a deeply sexist and conservative culture and religion is being imported into the west from abroad and propagated by fundamentalists whose abhorrent views and practices aren't welcome.

    The solution isn't to reduce the freedom of people (taking away freedom to propagate freedom will just leave us with less freedom overall), it is to take reasonable steps to ensure people with attitudes and values fundamentally at odds with civilised and ethical values like gender equality and freedom of speech are not permitted to immigrate to our countries, and also to go to lengths to ensure that women who choose to wear the full veil are actually choosing to do so for their own reasons, not because they feel they have to or because they're being forced. Heavy punishments should exist for men who force women and children to wear the veil.


  • #189
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Heavy punishments should exist for men who force women and children to wear the veil.

    I would love to see how you intend to enforce this.


  • #190
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    I don't think a ban actually addresses the problem [...] Heavy punishments should exist for men who force women and children to wear the veil.
    You're saying that the law should replace something that is, by design, easy to police, with something that's virtually impossible to police?

    What exact law would you propose instead of the burqa ban, and what instructions would you provide to the police to help implement it?


  • #191
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    I'm religious and support the ban
    I agree with bits of what you three above me have said. I don't want people walking around with their faces fully covered. I don't want to see governments telling people what kind of clothing they may or may not wear (though I must admit part of me relishes any setback to religion). I think education is the answer, rather than trying to get rid of forced burqa-wearing with practically unenforceable laws.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Zillah wrote: »
    I would love to see how you intend to enforce this.

    How do they enforce punishments for men that sexualy abuse women and children in thier own families?

    Like that.


  • #193
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    strobe wrote: »
    How do they enforce punishments for men that sexualy abuse women and children in thier own families?

    Like that.

    With medical examinations and forensic evidence, coupled with testimony garnered from victims after they are removed from the custody of their guardians?

    Convincing a woman to testify against her abusive husband is pretty difficult even when faced with the prospect of being physically beaten or killed. Maybe you can envisage women risk being ostracised from their communities to testify against being coerced into wearing the burkha but I don't see it.


  • #194
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Zillah wrote: »
    Convincing a woman to testify against her abusive husband is pretty difficult even when faced with the prospect of being physically beaten or killed. Maybe you can envisage women risk being ostracised from their communities to testify against being coerced into wearing the burkha but I don't see it.

    Everything you said there could have been said about wives that were the victims of domestic abuse a few years ago. I don't see any difference in the enforcement. Step one: make it a crime, step two: let the victims know they will be supported, step three: profit. I don't think things will change overnight, they didn't with domestic abuse, and there are still women that won't testify against their husbands in that situation. But as far as I can see the attempted enforcement should proceed along the exact same lines. It is defeatist to simply say it's un-enforcable.


  • #195
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I think the fundamental difference between domestic abuse and the burka issue is one of motivation: A woman who is under the thumb of an abusive and domineering man can break out of that cycle because she is in very real danger of serious and ongoing injury or even death. The consequences of continuing to wear a burka are no where near that in terms of severity and therefore lack the motivating factor.

    I agree that we should not avoid doing something just because it is difficult, but I think describing my very real practical concerns as defeatism is a little disingenuous.


  • #196
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    A gunman wearing a black burka got away with a bag of cash after a holdup in Sydney(Australia).
    The man drove to a shopping centre in Hurstville (suburb of Sydney) drew his gun, grabberd the cash and fled.

    Sooner the ban the burka in Australia the better.

    Source, Illawarra Mercury.. 7 May 2010 Page 9


  • #197
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Unemployed Ben Salah Braim wrote:
    'If the law says she can't wear one then she will have to stay inside night and day. There is nothing I can do.'
    A good start would be unlocking the door to let her out :rolleyes:


  • #198
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Zillah wrote: »
    I would love to see how you intend to enforce this.

    I'm not a law enforcer, don't look to me for how! Although it would seem to me that all a woman (who feels oppressed) needs to do is report her family to the police. Also, I imagine having extremely harsh punishments for this kind of thing would seriously deter men from doing it in the first place.
    Robindch wrote:
    You're saying that the law should replace something that is, by design, easy to police, with something that's virtually impossible to police?

    What exact law would you propose instead of the burqa ban, and what instructions would you provide to the police to help implement it?

    With the exception of instances of coercion, I don't think this is a problem which a government should address (with the exception of vetting immigrants from conservative Muslim-majority countries). I do think government shouldn't accomodate it or support the burka, but neither should it dictate that it is unacceptable. So the answer is the government should do what it has been doing for years about the burka: Nothing.

    Any laws regarding punishments for men who force women to do it should be addressed under existing anti-slavery laws (maybe minor modifications would be needed, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer). Maybe other things like a public awareness campaign? Or a requirement that Mosques report to the police anyone the Imams suspect of forcing their female relatives to wear it (most Imams are against the full veil)?

    At the end of the day, I do admit that my opposition to a ban is based heavily on the principle of limited government power; I accept that, choice or no, the women who wear such garments aren't really choosing to- they've been conditioned to accept it - but banning it won't undo that conditioning, it will only force the problem underground, like the drugs and prostitution bans which have worked so well. Only the decline of Islam and conservative culture will see this social phenomenon go. As it is, only the extreme wing of conservative Muslims support the burka as an obligation, and it looks like that is a very small number in the west.

    Finally, I reject the slippery slope argument I've seen invoked earlier in the thread. It is a slippery slope, yes, but invoking that argument suggests one thinks it is actually okay to set foot on the slope in the first place, but that it is unwise to do so because one might fall somewhere down the line- I don't think it is okay to step on the slope at all, not one inch.


  • #199
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    (most Imams are against the full veil)?

    Most are. Only last week I witnessed the Imam in a London Mosque ask a woman why she was covering her face and telling her she should take it off as it is not required.


  • #200
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    I'm religious and support the ban
    The banning of the burka is xenophobic kneejerk legislation which will damage womens freedoms even more.

    Given the nature of islamists to take their religion very seriously, you are more likely to be enforcing a life sentence house arrest than forcing 'liberal'(LOL) values on muslims.

    I've seen the ninja women around Dublin before and as sad as I find their lot in life, I won't see them confined to their homes until they die for my peace of mind.


  • #201
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    The banning of the burka is xenophobic kneejerk legislation which will damage womens freedoms even more.

    Given the nature of islamists to take their religion very seriously, you are more likely to be enforcing a life sentence house arrest than forcing 'liberal'(LOL) values on muslims.

    I've seen the ninja women around Dublin before and as sad as I find their lot in life, I won't see them confined to their homes until they die for my peace of mind.

    The best thing to do is try to educate the women who choose to wear it (I say choose becuase the only women I know who wear it choose to do so) that it is not necessary in Islam.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement