Burka ban

ironingbored · 07-05-2010 8:37pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, to name but a few.

07-05-2010 8:40pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

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

It's not IN their religion.

ironingbored · 07-05-2010 8:58pm

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

Italy has had a problem for some time with Muslim women refusing to remove head dress for obligatory photos for the national ID card.

In my opinion, if you don't like the rules you don't have to stay and are free to return to the utopia that are countries practising sharia law.

What really gets my goat are the Muslim demonstrators in Britain with their "Islam will dominate the world" and "Sharia law in Britain" placards. Again, if you want to live in a country in which sharia is practised, I'm sure British Airways can get you there!

kiffer · 07-05-2010 10:07pm

I'm religious and support the ban

ironingbored wrote: »

Italy has had a problem for some time with Muslim women refusing to remove head dress for obligatory photos for the national ID card.

In my opinion, if you don't like the rules you don't have to stay and are free to return to the utopia that are countries practising sharia law.

What really gets my goat are the Muslim demonstrators in Britain with their "Islam will dominate the world" and "Sharia law in Britain" placards. Again, if you want to live in a country in which sharia is practised, I'm sure British Airways can get you there!

They're trapped by the law! They can't leave because in order to get on the plane they have to show their face! ;-)

Stercus Accidit · 08-05-2010 12:05am

I'm religious and support the ban

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not IN their religion.

Doesn't matter, some aul eejits are forcing their wives to wear burka's regardless, its being banned regardless, they will be prisoners in their own homes, regardless.

Theology isn't going to solve this problem alone.

mardybumbum · 08-05-2010 8:52pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

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.

There was a thread in AH about the burka a few months ago, and it was amazing to see how many people didn't get this.

robindch · 08-05-2010 10:09pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

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.

And of the ones confined to their homes, how many have you seen?

Stercus Accidit · 08-05-2010 11:07pm

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

And of the ones confined to their homes, how many have you seen?

Is this a trick question?

mehfesto · 08-05-2010 11:34pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Is this a trick question?

Obviously.

No one has ever seen a ninja

legspin · 09-05-2010 1:21am

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

mehfesto wrote: »

No one has ever seen a ninja

Until it's too late ...

ChocolateSauce · 09-05-2010 8:55am

I'm religious and support the ban

mehfesto wrote: »

Obviously.

No one has ever seen a ninja

You're assuming people actually know what ninja's look like, a pretty big assumption! Hiding in plain sight is a skill surely they would have.

Zamboni · 13-07-2010 5:06pm

I'm religious and support the ban

So what think ye?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10611398.stm

robindch · 13-07-2010 5:16pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Zamboni wrote: »

So what think ye?

It's not good that it had to come to this, but somebody had to stop religions being used to exert control over people not strong enough -- for whatever reason -- to reject it.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2010 5:22pm

I'm religious and support the ban

does it specifically ban the wearing of the burka? and if so, how does it differentiate from other full-face coverings?

hypothetical situation; i have massive facial lesions i am very embarrassed about, and feel more comfortable wearing a veil over my face if i go out in public, because the stares are too much. does the law allow that?

or if i wore a william shatner mask (without wielding a chainsaw, i must add) out in public, am i not in effect doing the same as a woman wearing a burka?

sink · 13-07-2010 5:25pm

I'm religious and support the ban

I'm still opposed to the ban. I don't think it's going to solve any fundamental problems. Women who freely choose to wear the ban have lost their freedom. Women who were forced to wear the ban will now unlikely be even allowed outside.

sensibleken · 13-07-2010 5:31pm

I'm religious and support the ban

The whole arguement seems to be that women are coerced into wearing them. Has any evidence for this been forthcoming?

This is pivitol to the arguement about freedom

robindch · 13-07-2010 6:02pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sensibleken wrote: »

The whole arguement seems to be that women are coerced into wearing them.

The French are trying to avoid the situation that's arisen in Holland, as documented by people like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali[/url]Ayaan Hirsi Ali[/url], where political islam was mostly ignored until people started getting killed for criticising it.

The debate in France would be argument isn't just about women's attire, it's also about the wider issue of who wields authority within the state (not that this is emphasized though).

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 6:47pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Its a great result, hopefully it'll succeed over any constitutional challenges which may be presented against it. These are a good thing, assuming it is upheld it'll provide an catalyst for further countries to step up to the mark and also make a stand.

