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

2456783

Comments

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


    maybe I've forgotten something very important?

    Freedom?

    You could always put a yellow star on them.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    Freedom?

    If the burka is truely just about modesty, then what it looks like is irrelevent, so saying it has to be a certain colour/shape wont be infringing on any freedoms.
    PDN wrote: »
    You could always put a yellow star on them.

    I dont understand? Something like a teachers gold star, you mean?


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


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

    You really can find pictures of anything on the internet :).


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    Not in general, but in the specific case where the symbols disrupt the cohesion of society, or where they provide loopholes for alternate authorities to acquire power from the state, or to implement (as in the case of the burka) a subtle system to oppress the rights of half the population, then sooner or later the state will probably have to intervene to reassert its authority as well as the rights of the disenfranchised segment of the population.

    This is easier to see in the context of the example above, of the Nigerian senator who married a 13-year old and declared himself above the law. As indeed do most religious people when one manages to (a) get them to understand the question and (b) get them to answer it -- though in practice most religious people don't act out their contra-legal fantasies, as this Nigerian bloke did.

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Is there any law that forced you to be indentifiable at all times when in public?
    Even German law which is rather harsh on the subject only forced you to not cover your face whne you are engaging in any form of public political demonstration...

    When I buy petrol I am delayed for several minutes, every time, by the fact that I must remove my helmet and show my face then go to the trouble of putting it back on again. Many petrol stations will not switch on the pumps until I have taken it off. So yes, I am being forced to be identifiable in public. I have no problem with that.
    Of course I could just say that "biking" is my religion and that I have to keep it on for modesty reasons. So then that would be ok yeah?
    This post has been deleted.

    It's not about being offended, it's not offensive that someone covers themselves up. It is about recognition and identification. That's all. If you refuse to allow yourself to be identified in public what are you hiding? What are you up to?


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


    robindch wrote: »
    Not in general, but in the specific case where the symbols disrupt the cohesion of society, or where they provide loopholes for alternate authorities to acquire power from the state, or to implement (as in the case of the burka) a subtle system to oppress the rights of half the population, then sooner or later the state will probably have to intervene to reassert its authority.

    This is easier to see in the context of the example above, of the Nigerian senator who married a 13-year old and declared himself above the law. As indeed do most religious people when one manages to (a) get them to understand the question and (b) get them to answer it -- though in practice most religious people don't out their contra-legal fantasies, as this Nigerian bloke did.

    Oh great! Justify the illiberal act of telling people what clothes they are allowed to wear by invoking the spectre of paedophilia on another continent. :(


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Just a thought, but what about a state sanctioned burka then? One whose shape and colour is designed by the state (maybe a flag of the nation you live in?), but significantly different from the islamic one?
    That's an interesting idea and it's analogous to the policy that the Chinese government has adopted in respect of christian churches, where preachers must acknowledge the ultimate authority of the state (or communist party, which comes to much the same thing).

    However, as some posters might confirm, there are various underground religious movements within China which reject the claim of the state to be the ultimate authority, a position which the religious movement typically reserves for itself and its belief system. Again, much as our Nigerian friend and his 13-year old wife have done.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I'm religious and support the ban
    If you refuse to allow yourself to be identified in public what are you hiding? What are you up to?
    This argument is ridiculous; why do people keep repeating it? When it's cold, I often wear a hood with a scarf around my face. Should that be banned too?


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Valmont wrote: »
    This argument is ridiculous; why do people keep repeating it? When it's cold, I often wear a hood with a scarf around my face. Should that be banned too?

    If you were asked to remove it by a Garda or upon entering a shop would you comply?


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


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

    The law also protects these women. Here's betting they won't be testifying in court...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Europe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Pro-rights for Burka + Anti-rights for public nudists = hypocrisy.

    Simple as. Disfavour for public nudity is simply a cultural taboo, same as disfavour for the Burka (ignoring the security issue). Nudity isn't some grotesque, "objectively" wrong act, such as killing, it is just something that as a society, we chose to frown upon, some indeterminate time ago. Why are the libertarians not opposed to this "crime against freedom"?

    Both of these issues lie on opposing ends of the same spectrum, yet we, as a society choose to make one end illegal while the other is not?

    On the one hand, we have a mindset that people cannot dress a certain way for fear of offending, yet on the other hand, these same people cannot apply that thinking to just one more style of dress. Why not one more? Why not one less? Why not get rid of all these bans on dress?

    You cannot have it both ways. Either we live in a society where laws are made that constrain the more extreme fashions of dressing, or we don't.

    Your choice.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    PDN wrote: »
    Oh great! Justify the illiberal act of telling people what clothes they are allowed to wear by invoking the spectre of paedophilia on another continent. :(
    All I'm demonstrating with the Nigerian case is that religious people do have a tendency to believe themselves above the law, as you yourself conceded at some point last year ;) And that this tendency can produce undesirable results, whether it's justifying pedophila to a Nigerian politician, or having women forced to walk about the place with what are effectively refuse sacks wrapped around their heads.