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 6:51pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sensibleken wrote: »

The whole arguement seems to be that women are coerced into wearing them. Has any evidence for this been forthcoming?

This is pivitol to the arguement about freedom

I'm not sure it is, if you were brainwashed from birth to believe that your lot in life was to live excluded from the society subservient to your husband; would you be in a position to make an informed choice?
Not knowing any better doesn't excuse or validate this practice.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2010 6:53pm

I'm religious and support the ban

i can't see this doing anything but act as a recruitment drive for islam. it's incredibly short-sighted and quite ironic - we give you freedom, and if you don't use it, we'll restrict your freedoms to make sure you *are* 'free'.

that said, i'd have no truck with a law which removes the onus on anyone in a job which serves the public to serve people who are not willing to show their face, without them having to fear censure on grounds of religious discrimination. it should be a personal choice.

Zombrex · 13-07-2010 6:56pm

Zamboni wrote: »

So what think ye?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10611398.stm

Pointless, stupid and a breach of civil liberties.

Zombrex · 13-07-2010 6:57pm

robindch wrote: »

It's not good that it had to come to this, but somebody had to stop religions being used to exert control over people not strong enough -- for whatever reason -- to reject it.

Yeah but they have replaced that with State control over people. In one swoop they alienate Muslims and lose the moral high ground

irishconvert · 13-07-2010 7:23pm

robindch wrote: »

It's not good that it had to come to this, but somebody had to stop religions being used to exert control over people not strong enough -- for whatever reason -- to reject it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but they have replaced that with State control over people. In one swoop they alienate Muslims and lose the moral high ground

The hypocrisy of it would be funny were it not really happening.

If they ever ban the Burqa here I will personally go out and wear one. In fact anyone who supports true freedom and democracy, religious or not, should do the same.

irishconvert · 13-07-2010 7:24pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure it is, if you were brainwashed from birth to believe that your lot in life was to live excluded from the society subservient to your husband; would you be in a position to make an informed choice?
Not knowing any better doesn't excuse or validate this practice.

There are lots of women who convert to Islam and wear it. Are you saying they are brain washed also?

irishconvert · 13-07-2010 7:25pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its a great result, hopefully it'll succeed over any constitutional challenges which may be presented against it. These are a good thing, assuming it is upheld it'll provide an catalyst for further countries to step up to the mark and also make a stand.

If it is banned here and I decide to wear it, what do you think my punishment should be?

robindch · 13-07-2010 7:43pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but they have replaced that with State control over people.

Yes. But as previously, the religion is being used by men to control women in the first place. The people who are really the target of this law are the religious leaders doing the controlling, not the women who are being used -- again -- as a political football.

Wicknight wrote: »

In one swoop they alienate Muslims and lose the moral high ground

The religious have to decide whose law takes precedence -- either the law from their religious texts as interpreted by their unelected religious priesthoods and not subject to change, or the law enacted by the state's elected representatives and subject to change.

The state believes, not unreasonably, that it has precedence over personal religious views and the religious disagree. This is not surprising

And neither do the muslims have the high ground on this. If muslim men and women weren't forcing muslim women to conform to a silly dress code in the first place, then the state wouldn't have to intervene in what should, properly, be a matter of personal choice.

The state didn't start this unhappy fight.

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 8:04pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

If it is banned here and I decide to wear it, what do you think my punishment should be?

what ever the law demands, why ?

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 8:05pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

There are lots of women who convert to Islam and wear it. Are you saying they are brain washed also?

In my opinion yes; because this is not the behavior of any rational individual.

Scotty # · 13-07-2010 8:18pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Interesting debate. Having read most of the thread and the two BBC links I'm still confused though.... is the ban an anti-terrorism measure or anti-"womens oppression"?

BBC Belgian Report wrote:

The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer...

I presume this would include sunglasses, scarves worn over the mouth, Santa costumes :eek:, etc, etc, etc.... A VERY high price to pay for the rest of us indeed.

I can't see it passing the European Court of Human Rights anyway, and while seeing these women does give me the heebee jeebees, I really hope it doesn't!

sink · 13-07-2010 8:19pm

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Yes. But as previously, the religion is being used by men to control women in the first place. The people who are really the target of this law are the religious leaders doing the controlling, not the women who are being used -- again -- as a political football.The religious have to decide whose law takes precedence -- either the law from their religious texts as interpreted by their unelected religious priesthoods and not subject to change, or the law enacted by the state's elected representatives and subject to change.

Do you really think that's a strategy that has any chance of working? I guarantee that many Muslim clerics will use this as an opportunity to claim state oppression and they won't be far wrong. They will stoke up anti French sentiment in their communities and the government will be vilified. You can't combat oppression with more oppression. You combat oppression with freedom, education and improving living conditions. The fight isn't against the superficial symptoms, the fight is against the ideology. The only way to combat harmful ideas is with enlightenment.

robindch wrote: »

The state believes, not unreasonably, that it has precedence over personal religious views and the religious disagree. This is not surprising And neither do the muslims have the high ground on this. If muslim men and women weren't forcing muslim women to conform to a silly dress code in the first place, then the state wouldn't have to intervene in what should, properly, be a matter of personal choice.

The state didn't start this unhappy fight.

Not just the religious btw! That's another way of saying the state believes it has precedence over the individual. In all things the individual is paramount. No one should have to seek permission from the state or from anyone else, to live their lives the way they want. So long as they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom to do the same.

There is no quick fix to this situation. The only possible way that this situation will be resolved is by a cultural revolution emanating from the grass routes of the Muslim communities. The only way to encourage such a movement is by example. An example which is not being set by the heavy handed banning of cultural practices.

13-07-2010 8:24pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

I have to say, I think any instances of muslim women being oppressed is going to be more subtle than this. I don't think this ban is going to solve anything, and a tit-for-tat attitude (i.e. 'we can't wear xyz there so they can't here') is ridiculous. If there are women being forced to wear these, then they surely won't be allowed out of the house now. And there are converted women I am sure who are happy to wear it.
No, I think problems are more likely to arise from instances such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8629336.stm
and honour killings, girls even in the UK being taken out of school young, etc. Fighting these problems would be a lot more effective and have less chance of alienating a lot of people.

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 8:28pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sink wrote: »

An example which is not being set by the heavy handed banning of cultural practices.

We ban plenty of other cultural practices which are incompatible with our ideals. People seems to think because it can be stamped with 'religion' it becomes somehow becomes exempt.

sink · 13-07-2010 8:30pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

We ban plenty of other cultural practices which are incompatible with our ideals. People seems to think because it can be stamped with 'religion' it becomes somehow becomes exempt.

Care to give an example?

Stercus Accidit · 13-07-2010 8:33pm

I'm religious and support the ban

The women forced to wear the veil will be trapped in their homes now, a stupid piece of populist and totalitarian legislation. Will the women trapped in their homes be able to protest this, will they be able to go out and vote? Don't expect the dominant husband to be too upset that he has even more control over his wife, this just lowers France to the level of the cultures it considers itself above.

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 8:37pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sink wrote: »

Care to give an example?

Absolutely; FGM, the death penalty, forced marriages, honor killings the list is endless.

sink · 13-07-2010 8:43pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely; FGM, the death penalty, forced marriages, honor killings the list is endless.

I'm sorry I thought I mentioned "So long as they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom to do the same."

I would have no problem with making it illegal for anyone to force other individuals to wear anything against their will. It's a question of how you enforce such a law without infringing upon the rights of those who choose to do so freely.

sink · 13-07-2010 8:51pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Just to point out female to male gender reassignment surgery can be considered a form of FGM that is voluntary and legal. It's only illegal to preform it on someone against their will.

You also wouldn't combat forced marriages by outlawing all marriage.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2010 8:52pm

I'm religious and support the ban

sink wrote: »

without infringing upon the rights of those who choose to do so freely.

insert the usual argument about them being coerced into it.

at some point the state has to realise that people will do things which are against their own interests, and it's no business of the state to stop them.

strobe · 13-07-2010 9:16pm

I'm religious and support the ban

sink wrote: »

Just to point out female to male gender reassignment surgery can be considered a form of FGM that is voluntary and legal. It's only illegal to preform it on someone against their will.

Or if they are under the age of consent? I'm pretty sure someone would be facing charges if a 12 year old girls parents brought her to a willing doctor and had FGM performed on her, regardless of wether or not she consented.

I was undecided untill recently on the ban. But I'm leaning towards being opposed to it. Like sink said a couple of posts ago, individual freedom must take precedence over all else (as long as you are not directly effecting the freedoms of others of course).