    BTW, I'd have been shot if I took a photo, but one time I was in Riyadh, I ate in the Family section of one mall restaurant, ending up at a table next to a group of African muslim women who were making very heavy weather indeed of eating their full-length spaghetti bolognese under and around, but never without, their niqabs.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    I agree, the moral qualms of a society shouldn't be imposed by law.

    Its a slippery slope.

    This is not about moral qualms. This is about the oppression of women.

    There is a subculture of jealous violence against women who refuse to wear veils in Muslim societies, and the veil has become a symbol of that violence and oppression in many western societies.

    I personally am not sure how I feel about the ban.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    Perhaps you'd be more sympathetic if you viewed the state as stepping in to support the right of women to do what they want, rather than what their religious leaders tell them they should want.

    Have you been to Iran, for example, where -- I'm not joking -- the distance between a woman's eyebrows and the front edge of her scarf is a potent political signal which can and does result in women being beaten with sticks in the street by marauding thugs?

    .


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Poll added for extra goodness.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    And you're ignoring the fact that very frequently -- in the vast majority of cases I believe -- the choice is not freely made, either because the woman is forced by the threat of violence to agree to it, or because she's been manipulated by the leaders of the religious group which claims authority over her.

    This debate wouldn't be happening, and this legislation wouldn't be needed, if the right to wear what one wants was being properly balanced by the reciprocal responsibility of genuinely truly free choice residing with the women concerned.
    They have the right to preach, but not to coerce.
    But do they have a right to manipulate? I don't think so.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    And how do you enact and enforce laws which prevent people from succumbing to the threat of violence?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.

    Does that mean i can murder someone because i think it acceptable. thats the same logic. When in Rome do as the Romans do.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


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

    This is a rather naive suggestion. The veil, as I have mentioned before, is integrated with a subculture where violence against women is ok. And while some women may be ok with wearing the veil, others would be pressured into the practise. Making the veil legal would only work if it is completely dissociated from the violent treatment of women. Of course, if that were acheived, I would wager that the veil would be gone within a decade.


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


    This is more about normalising Muslims into European society..

    What next, force us to drink alcohol and beat the **** out of each other in Temple Bar? Stick screwdrivers through the heads of Polish lads?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Jesus I find this thread really depressing and scary :( If the issue is forcing women into wearing something they don't want to, then why not draw up a law that prevents that happening. To think this law has anything to do with protecting women is naive to say the least. Coersion aside, arguing that women are being 'brainwashed' is not a valid argumnet. Everyone experiences pressure over what they wear to some extent.

    At the end of the day none of you have any real experience with Islamic culture and therefore you don't understand it. You can't comprehend that a woman my want to cover themselves for the purpose of modesty. Hell, I'm a woman and a lot of the time I would love nothing more than to cover my face and body, to have a break from the day to day hassles of wearing the right makeup, having my hair right, dealing with stares for men.

    This is a huge step back from any kind of progressive society as far as I am concerned. Oppressing a sub group of people will only breed resentment and a huge feeling of injustice. I'll wager there will be an increase in the number of women wearing burkas in Belgium.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    Protect women who are being forced to wear an item of clothing they don't want to, by forcing other woman who want to wear that item of clothing to take it off. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    What next, force us to achnologe equal rights for women and liberal inclusive ideals ? Stickup for lgb rights and religious equality?
    I know its shocking, but thats exactly what western society would like to bring to the party.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Protect women who are being forced to wear an item of clothing they don't want to, by forcing other woman who want to wear that item of clothing to take it off.

    Yes. And that is perfectly fine.

    People who make the claim that the veil is actually a free exercise in modesty seem to be unaware of the fact that the wearing of the veil is a legal requirement in many Muslim cultures, and there is a subculture of violence against those who do not wish to wear the veil. Cries of "freedom to wear the veil" are therefore little more than spin designed to cover up a deeply oppressive practise.


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


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

    It will not, on its own, solve the problem overnight, but it will send a message to those who do not respect the equal rights of men and women in our society.


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


    Morbert wrote: »
    Yes. And that is perfectly fine.

    People who make the claim that the veil is actually a free exercise in modesty seem to be unaware of the fact that the wearing of the veil is a legal requirement in many Muslim cultures,
    Where? I don't know of any country where it is a "legal requirement".
    Morbert wrote: »
    and there is a subculture of violence against those who do not wish to wear the veil. Cries of "freedom to wear the veil" are therefore little more than spin designed to cover up a deeply oppressive practise.

    I personally know women who choose to wear the veil, even though other members of their family do not do so. How many Muslim veil wearing women do you personally know?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 125 ✭✭Frei


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The first time I saw a Muslim woman wearing the whole get up I was so shocked :eek: It really disturbed me. I was walking down Camden street and this woman, was covered from head to toe, save for her eyes, in a black swathe of cloth. She also had black gloves and thick black shoes. Like a ghost or a non person. I just think it is crazy.


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


    This post has been deleted.


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


    I know its shocking, but thats exactly what western society would like to bring to the party.