I don't like the burqa. It exists purely as a means of subjugating women. Sure some women choose to wear it, but to answer Irish Converts question: Yes they are brainwashed. Some girls in Africa do choose to have female circumcision, I remember watching a documentary about it and the girls who were going to have it done reminded me of girls in this country before their communions or confirmations. They were excited, looking forward to it: Yes they are brain washed also.

But this law is just the state taking away individual freedoms as a way of trying to stop some other people from removing others individual freedoms. You can't fight fire with (Edit:) dynamite petrol.

MrPudding · 13-07-2010 9:17pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

I can't see it passing the European Court of Human Rights anyway,

Why not? In fairness, there is a chance it might not, but it is most certainly not a forgone conclusion that it will not pass.

There is no unqualified right to wear one.

MrP

sink · 13-07-2010 9:20pm

I'm religious and support the ban

strobe wrote: »

You can't fight fire with dynamite.

Agree with everything you posted, but you choose a poor analogy. You can fight fire with dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire#Extinguishing_the_fires

strobe · 13-07-2010 9:22pm

I'm religious and support the ban

sink wrote: »

Agree with everything you posted, but you choose a pour analogy. You can fight fire with dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire#Extinguishing_the_fires

Blast!! You've made a fool of me yet again internet.

magicbastarder · 13-07-2010 9:48pm

I'm religious and support the ban

liberté, egalité, doasisé.

Scotty # · 13-07-2010 10:05pm

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Why not? In fairness, there is a chance it might not, but it is most certainly not a forgone conclusion that it will not pass.

There is no unqualified right to wear one.

MrP

I guess I just can't see a day where the ECOHR rules to restrict what clothing a person can or can't wear. A Europe (or Ireland) that tells me what I can and can't wear is not a Europe I want to be part of.

Telling a person they must not wear something is equally is 'oppressive' as telling them they must wear something. No? I'd like the right to choose what I wear thank you.

Rev Hellfire · 13-07-2010 10:16pm

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry I thought I mentioned "So long as they don't infringe on anyone else's freedom to do the same."

I would have no problem with making it illegal for anyone to force other individuals to wear anything against their will. It's a question of how you enforce such a law without infringing upon the rights of those who choose to do so freely.

I can relate to what you're saying, but in honesty I believe it flawed. That they choose to do this and aren't harming anyone else,so we should not interfere seems a reasonable argument, but I personally don't buy into this.
Firstly there is a victim here, its the women herself coerced or educated into believing this is what she should do. Secondly this heinous practice is then further propagated onto any daughters she may have.

It's an uncomfortable decision to make, but sometimes society as a whole must give up a supposed right in-order to protect the vulnerable.

Scotty # · 13-07-2010 10:28pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Here's a clue as to what route the ECOHR might take....

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/02/european-human-rights-court-says-turkey.html

sink · 13-07-2010 10:30pm

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It's an uncomfortable decision to make, but sometimes society as a whole must give up a supposed right in-order to protect the vulnerable.

But you're not really protecting the vulnerable. You're making a cosmetic change only. Oppressed women are still going to be under the thumb of their oppressors. You've just forced it out of sight and in the process given the bigots ammunition to fire back at you in resistance against real fundamental change.

irishconvert · 14-07-2010 12:09am

irishconvert wrote: »

If it is banned here and I decide to wear it, what do you think my punishment should be?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

what ever the law demands, why ?

I want your opinion on what the punishment should be for someone who wears one. Should be a fine? Community service? Jail time?

Rev Hellfire · 14-07-2010 5:33am

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

I think a fine is reasonable, though incarceration should not be ruled out for anyone who persistently breaks a law.

Rev Hellfire · 14-07-2010 5:46am

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

sink wrote: »

But you're not really protecting the vulnerable. You're making a cosmetic change only. Oppressed women are still going to be under the thumb of their oppressors. You've just forced it out of sight and in the process given the bigots ammunition to fire back at you in resistance against real fundamental change.

I disagree, by not banning such practices society gives implicit support to them.
A ban sends a clear unambiguous message that such behaviour is not acceptable to modern society.
You may as well argue that husbands should be allowed beat their wives in public because if we ban that they'll just keep them at home and do it there.
Sometimes you just have a face problem face on rather than try and dance around it.

Burka ban

Comments