    Makes your argument very weak when you have to edit my quote to something i did not say. :rolleyes:


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    I'm not saying that the veil wearing is frequent (it isn't, thankfully) but that the incidence of it being worn unvoluntarily certainly is.
    This post has been deleted.
    While it's true that there's a lot of xenophobia which informs these debates both privately and publicly, it's also true true that there's a parallel and non-xenophobic debate to be had about the political significance of the veil and that's the debate we're having here.

    The strict libertarian view that you are adopting here is reasonable if the people concerned are not manipulated or coerced, and are making a fully free choice informed by a wide experience of life and the world and its customs. Unfortunately, that is certainly not the case, so your viewpoint is understandable but naive.


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


    robindch wrote: »
    However, as some posters might confirm, there are various underground religious movements within China which reject the claim of the state to be the ultimate authority, a position which the religious movement typically reserves for itself and its belief system. Again, much as our Nigerian friend and his 13-year old wife have done.

    Now, now. In your new-found enthusiasm for supporting Chinese government policy, you don't have to share in their mischaracterisation and demonisation of minority groups.

    The underground religious movements in China do not claim to be the ultimate authority. They acknowledge the right of the State to legislate in most matters (eg economic & political issues, the military, police, import regulations etc). However, what they also maintain is that the rights of the State do not extend to dictating what churches should preach, or what books people should be allowed to read in the privacy of their own homes, or how people should pray. And, in this respect, they are in agreement with the United Nations and most civilised people who agree that such things are basic human rights that should not be subject to State interference.

    Also, it is a complete falsehoosd to claim that such groups set themselves up as the ultimate authority. They want the right to choose for themselves what they preach, or how they pray, or what they read, but they most certainly do not see themselves as having any right to dictate to others in those matters. Rather they argue that these are matters for each person's individual conscience.

    I appreciate that you have an ideological commitment to paint religious people in the worst light possible - but it makes you sound like the kind of parodies of atheists that many in this forum protest against. It's bad enough that a persecuted minority should be denied their human rights by a vicious totalitarian regime. It is, however, worse again when someone like you describes them as setting themselves up as the ultimate authority when they simply want to exercise the same basic human rights that you enjoy in this country.
    All I'm demonstrating with the Nigerian case is that religious people do have a tendency to believe themselves above the law, as you yourself conceded at some point last year
    If you want to argue that people should always obey the law in all circumstances, then that is up to you. The Nuremburg trials didn't feel that was actually a valid position, but maybe you know better than them.

    But I still think you do yourself, and this forum, a great diservice by comparing people breaking totalitarian laws that restrict freedom of speech and assembly (basic human rights recognised by the UN) with paedophilia.

    Heck, I guess by that kind of logic that Schindler was like Jack the Ripper in that he thought it was OK to break the law. :rolleyes:


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    What next, force us to drink alcohol and beat the **** out of each other in Temple Bar? Stick screwdrivers through the heads of Polish lads?
    Still and all, better than flying planes into skyscrapers, eh?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Still and all, better than flying planes into skyscrapers, eh?

    .....the ****?


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Makes your argument very weak when you have to edit my quote to something i did not say. :rolleyes:

    Not really when the only 'argument' you can hold against western society is behaviour that is condemned by that very same society. Makes your 'argument' a non-sense to begin with.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Still and all, better than flying planes into skyscrapers, eh?

    Now now robin, its well known that the CIA drove those buildings into those planes piloted by innocent peace-loving Muslims.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Where? I don't know of any country where it is a "legal requirement".

    Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, and Afghanistan (while it was under the Taliban).
    I personally know women who choose to wear the veil, even though other members of their family do not do so. How many Muslim veil wearing women do you personally know?

    None. Why?


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    im seeing a lot of overeducated, overcomoplicated arguments here. anything can be justified if talked about long enough. you cant wear a motorcycle helmet walking into a bank or a ski mask in a school. its not authoritarian or dictorial to make people show there faces. Like i said earlier when in rome do as the romans do. when im in iraq ill wear a burka, assuming im female. i mightnt like it but i wont force my dislike of it onto someone elses culture and not wear it. its the law not a mass genocide.


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


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

    I would agree that the problem will not be automatically solved, and the rights of women who freely choose to conceal themselves will be infringed upon. But if that serves as a stepping stone to a more complete liberation then so be it. I don't see the banning of the burqa as any more authoritative or oppressive than forcing people to wear clothes in public.


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


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes, you're almost right. But it's a victory which used authoritarinism to uphold liberalism, a victory which was necessary in the first place, because authoritarianism subverted liberalism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I'm religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, you're almost right. But it's a victory which used authoritarinism to uphold liberalism, a victory which was necessary in the first place, because authoritarianism subverted liberalism.

    I totally agree. Hitler had a lot of liberal ideas. One cant co exist without the other. A moral decision like this cant be won by giving into one groups wants and needs because its the easier thing to do. If we were too give into everyone personal choices we'd living in an anarchy. Liberalist attitudes can lead to extremes as well as authorative attitides. a medium has too be found. this is usually called 'common sense'.


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


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement